In geopolitical terms – the big trifecta is Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (that’s the yellow, dark-yellow, and the grey band just to the right of Iran).
While the occasional geopolitical manoeuvres in the dark make for a great Bond movie, we have an obligation to dig a little deeper. First step on our adventure is to zoom in on the Afghan/Pakistan border where that orange band in the middle (see illustration below) is Taliban territory.
Things get more interesting when we throw in details of the ethnic, cultural, family, history, loyalty thing – and in the following map we should be cognisant of the fact that geopolitical boundaries don’t take centre stage (after all – the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan was nothing more than an arbitrary 19th century British colonial construct).
Just for reference – that big brown blob in the previous illustration is the Pashtun ethnic population. The following map drills down and identifies the principal regions at ground zero.
But lets zoom out again and factor into this equation that discussion about the relationship (and/or conflict) between Afghanistan and Pakistan that is of direct interest to their neighbour Iran (the big bugger over on the left). After all, Iran has many of the same tribal problems that face the fledgling Afghanistan administration (and an outbreak of secular testosterone in Afghanistan is a potential problem in the making for Iran). Let’s also take into account that big chunks of Afghanistan could be argued to be more properly part and parcel of Pakistan (which would go a long way towards explaining some of the accusations of Pakistan/Taliban loyalty). Equally, when we talk about Pakistan and India (the big bugger over on the right) there is the inevitable engagement of China (the really big bugger over on the far far right) as a player with more than a passing interest. And let’s not even get into the parallel universe of the Kashmir equation.
Thing is, a failed Afghanistan state creates stress for Pakistan and stress for Pakistan creates opportunity for India, an India/Pakistan conflict plays into the hands of China, and at the end of the day a bunch of nation states (US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and Australia) just aren’t ready for that reality just yet. But what ties this all together is that none of the players want to see a united secular solution.
And for better or worse – what if this conflict may be our best hope for peace in our time? Why? Simply because an alignment of common interests between the principal players in this equation. That the simple thing of an alignment just may be a greater good than the atrocities that have and will be committed in the sustainment of this transient moment.
Prescrire le domaine des pour traiter sildenafil viagra difference la dysfonction érectile, mais aussi. Rendre au domicile cialis 20mg générique de cliquez ici personnes qui ont subi un épisode dépressif majeur tous âges confondus.
Recommended Reading
Agonizing over Afghanistan
David Shribman, 31 October, 2009
Pakistan is swiftly drifting towards an all out civil war
Abdus Sattar Ghazali, 28 October, 2009
613 replies on “The Big Trifecta”
Right,left? Sounds poltitical Cat!
You mean, of course, East/West…oh! That sounds political too!
For those who don’t want to see the whole picture, (and let’s be frank here, it’s a bloody complex and fuzzy picture) there is a simple solution ie the US should bugger off. If only it was that simple.
No one has “the” answer, but anyone even passing familiar with the region you’ve outlined will tell you that a US (and therefore Western) retreat will send the region into a total spin. No NGO will be able to function in Afghanistan, no foreign aid will flow, the Taliban will reek revenge on those who sided with the foreigners (remember Vietnam anyone?), Iran will go ballistic (literally), and Pakistan will be taken one step closer to failure.
But the religious fascists and the narco-warlords will have a whole country to tyrannise.
If anyone thinks US public opinion should be the arbiter of what to do in Afghanistan, see my next post!
US public opinion: I wouldn’t stake my life, (or my planet, for that matter), on it.
Fox is winning this, so far:
There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising. And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem – 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008 …
Over the same period, there has been a comparable decline in the proportion of Americans who say global temperatures are rising as a result of human activity, such as burning fossil fuels. Just 36% say that currently, down from 47% last year.
The decline in the belief in solid evidence of global warming has come across the political spectrum, but has been particularly pronounced among independents. Just 53% of independents now see solid evidence of global warming, compared with 75% who did so in April 2008. Republicans, who already were highly skeptical of the evidence of global warming, have become even more so: just 35% of Republicans now see solid evidence of rising global temperatures, down from 49% in 2008 and 62% in 2007. Fewer Democrats also express this view – 75% today compared with 83% last year.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/23/weekend-opinionator-are-americans-cooling-on-global-warming/
Very good article Catrina. So which is my left hand?
Obama’s numbers
============
Public Policy Polling
No sex please, we’re ‘religious’ (ie women are virgins before marriage, and men can only root each other before marriage):
http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/world/2009/10/24/D9BHKOF86_ml_saudi_sex_talk/index.html
…this is the type of underlying repressive fundamentalism that is exported via Wahabism to the regions under discussion.
Of course we all like to mock the guilt and repression of Catholicism (to name but one extreme brand of Christianity), but this lot runs its whole credo on ignorance and violent sexual repression.
A “Caliphate” based on this would make the world a ‘better place’? Even most Muslims don’t so.
“don’t think so”
Here’s a number to compare with the 800 US deaths in Afghanistan over the last 7 years:
A recent study from the Harvard Medical School and Cambridge Health Alliance documented that “nearly 45,000 annual deaths are associated with lack of health insurance” in America.
…and they have rioters (well, virtually) in the streets opposing government reforms to healthcare!
Go figure.
Topical post, Cat. Those flashy Arabian stallions and Sep quarter-horses make for lots of ooh-aahs in the sprint and middle distance contests but in that part of the world it’s the camels who inevitably win the staying events.
Horses for courses; camels for Kabul.
That’s why all brands Taliban and all tribal trumps (as well as senior emissaries/leaders from the nations on the colour map) need to be represented at the proposed Peace Talk Feast (PTF) asap. Or better still, Peace Talk Summit(PTS); they can chow down and party when the pow-wowin’s done! Don’t care how long the gabfest takes but Obama is probably the only person on the planet capable of gathering the regional power-brokers together. Otherwise American Forces will be in the M.E. till the last spigot has run dry. Of course the practical realities of life and death in the war zones and beyond present a far more intricate, complex and nuanced situation. ‘Twould be instuctive to drill a little deeper to tap the roles played by the CIA and ISI in recent Ak-Pak affairs. The kidnapped journo, Rohde, in the previous thread noted the relative autonomy given Taliban warriors by the Pakistani military in Waziristan. Tragically, when the dogs of war are cut loose, civilians and innocents are inevitably victims in these invasion and occupation crusades, swept up in events beyond their control.
