World Politics

[El Pistolero]

http://www.hln.be/hln/nl/957/Belgie...st-ontslag-van-VS-ambassadeur-in-Belgie.dhtml

This seriously ****es me off. Newt Gingrich demands the resignation of Howard Gutman, US ambassador of Belgium.

Gutman said in an interview that there is a difference between the traditional antisemitism, that should be condemned, and the hate of Muslims against Jews that arises from the conflict between Israel and Palestina. Newt Gingrich calls Gutman, who by the way is JEWISH, an antisemitist because of that statement and demanded for his resignation.

Obama is going to get re-elected easily if the Republicans send that guy as their president candidate. First of all, many Muslims in the middle east are Arabs. Arabs are Semitic! How the f- can they be antisemitic then?

Besides, Gutman's statement wasn't even antisemitic in the first place.

 

[El Pistolero]

Is there any chance that this government will last longer than the period of no government (almost 18 months)? A coalition of 6 parties

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/01/eurozone-crisis-forces-belgium-government

I don't think it will fall until re-elections(no political party wants to be responsible for the fall of the government after all.), but once the new elections start N-VA is going to become even bigger IMO! They're currently the biggest political party in Belgium(I think they had around 30% of the votes in Flanders) and they're not in the coalition. N-VA is going to be a major headache for Elio di Rupo as it's a separatist party that wants the independence of Flanders as long time goal(and a confederalist Belgium as a short time goal).

 

[craig1985]

More than anything the system was abused by the dominance of a party for quite a few years. Though Putin's rule wasn't ideal, he's far better than what they had in the '90s in Yeltsin, clueless being a polite way to describe his last years.

The problems are not dissimilar to what many large, yet young, democracies face. The two obvious parallels that can be drawn are India and South Africa. It took around 25 years and an emergency (for no reason in '75) for India's first non Congress govt and it took nearly fifty year for the first non Congress govt that would last its full term to be sworn in. In South Africa, the last elections were supposed to be one of the weakest for the ANC (which would have meant around 55-60%) after it was assumed that the Congress of the People would have a strong showing in the election (as it was a breakaway of the ANC) and as it turned the ANC received 65% of the vote. South Africa faces similar problems of corruption, an extremely high crime rate and drugs. What they don't face is the alcohol problem. I truly believe that if Juleus Malema had become the Presidential candidate of ANC instead of Zuma (want a laugh, read Zuma's quotes), the media would have a rhetoric against him as well after the songs he sang like 'kill the boer'.

The problem that Russia's having now that we in India don't face is the quashing, or attempts to quash, of independent election observers- I'm aware of electoral fraud in India as well, that's similar in such countries. At the moment, the only independent electoral observers are Golos and there have been many attempts to sabotage them as well. Trying to quash political opposition is actually going to hurt the major party (India '75 emergency) in the long run and as we see the vote share has dropped significantly.

I would definitely not call Medvedev a dummy president. He was a time filler but in the foreign policy aspects, there was clearly a sign of mellowing down rhetoric on the Russian side, which was also evident in the US side and resulted in the Nuclear START treaty being signed between the two countries. I'd have liked to have seen him in a second term. 2007 was the year that US Russia relations plummeted to near Cold War lows, he's had a clear stamp of authority there. Also, the tech city in Skolkovo was one of his pet projects domestically.

Finally, we'll have to see how URP form the govt. Will there be some 'horse trading' ie will they buy out a few Duma representatives from other parties, or will they form a legitimate coalition govt. I believe there will be some 'horse trading' but for the stability of the govt they will need to form a coalition with one of the other parties (which most definitely will not be the communist party).

To the outsider, he looks like exactly that though, and it's hard for me to see him as anything else. The best analogy that I can think of is somebody who's run a successful business when economic times were good, but when the economy goes sour and his business goes bankrupt and therefore is barred from running a business (that is the case in Australia, not sure anywhere else), and has a friend or partner start a new business and he is employed as a "consultant" but is really pulling the strings, but on paper, he's not the owner and is an employee.

