And never surrender — ever!
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Russians Want to Build France's Ultra-Modern Warship in Russian Shipyards and Add Technology Such as NATO's Communications Equipment to the Arms Deal
Just as Hillary Clinton is touting the Apologizer-in-Chief's alleged diplomatic victories with "a speech meant to showcase the successes of the Obama administration’s foreign policy," we learn that France is negotiating with the Russians to increase its military bonds with Moscow. The Kremlin's demands on are increasing, Natalie Nougayrède informs us in Le Monde: Russia not only want to buy France's ultramodern helicopter transportation ship, they say, it also want to have a couple of more of them built in Russian shipyards.
What's more is that, in a new development, the people whom Nicolas Sarkozy called "our Russian friends" have threatened to open arms negotiations with other countries. It seems that this is related to earlier reports in which the French president promised publicly that the Mistral ships would be sold without military equipment; Vladimir Putin is now insisting on a transfer of technology (notably NATO's communications matériel).
In another development, foreign minister Bernard Kouchner holds that the S-300 missiles which were recently deployed in Georgia's Abkhazia region "will threaten nobody" (uh — what's the point of deploying them, then?), but voices inside France's defense circles hold that the deployment are aimed at putting the entire Caucasus region under Russian military tutelage.
La France poursuit non sans complications son rapprochement politico-militaire avec la Russie, paradoxalement commencé aux lendemains de la guerre de Géorgie de l'été 2008. Sur l'affaire du Mistral, le navire porte-hélicoptères dont Paris négocie la vente à Moscou pour donner du travail aux chantiers navals de Saint-Nazaire et accréditer l'idée d'une "confiance" entre les deux pays "partenaires stratégiques", la Russie cherche à pousser le plus loin possible son avantage.
La coopération militaire avec Paris lui a déjà permis d'engranger des dividendes politiques face à l'OTAN, dont certains Etats membres ont critiqué le projet de vente du Mistral jugeant qu'il faisait peu de cas des ambitions régionales russes dans la zone de la Baltique, en mer Noire et dans le Caucase.
Moscou continue maintenant de négocier pied à pied les modalités de la transaction, cherchant à obtenir des transferts de technologie ainsi que la construction d'un nombre maximal de navires de type Mistral dans ses propres chantiers navals et une assistance militaire technique française durable.
…le nouveau négociateur russe chargé du dossier du Mistral, le vice-premier ministre Igor Setchine, un homme issu des services secrets russes, la branche nationaliste du pouvoir …, à l'unisson avec le premier ministre, Vladimir Poutine, est connu pour insister sur un transfert de technologie pour que l'affaire soit conclue (il s'agirait surtout de moyens de communication et de commandement aux normes de l'OTAN).
…Lors d'une conférence de presse à Paris mardi, Serguei Lavrov a déclaré que "les négociations incluent la question du transfert de technologie", ajoutant à ce propos : "nous apprécions l'attitude constructive de la partie française face à notre intérêt". En mars, M. Sarkozy avait pourtant assuré publiquement que la vente se ferait "sans équipements militaires".
Interrogé par les médias sur le renforcement du déploiement militaire russe dans le Caucase cet été, marqué notamment par l'annonce de la présence de missiles anti-aériens S-300 en Abkhazie (région séparatiste de Géorgie) et en Arménie, le ministre français des affaires étrangères Bernard Kouchner, a jugé que ces armements n'étaient pas de nature à "modifier l'équilibre des forces" dans la région, et qu'ils ne "menacent personne". L'analyse est pourtant faite dans les milieux de défense français que ces déploiement visent à placer l'ensemble du Caucase sous tutelle militaire russe.
It sure says al lot for their gentility, work ethic, noblesse, and whatever the hell it is that they keep implying makes them think that they have an exclusive concession on civilization.
MEPs were threatened with a fine (later backed down from in only the way they could) if those Ministers of European Parliament did not attend European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso's “State of the Union” speech.
"The parliament's bureau looked at the matter and we agreed that we need to beef up MEPs' presence during debate. But we felt we need a bit more time to mull over the various possibilities," Mr Buzek said Tuesday morning.I suppose that’s some kind of bid to make it look like this is serious bidness we’re talking about here. And to think that it was the last good weekend to get a little golf in.
The original proposal agreed by the assembly's political groups late last week envisioned three electronic checks over the three hour slot and a small fine for MEPs whose absence was registered twice.
Joseph Daul, president of the largest group, the centre-right EPP, was careful to emphasize he was not present at the meeting last week when the preliminary decision was made but suggested "we should take another look at this."Voting with their feet, lope that they are, says quite a bit about their image at home, let alone trying to make it seem better “worldwide”.
The proposal, the first time that something has ever been concretely suggested, follows years of poor plenary attendance by the 736 deputies during speeches - a phenomenon reserved not only for EU commissioners but also for visiting dignitaries.
The little penalty kerfuffle has resulted in Mr Buzek making a personal plea - and putting his authority on the line - that MEPs should be present for Mr Barroso's speech, which is likely to focus on the problems facing the EU and outline some solutions.
"I would like to launch a personal request to all of you to be present" said Mr Buzek, referring to the importance of the "image of this House worldwide."
As if the world was watching to begin with. Elsewhere in the world of this dark art or political self-legitimation, we learn that his speech was “jam-packed with initiatives and gestures”.
Tuesday, September 07, 2010
Mr. Pearcy and other drifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats.Putting aside the giggles of non-serious people on the ballot who were recruited as part of a cynical manipulation of the process (who would there be to vote for if this standard was enforced across party lines?), why are the Democrats really steamed, we let one of the "drifters and homeless" speak:
“These are people who are not serious and who were recruited as part of a cynical manipulation of the process,” said Paul Eckstein, a lawyer representing the Democrats. “They don’t know Green from red.”
Reading tarot cards has taught Mr. Meadows, who is known for his purple and green jester hat, to talk a good game. “This is not the land of the free,” he told the loungers on the sidewalk, pitching himself for treasurer. “It’s the land of what’s for sale.”He is stealing the Democrats shtick!!
Monday, September 06, 2010
Yeah, they stink on ice!
- Mel Brooks, “History of the World”
It’s sort of like Atlas Shrugged (which has yet to be translated into French), except in this case, it’s the icy hand of the CGT you feel up your ass, and not the government’s. This time, the strikes revolve around a stopgap measure to –temporarily- keep the state pension system from hemorrhaging, by hiking the retirement age from 60 to a soul-crushing 62.
So the answer they come up with is to punish the rest of society, particularly people who make less than the comrades of the CGT do with transit slowdowns, and a few days of wrecking the GDP that they’re trying to seize more of. The real question is: how many years did you put in?
So wedded to the idea of making the rest of society cover all of your personal costs, even for Union zombies making a lot more than they’re worth to begin with, the idea of anyone doing anything themselves draws disparagement and confusion. Save for your OWN damned retirement, and you can retire whenever it makes sense for you. Pay yourself first, douchebag.
In every other part of the world (outside of North Korea and Cuba where the aged are often forced to forage in the woods for bark to eat), it’s only the indigent that depend entirely on the state when they retire. How it is that people who come out of what is touted as “the best education system in the world”, but can’t add, is beyond me.