主题：美国精英对美国选票制度的批判。 -- dolong

http://www.juancole.com/2010/12/top-ten-myths-about-afghanistan-2010.html

Top Ten Myths about Afghanistan, 2010

Posted on 12/27/2010 by Juan

10. “There has been significant progress in tamping down the insurgency in Afghanistan.”

* Fact: A recent National Intelligence Estimate by 16 intelligence agencies found no progress. It warned that large swathes of the country were at risk of falling to the Taliban and that they still had safe havens in Pakistan, with the Pakistani government complicit. The UN says there were over 6000 civilian casualties of war in Afghanistan in the first 10 months of 2010, a 20% increase over the same period in 2009. Also, 701 US and NATO troops have been killed this year, compared to 521 last year, a 25% increase. There were typically over 1000 insurgent attacks per month in Afghanistan this year, often twice as many per month as in 2009, recalling the guerrilla war in Iraq in 2005.

9. Afghans want the US and NATO troops to stay in their country because they feel protected by them.

* Fact: In a recent [pdf] poll, only 36% of Afghans said they were confident that US troops could provide security. Only 32% of Afghans now have a favorable view of the United States’ aid efforts in their country over-all.

Afghan poll Dec. 6, 2010

Dec. 6, 2010, ABC/BBC et al. poll of Afghans

8. The “surge” and precision air strikes are forcing the Taliban to the negotiating table.

* Fact: The only truly high-ranking Taliban leader thought to have engaged in parleys with the US, Mulla Omar’s number 2, turns out to have been a fraud and a con man.

7. The US presence in Afghanistan is justified by the September 11 attacks.

* Fact: In Helmand and Qandahar Provinces, a poll found that 92% of male residents had never heard of 9/11.

6. Afghans still want US troops in their country, despite their discontents.

* Fact: one poll found that 55% of Afghans want the US out of their country. And, the percentage of Afghans who support Taliban attacks on NATO has grown from 9% in 2009 to 27% this year!

5. The presidential elections of 2009 and the recent parliamentary elections were credible and added to the legitimacy of Afghanistan’s government.

* Fact: Karzai stole his presidential election and the parliamentary elections were riddled with fraud. One fourth of the votes for parliament this fall had to be thrown out because of suspected ballot fraud, and 10 percent of victors were unseated for serious irregularities.

4. President Hamid Karzai is “a key ally” of the United States.

* Fact: Karzai has repeatedly threatened to join the Taliban. He has also admitted to being on a $2 million a year retainer from Iran. All he has to do is cozy up to North Korea for a trifecta!

3. Shiite Iran is arming the hyper-Sunni, Shiite-hating Taliban in Afghanistan.

* Fact: Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates told Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini last February “that intelligence indicated there was little lethal material crossing the Afghanistan-Iran border.” This according to a wikileaks cable.

2. Foreigners are responsible for much of Afghanistan’s fabled corruption.

* The trail of big corruption usually leads back to people around President Karzai. Karzai insiders bankrupted a major Kabul bank with their shenanigans, forcing the government to bail it out. A significant portion of the $42 million in medicine given by the US for Afghan soldiers this year has disappeared and the Karzai-appointed official concerned has just been fired. US officials have alleged that Karzai’s brother in Qandahar has run interference for illegal businesses and the drug trade.

1. The US is in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaeda.

* Fact: CIA director Leon Panetta admitted that there are only 50-100 al-Qaeda operatives in Afghanistan! The US is mainly fighting two former allies among the Mujahidin whom Ronald Reagan dubbed “freedom fighters” and the “equivalent of America’s founding fathers:” Gulbaddin Hikmatyar and his Hizb-i Islami, and Jalaluddin Haqqani and his Haqqani Network. These two organizations, which received billions from the US congress to fight the Soviets in the 1980s, are more deadly and important now than the ‘Old Taliban’ of Mulla Omar. The point is that they are just manifestations of Pashtun Muslim nationalism, and not eternal enemies of the United States (being former allies and clients and all). Hikmatyar has roundly denounced al-Qaeda.