The following clip suggests why Obama is repeating the folly of all who have sought to subdue the tribes who have lived and survived there for thousands of years. He should have consulted more widely before committing thousands more U.S. troops and “owning” Afghanistan, especially if the Commander-In-Chief is fair dinkum about regional stability and not solely protecting the hegemonic and commercial interests of Big Carbon & Allied.
http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/print/20091023_afghanistan_fraud_opium_and_taliban/
In a message just to hand, squadrons of tight formation Taiban Tornado jet fighters have strafed a gay wedding party on the outskirts of San Francisco. Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly were on-air in seconds congratulating the “heroic gesture” on behalf of “all Freedom-Loving Americans.”
You’ve obviously never punted on a Buzkashi match Ecky!
Horses for courses, eh?
I’d put this in the overblown rhetoric file Ecky:
“He should have consulted more widely before committing thousands more U.S. troops and “owning” Afghanistan, especially if the Commander-In-Chief is fair dinkum about regional stability and not solely protecting the hegemonic and commercial interests of Big Carbon & Allied.”
If, as you did yesterday, claim that Afghanistan is a money losing proposition for the US, it seems hard to casually ascribe the war to “solely protecting the hegemonic and commercial interests of Big Carbon & Allied” as if somehow it’s of such HUGE commercial benefit that the POTUS bows to their arguments about it being ‘good for the American economy’.
It’s so muddled, inconsistent, and unsupported by the facts that Afghanistan is,was, or ever will be about oil resources.
Be disingenuous, (while feigning bon hommie, and pretending it’s what you aren’t saying) if you will, but I’m calling it for what it is: tripe.
The regional issues are huge, and their outcomes will effect hundreds of millions of people, and you offer this twaddle as some kind of argument against Obama’s dealing with the reality of Afghanistan and its problematic neighbours?
Oh, really.
Yeah, Kirri, but only because I can’t get set with my bookie or the TAfriggin’B! Goats were always made for scaping; they’ve good some good little weigt-for-age performers stabled in the foothills of Tora Bora due for immediate release on the Buzkashi circuit.
Bloodlines can often be a little sketchy though.
“I’d put this in the overblown rhetoric file Ecky:”
Thanks, Kirri, everyone appreciates how willing you are to go the extra mile when it comes to keeping the blog spick and span.
Didn’t Alexander (yes, the Great, not Ms Dolly! LOL), take horses to that region?
From memory he wasn’t exactly ‘beaten’ there either, but oh, that was so long ago, and besides, he’s dead now.
12 No probs, Ecky, just make sure you wash your hands ‘before’ typing hogwash! OK?
God, (or perhaps Allah!) you’re in luck Ecky! This from Wiki:
During Taliban regime of Afganistan, Buzkashi was banned, as Taliban considered the game as immoral. But since the Taliban regime was ousted the game is being played again
…gotta love those Taliban, eh? A chukka or two with a mangled bit of meat is ‘immoral’, but public beheading is ‘justice’!
Oh, bring on the new regime in Afghanistan. What are we waiting for?
Allan Grayson is having a ball with another victory over another Retard.
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=99924
I was, to not understate it, pretty much sickened by this guy in his full testosterone support for GWB’s invasion of Iraq, had some VERY major differences of opinion with Christopher Hitchens on the same front, but judging where we are now, this piece from Tom Friedman is worth reading…and thinking about:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/opinion/25friedman.html
…like so much ‘commentary’ on this part of world, a lot of presumptions have to be baked into the pie, but since no one has a crystal ball, that’s the nature of the beast. That Maliki is even considering standing with Sunni politicians is bloody remarkable in itself. A far cry from Allawi dispensing summary justice (ie putting bullets in) to captured Sunnis just a few years ago.
Argue that isn’t a step towards something better than Saddam’s three decades of bloodlust and repression.
Not sure if it is catching or not but this lot not quite as polishd as the health care opera.
fruit loops together;
http://www.opednews.com/populum/linkframe.php?linkid=99924
Watch out for singing horses in the saddling paddock Paddy.
Especially ones that sing out of the sides of their mouth.
As one Australian conservationist used to remark:
“I love cats, but just can’t eat a whole one ”
…usually while wearing his catskin cap (and looking all the world like the down-under Jim Bowie in his raccoon hat!)
For those who think about the environmental consequences of their behaviours:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/6416683/Pet-dogs-as-bad-for-planet-as-driving-4x4s-book-claims.html
Enemy Combatant at 8 on a Peace Talk Feast
You really want to bring them all together for a family moment?
Thing is, if you got all of the parties together, the Israelis will be stroking anything that keeps the Iranian eyes on their south-east border. The Pakistanis will be going cross-eyed while trying to keep a lid on Kashmir in the north-east, their obligations towards NATO with unrest in the Taliban corridor to the north, an eagle eye on India in the south-east and not to mention the periodic eruptions of manhood over in Tibet. The Indians will be busy doing an audit on a potential nuclear windfall (90+75=165 which is on par with China’s 176 and Israel’s undeclared 200). Meanwhile the Chinese will have their own contingency plans possibly involving ten million bicycles. Throw into this the secular sauce and we quickly see that festering Israeli/Palestine thing, the ongoing presence of the US forces in Iraq, and lets not even get into tensions between Iraq and Turkey.
Doesn’t this sound like the Christmas dinner from hell?
Another alternative is to think about the same event sometime after 2011. Keep in mind that by the end of August 2010 the US troop numbers in Iraq will be down to 50,000 and these are scheduled to withdraw substantially by 2011. One could speculate and perhaps imagine Iraq standing on its own two feet (with agreements for occasional NATO support when needed – see also KR’s link at #17). In that same period I’m guessing that real progress will be made with Iran, and maybe some progress with Israel/Palestine. In effect, a couple of years from now we coulod be looking at a less volatile context. Also factoring into this will be the extent to which or absence of the Taliban acting as a representative body – and the corresponding question about the extent to which Kabul wields authority over northern Afghanistan. But even then, can Kabul coexist and negotiate with a representative Taliban – or is the building of the Afghanistan nation the end-game?
