Iraqi policemen killed at checkpoint in Anbar - BBC News

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Five policemen have been killed in an attack on a checkpoint in Iraq, close to the Jordanian and Syrian borders.

Gunmen in the western province of Anbar targeted policemen who were guarding a highway that links Iraq to Jordan just after midnight on Tuesday.

One report said an attacker was killed in the ensuing clash.

The attack, in the town of Rutba, came two days after gunmen stormed a government compound killing seven in the provincial capital of Ramadi.

Violence in Iraq has been steadily on the rise in the past few months. Security forces have been one of the main targets of recent attacks, in addition to Shia religious processions.

There has also been a marked deterioration in Iraq's fragile political process since the withdrawal of US forces from the country at the end of last year.

An arrest warrant was issued for Vice-president Tariq Hashemi, the country's most prominent Sunni politician, on terrorism charges. He fled to the Kurdish-controlled region of northern Iraq, and denied the accusations against him.

But the warrant triggered a political crisis, as the biggest bloc in parliament accused Prime Minister Nuri Maliki of using the law to consolidate his grip on power.

View the original article here

Iraqi,policemen,killed,checkpoint,Anbar

Read More | comments

Iran's 'morality police' cracks down on Barbie

Little girls in America may look forward to their first Barbie doll, but in the eyes of Iranian authorities, they might as well be devil dolls.

The Islamic nation's morality police is cracking down on Mattel's popular toy, shopkeepers in Iran said Monday, the latest in an ongoing effort to rid the country of Western influence and anything that might go against strict Muslim teaching.

"About three weeks ago, they came to our shop asking us to remove all the Barbies," a toy shop owner in northern Tehran told Reuters, which noted that this isn't the first time the doll has been a target. The country's rulers declared Barbie "un-Islamic" in 1996, though stores continued to sell the doll.

The increased scrutiny of a classic American export comes amid escalating tension between the U.S. and Iran over Iran's nuclear program and its threat to block the strategic Strait of Hormuz if provoked.

But Iran's morality police has been pestering Iranians for some time now. Last year, authorities tried to stop an outbreak of water-gun fights, carried out by young people who dared to have fun.

“This is a warning to young people that we will not accept these types of organized activities and unacceptable behavior anywhere in our country,” the head of Tehran's morality police, Ahmad Roozbehani, said at the time.

About 70 percent of Iran’s 70 million population is under 35, and it is common for young people in Iran to be questioned for their clothing, hairstyles and even choice in music.

Earlier last year, the morality police reportedly deployed to the streets of Tehran to crack down on men wearing necklaces and women for wearing loose-fitting head scarves, tightened overcoats and shortened pants that show skin.

But making an example of Barbie doesn't make the doll any less popular.

"My daughter prefers Barbies," a 38-year-old mother named Farnaz told Reuters. She said her daughter thinks the other dolls on sale "are ugly and fat."

View the original article here

Irans,morality,police,cracks,Barbie

Read More | comments (1)

Put Iran War March on Trial - Daily Beast

We’re doing this terrible thing all over again. As before, we’re letting a bunch of ignorant, sloppy-thinking politicians and politicized foreign-policy experts draw “red line” ultimatums. As before, we’re letting them quick-march us off to war. This time their target is Iran. And heaven knows Iran’s leaders are bad guys capable of doing dangerous things. But if we’ve learned anything, anything at all, from plunging into war in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it is this: we must have a public scrubbing of fighting rhetoric before, not after, the war begins.

Sure, there are risks in acting so sensibly. It does signal hesitation, even weakness, to the adversary. But to me, the far greater risk lies in not hesitating. The real risk is not fully, thoroughly, and publicly laying bare the case for war. In every major war of the last decades, the public assumed the government and the experts knew what they were talking about and proposing to do. But after a year or so, that faith collapsed. Except for those who would bless the sound of the cannon wherever it led, everyone soon realized the terrible truth: that government leaders had little or no idea what they were doing, what the invaded country was really like, and what could and could not be accomplished at what cost. By then, it was too late. Once our truly precious troops had been sacrificed and our prestige had been cast upon the waters, patriotism and politics overwhelmed reason.

