Kansainväliset kriisit ja konfliktit

mku, 23.3.2007 16:14:
Mistähän saisi luotettavan vahvistuksen sille, että ne olivat tosiaan oikeasti Iranilaisia jotka noin tekivät. Maailmassa on aloitettu aika paljon sotia lavastamalla jotain tuommoista..

Eikökän Iranin maine ole riittävän huono ilmankin että tuollaista tarvitsee lavastaa. Jos Israel tai USA päättää hyökätä Iraniin niin he tekevät sen kyllä riippumatta siitä siepataanko muutama brittisotilas vai ei.

USA ei sitäpaitsi kykene sotimaan Iranin kanssa tällä hetkellä - se ei ole ainoastaan sotilaallinen ongelma vaan myös poliittinen mahdottomuus. Suurin osa USA:n kenraalikunnasta kun vahvasti vastustaa ajatusta.

Realistiseksi mahdollisuudeksi jää siis Israel.

Eli ehkä tämän takana olikin MOSSAD!!!!11!!!! Mitäköhän muita salaliittoteorioita tässä vielä kekisisi...Hmm. Ai niin tottakai...CIA ja MI6!!!!11!

mku, 23.3.2007 17:18:
PS. Mitä tekemistä tolla nyt oli salaliiton kanssa? Huomattavan suuri osa maailman sodista on viimekädessä sytytetty lavastamalla vastapuolen hyökkäys. Tällä hetkellä USA:lla tai Israelilla ei ole vielä hyväksyttävää syytä tehdä mitään konkreettista Iranille vaikka haluja olisikin.

Ei olekaan, eivätkä he tulekaan tekemään mitään tämän tapahtuneen johdosta. Ja Israelin sotilaitahan tässä ei ole siepattu? Iso-Britannialle ei kyllä riitä, että muutama sotilas siepataan.

Mielestäni ihan jokaisen pitäisi tässä tilanteessa kyseenalaista ihan kaikki aiheeseen liittyvä, ennenkuin tulee lopullisiin johtopäätöksiin. Se ei ole vainoharhaisuutta vaan pelkästään järkevää.

Kyllä, asioita pitää kyseenalaistaa, mutta se menee naurettavaksi kun mihinkään ei enää voi uskoa.

Pippelinvenytysyä Persianlahdella.

U.S. show of force in Persian Gulf

• U.S. Navy in largest show of force in Persian Gulf since 2003 invasion of Iraq
• Two strike groups of U.S. warships take part and 100 U.S. warplanes
• Exercises come four days after Iran captured 15 British sailors and marines

ABOARD THE USS JOHN C. STENNIS IN THE GULF (AP) -- The U.S. Navy on Tuesday began its largest demonstration of force in the Gulf since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, deploying two aircraft carriers and conducting simulated aerial attacks.

The maneuvers, involving 15 U.S. warships and more than a hundred planes, were certain to increase tension with Iran, which has frequently condemned the U.S. military presence off its coastline.

The exercises began only four days after Iran captured 15 British sailors and marines whom it accused of straying into Iranian waters near the Gulf. Britain and the U.S. Navy have insisted the British sailors were operating in Iraqi waters.

Koko artikkeli löytyy linkistä.

Yhdysvaltalaiset ja Pakinastinlaiset sotilaat ovat alustavien tietojen mukaan ottaneet yhteen Pakistanin rajalla.

U.S., Pakistani soldiers killed in border clash

At least 1 American reportedly killed; details of incident remain sketchy

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Militants opened fire Monday on a convoy carrying U.S. and Pakistani military officials near the Afghan frontier, killing one American and one Pakistani soldier, the Pakistani army spokesman said.

At least two Americans and two Pakistani soldiers and were wounded.

Maj. Gen. Waheed Arshad said “miscreants” — usually a byword used by Pakistani officials to describe Islamic militants — fired at the convoy carrying military officials who attended a meeting in the northwestern town of Teri Mangal.
Story continues below ↓advertisement

Afghan military officials also attended the talks to discuss recent fighting between Afghan and Pakistani forces that the government in Kabul says has killed at least 13 people inside Afghanistan — inflaming already poor relations between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Details of incident remain unclear
NATO’s International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan said it could confirm ISAF casualties but not the exact number of injured or killed.

Maj. William Mitchell, a spokesman at the U.S. military base in Bagram, Afghanistan, said officials were trying to verify conflicting reports of violence.

Rahmatullah Rahmat, governor of the Afghan border province of Paktia, said that he, U.S. military advisors and Afghan army leaders traveled by helicopter to Pakistan for the meeting.

He said that after the meeting finished, gunmen opened fire on the group as they were heading toward their helicopters. Rahmat reported two American dead and two wounded.

He said that American soldiers returned fire.

High-level inquiry
Arshad said that Pakistan has ordered a high-level inquiry into the incident. He denied initial reports from Afghanistan that a Pakistani soldier had opened fire on the American troops.

