(Bild: “Kurds For Obama Biden ‘08” – We ain’t ready, to see a black President, rappade 2pac för över 10 år sedan. Nu kan drömmen komma att slå in.)

Rent spontant kan man ju dra slutsatsen att demokraten Obama som tillhör en utsatt minoritetsgrupp i USA mer sannolikt kommer att intressera sig för minoritetsfrågor runtom i världen, den saliga blandningen av att vara en Hawaii född Kenyan/Amerikan med muslimsk/kristen bakgrund+flera barndomsår i Indonesien men även “en utanförskaps känsla” som han haft kan inte göra annat än att vara till fördel för hela världens minoriteter.
Republikanen McCain kallas hjälten efter att ha frivilligt stridit i Vietnamkriget där han även tillfångatogs och fängslades i två år, han studerade sedan och fick en hög position inom flottan. Det råder ingen tvekan om att det är hans bakgrund inom det militära som gjort honom till en krigshetsare.

Men nog med mina egna värderingar, vart står kandidaterna när det kommer till Kurdistan frågan?
I den här frågan så är det även viktigt att känna till vart kandidaternas närmsta vapendragare står i frågorna.

Obama anser även Republikanerna har hanterat PKK-Turkiet-Irak konflikten på ett felaktigt sätt., men samtidigt förhåller sig inte bara McCain negativt mot PKK i norra Kurdistan (turkiska Kurdistan) utan även Obama. Men samtidigt vill ändå Obama att man ska föra dialog i alla konflikter och ser krig som den absolut sista handlingen. McCain skjuter först och frågar sen, han är veteranen som vill att man tar till hårdhandskarna innan man för samtal med fienden.
McCain har förvirrat sig med att PKK är problemet i Turkiet och inte att det är Turkiet som är problemet i mellanöstern.

“Vems sida är USA på när Turkiet går in i Irak?” Denna fråga ställer en reporter till McCain i en video intervju i tidningen Nashuatelegraph.com (se den här!), svaret från McCain blir att man måste göra allt för att bevara freden mellan Turkiet-Irak men nämner inget om att lösa frågan.
Enligt McCain är det kurdernas ansvar att stå upp och bryta ner PKK istället för att ett turkiskt förtryck ska upphöra.
McCain kallar även Irak för “ett enat land” vilket inte stämmer, hade detta stämt så hade inte det funnits en kurdisk regering i norr och inte heller hade alla oljestäder och huvudstaden varit en krigsskådeplats.

McCain’s utrikespolitiska rådgivare kommer att bli Henry Kissinger, mannen som direkt förrådde kurderna i mitten av 1970-talet.
Även James Baker som stöttar McCain kommer att bli en av hans rådgivare i framtiden, Baker var ordförande för Iraq Study Group och i den så kallade “Baker rapporten” (2006) föreslog han en ny strategi för USA i kriget mot Irak som kurderna förkastade eftersom den kraftigt försvårade problematiken kring Kirkuk. McCain avfärdar trestatslösningen i Irak och vill istället att all makt i hela Irak ska finnas i Bagdad, detta kommer att försvaga det kurdiska självstyret i den irakiska delen av Kurdistan.
Samma man ser även lösningen ur en gevärs pipa när det kommer till Iran.

Obama vill föra en dialog med Iran men vet ej om de är mogna för att samtala ännu, direkt diplomati med Iran kommer enligt Obama ge mer trovärdighet och skulle kunna hindra eventuella strider mellan Israel-Iran.

McCain motsätter sig att dra tillbaka trupperna från Irak och har även vid ett tillfälle sagt att de kan stanna till 2020. Obama vill dra ur de amerikanska trupperna inom sexton månader från Irak.
Av denna anledning har McCain även flera kurdiska anhängare eftersom trupperna i Irak ger kurderna säkerhet.

Han anser att det är ett måste att USA ska föra samtal med Iran men utesluter inte att ett krig kan ta plats om inte samtalen leder någon vart.
“I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.” har Obama sagt.

