I wanted to send you these book recommendations below as well as an article from our church that you might want to read for Labor Day. Reading a book is becoming a rare form of relaxation so one of these might be interesting to pick up from the library or bookstore. Anyway, I hope you find these interesting.
Article from our church literature here http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/LW/findingsuccess.htm Other Books to Read here:
http://www.amazon.com/strike-threat-system-consequences-collective-bargaining/dp/0870001868/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219936489&sr=1-1
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Work-Unemployment-Twentieth-Century-Independent/dp/0814787924/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219937061&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219937743&sr=1-1
Friday, August 29, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Olympic Standard Bearer
If you haven't yet read this article about Russia invading Georgia, you can read the link here http://www.ucg.org/commentary/russian-bear.htm As a follow-up, I wanted to send the article below because it shows how things went at the Olympics, one of the world's attempts at world peace. If you do remember, the U.S. chose a Sudanese born person as the Standard Bearer at the Opening Ceremonies. This story talks about the closing ones.
Georgian-US Flag bearer & Medals Speak Volumes
Posted by Board Certified M.D.
“We had a very terrible environment. We’d been training in candlelight and it was not really a good time,” Khatuna Lorig says of the Georgians who went to the 1996 Olympics. Nicolas Asfouri / AFP / Getty Images LA TimesAmerican Archer Khatuna Lorig originally from the Republic of Georgia and born in its capital Tbilisi has been chosen to carry the USA's Flag at the closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. US captains from every sport met in the Athlete's Village on Friday to select the flag bearer and voted for Khatuna. Choosing her to carry our nation's colors after she reached the quarterfinals in Beijing because hers was a great story especially after doing so well in spite of the obvious distractions to her caused by the invasion of Georgia by Russia. Although the war waging in her home country weighed on her mind as she competed Aug. 12 and 14, she did exceptionally well before utimately losing on a rainy day in Beijing to world record holder Yun Ok-Hee of South Korea. Archery team captain Victor Wunderle said he nominated Lorig to be U.S. flag bearer in recognition of the respect her fellow athletes held her in. "She appreciates her American citizenship more than some of us who were born here," archer Vic Wunderle said. "Sometimes, we tend to take it for granted. Being new to the country, she appreciates many of the freedoms that we have even more."
A Russian warplane dropped bombs near the Georgian city of Gori on the Friday of Opening Ceremonies and on Tiblisi Saturday.
Lorig's selection which is being perceived by some as a show of support by U.S. athletes for besieged Georgians does complement the choice of opening ceremony flag bearer and Team Darfur member, Lopez Lomong who is a former Sudanese Lost Boy and naturalized American runner at the University of Northern Arizona.
This Archer, who now lives in West Hollywood and trains in Chula Vista, California has downplayed this aspect. From the Miami Herald:
.....during a Saturday interview with McClatchy, saying her fellow U.S. athletes didn't pick her to score geopolitical points."It's more that they feel that I'm American, it doesn't matter where I was born," the 34-year-old West Hollywood, Calif., resident said. "I'm truly very proud to be an American and most definitely very proud to be on the U.S. team."
However, the Russian invasion of Georgia did weigh on her mind during these Olympic Games as her parents had to flee the Russian onslaught of Gori, the city where they lived because of the bombings pictured above.
Loris said her parents fled their home in the Georgian city of Gori when Russian troops invaded earlier this month and are still staying with her brother in the capital of Tbilisi. While competing, Lorig had called to make sure her parents were alright and was reassured after talking to her mother.Lorig later learned that her mother had spared her the worst details about the destruction in Gori so that she wouldn't be too upset to compete. The family's farm house was spared the destruction, but neighboring buildings weren't, Lorig said.The archer expressed strong support for beleaguered Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, who she said had done much to improve the lives of ordinary Georgians.
Lorig has competed in 3 previous Olympic Games. When 4 months pregnant in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics she competed for the former Soviet Union republic winning a Bronze medal on the so called "Unified Team." She also competed for the Republic of Georgia and carried its Flag in the 1996 Atlanta Games and then again for Georgia in the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
A product of the Soviet Union's sports academies, she decided to move to and compete for the United States when she realized Georgia could not provide adequate training facilities. Lorig grew frustrated after the fall of the USSR as she had to train by candlelight and travel for hours by bus to the closest Archery range just to practice. She left behind her parents, whom she hasn't seen in three years, and a brother. She immigrated to the United States in 1995 settling first in New Jersey but was forced to sit out the Athens Game after not making the 2004 Georgian team. At the time she was a single mom going through a separation/divorce and was still waiting to received her U.S. citizenship which came after years in 2005.
"Being named the U.S. flag bearer for the Closing Ceremony is almost like winning a gold medal, maybe even better," Lorig said. "I thought I could win a gold medal in competition, but I never thought I'd have this opportunity. I am truly, truly so proud to be an American citizen and part of the U.S. Olympic Team."
"I will do my best to represent archery and the U.S. Delegation both at the Closing Ceremony and afterwards to hold up the responsibilities deserving of this great honor," Lorig said. "I wouldn't want to compete for any other country. I send my best wishes to everyone on the U.S. Team."
"This is very special for me," said Lorig....."I'm just hoping I really can do something special and make the United States proud this time.""It's such a pleasure," Lorig said. "I am so proud to have USA on my back. I am one of the lucky ones."
U.S. athletes have remained verbally silent about politics during these Olympic Games while winning the most medals of any country during these Spectacular $40 billion plus Beijing games while their counterpart Chinese Sport Farm grown Athletes garnered the most Golds. The US Olympic team let their actions in the choice of bearer for the Stars and Strips speak for them before and after they were done pouring their huge hearts out during competition. Remembering that former Olympian Speed Skater, Joey Cheeks and founder Team Darfur had his Visa to China revoked before the games the U.S. team captains countered by picking runner Lopez Lomong prior to the opening ceremony as the team's flag bearer, an obvious dig at the Chinese government's support of Sudan. The Sudanese arms its militias with Chinese built weapons that have killed hundreds of thousands of people in the country's Darfur region where China is drilling for Oil. At the end of the Beijing Coming Out Games, the US Olympic Team made its last political statement to Russia and the World Community by choosing Georgian-American Khatuna Lorig as the U.S. flag bearer in Sunday's closing ceremony. As the saying goes "Actions do speak louder than Words!".....American Khatuna Lorig would agree:
"I feel sad and I feel very upset," Lorig said. "But I know Georgia has very good relations with other countries and the world is not blind and will not just stand by."
I think Lorig is also speaking in Code to the International Olympic Commitee telegraphing them to do the right thing and revoke(HT Hugh Hewitt) the 2014 Olympic Games from Russia's resort city of Sochi which is located on the border with the Republic of Georgia....
From Zimbio.com
Reuters
Lorig's parents are Dilmani and Rusudani Kvrivishvili...Khatuna graduated from the Third Gymnasium High School in Tbilisi, Georgia on May 20, 1990...She went on to graduate from the Physical and Sport Institute in 1995 with a degree in Physical Education...She speaks Georgian, Russian and English...She enjoys listening to Rock and Roll and her favorite television show is Gene Simmons, Family Jewels. Source Zimbio
p.s. Sochi is a also the sister city of Long Beach, California ...how about a divorce?!?
Georgian-US Flag bearer & Medals Speak Volumes
Posted by Board Certified M.D.
“We had a very terrible environment. We’d been training in candlelight and it was not really a good time,” Khatuna Lorig says of the Georgians who went to the 1996 Olympics. Nicolas Asfouri / AFP / Getty Images LA TimesAmerican Archer Khatuna Lorig originally from the Republic of Georgia and born in its capital Tbilisi has been chosen to carry the USA's Flag at the closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympics. US captains from every sport met in the Athlete's Village on Friday to select the flag bearer and voted for Khatuna. Choosing her to carry our nation's colors after she reached the quarterfinals in Beijing because hers was a great story especially after doing so well in spite of the obvious distractions to her caused by the invasion of Georgia by Russia. Although the war waging in her home country weighed on her mind as she competed Aug. 12 and 14, she did exceptionally well before utimately losing on a rainy day in Beijing to world record holder Yun Ok-Hee of South Korea. Archery team captain Victor Wunderle said he nominated Lorig to be U.S. flag bearer in recognition of the respect her fellow athletes held her in. "She appreciates her American citizenship more than some of us who were born here," archer Vic Wunderle said. "Sometimes, we tend to take it for granted. Being new to the country, she appreciates many of the freedoms that we have even more."
A Russian warplane dropped bombs near the Georgian city of Gori on the Friday of Opening Ceremonies and on Tiblisi Saturday.
Lorig's selection which is being perceived by some as a show of support by U.S. athletes for besieged Georgians does complement the choice of opening ceremony flag bearer and Team Darfur member, Lopez Lomong who is a former Sudanese Lost Boy and naturalized American runner at the University of Northern Arizona.
This Archer, who now lives in West Hollywood and trains in Chula Vista, California has downplayed this aspect. From the Miami Herald:
.....during a Saturday interview with McClatchy, saying her fellow U.S. athletes didn't pick her to score geopolitical points."It's more that they feel that I'm American, it doesn't matter where I was born," the 34-year-old West Hollywood, Calif., resident said. "I'm truly very proud to be an American and most definitely very proud to be on the U.S. team."
However, the Russian invasion of Georgia did weigh on her mind during these Olympic Games as her parents had to flee the Russian onslaught of Gori, the city where they lived because of the bombings pictured above.
Loris said her parents fled their home in the Georgian city of Gori when Russian troops invaded earlier this month and are still staying with her brother in the capital of Tbilisi. While competing, Lorig had called to make sure her parents were alright and was reassured after talking to her mother.Lorig later learned that her mother had spared her the worst details about the destruction in Gori so that she wouldn't be too upset to compete. The family's farm house was spared the destruction, but neighboring buildings weren't, Lorig said.The archer expressed strong support for beleaguered Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili, who she said had done much to improve the lives of ordinary Georgians.
Lorig has competed in 3 previous Olympic Games. When 4 months pregnant in the 1992 Barcelona Olympics she competed for the former Soviet Union republic winning a Bronze medal on the so called "Unified Team." She also competed for the Republic of Georgia and carried its Flag in the 1996 Atlanta Games and then again for Georgia in the 2000 Sydney Olympics.
A product of the Soviet Union's sports academies, she decided to move to and compete for the United States when she realized Georgia could not provide adequate training facilities. Lorig grew frustrated after the fall of the USSR as she had to train by candlelight and travel for hours by bus to the closest Archery range just to practice. She left behind her parents, whom she hasn't seen in three years, and a brother. She immigrated to the United States in 1995 settling first in New Jersey but was forced to sit out the Athens Game after not making the 2004 Georgian team. At the time she was a single mom going through a separation/divorce and was still waiting to received her U.S. citizenship which came after years in 2005.
"Being named the U.S. flag bearer for the Closing Ceremony is almost like winning a gold medal, maybe even better," Lorig said. "I thought I could win a gold medal in competition, but I never thought I'd have this opportunity. I am truly, truly so proud to be an American citizen and part of the U.S. Olympic Team."
"I will do my best to represent archery and the U.S. Delegation both at the Closing Ceremony and afterwards to hold up the responsibilities deserving of this great honor," Lorig said. "I wouldn't want to compete for any other country. I send my best wishes to everyone on the U.S. Team."
"This is very special for me," said Lorig....."I'm just hoping I really can do something special and make the United States proud this time.""It's such a pleasure," Lorig said. "I am so proud to have USA on my back. I am one of the lucky ones."
U.S. athletes have remained verbally silent about politics during these Olympic Games while winning the most medals of any country during these Spectacular $40 billion plus Beijing games while their counterpart Chinese Sport Farm grown Athletes garnered the most Golds. The US Olympic team let their actions in the choice of bearer for the Stars and Strips speak for them before and after they were done pouring their huge hearts out during competition. Remembering that former Olympian Speed Skater, Joey Cheeks and founder Team Darfur had his Visa to China revoked before the games the U.S. team captains countered by picking runner Lopez Lomong prior to the opening ceremony as the team's flag bearer, an obvious dig at the Chinese government's support of Sudan. The Sudanese arms its militias with Chinese built weapons that have killed hundreds of thousands of people in the country's Darfur region where China is drilling for Oil. At the end of the Beijing Coming Out Games, the US Olympic Team made its last political statement to Russia and the World Community by choosing Georgian-American Khatuna Lorig as the U.S. flag bearer in Sunday's closing ceremony. As the saying goes "Actions do speak louder than Words!".....American Khatuna Lorig would agree:
"I feel sad and I feel very upset," Lorig said. "But I know Georgia has very good relations with other countries and the world is not blind and will not just stand by."
I think Lorig is also speaking in Code to the International Olympic Commitee telegraphing them to do the right thing and revoke(HT Hugh Hewitt) the 2014 Olympic Games from Russia's resort city of Sochi which is located on the border with the Republic of Georgia....
From Zimbio.com
Reuters
Lorig's parents are Dilmani and Rusudani Kvrivishvili...Khatuna graduated from the Third Gymnasium High School in Tbilisi, Georgia on May 20, 1990...She went on to graduate from the Physical and Sport Institute in 1995 with a degree in Physical Education...She speaks Georgian, Russian and English...She enjoys listening to Rock and Roll and her favorite television show is Gene Simmons, Family Jewels. Source Zimbio
p.s. Sochi is a also the sister city of Long Beach, California ...how about a divorce?!?
Monday, August 25, 2008
Russian Bear! and a Movie Recommendation
If you didn't get a chance to read the article below from our church yet, I'm sending it to you. It shows that our church does point out that there is not moral equivalence between all events that happen in the world, but there is genuine good and evil, or better, sometimes one side is far more evil than the other. As a follow up, I wanted to let you know about a movie that you might want to (re-?)watch which talks about a previous war that happened in the same region as the Russia-Georgia War. You can notice in this movie that Russia anciently used the same flag that they are using today! Anyway, you might find that interesting also as I hope you find the article below.