He had no details on the conditions of the wounded soldiers or their identities. He said the Americans had been shifted to Afghanistan for treatment.

“The latest information that I have got is that one Pakistani soldier died of his wounds, and one American soldier died of his wounds,” Arshad said.

“Efforts are being made to determine from where the firing came from and who carried it out. The area has been cordoned (off),” he said.

Islamic militants, including supporters of the Taliban and al-Qaida, are active in the lawless border region.

Tosin uusimpien tietojen mukaan kyseessä ei ollut Pakistanilaisia sotilaita vaan militantteja jotka olivat pukeutuneet Pakistanilaisten sotilaiden vaatteisiin.

phanatic, 14.5.2007 21:15:
Eikä myöskään sanota että hyökkääjillä olisi ollut Pakistanin armeijan univormua.

Ei tuossa sanottukaan, sen takia kirjoitinkin "uusimpien tietojen mukaan". Tuollaisia välikohtauksia kun päivitetään koko ajan medioissa. Tälläkin hetkellä on epäselvyyttä välikohtauksesta. Joissakin medioissa väitetään, että Pakistanilainen sotilas ampui jenkkisotilaan (näin esim. Pakistanin puolustusministeriön mukaan), joissakin että kyseessä oli paikallisen Kurram-militian vaatteisiin pukeutunut militantti, ja toisissa sanotaan "“unknown assailants”.

Oli ehkä hätäisesti postattu uutinen anyway.

PS. Pakistan on nännäisesti USA:n liittolainen, mutta todellisuudessa Yhdysvallat ei ole erityisen tyytyväinen Pakistanin toimintaan militantteja kohtaan. USA on jatkuvasti painostanut Pakistania käyttämään kovempia otteita äärimuslimeja kohtaan, sillä suuri osa esim. Taleban-sotureista ja johtajista on "koulutettu" Pakistaninissa. Pakistan on myös solminut sopimuksia ja aselepoja Taleban-johtajien kanssa, joka on raivostuttanut USA:ta.

Gazassa näyttää taas yhtä "lupaavalta" kuin ennen. Jos Hamas ei sodi Israelia vastaan niin sitten palestiinalaiset sotivan keskenään.

Suomalainen rauhanturvaaja on kuollut pommi-iskussa Afganistanissa.

Suomalainen rauhanturvaaja kuoli Afganistanissa

Suomalainen rauhanturvaaja on kuollut aamulla Afganistanin Maimanassa tehdyn pommi-iskun seurauksena, kerrotaan pääesikunnasta. Pommi räjähti norjalaisella ISAF-leirillä Maimanassa noin kello yhdeksän aikaan. Kaksi norjalaista sotilasta loukkaantui.

Puolustusvomien mukaan räjähdyksen tapahtumapaikalla oli toinen suomalainen rauhanturvaaja, mutta hän ei haavoittunut.

Suomalainen rauhanturvaaja oli jalkapartiossa kahden norjalaisen rauhanturvaajan kanssa. Jalkapartio oli suojaamassa ISAF-operaation sairaalahenkilökuntaa noin 50 metrin päässä rauhanturvaajien tukikohdasta. Suomalainen menehtyi saamiinsa vammoihin noin tunnin kuluttua pommi-iskusta. Menehtyneen rauhanturvaajan omaisille on tiedotettu tapahtuneesta.

Afganistanilaisen tiedusteluviranomaisen mukaan pommi saattoi olla kauko-ohjattu, kertoo STT.

Suomalaisia on mukana Afganistanin Nato-johtoisessa Isaf-rauhanturvaoperaatiossa kaikkiaan reilu sata, joista 31 tällä hetkellä Maimanassa yhdessä norjalaisten ja latvialaisten kanssa. Suomalaiset ovat aikeissa vielä tänä kesänä jättää Maimanan ja latvialaiset lisäjoukot tulevat heidän majoituskontteihinsa.

Suomalaisia rauhanturvaajia on kuollut maailmalla kaikkiaan 47 vuodesta 1956, jolloin ensimmäiset turvaajat lähtivät Suezille. 15 näistä kuoli palvelustehtävää suorittaessaan. Kaikkiaan 31:ssä rauhanturvaamis- ja sotilastarkkailijatehtävässä on palvellut noin 43 000 naista ja miestä.

Sekä presidentti Tarja Halonen että puolustusministeri Jyri Häkämies ovat esittäneet rauhanturvaajan omaisille surunvalittelunsa. Hallitus vietti kaatuneen rauhanturvaajan muistoksi hiljaisen hetken aamupäivällä.

Tämä oli mielestäni aika mielenkiintoinen kirjoitus mm. Vietnamin sodassa olleellta upseerilta, joka vastustaa Irakin sotaa ja jonka poika kuoli Irakin sodassa. Artikkeli julkaistiin Washington Postissa.

I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

I Lost My Son to a War I Oppose. We Were Both Doing Our Duty.