Joe Biden, som kommer att bli vice presidenten under Obama, vill även att KRG ska få större inflytande och mer makt i dagsläget.
(Läs mer om Biden’s förslag om trestatslösningen i Irak här), trestatslösningen är den ända lösningen för att säkra Iraks framtid enligt honom. Biden har alltid varit en stark motståndare mot den amerikanska vapenexporten till Turkiet eftersom att Turkiet inte bryr sig om de mänskliga rättigheterna.
Han har tydligt sagt att Turkiet och Iran inte är tillåtna att blanda sig i Iraks angelägenheter, den så kallade “Hands-off-policyn”, något som är ett måste för att säkra södra Kurdistans (irakiska Kurdistans) framtid. Förövrigt har även Obama ställt sig upp för den förföljda assyriska minoriteten i Irak och i Kurdistan.

Nu har vi bara skrapat lite på ytan och det här inlägget täcker inte ens upp hälften av det som finns att sägas om hur presidentvalet kommer att påverka Kurdistan frågan och de andra mellanöstern frågorna.

(Publicerar kommentarer med bilder från Socialdemokraternas amerikanska presidentvalsvaka efter att evenemanget ägt rum nu på tisdag 21.00 – 06.00)

La legge di bilancio supplementare per le operazioni militari in Irak, siglata dal Presidente Bush nel maggio 2005, quantificava i fondi per la costruzione delle basi destinate ad ospitare i soldati statunitensi, descrivendole come “in alcuni casi molto limitati, insediamenti a carattere permanente”. All’epoca, le forze armate USA occupavano in Irak 106 installazioni, secondo il Washington Post che riportava inoltre l’intenzione dei responsabili militari di consolidare queste installazioni in quattro grandi basi aeree. In verità, altre fonti – riferendo della volontà statunitense di instaurare un rapporto di lunga durata con il nuovo governo iracheno – già precedentemente avevano accennato a progetti per molte più basi permanenti, esattamente nel numero di 14.
Secondo l’Iraq Study Group, alla fine del 2006 c’erano in Irak ancora 55 basi statunitensi, e le richieste finanziarie del Pentagono nel 2007, necessarie per costruire enormi sale di ristorazione, nuove piste di atterraggio e varie altre infrastrutture, difficilmente potrebbero essere interpretate come l’indicazione di un imminente ritiro. L’accordo di sicurezza fra Stati Uniti ed Irak che dovrebbe essere firmato dal nuovo governo iracheno che uscirà dallo scrutinio del prossimo ottobre, andrà molto probabilmente a legalizzare le seguenti 14 basi militari permanenti, che al termine dei lavori di approntamento saranno capaci di ospitare circa 80.000 uomini in vista di future operazione nella regione:
1. Zona Verde di Baghdad: attualmente ospita gli uffici delle maggiori società di consulenza statunitensi e l’ambasciata USA, la più estesa mai realizzata al mondo (pari a sei volte la sede dell’ONU a New York);
2. Camp Falcon – Al Sarq nei pressi di Baghdad, con una capacità di 5.000 uomini;
3. Camp Victory – Al Nasr a 5 km dall’aeroporto internazionale di Baghdad, potrà ospitare più di 14.000 soldati;
4. Camp Anaconda – Balad Air Base, la più grande infrastruttura logistica statunitense in Iraq (15 miglia quadrate e capace di ospitare fino a 20.000 uomini), è il secondo aeroporto al mondo per volume di traffico, superato soltanto da quello londinese di Heathrow;
5. Camp Taji, precedentemente sede della Guardia Repubblicana irachena, ora contrassegnato da un Burger King ed un Pizza Hut;
6. Al Taqaddum Air Base, nell’Iraq centrale ad una settantina di chilometri dalla capitale;
7. Camp Fallujah, localizzata nell’area più problematica di tutto il Paese;
8. Camp Speicher nei pressi di Tikrit, 170 chilometri circa a nord di Baghdad;
9. Camp Al Qayyara, 80 chilometri a sud-est di Mossul;
10. Camp Marez, presso l’aeroporto della stessa Mossul;
11. Camp Renegade, strategicamente insediata vicino ai giacimenti petroliferi, raffinerie ed impianti petrolchimici della città di Kirkuk;
12. una base di cui non si conosce il nome né l’esatta localizzazione, in via di costruzione nell’area fra Erbil e Kirkuk;
13. Al Talil Air Base, a pochi chilometri da Nassiriyah;
14. infine la Patrol Base Shocker, operativa dal novembre 2007, è situata a ridosso del confine con l’Iran presso la città irachena di Badrah ed ospita un centro di intelligence militare e civile che tiene sotto controllo le attività dell’ingombrante vicino.