 

[The Hitch]

Gutman said in an interview that there is a difference between the traditional antisemitism, that should be condemned, and the hate of Muslims against Jews that arises from the conflict between Israel and Palestina. Newt Gingrich calls Gutman, who by the way is JEWISH, an antisemitist because of that statement and demanded for his resignation.

Obama is going to get re-elected easily if the Republicans send that guy as their president candidate. First of all, many Muslims in the middle east are Arabs. Arabs are Semitic! How the f- can they be antisemitic then?

Besides, Gutman's statement wasn't even antisemitic in the first place.

Because whatever the origins of the term "anti-Semitism", it has come to by now refer solely to racism against the Jews.

Also the fact that someone is Jewish does not mean they can't be anti-Semitic. I thought we got past this after "but he's Jewish" was the only defense offered to the charge of offense by the most diehard fans of Borat.

Also, I have no idea what either Gutman or Gingrich said exactly since its all in your own words, but if Gutman did try to justify the hate of Muslims against JEWS, rather than justify their hatred of ISRAEL then he is being anti-Semitic, or at least getting dangerously close to it.

Never-mind that much of Muslim anti-Semitism has little to do with Palestine, as Islam is heavily divided and many of its believers dont particularly about the plight of one people or another.

Dont see as much support for the Kurds, or the Blacks of Southern Sudan who have been massacred in their millions, perhaps largely because the oppressors in these cases are also Muslims.

To the outsider, he looks like exactly that though, and it's hard for me to see him as anything else. The best analogy that I can think of is somebody who's run a successful business when economic times were good, but when the economy goes sour and his business goes bankrupt and therefore is barred from running a business (that is the case in Australia, not sure anywhere else), and has a friend or partner start a new business and he is employed as a "consultant" but is really pulling the strings, but on paper, he's not the owner and is an employee.

The Boss of a Business is an interesting analogy because Medveded was himself a former chairman of Gazprom.

Gazprom being the organization believed to basically be running Russia.

 

[ramjambunath]

The Boss of a Business is an interesting analogy because Medveded was himself a former chairman of Gazprom.

Gazprom being the organization believed to basically be running Russia.

It's a sweeping allegation that can't be made without close research into the matter. Gazprom doesn't run Russia, the oil sector does and the govt basically runs Gazprom. If Gazprom wasn't a public sector enterprise, it wouldn't have had control over many of its main oil fields and most definitely wouldn't have gotten the Priobskoye oil field (it's the largest oil field that they acquired from Yukos, whose head Mikhail Khodorkovsky is in jail). Gazprom does Russia's dirty work when it comes to applying pressure on foreign affairs in Eastern Europe, Ukraine 2009 being the outstanding case. Let's also not forget that Ukraine upto that point had a subsidised rate for fuel but the decision not to renew the contract was clearly a political one after Yuschenko was elected.
A closer look at the 2003 and 2007 Duma will explain a lot on how the country was aimed at being run in Putin's era.

To the outsider, he looks like exactly that though, and it's hard for me to see him as anything else. The best analogy that I can think of is somebody who's run a successful business when economic times were good, but when the economy goes sour and his business goes bankrupt and therefore is barred from running a business (that is the case in Australia, not sure anywhere else), and has a friend or partner start a new business and he is employed as a "consultant" but is really pulling the strings, but on paper, he's not the owner and is an employee.

First, it's an interesting analogy that you make that Medvedev stepped into presidency because of the economic crisis in Russia, which was basically down to the crashing of oil prices in Russia. Medvedev was earmarked as Putin's successor as early as 2003-04 by being appointed Deputy PM in 2003 and he also headed Gazprom until 2008, as you know is one of the most significant and powerful organisations. There was no real surprise that he was named the presidential candidate. Let's also not forget that Putin himself became President on the back of a debilitating economic crisis, Chechen wars and a lost President in Yeltsin.