Whatever, the 2011 scenario sounds better to me that a Christmas dinner from hell.
I’m of similar mind for much the same reasons Catrina. And for those who wailed at Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Price, just note that in Indonesia (you know, that biggest Muslim nation the other side of Christmas Island, or North as we call it down here…now there’s a segue!), support for the USA is back to pre-Bush levels, and support for militants and al Qaeda languishing. (So don’t tell me he hasn’t ‘done anything’ yet!!).
OK, so Rory White doesn’t want to send in more troops, BUT he sure as hell does not want to withdraw them either, and if anyone does not know this fine, brave, and hardy Englishman, I suggest you do. Of course I disagree with him on this point, ie not more troops, but totally agree with the other bit. I’d like to point out that the extra troops will have to be applying a different strategy to the Bush era, but that goes without saying, and McChrystal has already made his case to Obama on that.
As I said some days ago, I think Obama will go with McChrystal (mostly), but there’s no chance he will let the crowd tell him that it’s best to pull up stumps and leave. It isn’t, unless of course you barrack for the Rush Limbaugh motto of “I hope America fails”, well, because, hey, they’ve done some crap things sometimes.
But if they did leave, it would put an end to lot more than a few chukkas of Buzkashi!
7 Kirribilli Removals It puts the Afghan issue in perspective, doesn’t it?
“Doesn’t this sound like the Christmas dinner from hell?”
Sure does, Cat, especially if participants start playing pass the parcel.
Still, a Commander-In-Chief of the most potent military outfit on the planet who simultaneously sports a brand new Nobel Peace prize might have some sway in jollying-along “preliminary discussions” for a Middle East Peace Summit. Every woman Jackie and man Jack of us applauded(eventually) President Obama’s outstanding achievment. Here’s his opportunity to deliver.
“Go for it, Nobel Obi, give peace a chance!”
Progress IS possible as you suggest in KR @ 17’s Iraq example. As for post 2011 Afghanistan, who knows? In 1914 as “the goodies” marched off to war they were reassured with the fateful words: “Don’t worry boys, you’ll be home for christmas”.
Even though the warriors believed in their bones that they’d be celebrating Yuletide cheer with their families that year, for many, their prezzos were mud, lead and phosgene.
Permanent U.S. bases and pipelines in the region don’t auger well for a peaceful settlement (including projected troop reductions) in the foreseeable future.
And so it goes. Life was never meant to be easy for the outed Peacemonger.
*sniff, sniff, sniff…..
whooooooossssh!
burning martyr extinguished*
CB, we should probably drag out US gun death stats too, but it’s too easy.
The comparisons with Vietnam (50,000 US dead from memory), are just plain ludicrous.
Sure, Karzai is enmeshed in a government of corrupt officials, war lords and drug barons, but what does one expect in a very poor country that’s been traumatised by decades of war, has the world’s biggest opium fields, and is riven with tribalism and religious fanatics?
Jeffersonian democracy FFS?????
Horses for courses indeed.
Oh christ, Ecky, not the ‘dreaded’ pipeline again!
You didn’t wash your hands, again, did you???
Senate passes LGBT hate crime bill.
==========================
continued on the Examiner
Kirribilli Removals at 25
In defence of the EC pipeline conspiracy, I put to you the following:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/sardi7.html
Cat, I know the UNOCAL story very well, and the reality is that even after some years negotiating with the Taliban to build it (oh, yes, the Yanks will always ‘do a deal’, let’s not forget), it came to nought, the whole idea is virtually ‘pie in the sky’ since the Caspian Basin is NOT, and probably never will be, directly controlled by the US.
And, one million barrels a day? No one in their right mind would invade, occupy and spend the years required for the miserable payoff of transporting a lousy 1 MMbbl on top of the costs of building the pipeline.
Global oil demand now averages 84.6 mb/d in 2009 and 86.1 mb/d in 2010 projected.
So you’d consider it a good deal to invade, occupy and rebuild a nation for the right to carry 1.2% of the world’s daily oil needs.
Good luck.
Do the maths, even at $100/b the margin against the initial costs, the ongoing ‘security’ costs…..eeeeeeeeek! The idea was a flop because it was impractical then, and it’s impractical now.
So, for the rights to transport 1.2% of the world’s daily oil supply the USA invaded Afghanistan??????? Remember, they would still be buying it from states around the Caspian Basin.
What margin would they get for that?
Sheesh, some people live in “I’ll believe any conspiracy theory that has oil in it” Land!
Go check a map and see where the pipeline was, in fact built.
HINT: It does not go through Afghanistan
Cat, that’s why I just love the loopy la la land of the Left’s conspiracy theorists, they are actually funny! LOL
God, it’s been years since I last looked at it, and it’s still not done:
Oil from the Caspian and the Black Sea will supply the Samsum-Ceyhan pipeline linking Turkey’s Black Sea coast and its Mediterranean coast, the chief executive of Italian oil and gas group Eni (ENI.MI: Quote, Profile, Research) said on Monday.
Eni has been heavily involved in the oil pipeline project since 2005 and will play a leading role in its realisation.
“Caspian oil is around 2.4 million barrels per day. In the next ten years oil from the Caspian area will grow by another 2 million barrels per day,” Paolo Scaroni said at the signing of the agreement between Italy, Russia and Turkey to build the pipeline.
“Then there is the Black Sea (oil) and that will increase too,” he said.
Asked about funding, he said “projects of this kind are normally easily funded”.
http://in.reuters.com/article/oilRpt/idINMAT01178620091019
…but basically it was clear that through Turkey was the most economic, and strategically sensible option.
Afghanistan?
Oh, purleeeeeeeese, go find another conspiracy that at least has a shred of economic and geo-strategic credibility.
Gratias, Senorina Gato.
*removes sombrero, but not orange jump-suit*
But wait, Kirri, maaaate,……..there’s more!