Members of the Iraq Study Group have released a new briefing as the United States Institute of Peace titled “Iraq After the Surge: Options and Questions”. The report first identifies “five paramount interests that U.S. policy in Iraq should aim to serve:”

• Prevent Iraq from becoming a haven or platform for international terrorists
• Restore U.S. credibility, prestige and capacity to act worldwide
• Improve regional stability
• Limit and redirect Iranian influence
• Maintain an independent Iraq as a single state

They then go on to talk about the three options the U.S. has in Iraq; full and unconditional commitment, reduced, conditional commitment, and unconditional, near-total reduction of U.S. military commitment. Below is a summary of their discussion of the three options

Full and unconditional commitment:

• Current policy
• Has brought increased security
• National reconciliation through political means has fallen short

This policy has three shortcomings:

• Gains may be tenuous
• No political solution
• The cost is high

Reduced, Conditional Commitment

• Summary: Future U.S. support should be based upon the attainment of Iraqi political goals. To meet this Iraqis must set up oil revenue sharing, provincial elections to develop decentralized government, non-sectarian army.
• Iraqis fail to act, U.S should cut losses

Unconditional, Near-total Reduction of U.S. Military Commitment

• Summary: A full pull-out of U.S. troops with increased diplomatic efforts and political assistance for the Iraqi government. The continued presence of U.S. troops in Iraq cannot produce an outcome worth the financial and human expenses. Also, U.S. is sacrificing interests elsewhere in the world.
• Timetable for withdrawal that has no ties to Iraqi political gains.
• Increased U.S. military presence in the Gulf region.

The report then goes on to list the positives and negatives of each option in regards to the five interests.

Full, Unconditional Commitment has positives in preventing terrorism, halting Iranian influence (slightly positive), and preserving a single state. It has negatives in restoring U.S.’ credibility and capacity to act elsewhere.

Reduced, Conditional Commitment has positives in preventing terrorism, restoring credibility (as long as executed correctly) and maintaining U.S. capacity. It has negatives in maintaining a single state, and slight negatives in regional stability and Iranian influence.

Unconditional, Near-Total Reduction of Military Commitment has mixed results for restoring credibility and freeing up capacity, regional stability, and maintaining a single state with negatives in combating terrorism and halting Iranian influence.

The report can be read here.

INDIANAPOLIS – Former Indiana Rep. Lee Hamilton endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday, praising his ability to transcend partisan division and calling his foreign policy outlook “pragmatic, visionary, and tough.”

 
In a file photo former 9/11 Commission Co-Chairman Lee Hamilton delivers remarks during a luncheon forum at the National Press Club, Monday, Sept. 11, 2006, in Washington. Hamilton is backing Barack Obama in an endorsement Wednesday April 2, 2008, that could boost the presidential hopeful’s national security standing, The Associated Press has learned.(AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta/file)

Hamilton, who during a three-decade House career rose to be chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees, also was vice chairman of the Sept. 11 commission. His endorsement could boost the Democratic hopeful’s national security standing.

“Barack Obama has the best opportunity to create a new sense of national unity and to transcend divisions within this country, not by ignoring them or smoothing them over, but by working together with candor and civility to meet our challenges,” Hamilton said in a statement released by Obama’s campaign.

On Obama’s foreign policy stance, Hamilton said: “He will work with our friends and allies. Obama will strengthen our ability to use all the tools of American power, and relentlessly promote the American values of freedom and justice for all people.”

Obama praised Hamilton for his leadership on the 9/11 Commission and the Iraq Study Group.

“Few public servants have done more to advance American foreign policy or to serve the people of Indiana, and I look forward to drawing on his counsel in the months ahead,” Obama said in a statement.

Hamilton is best known as the top Democrat on the panel that investigated the 9/11 terrorist attacks. He also was co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan commission that assessed U.S. policy in Iraq.