The main issue I have with his presidency is the fact that he has had to make way for Putin after just one term which justifiably brings doubts into many observers about his credibility as an independent leader of the country. The fact that Putin was PM also wouldn't have helped in quelling these doubts but a closer look at his presidency will show that he had an independent agenda but worked in conjunction with Putin on issues. A second term could have helped put these doubts away to a large extent.

Could he or any politician in Russia reduce corruption and dramatically change the change the country in one term, I really don't think so.

No it won't ever come to a possible referendum as in Greece. Monti would step down before that. He's been "hired" to get the job done. If he fails in reinstalling confidence regarding Italy at the financial markets, then his raison d'etre is over and hence his position as head of state.....

.....What are his chances for re-elction? It depends on how much being successful in makeing Europe and the markets happy, doesn't disenchant an already skeptical public. Of course if he doesn't satisfy A, then B will alsocondemn him. So, yes, Monti is in a most unenviable position.

Thanks, for that. I didn't mean a referendum but just doing some 'make up' type reforms by cutting costs in social spending and not really reforming the financial sector. It is a bit too much to expect though, isn't it.

 

[ramjambunath]

United Russia wins 99.5% of the vote in Chechenya, with the turnout at 99.51%

http://www.themoscowtimes.com/news/article/chechnya-backs-ruling-party-995/449314.html

Believable.
A clear example of what Russia's problems are.



Australia to sell Uranium to India

"We need to make sure that across our regions we have the strongest possible relationships, including with the world's largest democracy, India," she said.

She argued that Australia could sell uranium to India without breaching its obligations under the Nuclear non-proliferation treaty. "Let's just face facts here - our refusal to sell uranium to India is not going to cause India to decide that it will no longer have nuclear weapons," she said. "We can honour the treaty, we can change our platform, we can - under the most stringent of agreements - sell uranium to India if we so choose and, delegates, I believe that we should make that choice," Gillard said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Australias-ruling-party-OKs-uranium-sale-to-India/articleshow/10987584.cms

I know she isn't the most popular in Australia but she speaks sense.


NPR reports that chief election commissioner Daniel Ngoy Mulunda released province by province tallies Saturday he said amounted to 33 percent of all voting bureaus, showing that Kabila was ahead with 3.27 million of the 6.48 million votes counted so far. Opposition leader Etienne Tshisekedi was trailing with 2.23 million votes, or 34.4 percent.

These are only initial results and lot of the counting is yet to take place. Whether the results are credible is a different matter altogether.

 

[craig1985]

Julia Gillard may not be PM for much longer anyway. I'm sure at some point Kevin Rudd might be after revenge for being back stabbed by Gillard and try to challenge for the party leadership and thus become PM again (which Gillard did).

It will be sort of funny if Gillard gets voted out and Abbott gets voted in, that mean's the last PM's of Australia would have been born in Wales and in London.

 

[ramjambunath]

It's a conspiracy by the queen.

 

[python]

regarding putin-medvedev tandem and their swap...

i did not follow either as close as i followed gazprom at one point (a separate issue someone brought up) but i agree with ramjambunath that medvedev was NOT a dummy president. to understand his role , i have to come back to my earlier post about inevitability (understandable in my view) of russia's authoritarian tendencies...

medvedev was certainty a sidekick, a carefully selected personal substitute. but once in power, he and putin ran the state along SECRETLY agreed in advance lines of shared and individual responsibilities. some leaked reports even poined to where they did not see eye to eye.

let's recall that medvedev's role at the time of his nomination was to quell everyone's fear that putin will change constitution in order to stay for another term.

he did not, but instead, he came up with a clever, typically corporate but russian-flavoured solution - presenting a new pretty face.

recall that another candidate was ivanov - a reliable but faceless kgb veteran who was dreaded in the west. medvedev, in contrast, was a young college professor who taught law before he rose to power.

in other words, to appreciate medvedev's temporary role one needs to understand that torn up but rebuilding societies, particularly those without long democratic traditions, have always relied on the strength and popularity of a leader. it's hard for us in the west to see it, but to the majority of russians putin is still their destined leader, just like de gaul was to the french or indira gandi was to the indians, ata turk to the turkish nation etc...

the difference being putin is still our contemporary and he's not liked in the west.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Julia Gillard may not be PM for much longer anyway. I'm sure at some point Kevin Rudd might be after revenge for being back stabbed by Gillard and try to challenge for the party leadership and thus become PM again (which Gillard did).

