Paris Macho ! UPDATE 2 : Sarkozy impregnates both Carla Bruni and Mistress Rachida Dati

Yes! Runty little President Sarkozy (who stands in/on the bed to kiss his wife) has made his beautiful young (?) wife Carla Bruni pregnant.

Fifty year old Cecilia, his second wife and mother of his 11 year old son, Louis called us last night.."I didn't know she had it in her", she sobbed rather bitterly.

A true Parisian , Cecilia Maria Sara Isabel Ciganer-Albeniz was first married at the age of 27 to the 51-year old children's TV presenter Jacques Martin at the town hall of the chic Paris suburb of Neuilly in 1984. The mayor was Nicolas Sarkozy, then 2 years older than her.

Cecilia suggests that this explains Carla's absence in public since the trip to Windsor - did the entente cordiale go to their heads ?


Saturday, October 06, 2007 Get to work on an egg

PS : Update he's made his mistress 42 year old Rachida Dati pregnant as well according to the news Daily Mail @ 1.37 pm . see Monday, October 22, 2007 Rachida Dati seen by a billion on TV with President ... or did we misunderstand Cecilia ?

See also Monday, November 12, 2007 President Sarkozy's Harem hits Washington

...and Rama Yade ?

Cold wars suddenly got colder - Official .. Re - run those reels won't yah ?

This is a copy of the post made on December 3rd 2006. - we referred to remarks by Senator Lugar in our post on Saturday European Energy security exposed by events in Georgia - and winter is 2/3 months away - UK decades of delay ... A kind visitor remembered this post and suggested it was repeated 20 months later. Oil was then around US$60 a barrel and in the US Regular Unleaded gas was US$2.10 at the pump ... As we remarked then .. he highlighted that we live in a much changed .. and rapidly changing world of energy flows.

Mobile Topol-M ballistic missile
Lord Patel met Senator Richard Lugar , Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations committe at Purdue this summer, whilst his immediate interest was to boondoggle for his home state Indiana's share of ethanol subsidies he made some trenchant remarks about energy security in the modern world.

He is a tough, shrewd, worldly wise politician who is now bowing out from centre stage. Following his summertime remarks in Purdue, he made a chracteristically blunt (but unremarked ) speech at the Marshall Fund conference in Riga, in Latvia in advance of the NATO summit. In the light of Turkmenbashis's death it is worth considering. Full text at US Embassy

NATO he points out is bigger, it is busier than ever. That is not a guarantee however of security in a global world - when NATO was originally forged to deal with the defence of Europe from the Warsaw Pact countries. He dwelt at some length on the role of NATO in Afghanistan ...

"Although the hunt for al-Qaeda terrorists continues, the primary threat to the stability of Afghanistan is Taliban insurgents who are challenging ISAF in greater numbers, sowing dissent among Afghanis, cooperating with the bourgeoning narcotics trade, and complicating security efforts in ways that inhibit the rule of law and reconstruction."

He pointed out that whatever the political will, action was dependent upon expenditure ..

"To overcome these challenges and similar ones, we must reverse the downward spiral of defense budgets. Only a handful of members spend more than 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense. Good intentions can only carry a military force so far ..."

He pointed out what many in the US see as the foot dragging of NATO nations ..

"It is imperative that NATO fulfills its commitments to Afghanistan. The Alliance has found it difficult to generate the political will to meet NATO objectives.....Unfortunately, NATO capitals are making the military mission even more difficult by placing national caveats on the use of their forces. These restrictions, coupled with troop shortages, are making ISAF a less cohesive and capable force."

He moved on and marked the " Centrality of Energy" to the NATO mission, to prevent wars and not fight them. He then outlined a key problem which a less than united Europe should consider..

" In the coming decades, the most likely source of armed conflict in the European theater and the surrounding regions will be energy scarcity and manipulation. It would be irresponsible for NATO to decline involvement in energy security, when it is abundantly apparent that the jobs, health, and security of our modern economies and societies depend on the sufficiency and timely availability of diverse energy resources."

" .... our experiences provide little reason to be confident that market rationality will be the governing force behind energy policy and transactions."

He then highlighted that we live in a much changed .. and rapidly changing world of energy flows.

"As recently as four years ago, spare production capacity exceeded world oil consumption by about ten percent. As world demand for oil has rapidly increased in the last few years, spare capacity has declined to two percent or less. Thus, even minor disruptions of oil supply can drive up prices."

He continued, to describe what he was to call geo-strategic blackmail.

"We are used to thinking in terms of conventional warfare between nations, but energy could become the weapon of choice for those who possess it. It may seem to be a less lethal weapon than military force, but a natural gas shutdown to a European country in the middle of winter could cause death and economic loss on the scale of a military attack."

he then warmed to the core of his concerns, which affects NATO and their allies.