 Read the rest:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080402/ap_on_el_pr/
obama_hamilton;_ylt=AhMa3_
0cVJLnYFhd1YlduyKs0NUE

Former Rep. Lee Hamilton, who was vice-chair of the 9/11 Commission and co-chair of the Iraq Study Group which produced the Baker Hamilton Report on Iraq, will endorse Barack Obama later today. This is one of the biggest wins for the Obama campaign, as Hamilton’s support will be a boost to Obama’s National Security credentials. The endorsement is the latest in a string of high-profile endorsements of Senator Obama, who received the backing of Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) on Monday.

Rudy was at it again, burnishing his conservative credentials yesterday with a tax reform group, telling them that Republicans were “amateur spenders” and Democrats “professional spenders”. I wonder who thought that one up.

I think this is really funny considering Rudy’s commitment–at least while on the campaign trail–to continue a fruitless, dangerous and moreover costly war in Iraq.

I’ll pull no punches here, Rudy Giuliani is a pig. He’s a foul politician who will say anything to be elected. Sad thing is that his party is still stuck on it’s commitment to the war, which has cost more than $300 billion already. If that’s not fiscal irresponsibility than I don’t know what is. We’ve achieved few goals by having a war over there and have only succeeded in swatting the hornets nest of Islamic fanaticism and violent Arab nationalism that America’s Most Dangerous Candidate rails against.

Let’s not forget that it was the less-than-erudite pandering pol Giuliani who backed out of his commitment to the Iraq Study Group last year. Why did he do so? So that he could make for-profit speeches and stump around for his upcoming campaign.

Giuliani saw the writing on the wall, which was that the commission he was a part of may come to unsavory conclusions for his campaign. Although the group did not advocate a complete withdrawal or set a timetable for bringing down troops, it did call the war grave and said the U.S. should anticipate a time in which it can no longer be relied upon to carry out combat missions.

This man doesn’t care, either way. Don’t buy his fiscal conservative schtick. It’s a joke.

Philadelphia Inquirer
Editorial
September 25, 2007

Set aside the emotions, the threats and twisting of truths that pulse through this week’s visit to New York by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His presence, as unpleasant as it is to so many, is more likely to be helpful than hideous.

Ahmadinejad’s U.S. speaking tour featured a controversial, televised speech yesterday at Columbia University. Today, he is scheduled to address the United Nations General Assembly.

The Iranian leader won’t say anything new. He didn’t yesterday: Knowledge is crucial, free speech essential, piousness supreme, Israel is the world’s biggest irritant, and Iran wants peace, not nuclear weapons.

Behind his lines were damnable lies – he shamefully denies the Holocaust occurred. Falsehood, not fact, about the pogrom fit his hatred of Israel. Ideologues won’t let truth clear their myopia.

Read the rest at:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20070925_
Editorial___Ahmadinejads_Visit.html

Related:
Ahmadinejad: Vilest Form of Inhuman Scum

Ahmadinejad seeks to soothe critics

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: Big Disappointment

by matttbastard

A real moment of clarity: if basic infrastructure can be maintained (such as having electricity for longer than 4 hours a day); if security can be improved enough to not only stem the ongoing displacement of the educated classes (you know, the ones who can help maintain said basic infrastructure) but allow the return of the over 4 million refugees who have already been been forced to flee the chaos (fat chance); if the public starts to trust the authorities enough to reintegrate formerly mixed neighbourhoods and quit placing their loyalties behind sectarian militias (most of which have infiltrated various levels of government); maybe if we can somehow magically establish a viable, independent, secular-nationalist parliament that actually works, equally represents and unites said disparate sectarian interests; perhaps if we could invent a time machine and NOT de-Baathify the nation, which immediately created a still-swirling power vortex; then maybe-MAYBE-we can call this whole bloody endeavour a write off.

But a ‘win’? A ’success’? With the blood of umpteen hundred thousand corpses staining our hands? Fuck you and the horse you rode in on (to say nothing of horseman #4). And fuck your crass, callous attempts at selective partisan point scoring. I don’t give a good god damn about ‘nutroots’ and ‘left wing media conspiracies’; I care about flesh and blood people who have had their lives uprooted, have died and continue to die because the ideological industrial complex decided to abuse its authority and misuse Iraq as a geopolitical petri dish.