For our own sake, don’t let this happen again. Let’s have carefully planned and extended public hearings on the pros and cons of war with Iran. Let those hearings be conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee or a special public commission established by President Obama. Let’s do the job painstakingly and systematically, especially because Election Day beckons with its talons of stupidity and rashness. Yes, yes, I realize full well that a public pretrial is far from a perfect or even a good solution. But I cannot think of another way to slow down our familiar passive march toward war, and compel its drum majors to parade their plans on why the war must be fought and how it can be won. Hearings will surely confuse a lot of people, but at least give them their democratic chance to judge.



Iranian navy fires a Mehrab missile during the "Velayat-90" naval wargames in the Strait of Hormuz in southern Iran on January 1, 2012. Iran defiantly announced that it had tested a new missile and made an advance in its nuclear programme after the United States unleashed extra sanctions that sent its currency to a record low., Ebrahim Noroozi / Getty Images

To step back, there are two issues likely to spark fighting with Iran: Tehran’s threat to block an internationally recognized waterway at the Strait of Hormuz, and its relentless moves toward acquiring nuclear weapons.

On the surface, the strait question is open and shut. If Tehran violates a fundamental principle of international law and closes an international waterway, that waterway must be reopened by whatever force necessary. My gut reaction is right there. But then the questions arise: Why does this burden fall almost entirely on the United States? What of the other states that buy and sell the Gulf oil that moves through the strait? How long will it take, and at what cost, to reopen the strait and keep it open? Is it necessary to attack shore targets to accomplish the job? How far ashore? And what of economic destruction and, above all, civilian casualties? Is such a military action likely to convince the Iranians that they must acquire nuclear weapons, or would it dissuade them? Would a U.S.-led naval action in the strait make it more likely that Israel would use this as cover to launch a full-scale attack against Iranian nuclear facilities? And would this broader action trigger Iranian retaliation against both Israel and the United States? There are no hard and fast answers to most of these queries. And yes, some military plans would be aired partially to Tehran’s advantage. Nevertheless, their being raised and addressed gives Americans a much clearer sense of what they’re getting into—and, more, compels Congress and the executive branch to think much harder about their intended actions. Often, administrations don’t answer the toughest questions themselves until they have to, until it’s too late.

I realize full well that a public pretrial is far from a perfect or even a good solution. But I cannot think of another way to slow down our familiar passive march toward war.

The red lines being drawn against Iran’s growing capability to construct nuclear weapons are even more tortured and dangerous. These lines are all to the effect that if Tehran continues to move toward a nuclear-weapons capability, President Obama will attack and take out Iran’s nuclear facilities. I won’t bore you with the exact formulations, which are not intended to be exact. The administration doesn’t want to be exact and thus to tie its own hands. Nor could administration officials formulate exact words, because they can’t yet agree upon them.

The bottom line is that the administration is firming up its threats without absolutely committing itself to any particular action beyond ratcheting up rhetorical pressures and economic sanctions. Obama has been mostly careful to avoid pronouncements recently and has put that burden at a little distance from himself—onto the worthy shoulders of Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Panetta’s now famous “red lines” have been a bit pinkish, for good reason, leaving some things to Tehran’s imagination. Or perhaps his intention is just to say enough to keep Israel from pulling its own unilateral trigger.