It will be sort of funny if Gillard gets voted out and Abbott gets voted in, that mean's the last PM's of Australia would have been born in Wales and in London.

If he hasn't done it by now when Gillard and Labor's ratings Two Party Preffered rating were at its lowest then he won't do it now when Gillard (according to the polls) is looking slightly better.

Regarding the Uranium, yes I think it is a good idea to sell it overseas. The Left wing factions saying that India hasn't signed the non-proliferation treat is plain stupid. **** the UN. They are organisation which is a load of **** anyway. If they monitor what they are doing with the Uranium I say why not? We are willing to sell it to China so we may as well sell it to India.

 

[rhubroma]

Because whatever the origins of the term "anti-Semitism", it has come to by now refer solely to racism against the Jews.

Also the fact that someone is Jewish does not mean they can't be anti-Semitic. I thought we got past this after "but he's Jewish" was the only defense offered to the charge of offense by the most diehard fans of Borat.

Also, I have no idea what either Gutman or Gingrich said exactly since its all in your own words, but if Gutman did try to justify the hate of Muslims against JEWS, rather than justify their hatred of ISRAEL then he is being anti-Semitic, or at least getting dangerously close to it.

Never-mind that much of Muslim anti-Semitism has little to do with Palestine, as Islam is heavily divided and many of its believers dont particularly about the plight of one people or another.

Dont see as much support for the Kurds, or the Blacks of Southern Sudan who have been massacred in their millions, perhaps largely because the oppressors in these cases are also Muslims...

Of course a problem with your argument, which has become a great contention of our age in the geopolitical and cultural senses, is that even legitimite quips with the Isreali state and its regional policies, automatically in places of real power in the US is, and often for purely cynical or convenient political reasons, dismissed and condemned as anti-Semetic. At times this is a masked right wing religious conviction to beguile an economic and strategic one (and now anti-Muslim), given that the ultra powerful Jewish lobby, which has much of US finance in its hands (to say nothing of the Hollywood film industry), has established a predominant political and cultural worldview in the country. At others it has become a merely instrumental use of the Holocoast, when one considers all the non-Jews who were also slaughtered by the Nazis, which is a dishonorable to everyone: as if the deaths of millions could justify what has become an intolerable contemporary political and strategic deadlock.

Ironically and unfortunately, however, not being able to be more honest, demanding and critical of Israel in the West, may in the end encourage real forms of anti-Semitism (if they already haven't) to the surface again in Europe, if something isn't done about the Palestinian question. And I'm not talking about the mere critical thinkers, but the real fanatics who need no excuse to have an access to their racism and frustrations. Then this also fuels the extremists in the Mideast and provides a bully pulpit for the likes of Ahmadinejad.

 

[Ferminal]

Regarding the Uranium, yes I think it is a good idea to sell it overseas. The Left wing factions saying that India hasn't signed the non-proliferation treat is plain stupid. **** the UN. They are organisation which is a load of **** anyway. If they monitor what they are doing with the Uranium I say why not? We are willing to sell it to China so we may as well sell it to India.

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty is a horrible piece of work, from India's perspective it is impossible for them to be a signatory. It's also a sham, because as you say, China have helped other states "go nuclear" without any consequences under the treaty.

I roll my eyes whenever I hear someone say "but they aren't on the NPT, we can't send them uranium!" (this is both a factually incorrect and ideologically flawed statement).

 

[ramjambunath]

regarding putin-medvedev tandem and their swap......

.....the difference being putin is still our contemporary and he's not liked in the west.

Agree with your post and you also touch upon the increased membership of ex-KGB officials in the state Duma during the Putin years.

Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks the current nuclear arrangements are a complete sham, although my views won't be completely unbiased.