If you ever heard the phrase "In Like Flynn" that refers to one of the actors in this movie. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/24886846&referer=brief_resultshttp://www.amazon.com/Charge-Light-Brigade-Errol-Flynn/dp/B000M2E30E/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1219595015&sr=1-2
The Russian Bear Awakens and Roars
A commentary by Scott Ashley & John Ross Schroeder Good News Managing Editor & Good News senior writerWhile the world was distracted by the 2008 summer games in Beijing, Russia suddenly invaded Georgia, a staunch Western ally and possible future NATO member. What's behind Russia's muscle flexing? Russian policy, since Joseph Stalin's time, has been to encourage Russians to resettle in its satellite states. This created the current situation in Georgia where two provinces—Abkhazia and South Ossetia (North Ossetia is part of the Russian Federation)—have large ethnic Russian populations. Russia used these populations to foment unrest—including regular artillery exchanges between South Ossetians and the Georgian military—to essentially lure the Georgian government into a trap. When Georgian troops moved into South Ossetia on Aug. 7 in response to recent provocations, Russian armored columns and aircraft quickly poured in to counterattack. Within two days they fully controlled the province. But that wasn't enough. On Aug. 11 Russian forces drove forward from Abkhazia, Georgia's other province with a large Russian population, while others drove south from South Ossetia, cutting the country in half by capturing its main east-west highway and rail route. And while a cease-fire agreement was signed on Aug. 14 calling for both sides to pull back to pre-war positions, at the time of this writing the Russians were digging in and appeared to have no intention of leaving.Russia seems determined to show its former Eastern Bloc allies who's boss in the region. As Josef Joffe, publisher-editor of Die Ziet and a fellow of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford, wrote in his Aug. 12 piece in The Wall Street Journal titled "Welcome Back to the 19th Century":"Moscow has unleashed a cyberwar against tiny Estonia, formerly a Soviet republic. It has threatened the Czech Republic and Poland with nuclear targeting if they host U.S. antimissile hardware on their soil that could not possibly threaten Russia's retaliatory potential. It has exploited small price disputes (normally resolved by lawyers screaming at each other) to stop gas deliveries and thus show Ukraine, Belarus and former Warsaw Pact members who runs [things]."
A strong message to EuropeIn Russia, these actions demonstrate that Prime Minister Putin still calls the shots, though he has given up the presidency to his protégé Medvedev. With his invasion of Georgia, Putin is sending a message not only to former Russian allies, but also to Europe. Joseph Joffe states, "Georgia is the 'last of the independents,' so to speak, a critical conduit of oil and gas that goes around Russia into the Black Sea and (with a planned gas pipeline) via Turkey into the Mediterranean. It is no accident that Russian planes are bombing throughout the country, and narrowly 'missed' pipelines. The message to the West is: 'You don't really want to invest in energy here.'"Many European nations, Germany in particular, are dependent on imported Russian natural gas to power their economies and keep them from freezing in winter. Outside of Europe and Russia itself, few people realize that the country is the world's single greatest energy producer. It also controls crucial pipelines to Europe and has already threatened to shut off essential supplies. With Russia controlling the oil and gas spigots, Europeans are highly vulnerable. As Joffe puts it: "If Moscow gains control over Georgia, it is 'good night, and good luck' to Europe. All of its gas and oil bought in Eurasia (minus the Middle East) will pass through Russian hands in one way or the other."The Russian military has been a major beneficiary of Russia's skyrocketing oil and natural gas revenues. According to The Guardian's columnist Simon Tisdall: "Russia's bullish plans, unveiled this week, to build up to six aircraft carrier battle groups and upgrade its nuclear submarine fleet are part of a worrying trend. They provide further evidence that Moscow's military revival ... may in time pose some unwelcome challenges for Europeans determined to believe the days of east-west confrontation are over" (July 31, 2008). What's on the horizon? Without question Russia's recent moves have made the world a more dangerous place. In his Aug. 17, 2008, article "Moscow Has Blown Away Soft Power" The Sunday Telegraph's Edward Luttwak pointed out: "This is not a game and participation is not voluntary . . . The decision on whether to confront Russia is an enormously tough one. But that decision will have to be made. It means that Europe's holiday from serious geopolitics is over" (emphasis added).Could this threat transform Europe from mostly a powerful trading block to the world's dominant military power predicted by Bible prophecy? To learn more about that prophecy and its implications for our time simply request or download our free booklet: Are We Living in the Time of the End?
If you ever heard the phrase "In Like Flynn" that refers to one of the actors in this movie. http://www.worldcat.org/oclc/24886846&referer=brief_resultshttp://www.amazon.com/Charge-Light-Brigade-Errol-Flynn/dp/B000M2E30E/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1219595015&sr=1-2
The Russian Bear Awakens and Roars
A commentary by Scott Ashley & John Ross Schroeder Good News Managing Editor & Good News senior writerWhile the world was distracted by the 2008 summer games in Beijing, Russia suddenly invaded Georgia, a staunch Western ally and possible future NATO member. What's behind Russia's muscle flexing? Russian policy, since Joseph Stalin's time, has been to encourage Russians to resettle in its satellite states. This created the current situation in Georgia where two provinces—Abkhazia and South Ossetia (North Ossetia is part of the Russian Federation)—have large ethnic Russian populations. Russia used these populations to foment unrest—including regular artillery exchanges between South Ossetians and the Georgian military—to essentially lure the Georgian government into a trap. When Georgian troops moved into South Ossetia on Aug. 7 in response to recent provocations, Russian armored columns and aircraft quickly poured in to counterattack. Within two days they fully controlled the province. But that wasn't enough. On Aug. 11 Russian forces drove forward from Abkhazia, Georgia's other province with a large Russian population, while others drove south from South Ossetia, cutting the country in half by capturing its main east-west highway and rail route. And while a cease-fire agreement was signed on Aug. 14 calling for both sides to pull back to pre-war positions, at the time of this writing the Russians were digging in and appeared to have no intention of leaving.Russia seems determined to show its former Eastern Bloc allies who's boss in the region. As Josef Joffe, publisher-editor of Die Ziet and a fellow of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford, wrote in his Aug. 12 piece in The Wall Street Journal titled "Welcome Back to the 19th Century":"Moscow has unleashed a cyberwar against tiny Estonia, formerly a Soviet republic. It has threatened the Czech Republic and Poland with nuclear targeting if they host U.S. antimissile hardware on their soil that could not possibly threaten Russia's retaliatory potential. It has exploited small price disputes (normally resolved by lawyers screaming at each other) to stop gas deliveries and thus show Ukraine, Belarus and former Warsaw Pact members who runs [things]."
A strong message to EuropeIn Russia, these actions demonstrate that Prime Minister Putin still calls the shots, though he has given up the presidency to his protégé Medvedev. With his invasion of Georgia, Putin is sending a message not only to former Russian allies, but also to Europe. Joseph Joffe states, "Georgia is the 'last of the independents,' so to speak, a critical conduit of oil and gas that goes around Russia into the Black Sea and (with a planned gas pipeline) via Turkey into the Mediterranean. It is no accident that Russian planes are bombing throughout the country, and narrowly 'missed' pipelines. The message to the West is: 'You don't really want to invest in energy here.'"Many European nations, Germany in particular, are dependent on imported Russian natural gas to power their economies and keep them from freezing in winter. Outside of Europe and Russia itself, few people realize that the country is the world's single greatest energy producer. It also controls crucial pipelines to Europe and has already threatened to shut off essential supplies. With Russia controlling the oil and gas spigots, Europeans are highly vulnerable. As Joffe puts it: "If Moscow gains control over Georgia, it is 'good night, and good luck' to Europe. All of its gas and oil bought in Eurasia (minus the Middle East) will pass through Russian hands in one way or the other."The Russian military has been a major beneficiary of Russia's skyrocketing oil and natural gas revenues. According to The Guardian's columnist Simon Tisdall: "Russia's bullish plans, unveiled this week, to build up to six aircraft carrier battle groups and upgrade its nuclear submarine fleet are part of a worrying trend. They provide further evidence that Moscow's military revival ... may in time pose some unwelcome challenges for Europeans determined to believe the days of east-west confrontation are over" (July 31, 2008). What's on the horizon? Without question Russia's recent moves have made the world a more dangerous place. In his Aug. 17, 2008, article "Moscow Has Blown Away Soft Power" The Sunday Telegraph's Edward Luttwak pointed out: "This is not a game and participation is not voluntary . . . The decision on whether to confront Russia is an enormously tough one. But that decision will have to be made. It means that Europe's holiday from serious geopolitics is over" (emphasis added).Could this threat transform Europe from mostly a powerful trading block to the world's dominant military power predicted by Bible prophecy? To learn more about that prophecy and its implications for our time simply request or download our free booklet: Are We Living in the Time of the End?
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Mexican Kidnapping
wanted to send this article which talks about a kidnapping in Mexico. There is also a link in the story to the El Paso Times www.elpasotimes.com which puts the Juarez death count at 800 this year as well as some other interesting links. Anyway, I hope you find this interesting and forward it to whoever you like.
Kidnapping—A Job Americans Won’t Do (But Mexicans Will)By Brenda WalkerIt's one ugly picture when the elected government of even a shabby democracy cannot put down a bunch of criminals using its army, with 40,000 troops now deployed. Behind closed doors, elites from Mexico City to Washington must be increasingly nervous about the failure of Presidente Felipe Calderon's military offensive of more than a year's length against the drug cartels. The $1.4 billion Merida Initiative of crime-fighting goodies for Mexico was one indication of Congress' fear of a failed state next door—think Colombia with a dash of Somalia added. Americans must pay attention to the country-sized crack-house on our southern border. Calderon had made public safety a major issue in his presidential campaign. There is widespread fear of crime among average Mexicans. But the bodies are piling up and the crimes are becoming more brazen. The death toll in Juarez alone is over 800 this year. High-ranking police have been assassinated by the cartels. Others have fled to the US, pleading for asylum. If there is any sign of success in Mexico's battle against the chaos of gangocracy, I don't see it. In fact, a high-ranking official in the attorney general's office resigned earlier this summer over poor performance in the efforts against the cartels. The Mexican elite has clung to weak criminal punishment in a stubborn attempt to act more like permissive Europe and less like the despised Americans, who are seen as being too tough on crime. But there are indications that ordinary Mexicans, who face more dangerous streets, would be perfectly happy with tougher sentencing, as well as better policing. (A stunning 97 percent of crimes go unsolved.) Any realistic crackdown on crime would include an array of punishments that might actually deter criminals—long stretches in the slammer, with the option of life in prison for the worst offenses. But Mexico is noticeably slow on the uptake about the relationship between crime and punishment. Kidnappings are up 9.1 percent in the first five months of this year. The June kidnapping and subsequent murder of Fernando Marti, the 14-year-old son of wealthy businessman, appears to have focused Mexican public attention more than the border carnage. It was an awful crime by any measure. The boy had been snatched when the armored vehicle in which he was riding was apparently stopped at a police checkpoint. The two bodyguards were ordered out and taken away. The driver was tortured to death, with all of his teeth pulled out, and the other guard was choked, left for dead, but survived and has provided important information. The Marti family quietly paid $2 million dollars in ransom. But when two months of waiting failed, they turned to the press and openly advertised a larger amount for Fernando's safe release. It was not to be. The boy's body was found stuffed in a trunk August 1. He had been dead for at least a month. The traumatic crime was worsened in the public mind by the fact that some of those arrested so far are police officers. The growing distrust of police has caused kidnap victim families to turn to authorities last.
"An entire industry, much of it unregulated, has grown up around kidnapping, with consultants to negotiate the ransom, insurance policies to cover any ransom losses and an array of safety measures, available to those who can pay, from bodyguards with military backgrounds to bulletproofing on cars and clothing.
Given the involvement of some wayward officers in the kidnapping trade, it is easy to see why victims' relatives look outside police forces in trying to bring such nightmares to an end." [A Boy’s Killing Prods a City to Stand Up to Kidnappers, By Marc Lacey And Antonio Betancourt, New York Times, August 14, 2008] A significant indicator of desperation was Calderon's suggestion that punishment be stiffened after this crime. [Mexico: President Seeks Tougher Kidnapping Penalties, Reuters, August 7, 2008]. Mexico's problem is not just the worsening crime; it is the public losing trust that the government is acting to protect its basic safety. This is the mechanism by which civil society fails. The wealthy have more choices, of course:
"A business leader who survived a kidnapping and asked not to be named told TIME: 'What are we to do? Get the Israelis as bodyguards? Somebody else was mentioning using American Special Forces, as they are being demobilized and are more serious. Do we have to have our own paramilitary forces? We have to be organized, as the government obviously is not. I am sending my family to the U.S.' His sentiments are common in gatherings of the wealthy, where options under discussion range from emigration to buying a smaller house and less ostentatious car—and, of course, investing more heavily in private security." [No Help for Mexico's Kidnapping Surge, Time Magazine, August 08, 2008] Nice that this “business leader” has faith in the United States to keep his family safe. Of course, our police are mostly top notch—not like those crooks with badges in Mexico.But a law-respecting society is built upon the shared responsibility of citizens, not merely a dependence on police to make law and order work. And you have to wonder at what point the Mexican Way of Crime will become fully ensconced at the same level here—simply because so many Mexicans now live in the U.S. When tens of millions of Mexicans "move" en masse to America, the whole cultural package arrives. And that includes crime. The idea that "good" Mexicans can be protected from "bad" ones has its limits. It’s already happening. Rich Mexicans (and anyone else) living in the United States are sparkly lures to people snatchers, both expert and beginners. As noted earlier in VDARE.com, Mexican-style kidnapping has arrived. In San Diego, a Mexican businessman was grabbed and held for money by a several men. In Florida last year, 13-year-old Clay Moore was kidnapped from a school bus stop by one Mexican, but managed to escape using his ingenuity. Here's a chilling headline:
“Mexican drug gang turns to kidnapping in U.S. —Reuters, August 12, 2008
“TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) - American businesswoman Veronica was stepping out of her car in California when two men forced her into the passenger seat at gunpoint, pushed her teenage daughter into the back and drove them into Mexico.
“Taking advantage of lax Mexican security at the San Diego border, and with U.S. authorities focused mainly on those entering the United States, the kidnappers took the two women to Tijuana in January and held them for a month before their family paid a $100,000 ransom. [...]
“Several Americans have also been kidnapped in Texas this year and held for ransom in Mexico, the FBI said.”That's right—the new cool thing for Mexi-gangsters is "transnational kidnapping" because nobody checks cars going into Mexico. We already know that Mexican organized crime is here in America and has replaced Colombia as the major drug trafficker in the hemisphere, to the point where at least 195 American cities have Mexican cartels operating in them. There's every reason to assume that the narco-criminals are expanding their portfolios to other money-making pursuits in which they have expertise—namely, kidnapping.
"[Independent consultant Georgina] Sanchez said kidnapping in the United States could be particularly attractive to the cartels because they may be able to demand more money than they do in Mexico.