It doesn’t take a genius to see what lies ahead in our nation’s election year. Most Republican presidential candidates are saying that Iran will never get close to nukes if they’re in the White House. The candidates are outdoing one another in outrageous commitments to sound tough. Recently, Mitt Romney put it like this: “If we reelect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon … If you’d like me as the next president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon.” And though we all know how careful Obama is, the dynamics of campaigns are bound to push him toward incaution to fend off charges of “weakness.” This is what happens to presidents in most elections.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee or some public commission has to pose the tough questions here: Do we really know enough to hit and destroy the key underground targets? If not, why go ahead? How long will it take for Tehran to rebuild the facilities and make them less vulnerable? What’s the potential for collateral damage on oil prices and lives? If Washington doesn’t use force, will Israel go it alone, and will Tehran regard this as a quasi-American attack anyway? If Iran actually acquired nukes, why wouldn’t prospects of an overwhelming Israeli or American attack in a crisis deter it? Iranian leaders haven’t acted like crazy Hitlers. They’ve been pretty cautious, forever issuing threats and making trouble behind the scenes, which suggests they’re deterrable. Would war on Iran trigger worldwide terrorist attacks? Is it in the overall interests of the United States, given our worldwide security needs and economic weaknesses, to enter another war? And don’t fool yourselves, this would be war.

As is our tragic pattern, almost all these tough questions are unasked and unhonored. All one hears is the familiar boasts and threats. They are rarely probed by our media stars.

Senator J. William Fulbright’s brilliant hearings on Vietnam and the James Baker/Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group both came far too late to save us. But there’s still time now for a full-scale, nonpartisan, and systematic examination of policy. Don’t let the usual hawks stop us with the argument that we’d be giving away too much information and signaling weakness to the enemy. What we’d truly be giving away if we heeded these hawks is not our military plans, but our constitutional and democratic rights to freely and openly debate whether our sons and daughters once again must fight and die.

View the original article here

March,Trial,Daily,Beast

Read More | comments

Search at collapsed building site called off, 27 dead - The Daily Star

BEIRUT: The death toll from Sunday’s building collapse in Beirut stands at 27 and search operations have ended, Interior Minister Marwan Charbel said Tuesday.

"This morning, we called off the rescue operation and rescue vehicles have been pulled out,” Charbel told the Kataeb-run Voice of Lebanon.

He said the deaths included 11 Lebanese and 16 foreigners.

Charbel said five Lebanese and seven foreigners were among the 12 tenants who were pulled out alive from the rubble.

The seven-story building collapsed at about 5 p.m. Sunday in the Fassouh neighborhood of Ashrafieh.

Charbel said that no more people were believed to be missing under the rubble. Reports that a number of foreigners were missing turned out to be inaccurate.

The building had been home to more than 20 Sudanese, as well as people from the Philippines, Egypt and Jordan.

While they had not anticipated such a sudden collapse, neighbors and residents of the building who had not been inside said Monday there had been warning signs of structural problems weeks earlier.

According to several accounts, a loud noise had been heard behind the building on New Year’s Eve, prompting the owner to place metal support poles on both sides of the building.

Residents said it had been too difficult for them to move elsewhere and blamed the owner, Michel Saadeh, for not taking the appropriate measures to address the issue.

Prime Minister Najib Mikati established a committee Monday to investigate the cause of the collapse as Beirut Prosecutor George Karam launched a probe into the incident.

Judicial sources told The Daily Star Tuesday that residents who survived the collapse due to their presence outside the building were being investigated, in order to determine whether Saadeh had informed them of the risks the building faced.

The sources also said that Judge Raja Abi Nader has been tasked with inspecting buildings adjacent to one that was leveled for safety reasons.

A funeral procession will be held Tuesday for the Lebanese victims as Ashrafieh observes a day of mourning.

View the original article here

Search,collapsed,building,called,Daily

Read More | comments

Kim Jong Il's other son expects North Korean regime to fail, journalist says - CNN International

Kim Jong Nam, the eldest son, is the half-brother of Kim Jong Un, the new leader of North KoreaKim Jong Nam is the most public of Kim Jong Il's sonsHe painted a picture of a father who was strict but was often warm-hearted, journalist says

Tokyo (CNN) -- They share the same rotund facial features, similar expressions and gait. But the two sons of Kim Jong Il have never met, and based on a new book being published in Japan this week, there appears to be little fraternal allegiance, at least from the eldest son's side.

Kim Jong Nam, the eldest son, is the half-brother of Kim Jong Un, the new leader of North Korea. Kim Jong Nam believes his youngest brother will fail as the "supreme leader" of the reclusive state, according to the book's author, Yoji Gomi.