加拿大的司法独立和日本的“司法独立”是不是一回事啊？停止出口稀土、逮捕几个日本公民就可以放了船长了？LOL.

－－－－－－－－－－－

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/28/AR2010122800467.html

很多中国人（many Chinese） 不理解，加拿大政府不能决定或者影响法庭的决定。

德国：最新的中印真实对比惊人 西方不该厚印薄中

信源：大旗网｜编辑：2010-12-28｜

随着中美关系因对台军售等事件出现摩擦，外界对两国关系的发展出现不同看法。一些西方媒体在批评中国的同时，大赞印度。甚至有媒体声称，“印美国”将取代 “中美国”。对此，德国资深记者克里斯迪安斯密特撰文呼吁，西方媒体不应“厚印薄中”。

54岁的斯密特是德国主流媒体《法兰克福汇报》、《南德意志报》、《时代》周报和瑞士《新苏黎世报》的驻华撰稿人。他写过《独自在13亿人中----―一次横跨中国的旅行》、《来自中国的信》等畅销书，并为德国前外长费舍尔写过长篇传记《我们是疯子》。

德国官方性质的德中文化网德文版24日刊登斯密特以“也仅是宣传”为题的文章。文章认为，中国政府一次次遭到德国媒体严厉的批评，但关于印度这一中国邻国的批评声音却不多。德国媒体总是认为，中国是“一党专制”，而印度的议会民主制度参照的是西方模式，不可以批评。

斯密特对此表示质疑。他引用美国《纽约时报》此前的报道称，中国在许多方面的发展都好于印度。比如，中国5周岁以下儿童的营养不良比例已降低至7%，而印度是42.5%，并且这一数字还在不断增加;2009年联合国的《人类发展报告》显示，中国人的平均寿命是72.9岁，与欧盟国家爱沙尼亚相同，而印度为63.4岁;在教育领域，中国同样远远领先于印度。联合国的报告显示，93.3%的中国人能读写，而印度只有66%。斯密特认为，生存的权利和接受教育的权利同样属于人权范畴，“显然，在‘民主’的印度每天遭到人权的伤害程度比‘非民主’的中国要严重得多”。

斯密特认为，在审查制度上，印度也不比中国更开放。印度依然存在各种审查，主要针对宗教和性话题。像萨曼拉什的《撒旦诗篇》在出版后立即被禁，内容涉及同性恋和异装癖的印度电影《紫色镜子》即使囊括几项国际电影节奖项，依然被禁止在国内上映。在印度也有许多网页被屏蔽。

斯密特称，德国媒体对这些都不提，取而代之的是事无巨细地报道达赖喇嘛的每一次行程，报道“藏独”人士的活动，却从不报道印度东部处于战争状态的阿萨姆联合解放阵线和纳萨尔派的反政府人士，也根本不了解这些事情。

斯密特呼吁，西方媒体在报道中国对人权的“伤害”以及“网络审查”时，也应注意报道的比例。是不是也应当报道一些中国社会的进步?比如中国执行死刑的人数近年来减少了1/3，或报道中国政府在乡村进行民主选举实验，以及像马克里欧纳德在其获奖书籍《中国怎么想》里描述的中国教授和其他知识分子进行的自由辩论。 “只有这样，才会扭转中国人对西方媒体的普遍看法----―你们所谓的自由媒体也仅是宣传而已”。

斯密特的文章在德中文化网刊登之前，已于 1月26日在广播电台播出，反响很强烈。2月17日出版的德国《法兰克福评论》也以“飞跃围墙”为题对斯密特进行了专访。斯密特表示，在中国生活，肯定比西方媒体描述的要好。他说，中国人用谷歌搜索的才30%，大多数人用百度，所以谷歌说要退出中国市场，对中国人影响并不大。所谓对企业的审查等，其实都是例行规定，国外企业都知道这些。