"’The US will begin to see a little of the same conflict that is happening in Mexico,’ Sanchez said. ‘If [the cartels] already have methods, and ways of diversifying into other crimes, it's normal that they won't stop at the border.’" [Mexican drug cartels now doing business on US soil, Boston Globe, August 3, 2008] The big question: Why isn't Washington doing something about the threat posed by Mexican anarchy? Or perhaps a better question is: Why don't policies correspond to the real danger? Among elite law enforcement and government policy makers, there is plenty of the "partnering" transnational philosophy of policing. But common sense tells us to lock our own front door before cleaning out the crack house across town. Our sovereign borders should be our first line of defense against a world of diverse criminals. Job #1 for Washington should be: crime prevention—by keeping out the bad guys. Brenda Walker (email her) lives in Northern California and publishes two websites, LimitsToGrowth.org and ImmigrationsHumanCost.org. Her favorite part of the Olympics has been the Great Wall of China.
Kidnapping—A Job Americans Won’t Do (But Mexicans Will)By Brenda WalkerIt's one ugly picture when the elected government of even a shabby democracy cannot put down a bunch of criminals using its army, with 40,000 troops now deployed. Behind closed doors, elites from Mexico City to Washington must be increasingly nervous about the failure of Presidente Felipe Calderon's military offensive of more than a year's length against the drug cartels. The $1.4 billion Merida Initiative of crime-fighting goodies for Mexico was one indication of Congress' fear of a failed state next door—think Colombia with a dash of Somalia added. Americans must pay attention to the country-sized crack-house on our southern border. Calderon had made public safety a major issue in his presidential campaign. There is widespread fear of crime among average Mexicans. But the bodies are piling up and the crimes are becoming more brazen. The death toll in Juarez alone is over 800 this year. High-ranking police have been assassinated by the cartels. Others have fled to the US, pleading for asylum. If there is any sign of success in Mexico's battle against the chaos of gangocracy, I don't see it. In fact, a high-ranking official in the attorney general's office resigned earlier this summer over poor performance in the efforts against the cartels. The Mexican elite has clung to weak criminal punishment in a stubborn attempt to act more like permissive Europe and less like the despised Americans, who are seen as being too tough on crime. But there are indications that ordinary Mexicans, who face more dangerous streets, would be perfectly happy with tougher sentencing, as well as better policing. (A stunning 97 percent of crimes go unsolved.) Any realistic crackdown on crime would include an array of punishments that might actually deter criminals—long stretches in the slammer, with the option of life in prison for the worst offenses. But Mexico is noticeably slow on the uptake about the relationship between crime and punishment. Kidnappings are up 9.1 percent in the first five months of this year. The June kidnapping and subsequent murder of Fernando Marti, the 14-year-old son of wealthy businessman, appears to have focused Mexican public attention more than the border carnage. It was an awful crime by any measure. The boy had been snatched when the armored vehicle in which he was riding was apparently stopped at a police checkpoint. The two bodyguards were ordered out and taken away. The driver was tortured to death, with all of his teeth pulled out, and the other guard was choked, left for dead, but survived and has provided important information. The Marti family quietly paid $2 million dollars in ransom. But when two months of waiting failed, they turned to the press and openly advertised a larger amount for Fernando's safe release. It was not to be. The boy's body was found stuffed in a trunk August 1. He had been dead for at least a month. The traumatic crime was worsened in the public mind by the fact that some of those arrested so far are police officers. The growing distrust of police has caused kidnap victim families to turn to authorities last.
"An entire industry, much of it unregulated, has grown up around kidnapping, with consultants to negotiate the ransom, insurance policies to cover any ransom losses and an array of safety measures, available to those who can pay, from bodyguards with military backgrounds to bulletproofing on cars and clothing.
Given the involvement of some wayward officers in the kidnapping trade, it is easy to see why victims' relatives look outside police forces in trying to bring such nightmares to an end." [A Boy’s Killing Prods a City to Stand Up to Kidnappers, By Marc Lacey And Antonio Betancourt, New York Times, August 14, 2008] A significant indicator of desperation was Calderon's suggestion that punishment be stiffened after this crime. [Mexico: President Seeks Tougher Kidnapping Penalties, Reuters, August 7, 2008]. Mexico's problem is not just the worsening crime; it is the public losing trust that the government is acting to protect its basic safety. This is the mechanism by which civil society fails. The wealthy have more choices, of course:
"A business leader who survived a kidnapping and asked not to be named told TIME: 'What are we to do? Get the Israelis as bodyguards? Somebody else was mentioning using American Special Forces, as they are being demobilized and are more serious. Do we have to have our own paramilitary forces? We have to be organized, as the government obviously is not. I am sending my family to the U.S.' His sentiments are common in gatherings of the wealthy, where options under discussion range from emigration to buying a smaller house and less ostentatious car—and, of course, investing more heavily in private security." [No Help for Mexico's Kidnapping Surge, Time Magazine, August 08, 2008] Nice that this “business leader” has faith in the United States to keep his family safe. Of course, our police are mostly top notch—not like those crooks with badges in Mexico.But a law-respecting society is built upon the shared responsibility of citizens, not merely a dependence on police to make law and order work. And you have to wonder at what point the Mexican Way of Crime will become fully ensconced at the same level here—simply because so many Mexicans now live in the U.S. When tens of millions of Mexicans "move" en masse to America, the whole cultural package arrives. And that includes crime. The idea that "good" Mexicans can be protected from "bad" ones has its limits. It’s already happening. Rich Mexicans (and anyone else) living in the United States are sparkly lures to people snatchers, both expert and beginners. As noted earlier in VDARE.com, Mexican-style kidnapping has arrived. In San Diego, a Mexican businessman was grabbed and held for money by a several men. In Florida last year, 13-year-old Clay Moore was kidnapped from a school bus stop by one Mexican, but managed to escape using his ingenuity. Here's a chilling headline:
“Mexican drug gang turns to kidnapping in U.S. —Reuters, August 12, 2008
“TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) - American businesswoman Veronica was stepping out of her car in California when two men forced her into the passenger seat at gunpoint, pushed her teenage daughter into the back and drove them into Mexico.
“Taking advantage of lax Mexican security at the San Diego border, and with U.S. authorities focused mainly on those entering the United States, the kidnappers took the two women to Tijuana in January and held them for a month before their family paid a $100,000 ransom. [...]
“Several Americans have also been kidnapped in Texas this year and held for ransom in Mexico, the FBI said.”That's right—the new cool thing for Mexi-gangsters is "transnational kidnapping" because nobody checks cars going into Mexico. We already know that Mexican organized crime is here in America and has replaced Colombia as the major drug trafficker in the hemisphere, to the point where at least 195 American cities have Mexican cartels operating in them. There's every reason to assume that the narco-criminals are expanding their portfolios to other money-making pursuits in which they have expertise—namely, kidnapping.
"[Independent consultant Georgina] Sanchez said kidnapping in the United States could be particularly attractive to the cartels because they may be able to demand more money than they do in Mexico.
"’The US will begin to see a little of the same conflict that is happening in Mexico,’ Sanchez said. ‘If [the cartels] already have methods, and ways of diversifying into other crimes, it's normal that they won't stop at the border.’" [Mexican drug cartels now doing business on US soil, Boston Globe, August 3, 2008] The big question: Why isn't Washington doing something about the threat posed by Mexican anarchy? Or perhaps a better question is: Why don't policies correspond to the real danger? Among elite law enforcement and government policy makers, there is plenty of the "partnering" transnational philosophy of policing. But common sense tells us to lock our own front door before cleaning out the crack house across town. Our sovereign borders should be our first line of defense against a world of diverse criminals. Job #1 for Washington should be: crime prevention—by keeping out the bad guys. Brenda Walker (email her) lives in Northern California and publishes two websites, LimitsToGrowth.org and ImmigrationsHumanCost.org. Her favorite part of the Olympics has been the Great Wall of China.
Mexican Kidnapping
wanted to send this article which talks about a kidnapping in Mexico. There is also a link in the story to the El Paso Times www.elpasotimes.com which puts the Juarez death count at 800 this year as well as some other interesting links. Anyway, I hope you find this interesting and forward it to whoever you like.
Kidnapping—A Job Americans Won’t Do (But Mexicans Will)By Brenda WalkerIt's one ugly picture when the elected government of even a shabby democracy cannot put down a bunch of criminals using its army, with 40,000 troops now deployed. Behind closed doors, elites from Mexico City to Washington must be increasingly nervous about the failure of Presidente Felipe Calderon's military offensive of more than a year's length against the drug cartels. The $1.4 billion Merida Initiative of crime-fighting goodies for Mexico was one indication of Congress' fear of a failed state next door—think Colombia with a dash of Somalia added. Americans must pay attention to the country-sized crack-house on our southern border. Calderon had made public safety a major issue in his presidential campaign. There is widespread fear of crime among average Mexicans. But the bodies are piling up and the crimes are becoming more brazen. The death toll in Juarez alone is over 800 this year. High-ranking police have been assassinated by the cartels. Others have fled to the US, pleading for asylum. If there is any sign of success in Mexico's battle against the chaos of gangocracy, I don't see it. In fact, a high-ranking official in the attorney general's office resigned earlier this summer over poor performance in the efforts against the cartels. The Mexican elite has clung to weak criminal punishment in a stubborn attempt to act more like permissive Europe and less like the despised Americans, who are seen as being too tough on crime. But there are indications that ordinary Mexicans, who face more dangerous streets, would be perfectly happy with tougher sentencing, as well as better policing. (A stunning 97 percent of crimes go unsolved.) Any realistic crackdown on crime would include an array of punishments that might actually deter criminals—long stretches in the slammer, with the option of life in prison for the worst offenses. But Mexico is noticeably slow on the uptake about the relationship between crime and punishment. Kidnappings are up 9.1 percent in the first five months of this year. The June kidnapping and subsequent murder of Fernando Marti, the 14-year-old son of wealthy businessman, appears to have focused Mexican public attention more than the border carnage. It was an awful crime by any measure. The boy had been snatched when the armored vehicle in which he was riding was apparently stopped at a police checkpoint. The two bodyguards were ordered out and taken away. The driver was tortured to death, with all of his teeth pulled out, and the other guard was choked, left for dead, but survived and has provided important information. The Marti family quietly paid $2 million dollars in ransom. But when two months of waiting failed, they turned to the press and openly advertised a larger amount for Fernando's safe release. It was not to be. The boy's body was found stuffed in a trunk August 1. He had been dead for at least a month. The traumatic crime was worsened in the public mind by the fact that some of those arrested so far are police officers. The growing distrust of police has caused kidnap victim families to turn to authorities last.
"An entire industry, much of it unregulated, has grown up around kidnapping, with consultants to negotiate the ransom, insurance policies to cover any ransom losses and an array of safety measures, available to those who can pay, from bodyguards with military backgrounds to bulletproofing on cars and clothing.
Given the involvement of some wayward officers in the kidnapping trade, it is easy to see why victims' relatives look outside police forces in trying to bring such nightmares to an end." [A Boy’s Killing Prods a City to Stand Up to Kidnappers, By Marc Lacey And Antonio Betancourt, New York Times, August 14, 2008] A significant indicator of desperation was Calderon's suggestion that punishment be stiffened after this crime. [Mexico: President Seeks Tougher Kidnapping Penalties, Reuters, August 7, 2008]. Mexico's problem is not just the worsening crime; it is the public losing trust that the government is acting to protect its basic safety. This is the mechanism by which civil society fails. The wealthy have more choices, of course:
"A business leader who survived a kidnapping and asked not to be named told TIME: 'What are we to do? Get the Israelis as bodyguards? Somebody else was mentioning using American Special Forces, as they are being demobilized and are more serious. Do we have to have our own paramilitary forces? We have to be organized, as the government obviously is not. I am sending my family to the U.S.' His sentiments are common in gatherings of the wealthy, where options under discussion range from emigration to buying a smaller house and less ostentatious car—and, of course, investing more heavily in private security." [No Help for Mexico's Kidnapping Surge, Time Magazine, August 08, 2008] Nice that this “business leader” has faith in the United States to keep his family safe. Of course, our police are mostly top notch—not like those crooks with badges in Mexico.But a law-respecting society is built upon the shared responsibility of citizens, not merely a dependence on police to make law and order work. And you have to wonder at what point the Mexican Way of Crime will become fully ensconced at the same level here—simply because so many Mexicans now live in the U.S. When tens of millions of Mexicans "move" en masse to America, the whole cultural package arrives. And that includes crime. The idea that "good" Mexicans can be protected from "bad" ones has its limits. It’s already happening. Rich Mexicans (and anyone else) living in the United States are sparkly lures to people snatchers, both expert and beginners. As noted earlier in VDARE.com, Mexican-style kidnapping has arrived. In San Diego, a Mexican businessman was grabbed and held for money by a several men. In Florida last year, 13-year-old Clay Moore was kidnapped from a school bus stop by one Mexican, but managed to escape using his ingenuity. Here's a chilling headline:
“Mexican drug gang turns to kidnapping in U.S. —Reuters, August 12, 2008
“TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) - American businesswoman Veronica was stepping out of her car in California when two men forced her into the passenger seat at gunpoint, pushed her teenage daughter into the back and drove them into Mexico.
“Taking advantage of lax Mexican security at the San Diego border, and with U.S. authorities focused mainly on those entering the United States, the kidnappers took the two women to Tijuana in January and held them for a month before their family paid a $100,000 ransom. [...]
“Several Americans have also been kidnapped in Texas this year and held for ransom in Mexico, the FBI said.”That's right—the new cool thing for Mexi-gangsters is "transnational kidnapping" because nobody checks cars going into Mexico. We already know that Mexican organized crime is here in America and has replaced Colombia as the major drug trafficker in the hemisphere, to the point where at least 195 American cities have Mexican cartels operating in them. There's every reason to assume that the narco-criminals are expanding their portfolios to other money-making pursuits in which they have expertise—namely, kidnapping.
"[Independent consultant Georgina] Sanchez said kidnapping in the United States could be particularly attractive to the cartels because they may be able to demand more money than they do in Mexico.
"’The US will begin to see a little of the same conflict that is happening in Mexico,’ Sanchez said. ‘If [the cartels] already have methods, and ways of diversifying into other crimes, it's normal that they won't stop at the border.’" [Mexican drug cartels now doing business on US soil, Boston Globe, August 3, 2008] The big question: Why isn't Washington doing something about the threat posed by Mexican anarchy? Or perhaps a better question is: Why don't policies correspond to the real danger? Among elite law enforcement and government policy makers, there is plenty of the "partnering" transnational philosophy of policing. But common sense tells us to lock our own front door before cleaning out the crack house across town. Our sovereign borders should be our first line of defense against a world of diverse criminals. Job #1 for Washington should be: crime prevention—by keeping out the bad guys. Brenda Walker (email her) lives in Northern California and publishes two websites, LimitsToGrowth.org and ImmigrationsHumanCost.org. Her favorite part of the Olympics has been the Great Wall of China.