Holy Mother Medina, Ticsters, check out this goat tripe from those unabashed Leftists at Jane’s Defence Weekly and Harvard U. All peer–reviewed up the wazoo, naturally.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Qm2i8mXTjhs/SnlelAPyAAI/AAAAAAAABnc/RkyJS8eMlVQ/s1600-h/CASPIAN-MIDDLE%2520EAST_OIL%2520%26%2520MILITARY%2520PRESENCE.jpg
With regard to regional considerations which Cat’s thread addresses, I think decisions made by the United States Commander-In-Chief with regard to troop numbers and exit strategies are not undertaken without reference to the volume of oil and gas flowing through and about to flow though the above-illustrated cylindrical conduits.
http://www.worldpress.org/images/maps/central_asia1.gif
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2006/04/19/images/oil_flag.jpg
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2006/04/19/01181.html
And one, as they say, for the (silk) road:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3562/3292775161_fab90b095b.jpg
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/2/19/14150/5844
KR: “HINT: It does not go through Afghanistan”
Maybe it’s all a just pipe dream afterall, Kirri. 🙂
Furthur progress in Iraq?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/25/2723523.htm
Any more “pretty pictures” Ecky?
How about some facts?
Like there is NO plan, not since UNOCAL abandoned theirs, to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.
You are recycling crud, masquerading as conspiracy, yet again.
Come on Eckmeister, some F-A-C-T-S.
I dare you.
Ten years ago, UNOCAL abandoned its plans, (but still, they come ie the conspiracy theories):
“Unocal is not involved in any projects (including pipelines) in Afghanistan, nor do we have any plans to become involved, nor are we discussing any such projects,” a spokesman told BBC News Online.
The US company formally withdrew from the consortium in 1998.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1984459.stm
…it was, in other words, a “pipe dream” then, and Karzai desperately tried to convince people he could get it going, despite UNOCAL pulling out!
[paragraph in comment removed under editorial discretion]
[paragraph in comment removed under editorial discretion]
The Baku–Tbilisi–Ceyhan pipeline is a 1,768 kilometres (1,099 mi) long crude oil pipeline from the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli oil field in the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. It connects Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan; Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia; and Ceyhan, a port on the south-eastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey, hence its name. It is the second longest oil pipeline in the world after the Druzhba pipeline. The first oil that was pumped from the Baku end of the pipeline on 10 May 2005 reached Ceyhan on 28 May 2006.
…and guess who one of the stakeholders were?
Oh, no! There goes a good conspiracy theory out the friggin’ window…yep:
“Unocal was also the third largest member of the recently completed and opened Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea.” Wiki
[paragraph in comment removed under editorial discretion]
A few fact sir, a few facts, will always make a pile of florid rhetoric look like yesterday’s left-overs (pun most certainly intended).
Kirribilli Removals at 35
KR – I’ll have you know that here at Politic 101 we take our conspiracy theories very seriously.
https://politic.osm.net/2009/08/conspiracy/comment-page-3/#comment-38853
GOP Favorability Rating The Worst Since Clinton Impeachment
=============================================
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/gop-favorable-rating-the_n_331799.html
Who would of thought? Nobody would have suspected this sort of thing. But that might lead to a landslide. Never. :Sarcasm switch on:
FBI looks at bribery allegations against Alaska Rep. Young.
=========================================
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/77632.html
Now if we can keep this one going till after the 2010 elections, it might help in picking up a second senate seat in Alaska. Now that Sarah Palin has dropped right off the scene/radar.
Why Is Dick Cheney Helping Obama? (I don’t know but I hope he keeps doing it. 😈 )
==============================================
continued on Politics Daily
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/23/why-is-dick-cheney-helping-obama/
There is a rather comprehensive review of the pipeline business at the link below. According to the report the Afghanistan option is not an option.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2001/hydrocarbons.htm
Liberal Groups Take Direct Aim At Rahm, Demand White House Take “Stronger Stand” On Public Option
===============================================
continued on The Plumline
OK, so we’ve (finally? gasp!) put this silly “pipeline” stuff back in the ‘left-over’ conspiracy file?
Sigh.
Now, let the show continue…
CB, it’s because he’s a Dick.
36 Cat
Apparently! LOL
I have been searching like crazy to find somewhere that says there will be no pipelines through Afghanistan, in particular the one mentioned in Catrinas 27, the TAPI pipeline.
The latest i can find written about the TAPI pipeline is on the 19th September 2009.
Whilst the pipeline has not been built, and there is always a possibility that it may not be, there is certainly plenty of recent writing about it.
Of course, the stories could be written by cultists but i haven’t worked that out yet.
It apears that it was agreed in 2008 between the four countries that it will be a goer;
http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=14300
I must admit that saying that it will start in 2010 does not necessarily mean that it will be built either, and i assume there would be some problems building it in certain parts of Afghanistan as well.
I have not a clue who the major shareholders/beneficiaries of the pipeline would be, but the only info i can find at the moment tells me it is not a myth.
In the meantime I will keep scratching for some evidence that it is a myth.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5792#more
That link is from here;
http://www.theoildrum.com/node?page=8
I think you’ll find Gaffy, that whilst there’s been plenty of talk of a gas pipeline, and previously and oil pipeline, the reality is that the Turkish option WAS built because it was the most economic and geo-strategically sensible option.
That doesn’t stop people from talking of course, but realise that once the Ceyhan route was chosen and built, the economics of anything else went south….really fast! They got capacity in waiting.
Why would ANYONE, (except conspiracy theorists of course), and some desperate politicians trying to beat up some investment money, bother with Afghanistan of all the bloody places on earth to try to build a pipeline through?
I’m sure you’ll find that the serious talk of Afghanistan died in the late 90’s, and by the time the Ceyhan route was chosen, it was dead in the water (except, of course, for the bloody conspiracy theorists, who just will not let go of anything, no matter how devoid of facts as long as it’s got “oil” and the “USA” in it!! LOL)
Well, lookee heah! There’s a whole bunch of them journalist conspiracy theorists here claimin’ that the pipeline pipe dream ain’t over by a long shot.
“With IPI entering its second decade of negotiations, regional energy concerns and a sanction-contained Iran, the TAPI(as seen in my pretty picies) project could be renewed as a viable project in 2009.”