家住科隆的德国工程师琳科女士对《环球时报》记者说，很多西方媒体涉及中国和印度的报道，明显带有“厚印薄中”的感情色彩。她希望西方媒体像斯密特先生谈的那样，客观报道中国和印度，以事实为准。

怪不得《新闻周刊》倒闭卖掉了，原来这么不准啊。

＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝＝

美国《新闻周刊》：2010年世界形势十大预言 （2009年12月）

　　1.阿富汗增兵奏效

　　阿富汗的增兵将会奏效。因为所有迹象都表明，驻阿富汗美军司令斯坦利麦克里斯特尔已经从伊拉克吸取了教训。

2.中国经济将崩溃

　　流行的观点认为，中国是全球金融危机的重要赢家。毕竟它每年以8%的速度增长，政治稳定，流动资金充足。但放宽信贷的结果是造成股市和房市泡沫膨胀，这令很多投资者为市场泡沫感到担忧。实际上甚至中国官员都警告说，新贷款和新投资中相当大一部分已成为市场上的热钱。中国的股市和房地产泡沫将崩溃，导致全球新一轮的通货紧缩。如果这时又发生银行业危机、贸易战或中国增长放慢，全世界都会听到一声爆裂的巨响。

3.巴基斯坦又发生政变

　　我们越来越难以想像扎尔达里在2010年底仍然是巴基斯坦总统。他几乎没有民众的支持。2009年10月，仅有20%的巴基斯坦人对他的工作表示满意。然而，更深刻的问题是他没有能力控制政府。专家说，外交部、总理和强有力的军方都反对他的领导。中情局前官员布鲁斯里德尔说，虽然未必肯定发生政变，但“那是可以想像的。巴

基斯坦历史上就是这样”。

　　4.查韦斯面临另一场政变

　　曾经蓬勃发展的全球经济和对原油大幅上涨的需求让委内瑞拉强人查韦斯获益匪浅。但经济衰退又冷不防地使他丧失了优势。现在他有关在拉美实现“21世纪社会主义”的追求走向崩溃。大量的政府开支将助长通胀。通胀将严重影响工薪阶层和穷人(这些是查韦斯的主要支持者)，并减少对于道路和电力的公共投资。随着不断出现断电、政府债务增加;以及同重要贸易伙伴哥伦比亚之间的冷战加剧，这些问题将造成经济瘫痪。军方将介入推翻查韦斯，并恢复秩序。

　　5.对欧洲种族主义的激烈反应

　　2009年，欧洲的政治论调向种族主义转变——瑞士人投票禁止清真寺建尖塔，法国研究禁止穆斯林女子在公众场合穿长袍，还有其他一些众所周知的歧视性事件。2010年预计会出现对种族主义的强烈对抗性反应。如果经济复苏证明只是一种幻想，情况就更是如此。

　　6.伊朗受到制裁打击

　　抗议者仍会偶尔走上街头谴责内贾德，但批评似乎只会坚定这位伊朗领导人的决心。当不可避免地又发现该国的一个秘密核设施时，联合国将别无选择，只能考虑制裁。而今天的坚持不合作者(中国和印度)将失去借口。伊朗有五分之二的汽油，以及大量的食品和工业品依赖进口。制裁对它来说可能是破坏性的。

　　7.巴西将成为新的“中国”

　　巴西已经从国际投资者、经济学家和国际奥委会那里获得了相当多的推崇。国际奥委会已选择里约热内卢主办2016年奥运会。但随着2010年的发展，巴西同“金砖四国”中其他国家间的差距将会拉大。随着普京的独裁倾向变得日益明显，从而吓退了外国投资，俄罗斯很久之前就退出了赛跑。印度还在强劲增长，但它处于一个不稳定的地区，各方面都受到威胁。当然中国依然受到国际投资者的青睐，但大量风险(房地产泡沫和环境问题)都在视野内盘旋。

　　8.英国保守党代价高昂的胜利

　　英国保守党对工党的优势已经缩小，在明年的议会选举中，它可能无法赢得绝对多数。该党派将被迫同自民党结盟。它将过于软弱，无法推行解决英国不断加剧的债务问题所需的各种艰难措施。