Kidnapping—A Job Americans Won’t Do (But Mexicans Will)By Brenda WalkerIt's one ugly picture when the elected government of even a shabby democracy cannot put down a bunch of criminals using its army, with 40,000 troops now deployed. Behind closed doors, elites from Mexico City to Washington must be increasingly nervous about the failure of Presidente Felipe Calderon's military offensive of more than a year's length against the drug cartels. The $1.4 billion Merida Initiative of crime-fighting goodies for Mexico was one indication of Congress' fear of a failed state next door—think Colombia with a dash of Somalia added. Americans must pay attention to the country-sized crack-house on our southern border. Calderon had made public safety a major issue in his presidential campaign. There is widespread fear of crime among average Mexicans. But the bodies are piling up and the crimes are becoming more brazen. The death toll in Juarez alone is over 800 this year. High-ranking police have been assassinated by the cartels. Others have fled to the US, pleading for asylum. If there is any sign of success in Mexico's battle against the chaos of gangocracy, I don't see it. In fact, a high-ranking official in the attorney general's office resigned earlier this summer over poor performance in the efforts against the cartels. The Mexican elite has clung to weak criminal punishment in a stubborn attempt to act more like permissive Europe and less like the despised Americans, who are seen as being too tough on crime. But there are indications that ordinary Mexicans, who face more dangerous streets, would be perfectly happy with tougher sentencing, as well as better policing. (A stunning 97 percent of crimes go unsolved.) Any realistic crackdown on crime would include an array of punishments that might actually deter criminals—long stretches in the slammer, with the option of life in prison for the worst offenses. But Mexico is noticeably slow on the uptake about the relationship between crime and punishment. Kidnappings are up 9.1 percent in the first five months of this year. The June kidnapping and subsequent murder of Fernando Marti, the 14-year-old son of wealthy businessman, appears to have focused Mexican public attention more than the border carnage. It was an awful crime by any measure. The boy had been snatched when the armored vehicle in which he was riding was apparently stopped at a police checkpoint. The two bodyguards were ordered out and taken away. The driver was tortured to death, with all of his teeth pulled out, and the other guard was choked, left for dead, but survived and has provided important information. The Marti family quietly paid $2 million dollars in ransom. But when two months of waiting failed, they turned to the press and openly advertised a larger amount for Fernando's safe release. It was not to be. The boy's body was found stuffed in a trunk August 1. He had been dead for at least a month. The traumatic crime was worsened in the public mind by the fact that some of those arrested so far are police officers. The growing distrust of police has caused kidnap victim families to turn to authorities last.
"An entire industry, much of it unregulated, has grown up around kidnapping, with consultants to negotiate the ransom, insurance policies to cover any ransom losses and an array of safety measures, available to those who can pay, from bodyguards with military backgrounds to bulletproofing on cars and clothing.
Given the involvement of some wayward officers in the kidnapping trade, it is easy to see why victims' relatives look outside police forces in trying to bring such nightmares to an end." [A Boy’s Killing Prods a City to Stand Up to Kidnappers, By Marc Lacey And Antonio Betancourt, New York Times, August 14, 2008] A significant indicator of desperation was Calderon's suggestion that punishment be stiffened after this crime. [Mexico: President Seeks Tougher Kidnapping Penalties, Reuters, August 7, 2008]. Mexico's problem is not just the worsening crime; it is the public losing trust that the government is acting to protect its basic safety. This is the mechanism by which civil society fails. The wealthy have more choices, of course:
"A business leader who survived a kidnapping and asked not to be named told TIME: 'What are we to do? Get the Israelis as bodyguards? Somebody else was mentioning using American Special Forces, as they are being demobilized and are more serious. Do we have to have our own paramilitary forces? We have to be organized, as the government obviously is not. I am sending my family to the U.S.' His sentiments are common in gatherings of the wealthy, where options under discussion range from emigration to buying a smaller house and less ostentatious car—and, of course, investing more heavily in private security." [No Help for Mexico's Kidnapping Surge, Time Magazine, August 08, 2008] Nice that this “business leader” has faith in the United States to keep his family safe. Of course, our police are mostly top notch—not like those crooks with badges in Mexico.But a law-respecting society is built upon the shared responsibility of citizens, not merely a dependence on police to make law and order work. And you have to wonder at what point the Mexican Way of Crime will become fully ensconced at the same level here—simply because so many Mexicans now live in the U.S. When tens of millions of Mexicans "move" en masse to America, the whole cultural package arrives. And that includes crime. The idea that "good" Mexicans can be protected from "bad" ones has its limits. It’s already happening. Rich Mexicans (and anyone else) living in the United States are sparkly lures to people snatchers, both expert and beginners. As noted earlier in VDARE.com, Mexican-style kidnapping has arrived. In San Diego, a Mexican businessman was grabbed and held for money by a several men. In Florida last year, 13-year-old Clay Moore was kidnapped from a school bus stop by one Mexican, but managed to escape using his ingenuity. Here's a chilling headline:
“Mexican drug gang turns to kidnapping in U.S. —Reuters, August 12, 2008
“TIJUANA, Mexico (Reuters) - American businesswoman Veronica was stepping out of her car in California when two men forced her into the passenger seat at gunpoint, pushed her teenage daughter into the back and drove them into Mexico.
“Taking advantage of lax Mexican security at the San Diego border, and with U.S. authorities focused mainly on those entering the United States, the kidnappers took the two women to Tijuana in January and held them for a month before their family paid a $100,000 ransom. [...]
“Several Americans have also been kidnapped in Texas this year and held for ransom in Mexico, the FBI said.”That's right—the new cool thing for Mexi-gangsters is "transnational kidnapping" because nobody checks cars going into Mexico. We already know that Mexican organized crime is here in America and has replaced Colombia as the major drug trafficker in the hemisphere, to the point where at least 195 American cities have Mexican cartels operating in them. There's every reason to assume that the narco-criminals are expanding their portfolios to other money-making pursuits in which they have expertise—namely, kidnapping.
"[Independent consultant Georgina] Sanchez said kidnapping in the United States could be particularly attractive to the cartels because they may be able to demand more money than they do in Mexico.
"’The US will begin to see a little of the same conflict that is happening in Mexico,’ Sanchez said. ‘If [the cartels] already have methods, and ways of diversifying into other crimes, it's normal that they won't stop at the border.’" [Mexican drug cartels now doing business on US soil, Boston Globe, August 3, 2008] The big question: Why isn't Washington doing something about the threat posed by Mexican anarchy? Or perhaps a better question is: Why don't policies correspond to the real danger? Among elite law enforcement and government policy makers, there is plenty of the "partnering" transnational philosophy of policing. But common sense tells us to lock our own front door before cleaning out the crack house across town. Our sovereign borders should be our first line of defense against a world of diverse criminals. Job #1 for Washington should be: crime prevention—by keeping out the bad guys. Brenda Walker (email her) lives in Northern California and publishes two websites, LimitsToGrowth.org and ImmigrationsHumanCost.org. Her favorite part of the Olympics has been the Great Wall of China.
Friday, August 15, 2008
Pat Buchanan - Great Domestic Patriot, but Foreign Policy???
I do like Buchanan's take on domestic issues. He is one of the few voices that will take on Obama this way and also one of the few people that talks about Mexico's invasion of the U.S. For this I would consider him a Great Patriot!
Unfortunately sometimes on foreign policy I disagree with him. He recently wrote a book saying that WWII was Churchill, not Hitler or Japan's fault, http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218829035&sr=1-1 which does make some good points, but minimizes the agression of the Axis. He also wrote a recent article here http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/08/15/blowback_from_bear-baiting that says innocent Russia was provoked into attacking Georgia. I do understand that Russia does have a paranoia about being surrounded by hostile enemies, but the 20th century was about Russia/the Soviet Union being an aggressor state, not acting out of defence.
In spite of this though, I do consider Pat Buchanan a Great Patriot! This book http://www.amazon.com/State-Emergency-Invasion-Conquest-America/dp/B0012F48DC/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in and this book http://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/B0002XH6SY/ref=pd_sim_b_3 are two of the Best books around for describing what is happening now in America!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25634
Unfortunately sometimes on foreign policy I disagree with him. He recently wrote a book saying that WWII was Churchill, not Hitler or Japan's fault, http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/030740515X/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1218829035&sr=1-1 which does make some good points, but minimizes the agression of the Axis. He also wrote a recent article here http://townhall.com/Columnists/PatrickJBuchanan/2008/08/15/blowback_from_bear-baiting that says innocent Russia was provoked into attacking Georgia. I do understand that Russia does have a paranoia about being surrounded by hostile enemies, but the 20th century was about Russia/the Soviet Union being an aggressor state, not acting out of defence.
In spite of this though, I do consider Pat Buchanan a Great Patriot! This book http://www.amazon.com/State-Emergency-Invasion-Conquest-America/dp/B0012F48DC/ref=tag_dpp_lp_edpp_ttl_in and this book http://www.amazon.com/Death-West-Populations-Immigrant-Civilization/dp/B0002XH6SY/ref=pd_sim_b_3 are two of the Best books around for describing what is happening now in America!
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=25634
Battle of Constantinope - 715 A.D.
Since there is currently a war going on in the Black Sea area. I wanted to send you this article which describes another battle that happend over 1000 years ago in the area. If you are a history buff , then you might find this interesting.
Raymond Ibrahim: Today in History, Constantinople saves Western Civilization from IslamSince certain Muslim media are fond of rehashing old history, reminding Muslims of the “atrocities” committed by the hated Crusader—past and present—it seems only logical that we here in the West also remember the past. Today in history, Christendom secured a great victory over Islam—one that is responsible for the very existence of Western civilization.The year was 715, and one Suleiman had risen to the caliphate. He immediately made it clear that he would be the one Muslim who would fulfill Muhammad’s prophecy that Constantinople would eventually be subsumed into the umma. After spending nearly two years mustering the Muslims and preparing a massive navy, he unleashed the full might of the caliphate: the chroniclers say that 120,000 infantry and cavalry, along with 80,000 seamen, were sent to seal Constantinople’s fate. To further give his “blessing” to this campaign, and evincing how seriously he took it, he appointed his own brother, Maslama, at the head of the land army.While making their way through that great desolate no-man’s land between the Byzantine and Umayyad empires, where certain Turkic tribes (then mushrikin) frequented the region, the Muslims would often wait till near dawn, and then shout in mass “Allahu Akbar!” (God is greatest), attacking and slaying all in their path. According to the Muslim chronicler al-Tabari, “The inhabitants of the city were filled with terror the likes of which they had never experienced before. All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Allah planted terror in their hearts…. The men were crucified over the course of 24 km.” (Al-Tabari, goes on to explain that they did so, and were successful, in accordance to Koranic verse 3:151: “We shall cast terror into the hearts of infidels!”)Continue reading "Raymond Ibrahim: Today in History, Constantinople saves Western Civilization from Islam"
Raymond Ibrahim: Today in History, Constantinople saves Western Civilization from IslamSince certain Muslim media are fond of rehashing old history, reminding Muslims of the “atrocities” committed by the hated Crusader—past and present—it seems only logical that we here in the West also remember the past. Today in history, Christendom secured a great victory over Islam—one that is responsible for the very existence of Western civilization.The year was 715, and one Suleiman had risen to the caliphate. He immediately made it clear that he would be the one Muslim who would fulfill Muhammad’s prophecy that Constantinople would eventually be subsumed into the umma. After spending nearly two years mustering the Muslims and preparing a massive navy, he unleashed the full might of the caliphate: the chroniclers say that 120,000 infantry and cavalry, along with 80,000 seamen, were sent to seal Constantinople’s fate. To further give his “blessing” to this campaign, and evincing how seriously he took it, he appointed his own brother, Maslama, at the head of the land army.While making their way through that great desolate no-man’s land between the Byzantine and Umayyad empires, where certain Turkic tribes (then mushrikin) frequented the region, the Muslims would often wait till near dawn, and then shout in mass “Allahu Akbar!” (God is greatest), attacking and slaying all in their path. According to the Muslim chronicler al-Tabari, “The inhabitants of the city were filled with terror the likes of which they had never experienced before. All they saw were Muslims in their midst screaming ‘Allahu Akbar!’ Allah planted terror in their hearts…. The men were crucified over the course of 24 km.” (Al-Tabari, goes on to explain that they did so, and were successful, in accordance to Koranic verse 3:151: “We shall cast terror into the hearts of infidels!”)Continue reading "Raymond Ibrahim: Today in History, Constantinople saves Western Civilization from Islam"
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Breaking Dawn - What Teenage Girls are Reading.
I wanted to send this article which shows what teenage girls are reading. The article sumarizes one of the bestsellers by describing it as a book with morality, but also with occultic creatures like vampires and werewolves.
If you want to know more of this teenage culture, read this article about Goths and Emos here http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt19/goths.htm
and definititely subscribe to this blog here!
True Love Waits
By DONNA FREITAS
August 8, 2008; Page W9
Last Friday at midnight, thousands of teenage girls lined up at bookstores all over the country to get a copy of "Breaking Dawn," the much anticipated fourth and last novel in Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series. In the months leading up to the midnight festivities, Ms. Meyer was dubbed the new J.K. Rowling by Time magazine and USA Today and made countless appearances to feed the frenzy among her adoring public. The book's publisher, Little, Brown, did a startling first print run of 3.2 million copies. A four-city "Breaking Dawn" concert tour starring Ms. Meyer and Justin Furstenfeld of the band Blue October -- whose music inspired some of Ms. Meyer's storytelling -- launched in New York on Friday at 7 p.m. (and was simulcast by Entertainment Weekly). And the first Twilight movie will come out in December.
Christopher Serra
But what exactly does Stephenie Meyer, a young, Mormon mother of three, offer that has girls everywhere swooning? And their moms, too?
For the uninitiated, the four Meyer novels -- "Twilight," "New Moon," "Eclipse" and now "Breaking Dawn" -- tell the story of a regular girl, Isabella Swan, who falls in love with a not-so- regular boy, Edward Cullen. Edward is a vampire. New to the perpetually rainy town of Forks, Wash., Bella immediately falls for the pale and shockingly beautiful Edward -- who does everything in his power to resist his attraction to Bella. Edward has long fed only on animals, not humans, but his thirst for Bella's blood is beyond intense. Neither, it turns out, can stay away from the other, and what follows is a page-turning saga, a portrait of adolescent desire and first love at its most powerful and tender.
