Bad Investment

by Tugger
I gotta tell you. The next time some guy tries to sell me on a joint business venture in Islamic Africa, I'm gonna do a little cultural research first!

"The first of it's kind in Kartoum!" he said. "Everyone will love it!"

Thanks for nothing Alif!!!! //

Recently by TuggerCommentsDate
Iranian input please
Mar 09, 2010
Iranian kid Singer and Miraculous Indian bleeder.
Oct 02, 2009
Unspun caught in it's own web
Nov 21, 2008
more from Tugger


by Tugger on



Bad Investment, good Investment

by Faribors maleknasri M:D: (not verified) on

Africans are also waked up. At least some of them. To prove this I bet you attention, please acknowledge the following
The Camp David tragedy and Annapolis farce
Wed, 28 Nov 2007 09:48:06
By Joschka Fischer
Joschka Fischer, former German FM
Does history repeat itself, after all? Recent developments in the Middle East suggest that the answer is "yes," because the situation at the end of President George Bush's tenure increasingly resembles that of Bill Clinton's final year in the presidency.

Both presidents, at the end of their respective terms, sought to resolve one of the world's most dangerous conflicts, while facing the threat that time was running out on them.

One could despair: the Bush administration has obviously wasted almost seven years during which it could have pursued a solution. We are now back to the starting point: the Camp David and Taba talks - flippantly abandoned in January 2001 - are to be taken up again. Still, as the wise saying goes, better late than never!

The Middle East conference to be held in Annapolis, Maryland should be a forum for final status negotiations between the parties, dealing above all with the establishment of a Palestinian state and its borders (those of June 1967, with some negotiated exchanges of territory), its capital, Israeli settlements, and the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

It should also address questions of security, the termination of the decades-long state of war…

Indeed, it is high time for progress on a two-state solution, because the Palestinians are increasingly losing hope of ever having a state of their own. Without it, the Middle East conflict will remain at a stalemate and violence will only intensify.

Acceptable compromises on all of these questions have been negotiated repeatedly by the parties and stowed away for many years. The only missing ingredient is the political will and strength to enter into a peace agreement.

But this very political strength is precisely what both the Israelis and Palestinians lack. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian [Authority] President Mahmoud Abbas are very weak domestically, and, given the compromises needed on both sides, they will be risking a lot.

The same is true of President Bush. Indeed, the US government does not even stand whole-heartedly behind its own initiative. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wants the conference to happen and has done much to push it ahead. But how much risk is Bush - without whom a real breakthrough will be impossible - prepared to accept?

Fortunately, existing taboos about what is acceptable in the final status talks have fallen - on both sides. The parallel weakness of Olmert and Abbas has produced a parallel interest in a peace settlement. Indeed, both men hope for political survival through a peace agreement: Olmert by means of new elections and Abbas by a referendum through which he can regain ascendancy over Hamas. So will a failed "Peace of the Strong" be followed by a successful "Peace of the Weak"? …

There are obvious pitfalls, to be sure. Olmert's room for maneuver within his party, and particularly within his coalition, is very small. Can he make sufficient concessions on borders and Jerusalem [al-Quds]? Similar doubts apply to Abbas.
Can he deliver the security guarantees that Olmert needs, especially given the Palestinians' fear that, in the end, they will give too much, without getting back concessions on what they see as their fundamental demands?

Moreover, the critical hurdle will not be the negotiations, but rather implementation of whatever agreement may emerge - and its political cost will be very high. The Palestinians are already in the midst of a civil war. The compromises necessary for peace are likely to lead to a stark political confrontation in Israel as well. Obviously, Olmert is thinking of fusing an agreement on the final status with the Road Map mechanism. Such an agreement should be implemented gradually, and progress should depend on the parties' fulfillment of their obligations each step of the way.

So, from a realistic point of view, a positive outcome for the Annapolis talks seems almost impossible. Why should this conflict, which has proven to be unsolvable in the past, be suddenly solved (or brought closer to a solution) by three actors - Bush, Olmert, and Abbas - who are all in a state of profound domestic weakness?

Karl Marx wrote that history always repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. One might fear that Camp David proves to be the tragedy and Annapolis the farce. But, then, this is the Middle East, where earlier breakthroughs grew out of defeat, not victory.
Joschka Fischer was the former german FM. he went to tehran to motivate the IRI to mfight with westerns against Terrorism. He was asked to define the Word Terrorism first bevor fighting it. His answer had been: the time is short, we should not loose time to fix terrorism. the negogiation was at End. On the ferdowsi street where the german embassy is placed in tehran poeple were gathered to protest against german help for sadam regarding massdestroying weapons. Joschka was white in face as a cadavar. Greeting


Kososhere MAHZ!!!

by meganima on

Nothing is sacred... I'd rather name my stupid dog, Mohammad!


Mamad Kherse lives!

by Mamad Kherse (not verified) on

I don't know what all the fuss is about. I have lived for many years (as Mamad Kherse) and no one ever had any problem with me. Now all of a sudden it's bad for a Bear to be called Mohammad!