　　9.欧洲面临新的金融危机

　　在2008年的银行业危机和2009年的经济衰退之后， 2010年我们可能会看到下一阶段的全球经济动荡:公共财政方面的危机。问题在欧洲最严重。在西班牙、爱尔兰和英国，政府赤字已上升到GDP的12%还多。而到2014年，欧盟各国的政府债务将超过GDP的100%。由于担心政府无力解决其巨大赤字，2009年12月希腊市场发生崩溃。由于大部分欧盟国家使用欧元作为通用货币，它们再也不能通过印刷钞票来解决债务问题，也不能让它们的货币贬值来使自己的出口产品变得更有竞争力，从而摆脱困境。

　　10.卡斯特罗去世，古美关系改善

　　卡斯特罗已生病多年，他可能将于2010年去世。对古巴的控制权将正式移交给他的弟弟劳尔。权力移交将是和平的，因为大部分公民尽管对卡斯特罗的极权主义体系的一些方面感到不满，但并不完全排斥社会主义。古巴不会在一夜之间发生改变，但卡斯特罗的去世将意味着同他有关的所有教条式的僵化做法将受到审视。最重要的是，劳尔认识到了同美国增进关系带来的经济潜力，他将减少其政府的反美言论。

（新闻来源：《参考消息》2009年12月25日第三版）

[URL=http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/12/how-america-can-rise-again/7839/

]Atlantic: How America Can Rise Again[/URL]

Author: James Fallows

January/ February 2010

目录是：

1) One Reason Not to Worry: We Have Been Here Before

2) Another Reason Not to Worry: The Irrelevance of “Falling Behind”

3) The Crucial American Advantage

4) The Main Concerns: （ jobs, debt, military strength, and overall independence.）这里的concern 都谈到了中国，特别是军事。

5) The Biggest Problem. 作者谈到了政府，需要政府转型：America needed “a government as good as its people.”

6) What Is To Be Done?（America is not going to have a Communist revolution nor endure “100 Years of Humiliation,” as Imperial China did. 老美还知道中国的百年屈辱？）

a）这家伙想要政变：We could hope for an enlightened military coup, or some other deus ex machina by the right kind of tyrants.

b）民主政治改革：We could hope to change the basic nature of our democracy, so it fits the times as our other institutions do.

c）修改宪法：In principle, the United States could call for a new constitutional convention, to reconsider all the rules.

d）新的外来威胁改变美国人：We might hope for another Sputnik moment.

e）作者有点失望： Our government is old and broken and dysfunctional, and may even be beyond repair.

--

Liu Xiaobo wrong man for Nobel Peace Prize, say laureates

* Lucy Bannerman

* From: The Australian

* December 13, 2010 12:00AM

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/liu-xiaobo-wrong-man-for-nobel-peace-prize-say-laureates/story-e6frg6so-1225969772275

TWO British scientists awarded the Nobel Physics Prize have caused shock by condemning the decision to give the peace prize to Liu Xiaobo.

Andre Geim, a professor at the University of Manchester, who shares this year's $1.6 million prize with colleague Konstantin Novoselov, said the Nobel committee was out of touch, and dismissed its tribute to the jailed Chinese dissident as patronising.

"Look at the people who give this Nobel prize," Professor Geim said. "They are retired Norwegian politicians who have spent all their careers in a safe environment, in an oil-rich modern country. They try to extend their views of the world, how the world should work and how democracy works in another country. It's very, very patronising -- they have not lived in these countries.

"In the past 10 years, China has developed not only economically, but even the strongest human rights supporter would agree also human rights have improved. Why do we need to distort this?"

Professor Novoselov defended China, insisting Western criticism of the communist regime was misplaced.

"What is a dictatorship? It is not as if people are being constantly killed there," he said.

The scientists' support for China sparked an extraordinary exchange with another laureate, Peruvian writer Mario Vargas Llosa, during the annual Nobel Minds debate.