Bella and Edward find themselves "unconditionally and irrevocably in love," as Ms. Meyer writes. Despite this, there are barely more than a few passionate kisses in the series' first 1,700-or-so pages, and almost no kissing at all in its first 500. Rather, Bella and Edward are satisfied by nearness. An innocent touch of the hand feels "as if an electric current had passed through us," Bella explains at one point. Saying her beloved's name, Edward, is "a thrill" in and of itself. Edward's breath on Bella's face is a heady, intoxicating experience, and Edward is knocked nearly senseless by Bella's smell, which he describes as floral, "like lavender . . . or freesia." They are restless unless they are together. But when together, they create more sparks than either knows how to handle.
Oh, and then there's Jacob, Bella's best friend, also supernaturally beautiful (he's a werewolf) and in love with Bella -- creating a triangle that has fans declaring allegiances to one or the other of Bella's suitors. (Though Edward clearly wins the day.)
MORE
• See a video of Stephenie Meyer discussing her new book 'Breaking Dawn.'
• Read Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg's Author Q&A with Ms. Meyer.
• Listen to Ms. Meyer read an excerpt from 'Breaking Dawn.'
And here lies Ms. Meyer's secret. She knows that romantic tension is often better built with anticipation than action. That there is enough excitement in gazes, conversation, proximity and maybe a few stolen kisses to keep young lovers busy for years -- if they allow themselves to indulge in this slow kind of seduction.
Ms. Meyer's fans agree. This vampire love story has captured more than their hearts -- it has them demanding that young men behave like gentlemen. And it also has them waxing poetic about what sounds a lot like abstinence.
At the New York "Breaking Dawn" concert event, amid girls alternately chanting "Ed-ward! Ed-ward!" and "Steph-en-ie!" and screaming with excitement, one girl, Jordana, explained why she thought the relationship between Bella and Edward was so compelling and sexy, even though they never go further than kissing. "They are so perfect together and so into talking to each other and just being together, you don't even notice they don't kiss." Her friend Sarah added that "they show that you can have a perfect relationship without being physical."
Another pair of girls, Donna and Meghan, said they loved "the forbidden passion" laced throughout the series. (And, indeed, many girls wore T-shirts that said: "The forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest." This may be a reference to the cover art of the first book, which shows two hands holding an apple.) "Bella and Edward connect in ways other than with sex. They connect spiritually," Donna explained. "They just look at each other and sparks fly."
"It's not all physical," Meghan chimed in, saying once again a line I heard over and over from girls I interviewed. "I mean, Edward has been alive since 1901," Meghan continued. They both then stopped to do the math. "That's over 100 years and he's been waiting for Bella the whole time! He's never been with anyone else. That's the most romantic thing ever."
Teenage girls were not the only ones with a strong presence at the Twilight Party. Mom-fans from the online group TwilightMoms.com were out in full force, wearing T-shirts boasting their allegiance and excitedly talking about why the series is good for their daughters. "Edward is everything every high-school boy isn't," one said with conviction. This mother of a teenage girl went on to explain how boys "are only interested in booty calls, not romance," while the rest of the TwilightMoms nodded their heads in agreement. "Twilight shows girls that you can have the most intimate, romantic relationship of your life without any sex."
Another mother nearby had a litany of reasons why the series was good for girls. "Twilight helps girls realize they don't need to settle for anything less than what they really want," she began. "It teaches them to keep high standards. That there are guys that will treat them with respect. Girls today need to learn this, and they can learn it from this series."
When asked about the fact that there were almost no boys present at the event, this group of women said that they knew boys who had started to read the series because they realized that "to get the girls, they need to figure out Edward."
As clergy and parents and even a few teachers struggle to make a case for abstinence among the young, it may seem strange and unexpected that Ms. Meyer has served up one of the most compelling and effective arguments for abstinence in mainstream American culture -- through a teen vampire romance. It may also be that she is trying to stay true to her faith's teachings on sex even within her fiction. Regardless, Ms. Meyer has somehow made not having sex seem like the sexiest decision two people can make and has conveyed this effectively to her teenage audience.
Some of her young fans are hoping for a sex scene in "Breaking Dawn," however. As one girl told me: "I'm looking forward to Bella and Edward getting married so they can have sex." What a novel idea.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815501342422553.html?mod=taste_primary_hs
If you want to know more of this teenage culture, read this article about Goths and Emos here http://www.verticalthought.org/issues/vt19/goths.htm
and definititely subscribe to this blog here!
True Love Waits
By DONNA FREITAS
August 8, 2008; Page W9
Last Friday at midnight, thousands of teenage girls lined up at bookstores all over the country to get a copy of "Breaking Dawn," the much anticipated fourth and last novel in Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series. In the months leading up to the midnight festivities, Ms. Meyer was dubbed the new J.K. Rowling by Time magazine and USA Today and made countless appearances to feed the frenzy among her adoring public. The book's publisher, Little, Brown, did a startling first print run of 3.2 million copies. A four-city "Breaking Dawn" concert tour starring Ms. Meyer and Justin Furstenfeld of the band Blue October -- whose music inspired some of Ms. Meyer's storytelling -- launched in New York on Friday at 7 p.m. (and was simulcast by Entertainment Weekly). And the first Twilight movie will come out in December.
Christopher Serra
But what exactly does Stephenie Meyer, a young, Mormon mother of three, offer that has girls everywhere swooning? And their moms, too?
For the uninitiated, the four Meyer novels -- "Twilight," "New Moon," "Eclipse" and now "Breaking Dawn" -- tell the story of a regular girl, Isabella Swan, who falls in love with a not-so- regular boy, Edward Cullen. Edward is a vampire. New to the perpetually rainy town of Forks, Wash., Bella immediately falls for the pale and shockingly beautiful Edward -- who does everything in his power to resist his attraction to Bella. Edward has long fed only on animals, not humans, but his thirst for Bella's blood is beyond intense. Neither, it turns out, can stay away from the other, and what follows is a page-turning saga, a portrait of adolescent desire and first love at its most powerful and tender.
Bella and Edward find themselves "unconditionally and irrevocably in love," as Ms. Meyer writes. Despite this, there are barely more than a few passionate kisses in the series' first 1,700-or-so pages, and almost no kissing at all in its first 500. Rather, Bella and Edward are satisfied by nearness. An innocent touch of the hand feels "as if an electric current had passed through us," Bella explains at one point. Saying her beloved's name, Edward, is "a thrill" in and of itself. Edward's breath on Bella's face is a heady, intoxicating experience, and Edward is knocked nearly senseless by Bella's smell, which he describes as floral, "like lavender . . . or freesia." They are restless unless they are together. But when together, they create more sparks than either knows how to handle.
Oh, and then there's Jacob, Bella's best friend, also supernaturally beautiful (he's a werewolf) and in love with Bella -- creating a triangle that has fans declaring allegiances to one or the other of Bella's suitors. (Though Edward clearly wins the day.)
MORE
• See a video of Stephenie Meyer discussing her new book 'Breaking Dawn.'
• Read Jeffrey A. Trachtenberg's Author Q&A with Ms. Meyer.
• Listen to Ms. Meyer read an excerpt from 'Breaking Dawn.'
And here lies Ms. Meyer's secret. She knows that romantic tension is often better built with anticipation than action. That there is enough excitement in gazes, conversation, proximity and maybe a few stolen kisses to keep young lovers busy for years -- if they allow themselves to indulge in this slow kind of seduction.
Ms. Meyer's fans agree. This vampire love story has captured more than their hearts -- it has them demanding that young men behave like gentlemen. And it also has them waxing poetic about what sounds a lot like abstinence.
At the New York "Breaking Dawn" concert event, amid girls alternately chanting "Ed-ward! Ed-ward!" and "Steph-en-ie!" and screaming with excitement, one girl, Jordana, explained why she thought the relationship between Bella and Edward was so compelling and sexy, even though they never go further than kissing. "They are so perfect together and so into talking to each other and just being together, you don't even notice they don't kiss." Her friend Sarah added that "they show that you can have a perfect relationship without being physical."
Another pair of girls, Donna and Meghan, said they loved "the forbidden passion" laced throughout the series. (And, indeed, many girls wore T-shirts that said: "The forbidden fruit tastes the sweetest." This may be a reference to the cover art of the first book, which shows two hands holding an apple.) "Bella and Edward connect in ways other than with sex. They connect spiritually," Donna explained. "They just look at each other and sparks fly."
"It's not all physical," Meghan chimed in, saying once again a line I heard over and over from girls I interviewed. "I mean, Edward has been alive since 1901," Meghan continued. They both then stopped to do the math. "That's over 100 years and he's been waiting for Bella the whole time! He's never been with anyone else. That's the most romantic thing ever."
Teenage girls were not the only ones with a strong presence at the Twilight Party. Mom-fans from the online group TwilightMoms.com were out in full force, wearing T-shirts boasting their allegiance and excitedly talking about why the series is good for their daughters. "Edward is everything every high-school boy isn't," one said with conviction. This mother of a teenage girl went on to explain how boys "are only interested in booty calls, not romance," while the rest of the TwilightMoms nodded their heads in agreement. "Twilight shows girls that you can have the most intimate, romantic relationship of your life without any sex."
Another mother nearby had a litany of reasons why the series was good for girls. "Twilight helps girls realize they don't need to settle for anything less than what they really want," she began. "It teaches them to keep high standards. That there are guys that will treat them with respect. Girls today need to learn this, and they can learn it from this series."
When asked about the fact that there were almost no boys present at the event, this group of women said that they knew boys who had started to read the series because they realized that "to get the girls, they need to figure out Edward."
As clergy and parents and even a few teachers struggle to make a case for abstinence among the young, it may seem strange and unexpected that Ms. Meyer has served up one of the most compelling and effective arguments for abstinence in mainstream American culture -- through a teen vampire romance. It may also be that she is trying to stay true to her faith's teachings on sex even within her fiction. Regardless, Ms. Meyer has somehow made not having sex seem like the sexiest decision two people can make and has conveyed this effectively to her teenage audience.
Some of her young fans are hoping for a sex scene in "Breaking Dawn," however. As one girl told me: "I'm looking forward to Bella and Edward getting married so they can have sex." What a novel idea.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121815501342422553.html?mod=taste_primary_hs
Rania, a Saudi convert, killed by father
I wanted to send this article which shows how hard it is for anyone who calls themselves a Christian in Saudi Arabia even in the 21st century as this is not ancient history or the middle ages but something that happened currently. I do hope you find this interesting.
Saudi man cuts daughter's tongue, burns her to death
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022201.php#commentsHer crime? Converting to Christianity. "Saudi man kills daughter for converting to Christianity," by Mariam Al Hakeem for Zawya, August 13:
Riyadh: A Saudi man working with the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice recently killed his daughter for converting to Christianity.
According to sources close to the victim, the religious police member had cut the tongue of the girl and burned her to death following a heated debate on religion. The death of the girl sent shockwaves and websites where the victim used to write with various nick names have allocated special space to mourn her, while some others closed temporarily in protest. According to the Saudi Al Ukhdoud news website, the victim wrote an article on the blog of which she was a member under the nickname "Rania" a few days before her murder.Interesting choice of names. Was she inspired by Jordan's "hip" queen Rania -- the woman devoted to proving to the world that, among other things, honor/apostate killings are totally alien to Islam? Wonder who knows Islam better: the Saudi father (and member of the Commission for "Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice"), or shoulder-exposing, Western educated Rania (the queen, not incinerated girl)?
"She wrote that her life became an ordeal after her family members grew suspicious about her after a religious discussion with them. She said that her brother found some Christian articles written by her as well as a cross sign on her computer screen. Since then he started to insult her and blamed the internet for pushing her to change her religion. The "Free Copts" website published a message which it received from a friend of the victim, revealing that the killer is in police custody and that he is being investigated for an honour related crime. Saudi religious scholars have frequently warned against the dangers of Christian internet websites and satellite TV channels which attract Muslim youngsters to change their religion.Odd how one never hears Christian societies warning Christians from watching Muslim programs lest they convert in droves. Indeed, willing conversion is usually the last thing those who begin honestly searching into Islam are ever in danger of.
They decreed that watching these channels or browsing these websites which call for conversion to Christianity by various means is against the teachings of Islam.True that. The Islamic prophet did decree, "Whoever leaves his religion, kill him."
Saudi man cuts daughter's tongue, burns her to death
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/022201.php#commentsHer crime? Converting to Christianity. "Saudi man kills daughter for converting to Christianity," by Mariam Al Hakeem for Zawya, August 13:
Riyadh: A Saudi man working with the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice recently killed his daughter for converting to Christianity.
According to sources close to the victim, the religious police member had cut the tongue of the girl and burned her to death following a heated debate on religion. The death of the girl sent shockwaves and websites where the victim used to write with various nick names have allocated special space to mourn her, while some others closed temporarily in protest. According to the Saudi Al Ukhdoud news website, the victim wrote an article on the blog of which she was a member under the nickname "Rania" a few days before her murder.Interesting choice of names. Was she inspired by Jordan's "hip" queen Rania -- the woman devoted to proving to the world that, among other things, honor/apostate killings are totally alien to Islam? Wonder who knows Islam better: the Saudi father (and member of the Commission for "Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice"), or shoulder-exposing, Western educated Rania (the queen, not incinerated girl)?
"She wrote that her life became an ordeal after her family members grew suspicious about her after a religious discussion with them. She said that her brother found some Christian articles written by her as well as a cross sign on her computer screen. Since then he started to insult her and blamed the internet for pushing her to change her religion. The "Free Copts" website published a message which it received from a friend of the victim, revealing that the killer is in police custody and that he is being investigated for an honour related crime. Saudi religious scholars have frequently warned against the dangers of Christian internet websites and satellite TV channels which attract Muslim youngsters to change their religion.Odd how one never hears Christian societies warning Christians from watching Muslim programs lest they convert in droves. Indeed, willing conversion is usually the last thing those who begin honestly searching into Islam are ever in danger of.
They decreed that watching these channels or browsing these websites which call for conversion to Christianity by various means is against the teachings of Islam.True that. The Islamic prophet did decree, "Whoever leaves his religion, kill him."
Russia, Georgia, and America's Allies
I wanted to send you this commentary. The author makes the point that Russia is trying to send a message to its neighboring countries that they cannot count on the U.S. because it is war weary. If this is the case, it could mean that a lot of anti-American countries are going to possibly make land-grabs in the near future and possibly America's world influence could diminsh. This is one of the conclusions reached in our own church's book the U.S. and Britain in Bible Prophecy. Anyway, I hope you find this interesting.