"We must move now to address our energy vulnerability. "

"Article Five of the NATO Charter identifies an attack on one member as an attack on all.....We should recognize that there is little ultimate difference between a member being forced to submit to foreign coercion because of an energy cutoff and a member facing a military blockade or other military demonstration on its borders."

Addressing the concerns about Rusia he called for dialogue ..

"I believe that Russia has a long-term interest in achieving a more prosperous stability that comes with greater investment in its energy sector and the development of a reputation as a trusted supplier. But its recent actions to temporarily reduce gas supplies to the West, confiscate some foreign energy investments, and create further barriers to new investment are undermining confidence in Moscow’s reliability. "

Remember ....this was before Gazprom successfully strong armed Shell over Sakhalin and Tblisi gave in on a new price for gas from next week.

He concluded ..

"I understand that adopting energy security as a mission is a major advancement from NATO’s origins. But it represents an historic opportunity to change the circumstances of geopolitics to the benefit of all members".

Meanwhile the first regiment of Topol-M mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) went on active duty in the Ivanovo region in central Russia this month and received a visit from President Vladimir Putin on 14 December 2006. He called the deployment a "significant step forward in improving our defense capabilities".(see exclusive pic)

"Maintaining a strategic balance will mean that our strategic deterrent forces should be able to guarantee the neutralization of any potential aggressor, no matter what modern weapon systems he possesses," Putin said.

The state-of-the-art mobile Topol-M ballistic missile, with a liftoff weight of 47.2 tonnes, a range of more than 10,000 kilometers and capability of carrying a 1,200-kilogram warhead, which is immune to electromagnetic impulses is a valuable reminder of the uncreasingly tough competition between the great powers for unimpeded access to raw materials, including energy resources.

On 15 December 2006 Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov, commander or Russia's Strategic Missile Forces,said "We will begin to equip the Topol-M mobile missile system with multiple re-entry vehicles in a few years."

Ukraine's Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych had a visitor to discuss gas supplies for winter this week. President Putin.

Swan Song for NATO - The Real Cost Of Defeat In Forgettistan

This article by Mike Whitney is reproduced it it's entirety it provides the most powerful and telling argument for UK withdrawal without delay.

"It is our right to defend our country. We are not a threat to other countries. But we have to use our rights when our country is occupied by foreign forces." - Mullah Omar, Taliban leader

It was supposed to be "the good war"; a war against terror; a war of liberation. It was intended to fix the eyes of the world on America's state of the art weaponry, its crack troops and its overwhelming firepower. It was supposed to demonstrate once and for all-- that the world's only superpower could no longer be beaten or resisted; that Washington could deploy its troops anywhere in the world and crush its adversaries at will.

Then everything went sideways. The war veered from the Pentagon's script. The Taliban retreated, waited, regrouped and retaliated. They enlisted support from the Pashtuns and the tribal leaders who could see that America would never honor its commitments; that order would never be restored. Operation Enduring Freedom has brought neither peace nor prosperity to Afghanistan; just occupation. Seven years have passed and the country is still ruled by warlords and drug- merchants. Nothing has gotten better. The country is in shambles and the government is a fraud. The humiliation of foreign occupation persists while the killing goes on with no end in sight.

War is not foreign policy. It is slaughter. Seven years later; it's still slaughter. The Taliban have taken over more than half of Afghanistan. They have conducted military operations in the capital of Kabul. They're dug in at Logar, Wardak and Ghazni and control vast swathes of territory in Zabul, Helmand, Urzgan and Kandahar. Now they are getting ready to step-up operations and mount a Spring offensive. That means the hostilities will progressively intensify.

The Taliban's approach is methodical and deliberate. They've shown they can survive the harshest conditions and still achieve tactical victories over a better-equipped enemy. They are highly-motivated and believe their cause is just. After all, they're not fighting to occupy a foreign nation; they're fighting to defend their own country. That strengthens their resolve and keeps morale high. When NATO and American troops leave Afghanistan; the Taliban will remain, just as they did when the Russians left 20 years ago. No difference. The US occupation will just be another grim footnote in the country's tragic history.

The United States has gained nothing from its invasion of Afghanistan. US troops do not control even a square inch of Afghan soil. The moment a soldier lifts his boot-heel; that ground is returned to the native people. That won't change either. General Dan McNeill said recently that "if proper US military counterinsurgency doctrine were followed; the US would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan." Currently, the US and NATO have only 66,000 troops on the ground and the allies are refusing to send more. On a purely logistical level; victory is impossible.