Vargas Llosa, who expressed solidarity with the dissident Liu, said the scientists "must explain themselves".

Both were born in Russia, one of the 17 countries that boycotted the ceremony, but they have made careers in Britain. They were honoured for their work with graphene, the thinnest known material, which opens huge possibilities in technology.

Although both agreed it was unfair that neither Mr Liu nor his family had been allowed to accept his award, they said it was a myth that every Chinese person was terrified of the regime.

"China is doing a lot for its scientists. So many of our Chinese students want to go back because they see lots of opportunities there. They don't see it as breaching their human rights," Professor Novoselov said.

Professor Geim added: "I have many Chinese colleagues, and they believe that the slow way to Western democracy is better."

The Times

http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/12/11/world/europe/11nobel.html?sort=newest

blinded1

USA

December 10th, 2010

8:16 pm

I came to America more than 20 years ago, not to pursuing the American Dream

, but only for being able to breath freely. When I was in China, I

encouraged my students to join other demonstrating students to show their

solidarity and to learn from the society classroom. In the early month of

June, 1989 I, as well as the vast majority of Chinese students and scholars

in US walked onto streets to protest and condemn Chinese government’s

crackdown on peaceful student demonstration in Beijing, and donated money

for the students’ course. I want to see China to be a modern, democratic

and free country with her citizens enjoying every right a human being

entitled to. But such Chinese society should be made and defined by the

Chinese people, no defined or pressured by any foreign influence, and

particularly it should no be a puppet state or colony of foreign nation(s).

I will not hesitate to criticize or condemn the CCP and Chinese government

whenever I see its action harmful to the interests of China nation and

Chinese people, neither I will keep silent because such actions are come

from ‘democratic, free’ countries.

I don’t consider Liu Xiaobo’s advocating for 300 years’ colonization as

big offense, mostly a sensational show off for publicity. However, his

willingness to be a second-class citizen of Western nations does not

represent the interests of 1.3 billion Chinese people. His accepting money

from the National Endowment for Democracy establishes himself as a foreign (

particularly, US) agent whose only purpose is to sabotage the sovereignty

and integrity of China nation. Since its creation by CIA, did NED have done

anything that is beneficiary to foreign people it pretends to ‘help’ other

than assisting US government to fortify America’s global hegemony position.

Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize committee is smart enough to praise Liu Xiaobo

for his ‘human rights activism’ not for promoting world peace, because Liu

has nothing to brag about peace activities, if not the opposite. But please

enlighten me what ‘human rights’ activity he has done, or simply because

he is jailed by Chinese government? A award for democracy maybe more

relevant for Liu, but then he is only one in 100,0000 on Tiananmen Square,

and one in millions in China in 1989 went on streets to protest.

It is no surprise that the Nobel Peace Prize committee has a political

agenda in picking up Liu. The problem is that it picked a wrong person. Many

Chinese dissidents are more qualified than Liu, and many have done great

deal to help the poor people and the society. In the chorus launched by US

government and mainstream media condemning Chinese government’s attempt to

block the Award ceremony, many equating China as Nazi Germany, a good

observer can detect the missing components, a supporting voice from the

Chinese, in China and overseas – a startling contrast to the solidarity

between oversea Chinese and west media in the wake of Tiananmen Square

students demonstration crackdown in June 4, 1989. US may be used to imposing

‘regime change’ over foreign sovereign nations without the support of

endogenous people. However, China is not Iraq and US dare to use the same

strategy it used in Iraq and Afghan to China. This is why Liu Xiaobo is

useful and important. Unfortunately (or fortunately based on personal

judgment) Liu does not resonate a big echo of his voice/thoughts in Chinese.

I will say it is a dream trying to make regime change without the support

of majority Chinese people.

Today’s US the press environment is increasingly suffocating. The

mainstream media have hijacked honest journalism, instead filled news

reporting with twist and manipulations and lies. Free press without

objectivity and factuality has no difference from propaganda and brainwash.

Recommend Recommended by 5 Readers

Report as Inappropriate