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/US/punishtodestiny.htm
The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
August 12, 2008
By George Friedman
Related Special Topic Pages
Crisis in South Ossetia
U.S. Weakness and Russia’s Window of Opportunity
The Russian Resurgence
Kosovo, Russia and the WestThe Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.Let’s begin simply by reviewing the last few days.On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region’s absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.
(click image to enlarge)On Monday, the Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.
The Mystery Behind the Georgian InvasionIn this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that t he Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.
The Western Encirclement of RussiaTo understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire. That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.
The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored.From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn’t mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.
Resurrecting the Russian SpherePutin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria. Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington). In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.Tell Stratfor What You Think
http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/US/punishtodestiny.htm
The Russo-Georgian War and the Balance of Power
August 12, 2008
By George Friedman
Related Special Topic Pages
Crisis in South Ossetia
U.S. Weakness and Russia’s Window of Opportunity
The Russian Resurgence
Kosovo, Russia and the WestThe Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.Let’s begin simply by reviewing the last few days.On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region’s absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.
(click image to enlarge)On Monday, the Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.
The Mystery Behind the Georgian InvasionIn this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that t he Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.
The Western Encirclement of RussiaTo understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire. That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.
The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored.From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn’t mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.
Resurrecting the Russian SpherePutin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria. Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington). In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.Tell Stratfor What You Think
Why?
Click on the links in each sentence.
Q. Why did we need so many illegal immigrants?
A. To build all those McMansions out in the distant exurbs.
Q. Yes, but why did so many Americans want to move to the exurbs?
A. To escape all the illegal aliens flooding their neighborhoods and schools.
Q. Okay, so then why did we need so many illegal aliens?
A. To build all those McMansions out in the distant exurbs.
Q. Why did we need so many illegal immigrants?
A. To build all those McMansions out in the distant exurbs.
Q. Yes, but why did so many Americans want to move to the exurbs?
A. To escape all the illegal aliens flooding their neighborhoods and schools.
Q. Okay, so then why did we need so many illegal aliens?
A. To build all those McMansions out in the distant exurbs.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Sharia Credit Card
I wanted to send you this article which talks about a Sharia Credit Card. Sharia is Muslim law that also has rules that non-Muslims are also supposed to follow as dhimmis as described here http://jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/003260.php. I hope you find this interesting.
UK: at long last, Sharia-MasterCard makes its debutOne small step for Muslims, one giant leap for Islam. "Sharia-compliant MasterCard launch," from the Press Association, August 11:
The UK's first sharia-compliant prepaid MasterCard has been launched in London - dubbed the "Islamic financial centre of Europe".
I still prefer "Londonistan."
The Cordoba Gold MasterCard does not charge or receive interest as this is in direct conflict with sharia Law.[...]What about all those other "issues" with UK society that "are in direct conflict with sharia law" -- you know, like the proliferation of alcohol, homosexual rights, and the fact that Christians are not paying the jizya? All in due time, I suppose.
UK: at long last, Sharia-MasterCard makes its debutOne small step for Muslims, one giant leap for Islam. "Sharia-compliant MasterCard launch," from the Press Association, August 11:
The UK's first sharia-compliant prepaid MasterCard has been launched in London - dubbed the "Islamic financial centre of Europe".
I still prefer "Londonistan."
The Cordoba Gold MasterCard does not charge or receive interest as this is in direct conflict with sharia Law.[...]What about all those other "issues" with UK society that "are in direct conflict with sharia law" -- you know, like the proliferation of alcohol, homosexual rights, and the fact that Christians are not paying the jizya? All in due time, I suppose.
Georgia Update
previously sent out a Georgia Conflict Guide here http://brianleesblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/georgia-conflict-guide.html and I wanted to send this article because it shows some of the pictures of what is going on in that region so that we don't end up like Matthew 25's sleeping bridesmaids.
Georgia 'overrun' by Russian troops as full-scale ground invasion begins
By Daily Mail Reporter (pictures at this link)
Georgian officials tonight claimed the country had been 'overrun' by Russian troops after a full-scale ground invasion.Amid reports that Moscow forces had taken the town of Gori - and were marching on the capital Tsblisi - Georgian soldiers appeared to be in full retreat.Troops were apparently in complete chaos as a full-scale rout pushed them back through the countryside.Meanwhile, the civilian crisis intensified with thousands of refugees fleeing the seemingly unstoppable advance of the Russian army.
An unidentified Georgian woman cries after finding out that her child was killed in a neighbouring village, in the town of GoriAround 9,000 soldiers and 350 tanks had been massing at a base in the border region of Abkhazia throughout the day.But the huge force has now moved into Georgia proper, demolishing hopes of a rapid solution to an increasingly bitter conflict.The invasion comes as Gordon Brown urges Russia to call a ceasefire.The Prime Minister warned Russia there was 'no justification' for its military action in Georgia.
Residents of Gori wait to receive humanitarian aid from local authorities as Russia called today for Georgian forces to surrender in the separatist enclave of Abkhazia Mr Brown issued a strongly-worded statement after Georgia backed an EU peace plan for the breakaway province of South Ossetia amid continued fighting.'There is no justification for continued Russian military action in Georgia, which threatens the stability of the entire region and risks a humanitarian catastrophe,' he said.'There is an immediate and pressing need to end the fighting and disengage all military forces in South Ossetia. 'The Georgian government has offered a ceasefire, which I urge the Russians to reciprocate without delay.'Meanwhile, intense shelling continued in the breakaway region of South Ossetia where hostilities broke out last Friday.There were also conflicting reports that Russian troops had overrun the city of Gori while Georgian forces were concentrating on holding Mtskheta, 15 miles from the capital.
On the move: Russian troops wind along a road near the border between North and South Ossetia amid fears of a ground invasion
Retaliation: Russian forces secure the area in the Khurcha settlement in breakaway region of AbkhaziaEarlier in the day, Russian premier Vladimir Putin raised the stakes over the conflict by lashing out at the U.S. as the fighting continued to escalate in the region.
The Russian prime minister rejected calls from Georgia for a ceasefire and declared that his country would pursue its mission to its 'logical conclusion'.
A day after a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush in Beijing who expressed 'grave concern', Mr Putin accused the U.S. of siding with Georgia by ferrying Georgian troops from Iraq to the battle zone.
'It is a shame that some of our partners are not helping us but, essentially, are hindering us,' said Mr Putin. 'The very scale of this cynicism is astonishing.'
Russian Defence ministry spokeswoman Nana Intskerveli confirmed tanks had seized a Georgian military base in the western town of Senaki.
The statement indicated Russian troops had entered the region from a second rebel province of Abkhazia, where troops have been massing since the weekend.
There are concerns a new front away from South Ossetia could open up around Abkhazi, which would represent a major escalation in the conflict.
Thousands of troops, dozens of tanks and Hurricane multiple rocket launchers were seen pouring along roads to the south of Russia.
Russian warplanes also launched new attacks inside Georgia today, one on the outskirts of the capital and another on the Black Sea port of Poti. Officials in the breakaway region today claimed Georgian troops had also resumed shelling there after its calls for a ceasefire were ignored by Russia.
President Bush warned Mr Putin of his 'grave concern' about the 'disproportionate' military intervention at a face-to-face meeting in Beijing yesterday.His Vice-President Dick Cheney also personally called the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili over the weekend to reassure him his country has U.S backing.
Warning: U.S. President George W. Bush with Vladimir Putin in Beijing. Putin today lashed out in return, accusing the U.S. of helping GeorgiaAmid fears Moscow intends to seize the whole country to gain control of its crucial oil pipelines, Mr Cheney declared Russian military action 'must not go unanswered'.In a statement, he added: 'Its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader international community.'Russia appeared to be totally defying the U.S. warning today, with Georgia claiming up to 50 Russian jets were roaming its skies ready to strike.Mr Putin and Russian President, Dimitry Medvedev, attended a summit with senior generals at the Kremlin today for a council of war.President Medvedev announced later that its military operations in South Ossetia were 'nearing conclusion'.'A major part of operations to force the Georgian side, the Georgian authorities, into peace in South Ossetia has been completed.'
Loss: Family and friends of an Ossetian killed in the fighting in Tskhinvali weep at his funeral today
Safety: The first group of 95 Poles evacuated from Georgia arriving in Warsaw todayRussia was also reported to have sent more paratroopers into Abkhazia where it now has more than 9,000 soldiers as well as tanks and armoured vehicles.Georgia claimed Gen. Sergei Chaban, who is in charge of Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia, had warned their forces must disarm or face Russian troops there as well as in South Ossetia where the conflict began on Friday.A ground invasion launched from Abkhazia would be a drastic step, and almost impossible for Georgia to counter with most of its troops still near South Ossetia.It was also alleged dozens of Russian bombers were attacking targets inside Georgian territory, including around Tbilisi.
Bloodied: A woman lies injured in the ruins of an apartment block in Gori
Basic: The wounded stay in a hospital shelter in the South Ossetian capitalRussian officials said the air raids were targeting supply lines and military facilities and were not directed at civilians but one in Gori on Saturday killed more than 20 and wounded scores of others.Meanwhile NATO also joined the condemnation today, accusing Russia of using excessive force and violating Georgia's territory by taking the military action beyond South Ossetia.Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was 'seriously concerned about the disproportionate use of force by the Russians and the lack of respect for the territorial integrity of Georgia,' a spokesman said.'The military operations that we saw on Saturday and since then, including air and missile attacks, have no relation to and go well beyond the CIS peacekeeping operation.'But diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire were continuing with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner leading a delegation from the European Union asking for a 'controlled withdrawal of troops'.In further developments, Russia accused Georgia of killing three of its troops in the shelling on the South Ossetian capatal Tskhinvali and claimed another two of its planes had been shot down.
Support: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney (left) phoned Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili in person to offer America's backing to the regionA separate Council of Europe delegation lead by Sweden's foreign minister was also on its way to the Georgian capital for talks. Georgia claimed yesterday to have pulled out its troops from South Ossetia and was calling for a ceasefire.The demand was rejected by the Kremlin, which said it did not believe the Georgian forces had actually retreated.The region is an international flashpoint, given its vital position in terms of oil supplies which run from the Caspian Sea to Europe through the small country.It is feared the Kremlin could be using the conflict to disrupt fuel supplies, which would make the West even more dependent on Russian oil.The U.S. has refused to indicate what it may do if the fighting continues and Russia refuses to back down.
Anguish: A man cradles the body of a relative in the street after Russian planes bomb homes in Gori, killing five people
Two women attempt to sleep after taking refuge in the hospital shelterState-controlled Russian television claim more than 2,000 people have been killed in South Ossetia and thousands made homeless.And a Georgian government source said yesterday that 130 civilians and military personnel had been killed and 1,165 wounded, many because of Russian bombing.The smaller country's withdrawal from South Ossetia left Russian troops in control. Many towns were deserted with reports of 40,000 fleeing across the war zone.Some 50 ambulances were ferrying wounded Georgian troops from South Ossetia to hospitals in neighbouring cities, all of which were already overcrowded.
Enlarge Russian television showed Tskhinvali's main hospital in ruins and most of the more than 230 patients crammed into the basement.A few bare lightbulbs provided scant illumination and the report said the hospital had no ready supply of water.Some patients sat listlessly on beds jammed into a tiny, dim area with unfinished walls.
Fierce fighting: An injured soldier in the village of Dzhava
South Ossetians stay in a school shelter in the South Ossetian capital of TshinvaliRussia's Defence Ministry also claimed yesterday to have sunk a Georgian missile boat that was trying to attack its navy in the Black Sea.South Ossetia, which unlike Georgia proper, is loyal to Russia - provided the catalyst for the dispute.Pro-Moscow rebels provoked Georgia's president into ordering his troops into South Ossetia last week.Mr Putin's government then retaliated with a counter-offensive to seize back the disputed region.However, the escalation of violence has led to concerns that Russia could try to annex the entire country.'They want the whole of Georgia,' claimed President Saakashvili. 'The Russians need control over energy routes from central Asia and the Caspian Sea.'In addition, they want to get rid of us, they want regime change. Every democratic movement in this neighbouring region must be got rid of.'
Despair: A woman holding her baby cries at her damaged home in Gori Russian planes yesterday bombed the main civilian airport in the capital Tbilisi, which is used by British Airways and other Western airlines.A government official said the Russian air strike appeared to have been aimed at the nearby military airport and an aviation construction plant.'It turns out they hit both military and civilian airports,' the spokesman added.The attack came hours before the arrival of the French foreign minister on a peace mission. 'We don't want the conflict to spread in a region which is extremely volatile and dangerous,' Mr Kouchner told reporters.
Outnumbered: Georgian troops ride on a pick-up truckDespite the attempts of the international community to calm the crisis, Mr Putin was bullish last night, blaming Georgia for creating a 'humanitarian catastrophe'.He appeared on TV listening to two young women from an Ossetian village who claimed that Georgian soldiers herded 50 people into a house and burned them alive.One of them said: 'My friend was a witness of a Georgian tank driving over an elderly woman with two kids.'Putin replied: 'They are completely mad. It's genocide.' He later claimed that Georgia had lost the right to rule the region, implying the Russians were set for a long and probably permanent occupation of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.It is clear that Moscow is intent on severely hampering Georgia's military capability, which has been built up with Western help.Crucial strategic sites in the port of Poti, the city of Gori - staging post to South Ossetia - and around Tbilisi have been taken out by the Russian air force.Worst-hit was the capital of the separatist region, Tskhinvali, but death and devastation was wreaked across the region, as well as in cities in Georgia.
Walking wounded: An injured woman stands next to her bombarded home
Fleeing: Mother and son stare at the carnage as they are evacuatedWestern concerns about Moscow's desire to control the region's oil supply were yesterday gathering strength.While Georgia does not produce oil itself, U.S. and European energy firms have counted on the pro-Western country - sandwiched between Russia and Iran - to host a pipeline for oil and gas exports from Azerbaijan.The head of Azerbaijan's state oil company warned that exports had already been halted via the Georgian ports of Batumi and Kulevi due to the fighting.The announcement came shortly after Russian warplanes staged a raid near the 1,109-mile BTC pipeline, the world's second longest.BP, a partner in this project, was seeking information on the reports.Some analysts believe Russia provoked Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, knowing that the smaller country could not win the resulting conflict.Others say that Moscow was simply drawing a red line around areas with pro-Russian populations which it would not allow to be controlled by pro-Western states.The regions of Ossetia and Abkhazia are culturally and linguistically distinct from Georgia, and broke away from it during brief wars in the early 1990s.
CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM: COUNTRIES DEATH TOLLS
RUSSIA
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said on Sunday that more than 2,000 people, mostly Russian citizens, had died in the conflict zone.
On Saturday Russian Ambassador to Georgia Vyacheslav Kovalenko said at least 2,000 civilians had died in Tskhinvali alone as a result of fighting between Russian and Georgian forces, according to Interfax news agency. He said 13 Russian peacekeepers were killed and up to 70 injured in the fighting.
Sergei Sobyanin, the Russian government chief of staff, said 30,000 South Ossetian refugees had fled to Russia since early on Friday.
GEORGIA
Kakha Lomaia, the National Security Council secretary, said on Sunday that 40 civilians had been killed and more than 200 wounded but gave no details.
A source in the Georgian government told Reuters on Saturday 129 Georgian civilians and military were killed and 748 wounded.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said Russian aerial bombing had killed around 30 Georgian soldiers.SOUTH OSSETIA
South Ossetia's President Eduard Kokoity on Friday said about 1,400 people had died in Tskinvali.
ThreatsWatch has a set of excellent links.
If a vote on Russia's status is scheduled, we might see the promise of a ceasefire kept and a pull back of Russian troops. Pretending that Russia did not just mug Georgia will produce more muggings in the near future.
Georgian Humanitarian Relief
WorldVision is at work in Georgia assisting the huge number of refugees from the Russian aggression. Please consider helping our ally through this very effective relief organizati
Georgia 'overrun' by Russian troops as full-scale ground invasion begins
By Daily Mail Reporter (pictures at this link)
Georgian officials tonight claimed the country had been 'overrun' by Russian troops after a full-scale ground invasion.Amid reports that Moscow forces had taken the town of Gori - and were marching on the capital Tsblisi - Georgian soldiers appeared to be in full retreat.Troops were apparently in complete chaos as a full-scale rout pushed them back through the countryside.Meanwhile, the civilian crisis intensified with thousands of refugees fleeing the seemingly unstoppable advance of the Russian army.
An unidentified Georgian woman cries after finding out that her child was killed in a neighbouring village, in the town of GoriAround 9,000 soldiers and 350 tanks had been massing at a base in the border region of Abkhazia throughout the day.But the huge force has now moved into Georgia proper, demolishing hopes of a rapid solution to an increasingly bitter conflict.The invasion comes as Gordon Brown urges Russia to call a ceasefire.The Prime Minister warned Russia there was 'no justification' for its military action in Georgia.
Residents of Gori wait to receive humanitarian aid from local authorities as Russia called today for Georgian forces to surrender in the separatist enclave of Abkhazia Mr Brown issued a strongly-worded statement after Georgia backed an EU peace plan for the breakaway province of South Ossetia amid continued fighting.'There is no justification for continued Russian military action in Georgia, which threatens the stability of the entire region and risks a humanitarian catastrophe,' he said.'There is an immediate and pressing need to end the fighting and disengage all military forces in South Ossetia. 'The Georgian government has offered a ceasefire, which I urge the Russians to reciprocate without delay.'Meanwhile, intense shelling continued in the breakaway region of South Ossetia where hostilities broke out last Friday.There were also conflicting reports that Russian troops had overrun the city of Gori while Georgian forces were concentrating on holding Mtskheta, 15 miles from the capital.
On the move: Russian troops wind along a road near the border between North and South Ossetia amid fears of a ground invasion
Retaliation: Russian forces secure the area in the Khurcha settlement in breakaway region of AbkhaziaEarlier in the day, Russian premier Vladimir Putin raised the stakes over the conflict by lashing out at the U.S. as the fighting continued to escalate in the region.
The Russian prime minister rejected calls from Georgia for a ceasefire and declared that his country would pursue its mission to its 'logical conclusion'.
A day after a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush in Beijing who expressed 'grave concern', Mr Putin accused the U.S. of siding with Georgia by ferrying Georgian troops from Iraq to the battle zone.
'It is a shame that some of our partners are not helping us but, essentially, are hindering us,' said Mr Putin. 'The very scale of this cynicism is astonishing.'
Russian Defence ministry spokeswoman Nana Intskerveli confirmed tanks had seized a Georgian military base in the western town of Senaki.
The statement indicated Russian troops had entered the region from a second rebel province of Abkhazia, where troops have been massing since the weekend.
There are concerns a new front away from South Ossetia could open up around Abkhazi, which would represent a major escalation in the conflict.
Thousands of troops, dozens of tanks and Hurricane multiple rocket launchers were seen pouring along roads to the south of Russia.
Russian warplanes also launched new attacks inside Georgia today, one on the outskirts of the capital and another on the Black Sea port of Poti. Officials in the breakaway region today claimed Georgian troops had also resumed shelling there after its calls for a ceasefire were ignored by Russia.
President Bush warned Mr Putin of his 'grave concern' about the 'disproportionate' military intervention at a face-to-face meeting in Beijing yesterday.His Vice-President Dick Cheney also personally called the Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili over the weekend to reassure him his country has U.S backing.
Warning: U.S. President George W. Bush with Vladimir Putin in Beijing. Putin today lashed out in return, accusing the U.S. of helping GeorgiaAmid fears Moscow intends to seize the whole country to gain control of its crucial oil pipelines, Mr Cheney declared Russian military action 'must not go unanswered'.In a statement, he added: 'Its continuation would have serious consequences for its relations with the United States, as well as the broader international community.'Russia appeared to be totally defying the U.S. warning today, with Georgia claiming up to 50 Russian jets were roaming its skies ready to strike.Mr Putin and Russian President, Dimitry Medvedev, attended a summit with senior generals at the Kremlin today for a council of war.President Medvedev announced later that its military operations in South Ossetia were 'nearing conclusion'.'A major part of operations to force the Georgian side, the Georgian authorities, into peace in South Ossetia has been completed.'
Loss: Family and friends of an Ossetian killed in the fighting in Tskhinvali weep at his funeral today
Safety: The first group of 95 Poles evacuated from Georgia arriving in Warsaw todayRussia was also reported to have sent more paratroopers into Abkhazia where it now has more than 9,000 soldiers as well as tanks and armoured vehicles.Georgia claimed Gen. Sergei Chaban, who is in charge of Russian peacekeepers in Abkhazia, had warned their forces must disarm or face Russian troops there as well as in South Ossetia where the conflict began on Friday.A ground invasion launched from Abkhazia would be a drastic step, and almost impossible for Georgia to counter with most of its troops still near South Ossetia.It was also alleged dozens of Russian bombers were attacking targets inside Georgian territory, including around Tbilisi.
Bloodied: A woman lies injured in the ruins of an apartment block in Gori
Basic: The wounded stay in a hospital shelter in the South Ossetian capitalRussian officials said the air raids were targeting supply lines and military facilities and were not directed at civilians but one in Gori on Saturday killed more than 20 and wounded scores of others.Meanwhile NATO also joined the condemnation today, accusing Russia of using excessive force and violating Georgia's territory by taking the military action beyond South Ossetia.Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer was 'seriously concerned about the disproportionate use of force by the Russians and the lack of respect for the territorial integrity of Georgia,' a spokesman said.'The military operations that we saw on Saturday and since then, including air and missile attacks, have no relation to and go well beyond the CIS peacekeeping operation.'But diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire were continuing with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner leading a delegation from the European Union asking for a 'controlled withdrawal of troops'.In further developments, Russia accused Georgia of killing three of its troops in the shelling on the South Ossetian capatal Tskhinvali and claimed another two of its planes had been shot down.
Support: U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney (left) phoned Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili in person to offer America's backing to the regionA separate Council of Europe delegation lead by Sweden's foreign minister was also on its way to the Georgian capital for talks. Georgia claimed yesterday to have pulled out its troops from South Ossetia and was calling for a ceasefire.The demand was rejected by the Kremlin, which said it did not believe the Georgian forces had actually retreated.The region is an international flashpoint, given its vital position in terms of oil supplies which run from the Caspian Sea to Europe through the small country.It is feared the Kremlin could be using the conflict to disrupt fuel supplies, which would make the West even more dependent on Russian oil.The U.S. has refused to indicate what it may do if the fighting continues and Russia refuses to back down.
Anguish: A man cradles the body of a relative in the street after Russian planes bomb homes in Gori, killing five people
Two women attempt to sleep after taking refuge in the hospital shelterState-controlled Russian television claim more than 2,000 people have been killed in South Ossetia and thousands made homeless.And a Georgian government source said yesterday that 130 civilians and military personnel had been killed and 1,165 wounded, many because of Russian bombing.The smaller country's withdrawal from South Ossetia left Russian troops in control. Many towns were deserted with reports of 40,000 fleeing across the war zone.Some 50 ambulances were ferrying wounded Georgian troops from South Ossetia to hospitals in neighbouring cities, all of which were already overcrowded.
Enlarge Russian television showed Tskhinvali's main hospital in ruins and most of the more than 230 patients crammed into the basement.A few bare lightbulbs provided scant illumination and the report said the hospital had no ready supply of water.Some patients sat listlessly on beds jammed into a tiny, dim area with unfinished walls.
Fierce fighting: An injured soldier in the village of Dzhava
South Ossetians stay in a school shelter in the South Ossetian capital of TshinvaliRussia's Defence Ministry also claimed yesterday to have sunk a Georgian missile boat that was trying to attack its navy in the Black Sea.South Ossetia, which unlike Georgia proper, is loyal to Russia - provided the catalyst for the dispute.Pro-Moscow rebels provoked Georgia's president into ordering his troops into South Ossetia last week.Mr Putin's government then retaliated with a counter-offensive to seize back the disputed region.However, the escalation of violence has led to concerns that Russia could try to annex the entire country.'They want the whole of Georgia,' claimed President Saakashvili. 'The Russians need control over energy routes from central Asia and the Caspian Sea.'In addition, they want to get rid of us, they want regime change. Every democratic movement in this neighbouring region must be got rid of.'
Despair: A woman holding her baby cries at her damaged home in Gori Russian planes yesterday bombed the main civilian airport in the capital Tbilisi, which is used by British Airways and other Western airlines.A government official said the Russian air strike appeared to have been aimed at the nearby military airport and an aviation construction plant.'It turns out they hit both military and civilian airports,' the spokesman added.The attack came hours before the arrival of the French foreign minister on a peace mission. 'We don't want the conflict to spread in a region which is extremely volatile and dangerous,' Mr Kouchner told reporters.
Outnumbered: Georgian troops ride on a pick-up truckDespite the attempts of the international community to calm the crisis, Mr Putin was bullish last night, blaming Georgia for creating a 'humanitarian catastrophe'.He appeared on TV listening to two young women from an Ossetian village who claimed that Georgian soldiers herded 50 people into a house and burned them alive.One of them said: 'My friend was a witness of a Georgian tank driving over an elderly woman with two kids.'Putin replied: 'They are completely mad. It's genocide.' He later claimed that Georgia had lost the right to rule the region, implying the Russians were set for a long and probably permanent occupation of both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.It is clear that Moscow is intent on severely hampering Georgia's military capability, which has been built up with Western help.Crucial strategic sites in the port of Poti, the city of Gori - staging post to South Ossetia - and around Tbilisi have been taken out by the Russian air force.Worst-hit was the capital of the separatist region, Tskhinvali, but death and devastation was wreaked across the region, as well as in cities in Georgia.
Walking wounded: An injured woman stands next to her bombarded home
Fleeing: Mother and son stare at the carnage as they are evacuatedWestern concerns about Moscow's desire to control the region's oil supply were yesterday gathering strength.While Georgia does not produce oil itself, U.S. and European energy firms have counted on the pro-Western country - sandwiched between Russia and Iran - to host a pipeline for oil and gas exports from Azerbaijan.The head of Azerbaijan's state oil company warned that exports had already been halted via the Georgian ports of Batumi and Kulevi due to the fighting.The announcement came shortly after Russian warplanes staged a raid near the 1,109-mile BTC pipeline, the world's second longest.BP, a partner in this project, was seeking information on the reports.Some analysts believe Russia provoked Georgia's attack on South Ossetia, knowing that the smaller country could not win the resulting conflict.Others say that Moscow was simply drawing a red line around areas with pro-Russian populations which it would not allow to be controlled by pro-Western states.The regions of Ossetia and Abkhazia are culturally and linguistically distinct from Georgia, and broke away from it during brief wars in the early 1990s.
CLAIM AND COUNTERCLAIM: COUNTRIES DEATH TOLLS
RUSSIA
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said on Sunday that more than 2,000 people, mostly Russian citizens, had died in the conflict zone.
On Saturday Russian Ambassador to Georgia Vyacheslav Kovalenko said at least 2,000 civilians had died in Tskhinvali alone as a result of fighting between Russian and Georgian forces, according to Interfax news agency. He said 13 Russian peacekeepers were killed and up to 70 injured in the fighting.
Sergei Sobyanin, the Russian government chief of staff, said 30,000 South Ossetian refugees had fled to Russia since early on Friday.
GEORGIA
Kakha Lomaia, the National Security Council secretary, said on Sunday that 40 civilians had been killed and more than 200 wounded but gave no details.
A source in the Georgian government told Reuters on Saturday 129 Georgian civilians and military were killed and 748 wounded.
Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili said Russian aerial bombing had killed around 30 Georgian soldiers.SOUTH OSSETIA
South Ossetia's President Eduard Kokoity on Friday said about 1,400 people had died in Tskinvali.
ThreatsWatch has a set of excellent links.
If a vote on Russia's status is scheduled, we might see the promise of a ceasefire kept and a pull back of Russian troops. Pretending that Russia did not just mug Georgia will produce more muggings in the near future.
Georgian Humanitarian Relief
WorldVision is at work in Georgia assisting the huge number of refugees from the Russian aggression. Please consider helping our ally through this very effective relief organizati
Monday, August 11, 2008
Georgia: A Conflict Guide
I wanted to send you this article to explain what is happening in Georgia, Asia. Of course this is a "war and a rumor of a war" and this is also a something we should be watching to see what happens from it.
P.S. It might be interesting to reread our book below. http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/RV/finallyarrives.htm
Will Russia Get Away With It?
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
In August 1924, the small nation of Georgia, occupied by Soviet Russia since 1921, rose up against Soviet rule. On Sept. 16, 1924, The Times of London reported on an appeal by the president of the Georgian Republic to the League of Nations. While “sympathetic reference to his country’s efforts was made” in the Assembly, the Times said, “it is realized that the League is incapable of rendering material aid, and that the moral influence which may be a powerful force with civilized countries is unlikely to make any impression upon Soviet Russia.”