"He's not comfortable that his younger brother is succeeding the power of Kim Jong Il," says Gomi, the author of "My Father, Kim Jong Il, and Me," which will hit bookshelves in Tokyo on Wednesday. "He (Kim Jong Nam) sees his brother failing. He thinks he (Kim Jong Un) has a lack of experience, he's too young, and he didn't have enough time to be groomed. Those three reasons are why he thinks he'll fail."

Kim Jong Nam is the most public of Kim Jong Il's sons, known primarily for his blunders and semi-exile from North Korea. An overweight and careless playboy, Kim Jong Nam enraged his father more than a decade ago when he was arrested slipping into Japan with forged documents -- simply to visit Disneyland. Kim Jong Nam lives in China and Macau and has occasionally popped up in the Japanese news media.

It was during one of those appearances in front of Japanese reporters -- in Beijing, during 2004 -- that Gomi, a reporter for the Tokyo Shimbun, first met Kim Jong Nam. They exchanged email addresses and began an occasional correspondence. In the past few years, Gomi said they had begun to write more, exchanging 150 emails. Last year, Kim Jong Nam agreed to meet with Gomi in Macau and Beijing for interviews.

What surprised Gomi the most, he said, is that the eldest of Kim Jong Il's sons was very smart and knowledgeable about the world -- and open-minded, especially about economic reforms.

"He spoke out against his father's 'military first' policy," says Gomi, countering widely held notions that the Disneyland debacle caused Kim Jong Nam to fall out of favor with his father. "He wants North Korea to embrace economic reform and open its doors."

Kim Jong Nam painted a picture of a father who was strict but was often warm-hearted to his eldest son, Gomi said, especially on special occasions. "Kim Jong Il called his son on his birthday," Gomi said.

Kim Jong Nam says the half-brothers were kept apart, following an ancient history of raising potential successors separately.

He says his father refused to discuss the succession of power for many years because it signaled his own death, according to Gomi -- only after his illness accelerated did the succession begin.

Both sons were educated in Switzerland, leaving Kim Jong Nam convinced that his country needed to embrace economic reforms. Kim Jong Nam believes his brother won't have the power to push through reforms, Gomi said.

"He's afraid the youngest son has no idea, no vision about economic reform," he said.

Professor Andrei Lankov of Kookmin University says Kim Jong Nam has been fairly public in the past, keeping his distance from the regime's inner circle. Lankov says he believes the latest comments are the reaction of a normal, intelligent human being who has a good understanding of the situation in North Korea.

"I would say maybe this smart, overweight playboy from Macau has the highest chances of physical survival of all the Kim Jong Il children," says Lankov.

"In the long run, the history of the North Korean state is going to end badly. We might see a coup, a revolution, a conspiracy, because in the very long run the system is not sustainable," Lankov said. "He (Kim Jong Nam) is away, he is secure. It is quite possible that many of his siblings will die a violent death sooner or later, and he is likely to live until an old age, writing memoirs, explaining to everybody how misunderstood his family was."

View the original article here

Ilaposs,other,expects,North,Korean,regime,journalist,International

Read More | comments

Top North Korean official says Kim Jong Un ready to lead

PYONGYANG, North Korea –  A senior North Korean party official dismissed concerns about Kim Jong Un's readiness to lead, saying he spent years working closely with his late father and helped him make key policy decisions on the economy as well as military affairs.

In the first high-level interview with foreign journalists since Kim Jong Il's Dec. 17 death, Politburo member and Kim family confidante Yang Hyong Sop told The Associated Press that North Koreans were in good hands with their young new leader. He emphasized an unbroken continuity from father to son that suggests a continuation of Kim Jong Il's key policies.

"We suffered the greatest loss in the history of our nation as a result of the sudden, unexpected and tragic loss of the Great Leader Kim Jong Il," he said in the interview Monday at Mansudae Assembly Hall, seat of the North Korean legislative body.