The battle for hearts and minds has been lost, too. A statement from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) sums it up like this:

"The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of our people for freedom and prosperity and proved that, for the Bush administration, defeating terrorism has no meaning at all....The US doesnt want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and achieve their economic and strategic goals in the region....After seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering of our people is increasing everyday. ...We believe that if the troops leave Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts...Afghanistans freedom can only be achieved by Afghan people themselves. Relying on one enemy to defeat another is a wrong policy which has just tightened the grip of the Northern Alliance and their masters on the neck of our nation." (RAWA www.rawa.org)

Gradually, the Allies are beginning to see that Bush's war cannot be won and that continuing the fighting is counterproductive. There is no military solution to the conflict in Afghanistan and the political objectives are getting murkier all the time. The lack of direction just adds to the growing frustration.

Recently Secretary of Defence Robert Gates tried to bully the allies into sending more combat troops to fight in the South, but he met with stiff resistance . He said:

"I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security," Gates said. "We must not become a two-tiered alliance of those who are willing to fight and those who are not. Such a development, with all its implications for collective security, would in effect destroy the alliance."

But public support for the war is waning in Europe. This is America's war, not theirs. Europeans don't need to occupy foreign nations to meet their energy needs. Their economies are thriving and they can simply pay for their fuel on the open market. Only America wants the war. It's all part of a crazy geopolitical "grand strategy" to project US power into the region to control its resources. So far, there's no indication that the plan will succeed.

Germany has the third biggest economy in the world. Over the last few years, they have strengthened ties with Russia and made agreements that will satisfy their long-term energy needs. But German involvement in Afghanistan has put a strain on relations with Moscow. Putin thinks that the US is using the war to put down roots in Central Asia so it can control pipeline-routes from the Caspian Basin while surrounding Russia and China with military bases. Putin is right. Naturally, he'd like to persuade German Chancellor Angela Merkel to withdraw from Afghanistan which would strike a blow against the US-led alliance. And, that is the way it will probably turn out, too.

Eventually, German leaders will see that its foolish to tweak the nose of the people who provide them with energy (Russia) just to support Washington's adventures. When Germany withdraws from Afghanistan; NATO will disband, new coalitions will form, and the transatlantic alliance fall apart. The cracks are already visible.

President Bush has said that the war in Afghanistan must continue or the country will become a haven for drugs, terrorism and organized crime. He says we are fighting a "poisonous ideology of Islamic extremism which threatens to become a global movement".

But the Taliban and Pashtun tribesmen see it differently. They see the conflict as an imperial war of aggression which has only added to the suffering of their people. A recent report by the United Nations Human Development Fund appears to support this view. It shows that Afghanistan has fallen in every category. The average life expectancy has gone down, malnutrition has risen, literacy has dropped, and more than half the population is living below the poverty-line. Hundreds of thousands of people have been internally displaced by the war. The occupation has created plenty of misery, but no democracy. The war was a failure.

Afghanistan now produces 90% of the world's opium; more than any other country. The booming drug trade is the direct corollary of the US invasion. No one even denies this. Bush has created the world's largest narco-colony. Is that success?

Presently, there are no plans to improve the lives of ordinary Afghanis or to remove the warlords. Reconstruction is at a standstill. If the US stays in Afghanistan, the situation 10 years from now will be the same as it is today, only more people will have needlessly died. Most Afghanis now understand that the promise of democracy was a lie. The only thing the occupation has brought is more grinding poverty and random violence.

There's no back-up plan for Afghanistan. In fact, there is no plan at all. The administration thought the Taliban would see America's high- tech, laser-guided weaponry and run for the hills. They did. Now they're back. And now we are embroiled in an "unwinnable" war with a tenacious enemy that grows stronger and more resolute by the day.

Eventually, the Europeans will see the futility of the war and leave. That will be the end of NATO.


On cue the General speaks

Major General David Rodriguez, head of the US-led coalition force, on a trip to meet officials in the town of Maidan Shahr, west of Kabul today said the US military would stay in the country "as long as they are needed."

In answer to a journalists question about the time neeeded to defeat the Taliban-led insurgency he said "We definitely think it will take a few years for the Afghan people and the Afghan leaders supported by the coalition forces to defeat them,"

Deputy US ambassador Christopher Dell, who accompanied Rodriguez said that Taliban had little support among people.

"They are simply trying to terrorise them to play with fear in order to achieve their objectives".(AFP)

Int. Herald Tribune - Feb 7th Afghan poppy set for another big year, UN report warns

Antonio Maria Costa, the executive director of the UN Office on Drugs and Crime presented a UN report at an international donors conference in Tokyo. In 2007, 477,000 acres, or 193,000 hectares, = 745 sq miles (@ 259 hectares to the sq.mile) were under poppy cultivation, yielding an estimated 9,000 tons of opium. This year it will be larger.