“Unlikely” was an understatement. Georgians did not enjoy freedom again until 1991.Today, the Vladimir Putins and Hu Jintaos and Mahmoud Ahmadinejads of the world — to say nothing of their junior counterparts in places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea — are no more likely than were Soviet leaders in 1924 to be swayed by “moral influence.” Dictators aren’t moved by the claims of justice unarmed; aggressors aren’t intimidated by diplomacy absent the credible threat of force; fanatics aren’t deterred by the disapproval of men of moderation or refinement.The good news is that today we don’t face threats of the magnitude of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Each of those regimes combined ruthless internal control, a willingness to engage in external aggression, and fervent adherence to an extreme ideology. Today these elements don’t coexist in one place. Russia is aggressive, China despotic and Iran messianic — but none is as dangerous as the 20th-century totalitarian states.The further good news is that 2008 has been, in one respect, an auspicious year for freedom and democracy. In Iraq, we and our Iraqi allies are on the verge of a strategic victory over the jihadists in what they have called the central front of their struggle. This joint victory has the potential to weaken the jihadist impulse throughout the Middle East.On the other hand, the ability of Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to get away with murder (literally), and above all the ability of Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions effectively unchecked, are setbacks for hopes of peace and progress.And there is no evidence that China’s hosting of the Olympics has led to moderation of its authoritarianism. Meanwhile, Russia has sent troops and tanks across an international border, and now seems to be widening its war against Georgia more than its original — and in any case illegitimate — casus belli would justify.Will the United States put real pressure on Russia to stop? In a news analysis on Sunday, the New York Times reporter Helene Cooper accurately captured what I gather is the prevailing view in our State Department: “While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries, Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia.”But Georgia, a nation of about 4.6 million, has had the third-largest military presence — about 2,000 troops — fighting along with U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq. For this reason alone, we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty. Surely we cannot simply stand by as an autocratic aggressor gobbles up part of — and perhaps destabilizes all of — a friendly democratic nation that we were sponsoring for NATO membership a few months ago.For that matter, consider the implications of our turning away from Georgia for other aspiring pro-Western governments in the neighborhood, like Ukraine’s. Shouldn’t we therefore now insist that normal relations with Russia are impossible as long as the aggression continues, strongly reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, and offer emergency military aid to Georgia?Incidentally, has Russia really been helping much on Iran? It has gone along with — while delaying — three United Nations Security Council resolutions that have imposed mild sanctions on Iran. But it has also supplied material for Iran’s nuclear program, and is now selling Iran antiaircraft systems to protect military and nuclear installations. It’s striking that dictatorial and aggressive and fanatical regimes — whatever their differences — seem happy to work together to weaken the influence of the United States and its democratic allies. So Russia helps Iran. Iran and North Korea help Syria. Russia and China block Security Council sanctions against Zimbabwe. China props up the regimes in Burma and North Korea.The United States, of course, is not without resources and allies to deal with these problems and threats. But at times we seem oddly timid and uncertain. When the “civilized world” expostulated with Russia about Georgia in 1924, the Soviet regime was still weak. In Germany, Hitler was in jail. Only 16 years later, Britain stood virtually alone against a Nazi-Soviet axis. Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?
War In Georgia: The Oil Angle
News reports indicate that Russia may have tried to bomb the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which runs through Georgia. If so, the bombs missed, and flow of oil through the pipeline was not interrupted. The BTC pipeline runs from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean coast of Turkey; note Russia to the north and Iran to the south:The BTC pipeline runs through Georgia, well south of South Ossetia:The pipeline, in which British Petroleum is the lead partner, can carry up to one million barrels of oil per day. It is of considerable strategic significance, as it is the only means by which countries in the region like Azerbaijan can get their oil into the international market without relying on Russia. The Daily Mail writes:
It is crucial to the world’s volatile energy market and the only oil and gas route that bypasses Russia’s stranglehold on energy exports from the region.In 2002, when the pipeline was being planned, the BBC reported:
BTC is said to be an effective alternative to Russia's pipeline network. ... [O]il experts believe political considerations played a major role in the choice of the route. American officials prefer a route that would weaken Russia's stranglehold on regional pipeline network and leave Iran on the sidelines. Local governments want less dependency on big regional powers, too."This pipeline is of strategic importance not only to Azerbaijan, but to the other new independent states as well", says Ilham Shaban, oil analyst in Baku. "This is a reliable way to the world markets. Take Turkmenistan with its huge resources of natural gas and no access to the world markets. As a result, The Turkmens have to sell their gas 2.5 times cheaper than the world price."Turkmenistan could join a gas pipeline which is likely to be built alongside BTC to the Turkish town of Erzurum.That natural gas pipeline has now been built immediately adjacent to the BTC oil pipeline and is called the South Caucasus Pipeline. It has a capacity of 16 billion cubic meters per year. Plans are now being laid to connect Turkmenistan's vast natural gas reserves to the SCP:
Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan are central to the EU’s plans to reduce its energy reliance on Russia which supplies a quarter of Europe’s needs. ... Both the Azeri and Turkmen leaders said they wanted to improve relations and diversify their export routes — a natural move, analysts said. The vast majority of Turkmenistan’s gas currently travels north to Europe through Russia’s network of pipes.Because the BTC pipeline gives the USSR's former breakaway republics a way to deliver their petroleum to the world market without relying on Russia, Russia "steadfastly opposed" its construction, recognizing that "the new conduit stands to severely weaken Russia’s grip on regional energy exports." For these reasons, it would be of enormous strategic benefit to Russia if it could reassert dominance over Georgia, or merely have an opportunity to demonstrate to Turkmenistan and Azerbaijain that any means of getting their petroleum products to market independent of Russia may be unreliable. These issues are a key subtext to Russia's conflict with Georgia and Georgia's desire to join NATO, and otherwise seek protection from the West.One can only imagine the astonishment and glee with which Russia's leaders are observing Nancy Pelosi's nearly hysterical determination to prevent the United States from developing its own oil resources, and the fecklessness of Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama in the face of their aggression against an American ally.UPDATE: This report appears to confirm that Russia has targeted the pipeline:
Deep craters pockmark the landscape south of the Georgian capital Tblisi in a Y-shaped pattern straddling the British-operated pipeline. The attack left two deep holes less than 100 yards either side of a pressure vent on the pipeline. Shrapnel of highly engineered munitions litters the area. There was no visible damage to the pipeline. ...Local police recorded 51 strikes. "I have no doubt they wanted to target the pipeline, there is nothing else here," said Giorgi Abrahamisvili, a policeman who witnessed the attack.To comment on this post, go here.
"Russia has applied unprecedented military power . . . and it is of such amplitude that it would have scared much bigger states," Alexander Lomaia, secretary of Georgia's National Security Council, said in an interview. "This war has changed the whole system of values of pro-Western, liberal-minded people. I don't want to be a bad prophet, but why would Russia stop here? There are other countries where Russia thinks it has a claim to territory."
P.S. It might be interesting to reread our book below. http://www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/RV/finallyarrives.htm
Will Russia Get Away With It?
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
In August 1924, the small nation of Georgia, occupied by Soviet Russia since 1921, rose up against Soviet rule. On Sept. 16, 1924, The Times of London reported on an appeal by the president of the Georgian Republic to the League of Nations. While “sympathetic reference to his country’s efforts was made” in the Assembly, the Times said, “it is realized that the League is incapable of rendering material aid, and that the moral influence which may be a powerful force with civilized countries is unlikely to make any impression upon Soviet Russia.”
“Unlikely” was an understatement. Georgians did not enjoy freedom again until 1991.Today, the Vladimir Putins and Hu Jintaos and Mahmoud Ahmadinejads of the world — to say nothing of their junior counterparts in places like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Burma and North Korea — are no more likely than were Soviet leaders in 1924 to be swayed by “moral influence.” Dictators aren’t moved by the claims of justice unarmed; aggressors aren’t intimidated by diplomacy absent the credible threat of force; fanatics aren’t deterred by the disapproval of men of moderation or refinement.The good news is that today we don’t face threats of the magnitude of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Each of those regimes combined ruthless internal control, a willingness to engage in external aggression, and fervent adherence to an extreme ideology. Today these elements don’t coexist in one place. Russia is aggressive, China despotic and Iran messianic — but none is as dangerous as the 20th-century totalitarian states.The further good news is that 2008 has been, in one respect, an auspicious year for freedom and democracy. In Iraq, we and our Iraqi allies are on the verge of a strategic victory over the jihadists in what they have called the central front of their struggle. This joint victory has the potential to weaken the jihadist impulse throughout the Middle East.On the other hand, the ability of Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas to get away with murder (literally), and above all the ability of Iran to pursue its nuclear ambitions effectively unchecked, are setbacks for hopes of peace and progress.And there is no evidence that China’s hosting of the Olympics has led to moderation of its authoritarianism. Meanwhile, Russia has sent troops and tanks across an international border, and now seems to be widening its war against Georgia more than its original — and in any case illegitimate — casus belli would justify.Will the United States put real pressure on Russia to stop? In a news analysis on Sunday, the New York Times reporter Helene Cooper accurately captured what I gather is the prevailing view in our State Department: “While America considers Georgia its strongest ally in the bloc of former Soviet countries, Washington needs Russia too much on big issues like Iran to risk it all to defend Georgia.”But Georgia, a nation of about 4.6 million, has had the third-largest military presence — about 2,000 troops — fighting along with U.S. soldiers and marines in Iraq. For this reason alone, we owe Georgia a serious effort to defend its sovereignty. Surely we cannot simply stand by as an autocratic aggressor gobbles up part of — and perhaps destabilizes all of — a friendly democratic nation that we were sponsoring for NATO membership a few months ago.For that matter, consider the implications of our turning away from Georgia for other aspiring pro-Western governments in the neighborhood, like Ukraine’s. Shouldn’t we therefore now insist that normal relations with Russia are impossible as long as the aggression continues, strongly reiterate our commitment to the territorial integrity of Georgia and Ukraine, and offer emergency military aid to Georgia?Incidentally, has Russia really been helping much on Iran? It has gone along with — while delaying — three United Nations Security Council resolutions that have imposed mild sanctions on Iran. But it has also supplied material for Iran’s nuclear program, and is now selling Iran antiaircraft systems to protect military and nuclear installations. It’s striking that dictatorial and aggressive and fanatical regimes — whatever their differences — seem happy to work together to weaken the influence of the United States and its democratic allies. So Russia helps Iran. Iran and North Korea help Syria. Russia and China block Security Council sanctions against Zimbabwe. China props up the regimes in Burma and North Korea.The United States, of course, is not without resources and allies to deal with these problems and threats. But at times we seem oddly timid and uncertain. When the “civilized world” expostulated with Russia about Georgia in 1924, the Soviet regime was still weak. In Germany, Hitler was in jail. Only 16 years later, Britain stood virtually alone against a Nazi-Soviet axis. Is it not true today, as it was in the 1920s and ’30s, that delay and irresolution on the part of the democracies simply invite future threats and graver dangers?
War In Georgia: The Oil Angle
News reports indicate that Russia may have tried to bomb the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which runs through Georgia. If so, the bombs missed, and flow of oil through the pipeline was not interrupted. The BTC pipeline runs from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean coast of Turkey; note Russia to the north and Iran to the south:The BTC pipeline runs through Georgia, well south of South Ossetia:The pipeline, in which British Petroleum is the lead partner, can carry up to one million barrels of oil per day. It is of considerable strategic significance, as it is the only means by which countries in the region like Azerbaijan can get their oil into the international market without relying on Russia. The Daily Mail writes:
It is crucial to the world’s volatile energy market and the only oil and gas route that bypasses Russia’s stranglehold on energy exports from the region.In 2002, when the pipeline was being planned, the BBC reported:
BTC is said to be an effective alternative to Russia's pipeline network. ... [O]il experts believe political considerations played a major role in the choice of the route. American officials prefer a route that would weaken Russia's stranglehold on regional pipeline network and leave Iran on the sidelines. Local governments want less dependency on big regional powers, too."This pipeline is of strategic importance not only to Azerbaijan, but to the other new independent states as well", says Ilham Shaban, oil analyst in Baku. "This is a reliable way to the world markets. Take Turkmenistan with its huge resources of natural gas and no access to the world markets. As a result, The Turkmens have to sell their gas 2.5 times cheaper than the world price."Turkmenistan could join a gas pipeline which is likely to be built alongside BTC to the Turkish town of Erzurum.That natural gas pipeline has now been built immediately adjacent to the BTC oil pipeline and is called the South Caucasus Pipeline. It has a capacity of 16 billion cubic meters per year. Plans are now being laid to connect Turkmenistan's vast natural gas reserves to the SCP:
Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan are central to the EU’s plans to reduce its energy reliance on Russia which supplies a quarter of Europe’s needs. ... Both the Azeri and Turkmen leaders said they wanted to improve relations and diversify their export routes — a natural move, analysts said. The vast majority of Turkmenistan’s gas currently travels north to Europe through Russia’s network of pipes.Because the BTC pipeline gives the USSR's former breakaway republics a way to deliver their petroleum to the world market without relying on Russia, Russia "steadfastly opposed" its construction, recognizing that "the new conduit stands to severely weaken Russia’s grip on regional energy exports." For these reasons, it would be of enormous strategic benefit to Russia if it could reassert dominance over Georgia, or merely have an opportunity to demonstrate to Turkmenistan and Azerbaijain that any means of getting their petroleum products to market independent of Russia may be unreliable. These issues are a key subtext to Russia's conflict with Georgia and Georgia's desire to join NATO, and otherwise seek protection from the West.One can only imagine the astonishment and glee with which Russia's leaders are observing Nancy Pelosi's nearly hysterical determination to prevent the United States from developing its own oil resources, and the fecklessness of Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama in the face of their aggression against an American ally.UPDATE: This report appears to confirm that Russia has targeted the pipeline:
Deep craters pockmark the landscape south of the Georgian capital Tblisi in a Y-shaped pattern straddling the British-operated pipeline. The attack left two deep holes less than 100 yards either side of a pressure vent on the pipeline. Shrapnel of highly engineered munitions litters the area. There was no visible damage to the pipeline. ...Local police recorded 51 strikes. "I have no doubt they wanted to target the pipeline, there is nothing else here," said Giorgi Abrahamisvili, a policeman who witnessed the attack.To comment on this post, go here.
"Russia has applied unprecedented military power . . . and it is of such amplitude that it would have scared much bigger states," Alexander Lomaia, secretary of Georgia's National Security Council, said in an interview. "This war has changed the whole system of values of pro-Western, liberal-minded people. I don't want to be a bad prophet, but why would Russia stop here? There are other countries where Russia thinks it has a claim to territory."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