 

[El Pistolero]

Because whatever the origins of the term "anti-Semitism", it has come to by now refer solely to racism against the Jews.

Yes, and it shouldn't.

Also the fact that someone is Jewish does not mean they can't be anti-Semitic. I thought we got past this after "but he's Jewish" was the only defense offered to the charge of offense by the most diehard fans of Borat.

Not automatically, no, but it helps. A black man can say the N word(I got banned for it here once )to another black men, but when a white man says it to a black man the world explodes in America.

Also, I have no idea what either Gutman or Gingrich said exactly since its all in your own words, but if Gutman did try to justify the hate of Muslims against JEWS, rather than justify their hatred of ISRAEL then he is being anti-Semitic, or at least getting dangerously close to it.

I directly translated Gutman's words. He's not justifying their hate. Antisemitism is discrimination/hatred towards people because of their Jewish heritage. If a Muslim comes to hate everyone responsible for the creation and up-keeping of Israel than he isn't being antisemitic. He said in his statement that traditional antisemitism should be condemned(the hatred towards a person for no other reason than being of Jewish origin). Newt is just playing a political game here. He knows Gutman is a close friend of Barack Obama and he tries to attack him indirectly this way. It's a pathetic political game where everyone who isn't pro-Israel is automatically guilty of antisemitism.


Never-mind that much of Muslim anti-Semitism has little to do with Palestine, as Islam is heavily divided and many of its believers dont particularly about the plight of one people or another.

Dont see as much support for the Kurds, or the Blacks of Southern Sudan who have been massacred in their millions, perhaps largely because the oppressors in these cases are also Muslims.

The EU demands for a better treatment of Armenians and Turks, demanding the recognition of the genocide of the Armenians/Kurds by the Turks for example which Turkey still denies.

Do they get less media attention than Israel/Palestina? Yes, but that's a whole different issue.

bolded= my answers

 

[El Pistolero]

If he hasn't done it by now when Gillard and Labor's ratings Two Party Preffered rating were at its lowest then he won't do it now when Gillard (according to the polls) is looking slightly better.

Regarding the Uranium, yes I think it is a good idea to sell it overseas. The Left wing factions saying that India hasn't signed the non-proliferation treat is plain stupid. **** the UN. They are organisation which is a load of **** anyway. If they monitor what they are doing with the Uranium I say why not? We are willing to sell it to China so we may as well sell it to India.

Both India and ****stan with Uranium. What a great idea

We are willing to sell it to China because it's harder to say no to China than it is to say no to India.

 

[auscyclefan94]

Both India and ****stan with Uranium. What a great idea

We are willing to sell it to China because it's harder to say no to China than it is to say no to India.

Firstly, why are you saying "we"? You are not Australian. I made that comment because I believe the premise that a "country signs to a treaty means they won't do it" is plain ridiculous. Selling it is good for industry in Australia. I also don't think comparing the Indian government with the ****stan government is rather accurate. We send it to China knowing that they are using some of the uranium for nuclear weapons. It is an unfortunate fact of life that countries are going to develop new kinds of warfare in the case that they need to defend their country. If it helps them start a nuclear energ industry then good luck to them. We can't keep on relying on burning coal for electricity because their is a finite amount of it in the earth. Other sources have to be looked at.

 

[El Pistolero]

Firstly, why are you saying "we"? You are not Australian. I made that comment because I believe the premise that a "country signs to a treaty means they won't do it" is plain ridiculous. Selling it is good for industry in Australia. I also don't think comparing the Indian government with the ****stan government is rather accurate. We send it to China knowing that they are using some of the uranium for nuclear weapons. It is an unfortunate fact of life that countries are going to develop new kinds of warfare in the case that they need to defend their country. If it helps them start a nuclear energ industry then good luck to them. We can't keep on relying on burning coal for electricity because their is a finite amount of it in the earth. Other sources have to be looked at.

This isn't 1900 anymore LOL.

As for the rest of your post. The "we" part refers to the Western world, as it is not just Australia that sells Uranium.