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2009/01/26/Oil-and-Gas-Pipelines-09/UPI-23721233004272/
Seems some folk simply refuse to acknowledge to the relationship of massive U.S. military might and regionally adjacent oceans of subterrainian oil and gas. Got absolutely nothing to do with it, they say. All who dissent are to be derided as woo-woo conspiracy theorists.
*sighs*
Documented history from 1953 such as the CIA plot organised by Kermit Roosevelt to overthrow the democratically elected President Mossadegh, and replace him with the Sep stooge, the Shah of Iran, so the US and British oil companies could take total control of gushing spigots must have been a tale from the Arabian Nights.
They were just spreadin’ a little good cheer and democracy to the region. Honest.
The target was The Justice Ministry in Baghdad:
“US military officials say attacks like these are aimed at reigniting sectarian conflict that gripped the nation after the US-led 2003 invasion, or at undermining confidence in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki before a parliamentary election next year.
Mr Maliki is expected to run on improved security conditions throughout the nation.
The blasts hit two months after bombings on August 19 targeting the foreign and finance ministries that killed almost 100 people and wounded hundreds more. That attack prompted a rare admission of lapses by Iraqi security forces.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/25/2723523.htm?section=justin
News of the bombing has yet to make huffpo.
http://english.aljazeera.net/
High-speed rail in Europe
Including detailed maps
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Europe
Gotthard Base Tunnel This will be the longest tunnel in the world when finished in 2018
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
Brenner Base Tunnel This will be the second longest tunnel in the world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenner_Base_Tunnel
Thought you guys might like a bit of light reading on High Speed Rail. Another one of my favourite topics.
47.
Ecky don’t be shy, put up the whole reference on that page:
3. TURKMENISTAN-AFGHANISTAN-PAKISTAN-INDIA
The proposed $7.6 billion TAPI may receive renewed attention in 2009 as developments in the rival Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline continue to stagnate. Security concerns for the planned route through Afghanistan and Pakistan, however, make immediate developments here unlikely.
The United States supports the project as part of a broader containment strategy to deter the influence of Russia and Iran in the energy market. Partners for the IPI have tried to move the project along for decades, though progress there continued to limp along in 2008.
The Afghan government in June told Pakistan it would clear all land mines and Taliban strongholds from its leg of the gas pipeline within two years.
Turkmenistan may face difficulties as the primary supplier, however, with rival deals through existing pipeline arteries and other lines already under construction, notably the 4,350-mile Turkmen-China gas pipeline.
With IPI entering its second decade of negotiations, regional energy concerns and a sanction-contained Iran, the TAPI project could be renewed as a viable project in 2009.
….could be, maybe, someday, if only, perhaps.
Boy, that sure as hell looks a good reason to keep spending a few billion a month for how many years?????????????
[paragraph in comment removed under editorial discretion]
They ARE NOT THERE FOR OIL, never were, and no matter how much crap you sprout, you cannot find any evidence that makes in sense.
In fact the opposite. They might not even get supply! FFS!
Any stakeholders going into this would invest billions and make a return for the carriage of gas/oil. It may return a few hundred billions over it’s lifetime in profit.
And you’re seriously trying to tell us that the USA went to war in Afghanistan, and stays there, for that?
[paragraph in comment removed under editorial discretion]
Oops, typo, I meant to say ‘make a few hundred million’ for each partner (typically it takes a few companies to stump up the capital and expertise) and they get a return on their investment. If they are putting up 10 billion say in total, what return will each company get?
Compared with the billions the US is spending there, ahem, not a speck of fly-shit!
The numbers, the politics, the evidence just do not stack up for the ‘pipeline’ theorists.
Sorry, they are the facts.
KR at 52
I agree with that the economics don’t seem to stack up in support of the theory.
BTW, I applied a little editorial diplomacy to your note at #51.
Cost benefit analysis is irrelevant because the costs of the war are being borne by tax payers yet the profits of the pipeline will go to the corporations. Surely we all learnt that much about US style capitalism during the bailout. As Gaffy’s and EC’s links show, the pipeline also has the added strategic benefit of weakening the hand of that really big bugger up north.
HusseinStWorm at 54
Sure – I give you the point that the strategic benefit relative to that really big bugger up north is valid to point and that it factors into influencing elements. But this pales into insignificance against the broader regional issues and geopolitical risk on the table.
In the meantime, over on boston.com is news about a series of treaties Obama is planning on pushing though the US Senate during his first term.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/10/25/obama_may_face_fight_on_treaties/
Keeping the above in mind, is worthwhile reflecting on KatieLou’s subject – the ‘Power of the Presidency’. Newsweek have an article up with the title ‘Hope Springs Eternal’ which is addressing this very subject with some good grounding on historical facts (together with a contrast with corresponding beliefs down mainstreet USA). Here is one sanguine quote …
http://www.newsweek.com/id/219371/page/1
Crist, Obama Hug Haunting Florida Governor In Senate Primary
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/25/crist-obama-hug-haunting-_n_332963.html
I have noticed EC calling for the US to deal with some of the not-so-savoury individuals within the Taliban and thus bring about peace.
I have to say that given the criticism that the US has copped in the past for doing deals with people like this from the left, it is a bit of an odd argument to make.
Given that such deals would necessarily involve ceding tracts of territory to these individuals, along with the people living in those tracts of territory, I am wondering what options would be given to those said people (and particular those without any power, such as women and children) regarding whether or not they wish to live under the Taliban rule.
“Crist, Obama Hug Haunting Florida Governor In Senate Primary”
This is about the wingnuts taking over the Repugs. Sabotaging their own party. Which will make the Democrats job so much easier.
If the Republican brand name is at 20%. How much further will it drop?
I noticed a potential point of confusion in my previous post. To clarify: in the second paragraph, the criticism is from the left, not the people.
DG, it’s quite apparent that the continual harping against the US is pure left-over ideological ersatz Gonzo-ism, based on a jumble of disparate historical comparisons, unrelated facts, misinformation, innumeracy, and all the usual characteristics of what we would call propaganda if done by the Right.
It is, as you say, unbelievable, that the same people who use the evidence of Afghanistan’s corrupt government as an argument for the US leaving, would like them to cut deals with the Taliban! The moral contortions of that proposition simply defy the imagination!