"But still, we are not worried a bit," he added, "because we know that we are being led by Comrade Kim Jong Un, who is fully prepared to carry on the heritage created by the Great Gen. Kim Jong Il."

Daily life in this cold, somber capital has begun to return to normal one month after Kim's death, reportedly from a heart attack while riding on his private train.

The white mourning bouquets and massive portraits of the departed leader have been cleared from Pyongyang's main buildings and monuments. People are busy getting back to daily life, with children whizzing down icy slopes on wooden sleds and workers running to catch morning buses and trams as the Kim Jong Un ode "Footsteps" blares over loudspeakers.

Vast Kim Il Sung Square, where a sea of mourners converged after Kim's death, was ghostly quiet except for a few people who scurried quickly across the frigid plaza.

In recent weeks, as North Koreans filled the capital's streets with their emotive mourning and the government staged elaborate funeral proceedings, party and military officials moved quickly to install Kim's son as "supreme leader" of the people, party and military.

Kim Jong Un had been kept out of the public eye for most of his life before suddenly emerging as his father's heir only in September 2010. Though still in his 20s, he was quickly promoted to four-star general and named a vice chairman of the Central Military Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea.

But the new ruler's youth and quick ascension to power have raised questions in foreign capitals about how ready he is to inherit rule over this nation of 24 million with a nuclear program as well chronic trouble feeding all its people.

Yang said he had no concerns about Kim's ability to lead.

"The Respected Comrade Kim Jong Un had long assisted the Great General Kim Jong Il," he told AP. "It's not a secret that he has helped the great general in many different aspects -- not only in military affairs but also the economy and other areas as well."

A soft-spoken octogenarian who is vice president of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly and a standing member of the powerful Political Bureau of the party's Central Committee, Yang has long-standing ties with the Kim family that stretch back to his close alliance with the nation's founder, Kim Il Sung.

During a 2010 interview with Associated Press Television News in Pyongyang, he provided the first confirmation by a government official that Kim Jong Un would eventually become the nation's next leader.

"He knows what the exact intention of the Great Gen. Kim Jong Il was," he said Monday.

His comments this week indicated there would be little change to major policies laid out by Kim Jong Un's father in the three years before his death. Yang said the new leader was focused on a "knowledge-based" economy and looking at economic reforms enacted by other nations, including China.

The North has increasingly looked to China for guidance on how to revitalize its moribund economy, particularly as South Korea, Japan and other nations have frozen trade and aid to the North amid concerns about its nuclear ambitions.

Little is known about Kim Jong Un's background and experience, though North Koreans have been told he studied at Kim Il Sung Military University and was involved in military operations such as the November 2010 artillery attack on a South Korean island that killed four South Koreans.

Earlier this month, North Korea's state-run broadcaster aired a documentary about the new leader that began filling in some blanks prior to his public debut.

The footage shows him observing the April 2009 launch of a long-range rocket and quotes him threatening to wage war against any nation attempting to intercept the rocket, which North Korea claimed was carrying a communications satellite but the United States, South Korea and Japan say was really a test of its long-range missile technology.

It was the first indication of his involvement in that controversial launch.

Yet even if Kim Jong Un was playing a prominent behind-the-scenes role prior to 2010, his training period would have been much shorter than that of his Kim Jong Il, who spent 20 years working under his own father, Kim Il Sung.

After his father's death, Kim Jong Il observed a three-year mourning period before formally assuming leadership.

"Kim Jong Il had the benefit of time. He had 20 years to grow a cult of personality around him," said Cheong Seong-chang, an expert on North Korean affairs at the private Sejong Institute in South Korea. "Kim Jong Un had only two to three years at the most ... so authorities are now hurrying their propaganda efforts."

View the original article here

North,Korean,official,ready

Read More | comments

Liberia's Sirleaf takes oath for second term, promises reconciliation – Christian Science Monitor

Liberia's Sirleaf takes oath for second term, promises reconciliation – Christian Science Monitor

Read More | comments