You do realize that there is a serious conflict going on between ****stan and India right? ****stan already has nuclear weapons. If the conflict goes out of hand you have a nuclear war on your hands

India would most definitely start making nuclear weapons to "protect" them self against ****stan. No point in having yet another country with nuclear weapons.

 

[Ferminal]

You do realize that there is a serious conflict going on between ****stan and India right? ****stan already has nuclear weapons. If the conflict goes out of hand you have a nuclear war on your hands

Yes? And what does selling uranium to India have to do with that? India is sitting on enough fissile material to blow the world to pieces if they wanted to, without having to import.

 

[El Pistolero]

Yes? And what does selling uranium to India have to do with that? India is sitting on enough fissile material to blow the world to pieces if they wanted to, without having to import.

Because we all know why they would use it - to do the same as ****stan. It would strengthen India's status in the world if they had nuclear weapons.

 

[Ferminal]

Because we all know why they would use it - to do the same as ****stan. It would strengthen India's status in the world if they had nuclear weapons.

India does have nuclear weapons... and a civilian nuclear power industry. I'm not sure what point you are making.

 

[auscyclefan94]

This isn't 1900 anymore LOL.

As for the rest of your post. The "we" part refers to the Western world, as it is not just Australia that sells Uranium.

You do realize that there is a serious conflict going on between ****stan and India right? ****stan already has nuclear weapons. If the conflict goes out of hand you have a nuclear war on your hands

India would most definitely start making nuclear weapons to "protect" them self against ****stan. No point in having yet another country with nuclear weapons.

Yes because using wind or solar is really going to save us all....Good joke! Yes but we are discussing Australia importing to India so you are not included in the "we" because you are not Australian. Anyway, Australia has 23% of the world's total uranium stores so the amount we have is quite significant!

Ferminal is spot on. India already have plenty weapons that could do whatever they wanted to ****stan and vice versa. We might as well sell them some so they can start a "clean energy future" like the Aus PM says. There is going to be regular inspections anyway of what they are doing with it. At least their will be some security in place to observe they are doing what they should do with it.

 

[ramjambunath]

Both India and ****stan with Uranium. What a great idea

We are willing to sell it to China because it's harder to say no to China than it is to say no to India.

What a load of crap. Typical xenophobia that one comes to expect when the status quo is somewhat changed (even if it is sarcastic). India has proven itself to be as stable a nuclear country as any other in the world, read as permanent members of the UNSC. Why don't I hear reservations about countries these countries possessing and developing a civilian nuclear programme? If I'm correct, 12-13 years ago, Russia had a serious separatist threat in Chechenya and the polity was non existent. I don't hear reservations about their programme in 2011.

The material is bought for civilian nuclear technology and are essential for a alleviating a crippling power shortage in the country. I would expect such comments coming from people who needn't live without electricity for a the whole morning and afternoon of a Thursday, not to mention other power cuts as well, and this is in urban India. Rural India, especially states like Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra have hardly any power at all. We've signed treaties with countries who've had reservations in the past about our nuclear programme and it's a glass ****ing house.

The conflict in Kashmir is hardly going to force India to use nuclear weapons. It isn't like we are going to be conquered or the govt is going to fall to worry about that either. Even if that happens, try searching for it in a secret location over the whole country,

The sooner thorium becomes a sustainable nuclear fuel the better, at least we won't have to listen to such ****.

 

[El Pistolero]

India does have nuclear weapons... and a civilian nuclear power industry. I'm not sure what point you are making.

I did not know that, though personally I would never sell Uranium to politically unstable countries like India.

 

[Ferminal]

There is going to be regular inspections anyway of what they are doing with it. At least their will be some security in place to observe they are doing what they should do with it.

The US already sells uranium to India under the NSG agreement a few years ago. This is when Australia originally planned to export to India before it was overturned after a change of government.

The change of policy in the last few days/weeks is not at all special from a proliferation point of view.

 

[auscyclefan94]

BAHAHAHAHAHA! So after all your arguing about this you still don't even knowbasic knowledge required to have a basic debate about this? Well done El Pickle.