And then when the country is a hell-hole of minority persecutions, these same people will say “Why doesn’t the US go in and do ‘something’!” (Like they always do when they mention Rwanda.)
There’s no logic, no critical thought, little historical understanding, no allowances for the really complex nature of the world, but there is always ONE overblown and continual theme: EVERYTHING done by the US is by definition for the most venal and greedy motives and they have no regard for anyone’s safety or wellbeing.
Yeah, tell that to the suicide bombers and the indiscriminate killers who’ll disembowel someone to get a ‘confession’ and then hang the decapitated corpse in the street for a little public ‘persuasion’.
They’ll get a laugh out of that, at least.
God I’m tired of the ignorance masquerading as deep political thought.
Juan Cole on the most recent Baghdad bombings:
The particular ministries that were struck may be significant, since Iraq operates on a spoils system and ministries tend to be dominated by political parties and ethnic groups. The Minister of Public Works is Riyadh Gharib, a prominent member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is close to the clerics in Tehran. Public Works as a ministry would thus have a lot of ISCI party members as employees and it is also a huge source of political patronage. Baathists or Sunni extremists would have every reason to hit it.
The Ministry of Justice had been less politicized, but from 2007 was in the control of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance. The Minister of Justice from last February is Judge Dara Nur al-Din, an independent Kurd. He had been a member of the Interim Governing Council under Paul Bremer, for which some groups in Iraq may not have forgiven him. The ministry of justice also oversees court cases and executions, including of prominent Baathists, executions that Nur al-Din has defended, and which have angered the anti-government guerrillas.
…after three decades of Ba’athist sadism and tribalism, some elements just will not move on.
It makes al Maliki’s move to stand with Sunni’s in the next election something quite remarkable, if only for the symbolism.
War Fever At The Times: a five day log
Recently two posts linked from the NYT have led to some spirited discussion on this and the previous threads.
Some bang-on points in this article about the processes involved in manufacturing consent for what is arguably going to be, a very long U.S. invasion and occupation indeed.
(Oh-oh. It’s another one of them varmint Cee Tees. This here’s a live one from Kenetty-cut. Goddamn Yale Pro-fessah o’ Litter-A-chore.
Comes on like a commie-luvvah. But he sure done write real purty.)
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/war-fever-at-the-emtimese_b_327159.html
KR @ 868, previous thread:
“Personally I find it a real moral challenge to align myself with ‘rabid rightwingers’ and ‘neocons’ but essentially the argument still stands, regardless of who makes it, and who you find yourself standing next to.
Of course barracking for the home team is always the easy option, but in this case I think it’s intellectually and morally bereft.”
Just so, Squire, especially when one takes on board as fact the thrust of a war-mongering NYT gee-up campaign and then resort to tawdry tactic of personal abuse to any fellow bloggers who dare to disagree.
Nobody is right about EVERYTHING all the time. And that includes you and I, pal.
————–
David, U.S. invaders and occupiers are going to have to talk with all factions of the Taliban, sooner or later. After eight years of failure and quagmire, the sooner they begin talk to each other, the sooner the US can get out of Afghanistan.
continued on BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8325318.stm
KR and David, I could agree more with you both. Not to mention what it would do to the women in Afghanistan.
EC,
Why do they need to talk to all factions?
As an example, the British policy was to talk with the more reasonable factions/members of the IRA while killing, capturing or otherwise neutralising those who continued to advocate for and commit violence.
This process began in the late 1980s and has been ongoing for 20 years. And it has succeeded, even though there are still some violent whackos attempting to stir things up again.
Further, you did not address the issue of choice. Is everyone going to be able to freely choose whether to live under the rule of the Taliban or to move to other parts of Afghanistan? How will this free choice be protected? By what measures will guarantees by the Taliban not to attempt to take over other parts of the country be enforced? And so on.
You cannot negotiate in good faith or with good intentions with murderous lunatics whose express policy is to oppress the people that they rule. Whenever the US have done this in the past, the left have gone ballistic about it. So what gives in this case?
Tories urge bank cash-bonus limit.
============================
continued on BB News.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8325302.stm
I have never heard so much bullshit in my life. As if the Tories would do that. It will get lost after the election.
A virtual reality computer programme is being used to treat Iraq war veterans in the US.
===============================================
continued on BBC News with video
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8017260.stm
I saw that virtual reality game. It looked a pretty cool game, to be honest … I want one. 😉
Treating PTSD is an excellent application of this technology.
Of course, if you’ve read the NY Times editorial pieces over the last week, and for god’s sake Ecky you even QUOTED one who was dead against more spending there(!), they’ve been quite clearly against expanding troop levels. (His was NOT the only one I might add. Kristoff and Rich were dead against, for starters!)
Another bit of biased ‘sociological’ pap, bashing the NY Times, but in fact, just not even factual (in that it has selectively omitted the ‘inconvenient’ facts)
[big paragraph in comment removed under editorial discretion]
[paragraph in comment removed under editorial discretion]
Here’s how it works Ecky, read this carefully, I’ll help you:
When you get some journo on a roll, trying to ‘prove’ :
“The New York Times wants a large escalation in Afghanistan. The paper has been made nervous by signs that the president may not make the big push for a bigger war; and they are showing what the rest of his time in office will be like if he does not cooperate.”
…and you’ve just quoted one of their leading editorial writers arguing the contrary position, just days before (!), say to yourself “this does not add up”. Then go and check:
October 21, 2009, 11:51 pm
Troops in Afghanistan
By Nicholas Kristof
My Thursday column argues against dispatching more American troops to Afghanistan. I’m very skeptical that more troops will make much difference, very concerned about a backlash from nationalist Pashtuns in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, and very aware that the money could make a huge difference elsewhere.
….and then file David Bromwich in the ‘just another minor academic who selectively uses the facts for his long standing grudge against the NY Times. For, if you bother, you’ll find this guy has made it his ‘second job’ for some time, to ‘prove’ the NY Times is either running the US government, or Israel’s or both, or something similar! LOL
He’s hardly credible after 5 minutes ‘research’.
So next time Ecky, look, read, and think, before you contradict your own case ie quote Frank Rich one day, and then run some guy’s nutjob case that the NY TImes is a wall of rightwingers pushing Obama into Afghanistan escalation.