By Andrew J. Bacevich
Sunday, May 27, 2007; Page B01

Parents who lose children, whether through accident or illness, inevitably wonder what they could have done to prevent their loss. When my son was killed in Iraq earlier this month at age 27, I found myself pondering my responsibility for his death.

Among the hundreds of messages that my wife and I have received, two bore directly on this question. Both held me personally culpable, insisting that my public opposition to the war had provided aid and comfort to the enemy. Each said that my son's death came as a direct result of my antiwar writings.

This may seem a vile accusation to lay against a grieving father. But in fact, it has become a staple of American political discourse, repeated endlessly by those keen to allow President Bush a free hand in waging his war. By encouraging "the terrorists," opponents of the Iraq conflict increase the risk to U.S. troops. Although the First Amendment protects antiwar critics from being tried for treason, it provides no protection for the hardly less serious charge of failing to support the troops -- today's civic equivalent of dereliction of duty.

What exactly is a father's duty when his son is sent into harm's way?

Among the many ways to answer that question, mine was this one: As my son was doing his utmost to be a good soldier, I strove to be a good citizen.

As a citizen, I have tried since Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a critical understanding of U.S. foreign policy. I know that even now, people of good will find much to admire in Bush's response to that awful day. They applaud his doctrine of preventive war. They endorse his crusade to spread democracy across the Muslim world and to eliminate tyranny from the face of the Earth. They insist not only that his decision to invade Iraq in 2003 was correct but that the war there can still be won. Some -- the members of the "the-surge-is-already-working" school of thought -- even profess to see victory just over the horizon.

I believe that such notions are dead wrong and doomed to fail. In books, articles and op-ed pieces, in talks to audiences large and small, I have said as much. "The long war is an unwinnable one," I wrote in this section of The Washington Post in August 2005. "The United States needs to liquidate its presence in Iraq, placing the onus on Iraqis to decide their fate and creating the space for other regional powers to assist in brokering a political settlement. We've done all that we can do."

Not for a second did I expect my own efforts to make a difference. But I did nurse the hope that my voice might combine with those of others -- teachers, writers, activists and ordinary folks -- to educate the public about the folly of the course on which the nation has embarked. I hoped that those efforts might produce a political climate conducive to change. I genuinely believed that if the people spoke, our leaders in Washington would listen and respond.

This, I can now see, was an illusion.

The people have spoken, and nothing of substance has changed. The November 2006 midterm elections signified an unambiguous repudiation of the policies that landed us in our present predicament. But half a year later, the war continues, with no end in sight. Indeed, by sending more troops to Iraq (and by extending the tours of those, like my son, who were already there), Bush has signaled his complete disregard for what was once quaintly referred to as "the will of the people."

To be fair, responsibility for the war's continuation now rests no less with the Democrats who control Congress than with the president and his party. After my son's death, my state's senators, Edward M. Kennedy and John F. Kerry, telephoned to express their condolences. Stephen F. Lynch, our congressman, attended my son's wake. Kerry was present for the funeral Mass. My family and I greatly appreciated such gestures. But when I suggested to each of them the necessity of ending the war, I got the brushoff. More accurately, after ever so briefly pretending to listen, each treated me to a convoluted explanation that said in essence: Don't blame me.

To whom do Kennedy, Kerry and Lynch listen? We know the answer: to the same people who have the ear of George W. Bush and Karl Rove -- namely, wealthy individuals and institutions.

Money buys access and influence. Money greases the process that will yield us a new president in 2008. When it comes to Iraq, money ensures that the concerns of big business, big oil, bellicose evangelicals and Middle East allies gain a hearing. By comparison, the lives of U.S. soldiers figure as an afterthought.

Memorial Day orators will say that a G.I.'s life is priceless. Don't believe it. I know what value the U.S. government assigns to a soldier's life: I've been handed the check. It's roughly what the Yankees will pay Roger Clemens per inning once he starts pitching next month.

Money maintains the Republican/Democratic duopoly of trivialized politics. It confines the debate over U.S. policy to well-hewn channels. It preserves intact the cliches of 1933-45 about isolationism, appeasement and the nation's call to "global leadership." It inhibits any serious accounting of exactly how much our misadventure in Iraq is costing. It ignores completely the question of who actually pays. It negates democracy, rendering free speech little more than a means of recording dissent.

This is not some great conspiracy. It's the way our system works.

In joining the Army, my son was following in his father's footsteps: Before he was born, I had served in Vietnam. As military officers, we shared an ironic kinship of sorts, each of us demonstrating a peculiar knack for picking the wrong war at the wrong time. Yet he was the better soldier -- brave and steadfast and irrepressible.

I know that my son did his best to serve our country. Through my own opposition to a profoundly misguided war, I thought I was doing the same. In fact, while he was giving his all, I was doing nothing. In this way, I failed him.

Andrew J. Bacevich teaches history and international relations at Boston University. He is a retired US Army officer and former instructor at the United States Military Academy at West Point. His son died May 13 after a suicide bomb explosion in Salah al-Din province.