So don’t try to tell me that half-assed PR stunts like the Kagan ’surge’ or selective-but-ultimately-meaningless number crunching of coalition/civilian casualties (which always cycle seasonally – come back to me when Ramadan hits and then maybe IF numbers are still down there’ll be something to be cautiously optimistic about) designed purely for domestic consumption are meant to do anything more than allow for another Friedman Unit. If Bush was actually serious about doing what was best for Iraq and the surrounding region, he would have immediately adopted the (not at all perfect, but sure as hell better than any other alternative at such a late point in time) ISG recommendations, which could have maybe–maybe–stopped some of the bleeding. Instead, he went with the AEI’s preferred victory blueprint (and his ego).

Surprise, surprise.

So now Bush is merely buying time until Jan ‘09, when Iraq will be someone else’s problem, and both the MSM and the Democratic-controlled Congress are enabling it with the same old Kabuki performance they always do. Shit, Warner’s even furrowing his brow yet again. And I’m willing to bet an F.U.’s worth of wages that he’ll vote the party line, again, too.

The sheets have been soiled, blood and shit stains already well-set as soon as the bombs started shocking and aweing. 4 years later, you can illuminate the mess with a ray of hope, but that doesn’t clean it up. The bed will not be unshat, no matter how many pretty graphs are compiled and commissioned think tank op-eds are published.

Feel free to dismiss the preceding rant as defeat-o-crat moonbattery (free Mumia! Bu$hitler! etc). Doing so won’t make Iraq any less a failed state, nor will any other 26% solutions.

adapted from a comment left at Comments From Left Field

Recommend this post to Progressive Bloggers

Below is a letter Steve Laudeman wrote to US Congresswoman Diana De Gette opposing the proposed arms deal. I hope others will do likewise.

There are a few points of clarification:

1. Steve is right – the deal is at least $63 billion. That includes $20 billion (minimun) purchase of Saudi arms, $30 billion in military aid to Israel and $13 billionin military aid to Egypt. From what the press is saying these are `low ball’ figures.

2. I especially appreciate how Steve calls for canceling the WHOLE package, not just aid to Israel. I noticed that the Campaign To End The Occupation just speaks of opposing the military aid to Israel. The whole package should be opposed.

3. Just outside of Denver is one of the main headquarters and facilities of Lockheed Martin that produces the F-35 fighter jet that the Israelis would get as a part of the deal. I believe that Lockheed Martin is in Ed Perlmutter’s district.

Thanks Steve.

RJP

Dear Congresswoman De Gette:

I implore you do do all in your power to derail the Middle East arms deal currently being discussed. The addition of $63 billion in arms to this volatile region can only add to instability and increase risks to American soldiers and American interests.

While the ruling regimes in the nations which will receive this aid are ostensibly our allies, it is not beyond comprehension that these arms could fall into the hands of those who do not support American goals. We do not want to, yet again, find militant extremists using American made weapons to further their own goals.

Furthermore, it is widely recognized that there is not a military solution to the problems we face in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group had a number of well thought out options to move this issue forward. Providing massive military aid to Iran’s enemies was most defininitely not on the list.

Please introduce or co-sponsor legislation to stop this unnecessary and dangerous deal.

Thank you.

Steve Laudeman

 Policy rockstar

Lee Hamilton, vice chair of the September 11 commission and co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, plans to announce his endorsement of Senator Barack Obama today, the Associated Press learned late last night.  While the endorsement from Hamilton, a former Democratic representative from Indiana, isn’t likely to receive the same media attention as others have, it carries a more substantive than media significance to the Obama campaign.  Hamilton’s service on the House Foreign Affairs Committee lasted over thirty years and his work for both commissions are exemplars of bipartisan cooperation in American policy. We’re likely to hear the Obama campaign trumpet this new national security credential in coming weeks, and rightly so.

Update: Wyoming governor and superdelegate Dave Freudenthal also endorsed Obama this morning, calling Obama ”the Democratic candidate with the openness, honesty and skill to end this vicious cycle of business as usual.”

Obama picks up two key endorsements -  [The Guardian]