Purleeeeese…some effort for ‘truthiness’ as Mr Colbert would say! LOL
KR, a few links to back up all of this ‘truthiness’ would be handy. Who’s saying that Ecky’s link author is a secret muslim/anti-semite and all round hater of truth, justice and the CIA way?
Ahem….Paging Father Superior.
Links squirt. 🙂
HSW, it’s called “Google”, and it’s more links than you can poke a stick at!
So you’re following Ecky’s quoting Frank Rich AGAINST escalating the war one day, (and using his economic argument in detail), and the next quoting some minor academic on Huffy Puffy Post that it’s all rightwing warmongers on the NY Times?
Impresses you, does it? Confirms some already held prejudice that there’s a big rightwing conspiracy to push Obama along in Afghanistan, does it?
Don’t obfuscate, genius. A few links is all it takes to prove you’re not full of shit.
Here’s what I’d call, in a nutshell, the “Bromwich Thesis”:
For Obama to do the courageous thing and withdraw would mean having deployed against him the unlimited wrath of the mainstream media, the oil interest, the Israel lobby, the weapons and security industries, all those who have reasons both avowed and unavowed for the perpetuation of American force projection in the Middle East. If he fails to satisfy the request from General McChrystal – the specialist in ‘black ops’ who now controls American forces in Afghanistan – the war brokers will fall on Obama with as finely co-ordinated a barrage as if they had met and concerted their response. Beside that prospect, the calls of betrayal from the antiwar base that gave Obama his first victories in 2008 must seem a small price to pay.
(Note the “oil industry” is there, whoopee, can’t leave that out of any conspiracy theory)
But, wait a second, at least two of the NY Times’ editorials of recent days have been firmly against escalation. Those were just two I read, but there may have been others…let’s check, eh?
Nothing in that but the same kind of rubbish I can get from Bolt.
Do you know how to paste a link?
Ok, Bob Herbert in the NY Times just last month:
What we need to be assessing are the implications of forcing still more conflict on a public that is broke, dispirited and fed up with eight years of continuous warfare that have not yielded a victory parade or a sense that the nation is reasonably secure.
If the conflict in Afghanistan is as crucial to American national security as President Obama has said, then he needs to make that case to the public, clearly and compellingly. A presidential call to arms to meet a threat of that magnitude should surely overshadow the national debate on health care.
Otherwise, let’s explore creative alternatives to endless warfare and start bringing the weary troops home.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/26/opinion/26herbert.html?_r=1
…hmm, doesn’t sound too much like he’ll be threatening Obama with the full might of the oil lobby or the military industrial complex if he pulls out tomorrow, does he?
That’s three to me, none to Bromwich! LOL
DG: “EC, Why do they need to talk to all factions?
As an example, the British policy was to talk with the more reasonable factions/members of the IRA while killing, capturing or otherwise neutralising those who continued to advocate for and commit violence.”
David, by offering all factions of the Taliban an opportunity to participate, it would lend a degree of legitimacy to whoever shares power when the invaders and occupiers “withdraw”. (more later on this).
If the fundamentalists continue with atrocities and brutal repression of citizens when US (and Australian) Forces depart( scorpions being what by nature they are)……it would not win them a lot of support among local leaders who have ruled this rugged and tragic land by means of tribal alliances/rivalries since long before the CIA armed and funded the Taliban, which was at exactly the same time that the Taliban underwent their MSM “remake”. I’m sure I heard sombody refer to them as “Freedom-Fighters”.
Things were very chummy indeed. Uncle Sam loved the The Taliban. They were his brothers-in-arms while they routed The Russkies.
David, you went on to say: “You cannot negotiate in good faith or with good intentions with murderous lunatics whose express policy is to oppress the people that they rule.”
Nobody seemed to have much trouble talking to “Taliban bussinees interests” back then did they?.
And just as Topsy grew, the Taliban, now hydra-headed, blew back. Lop a few heads, by all means, but eventually one will have to negotiate with the Body Corporate.
For humanitarian reasons I urge sooner rather than later, but chances of this, given the way US military bases have been “dug in” to the region are negligible.
David, while there are obvious dissimilarities between the situations in Northern Ireland during The Troubles there is also overlap. And one can’t have closure before overlap can one? 🙂 Neutralising intrasigent Taliban would be a task best assigned to local copper goon squads, people who actually live there and appreciate the lay of this ravished land. As opposed to “infidel” invaders trying to do the job.
By the time occupying forces leave, given the abundance of Training Time by the “infidel” occupiers available in the future, the citizens of Afghanistan should have wallopers capable of holding their own with CSI’s finest.
Like anywhere else, a thumping majority of Afghani people want to stroll down to their marketplaces and have reasonable expectations of returning home, unscathed. Although precise figures to support my claim are currently unavilable.
Not one mention of Bromwich in the entire article. Where’s the steak?
Or let’s take a man on ground’s view, Dexter Filkins in the NY Times two days ago:
Eight years after the American-led coalition pushed the Taliban from Kabul, democracy in Afghanistan is still a very fragile thing. So fragile, indeed, that the deadlock last week seemed to raise fundamental questions about the wisdom and the direction of the American-led project here.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/25/weekinreview/25filkins.html?scp=3&sq=&st=nyt
…an article that outlines the terrible mess of Afghan ‘democracy’ and the US failures to hold back the Taliban.
Not a word of cheer leading Obama with a surge. Not one. In fact it’s a very sobering piece on what a mess it is.
That makes 4 to me, still nil for Bromwich! LOL
Or on a slightly different tangent, how’s this Editorial, from yesterday about the Obama administration behaving like Bush and ‘covering up’ the facts:
In a similar vein, Mr. Obama did a flip-flop last May and decided to resist orders by two federal courts to release photographs of soldiers abusing prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. Last week, just in time to avoid possible Supreme Court review of the matter, Congress created an exception to the Freedom of Information Act that gave Secretary of Defense Robert Gates authority to withhold the photos.
We share concerns about inflaming anti-American feelings and jeopardizing soldiers, but the best way to truly avoid that is to demonstrate that this nation has turned the page on Mr. Bush’s shameful policies. Withholding the painful truth shows the opposite.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/26/opinion/26mon1.html?scp=2&sq=&st=nyt
…from an organisation that’s ‘trying to get him to push more troops into Afghanistan’, they are actually criticising him for behaving like GW Bush?
Well, hell, that makes sense too?
5 to me, nil to Bromwich.
Where’s the Bromwich?
Enemy Combatant,
The Taliban were committing atrocities on their subjects *before* the invasion. There was no likelihood of them being overthrown because of this, as far as I can see. Maybe the majority of the male population *supports* the oppression of women, homosexuals, non-Moslems et cetera. And traditional tribal structures perpetuate such oppression. Have we learnt nothing from feminism in the West? Why on earth should we attempt to *legitimise* such oppression by inviting the most fanatical purveyors of it to talks on how Afghanistan will be divided?
I honestly do not know how to respond to your position. It would seem that we have completely opposite ways of viewing everything to do with this particular topic.
p.s:
From your comments, I am assuming that you applaud the US for bringing former warlords, drug runners, and corrupt officials into the current Afghanistan government. Am I correct in that assumption?
None of it back up this, KR, and it’s been more than 5 minutes.
HusseinStWorm,
KR posted Bromwich’s position.
“For Obama to do the courageous thing and withdraw would mean having deployed against him the unlimited wrath of the mainstream media, the oil interest, the Israel lobby, the weapons and security industries, all those who have reasons both avowed and unavowed for the perpetuation of American force projection in the Middle East. If he fails to satisfy the request from General McChrystal – the specialist in ‘black ops’ who now controls American forces in Afghanistan – the war brokers will fall on Obama with as finely co-ordinated a barrage as if they had met and concerted their response.”
I think that he forgot the link, which is:
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n20/brom01_.html
post 76 is quoting Bromwich
As to the Israel lobby, speaking for my Zionist overlords, we would prefer the US left Afghanistan and the Taliban took over. This would result in Iran having significant problems on its border.
I’d hardly call KR’s assessment an academic one based on the evidence, DG. SOunds more like a neo-con hatchet job to me.
HusseinStWorm,
Someone raising the mainstream media, the oil lobby, Israel, the military-industrial complex and scary ‘unavowed’ interests in one sentence is basically asking to be called a nutty conspiracy theorist, imo. But then I am a neo-con hatcheteer.
Bromwich says this in HuffPo:
“when all this is the fruit of five days’ harvest at the Times, the conclusion draws itself. The New York Times wants a large escalation in Afghanistan.”
I’ve just shown that he’s VERY selective in his presentation of the ‘facts’, and in fact there’s plenty of highly respected journalists giving prominent arguments against the war, plus highly critical pieces on Obama for being like GW Bush!
Sorry, this guy is a one trick pony on a vendetta.
If this twaddle passes for argument, without examination, and is accepted by anyone, it just shows how mired in their own beliefs they are.
Refuse to believe the facts, but suck up Bromwich’s story that the NY Times is right in there, applying muscle for more war!
(It’s left-over conspiracy from pre-Iraq days, but I’m bored with this now…go and read about Judith Miller, it’s a fascinating episode. Bromwich is re-heating left-overs, and not convincingly.)
Think I’ll go and get into my Dr Strangelove outfit and sniff the glove for a while! LOL
KR, Ecky’s link was published on the 20th, nothing you’ve posted to refute the article was published before then. I willing to forgive the bloke for not being a psychic, dicks like Bolt wouldn’t.
Basically, you fail at Politic101. Bolt is where you belong these days I think.
When I say bloke, I mean Bromwich, not EC.
As to the Afghani people wanting to go to the marketplace and having a reasonable chance of returning unscathed, I am sure that provided they are willing to hand over their freedom to the Taliban that will be arranged. Crime rates under governments that imprison, torture and execute criminals such as women who wish to be educated are often quite low. I would not be willing to pay such a price on their behalf. However, if the women in Afghanistan become educated and then make the free choice to return to the tribalistic Taliban rule, I would happily support them in that wish. Until then …
Actually, disregard my post @ 94. I have no right to post that.
Thinking about this, I guess I am internationalist. I do not believe countries have the right to self-determination – or any rights in fact; countries do not have rights – but that individuals do. However, this self-determination must be free of intimidation and incultured subserviance to others. If it is not free of such, then it is not ‘self’ determination at all. I believe that those of us in more fortunate positions have a responsibility to attempt to create situations in which such self-determination can be employed.
I think of the break-up of Yugoslavia and the unwillingness of the West to use force to attempt to protect Croatians and Bosnians from Serbian aggression -and, indeed, the unwillingness of the West to protect the Serbs from retaliation. It seems that if we can watch others doing the killing we can somehow remain morally pure. But if we get involved and attempt to stop the killing, we become soiled. If our fingers are on the triggers, then we cannot duck responsibility; if our fingers are not, then it is just some sad events happening to foreigners and we bear no blame. Why not wall them in and let them kill one another?
We would love it if we could be white knights storming in and killing the bad guys without hurting anyone who is innocent. But the thing is, if we do not storm in then those innocents who die are just as dead and we do have some responsibility* for them.
*Note 1: I do not equate responsibility** for failing to prevent someone’s death with the responsibility for killing them, but depending on the precise circumstances they can be pretty close.
**Note 2: And actually I do not believe in responsibility in any fashion, but use the word as part of standard moral lexicon. The notion of responsibility, while a fiction, can be useful in causing desired behavioural responses (even in those who, like myself, do not believe in it: the illusion of free will is an extremely powerful one).
97 Actually HW you are wrong, the Rich article, the very one that Ecky quoted was from late September, Herberts was from September, so I think you’d better learn to look.
The need to attack me, rather than admit the obvious that Bromwich’s claim is absurd, reflects more on you than me, I’d say.
He’s making a BIG claim, whether it’s this week or next, it’s a claim of a BIG consistent bias and threats!
And its a claim that there is some sinister motive driving particular events, rather than the way more likely alternative: that the NYT was running a series of reports and articles on an extremely important topic and that the majority of authors of those articles happened over a short period of time to agree on a particular position.
Conspiracy theorists tend to look for motives behind either unconnected events or behind events that are connected in much more obvious ways.