NO MEANS TO DEAL WITH GLOBAL RECESSION? HOW ABOUT A TURMOIL IN MIDDLE-EAST?

From a price of $147.27 per barrel on July 11, 2008, the price of crude oil tumbled to alarmingly low levels - levels which couldn't be explained based on any rational economic principle. Yes, there is a situation of recession in US, Euro zone, Japan but that situation can not justify a demand contraction happening overnight which should trigger a drop in crude price more than 70% below the July 11 level.

Anyway, in the aftermath of this precipitous fall from the cliff the oil companies worldwide started behaving like pansies - new E&P projects started getting put on hold, especially, projects related to non-conventional crude sources, like oilsands in Canada.

[One wonders what kind of economic model these companies follow that low crude prices prevailing even for a month sends their economic viability haywire. It is well known that economic analyses of such projects are done over the life cycle of the source of oil - the life cycle ranging from 25-40 years. So, it is hard to imagine that the oil companies chicken out just on the basis of one, two or six month period of relative low crude prices.]

More than the oil companies, most of whom have reasonably good balance sheet position, the oil producing countries are hurting more. So much so that even a country like Saudi Arabia was forced to delay the issuance of Request for Bids for their two refinery projects which were slated to go out in Q4 2008.

Iran, Venezuela and Russia are already in bad shape. Venezuela is considering to nationalise some profitable foreign owned mining leases to supplement their national revenue. Russian Rouble has plunged to unprecedented lows. Iran has had to ration their fuel supplies. Well, if these three countries find themselves in trouble it is music to West's ears.

With recession casting a pall of gloom globally, and US, Japan and Europe not knowing what to do to get out of this morass, is a crisis in the Middle-east a welcome event at the moment? Who would gain if there is a turmoil in that region? Will a military conflict, which can potentially become a full blown crisis in the region threatening to cut off oil supplies, be helpful to global economy at this time?

The world's top three GDP regions are struggling to find ways to bring about higher liquidity in the markets so as to increase aggregate demand for goods, housing and so on. So, in such a scenario will these economies not suffer a whammy by having to cope with higher crude oil prices which invariably happens whenever there is a conflict in Middle-east?

But this is exactly what is happening at the moment. Israel is going full blast at Hamas in Gaza, and there are fears that this operation might escalate. Crude prices are nudging their way upwards.

Granted that Israel will have their parliamentary elections in two months and Prime Minister Olmert is allegedly gambling on this military operation to come back in power. But the billion dollar question is: Will Israel ever carry out this kind of an operation and, more importantly, at this point in time without the knowledge and/or acquiescence of their godfather - USA? Hard to digest that they have gone ahead without keeping Washington informed.

Further, US and its lackey (UK) would have immediately figured out the consequential economic ramifications of a potential Middle-east crisis. Yet they would have apparently agreed. Why? Is there some smart Alec who theorised that should there be a disruption of sea lanes (and the trade dependent on it) leading to 'perception' of disruption of goods globally, there can be a rebound in consumer demand triggered by panic buying?

Bear in mind, consumer spending is key to the big economies getting back on track. So, if the consumer spending can be triggered for some reason it is most welcome. And, apart from increased consumer spending there is a potential of arms supply by major powers, like, US, UK and to some extent, Russia. Dollars and Pounds flowing in exchange of arms supply can grease the economic wheels of these countries. Never mind, if Russia also gets some crumbs.

Moreover, rise in crude prices will again restore the projected inflow of money for OPEC countries who will then have funds for their new oil & gas projects which will in turn be good news for vendors, contractors and EPC companies - most of which come from G-7 countries.

So, it may seem that after all a crisis in Middle-east is what the doctor ordered for at this very moment. Is it likely that this is an event which has been engendered in a scripted manner? Will it escalate? Will it suck in Hamas supporters, like, Iran and Syria? And, will this provide an opportune time to Israel (and US) to hit at Iranian nuclear facilities, since Iran is down in dumps economically?

The concern is: Will it be possible for Israel (and its allies) to play this crisis as a scripted event? If the crisis goes out of hand and/or plays outside the script what will happen? Or, are the phantom scriptwriters damn sure that they can control it right till the denouement? By the way, on the flip side, who knows, this event can end up in a whimper too without bringing in the spin-offs for the G-7 visualised so glibly in the foregoing. Let's wait and watch!

MUMBAI KIILINGS, AND POTENTIAL DANGERS POSED FOR USA - PAKISTAN PLAYING NEW GAMES

As per a news item posted on a US cable news website, a new intelligence assessment obtained by The Associated Press states that "The terrorism threat to the United States over the next five years will be driven by instability in the Middle East and Africa, persistent challenges to border security and increasing Internet savvy." The assessment further states "The al-Qaida terrorist network continues to focus on U.S. attack targets vulnerable to massive economic losses, casualties and political turmoil''.

US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in his year-end address on Dec. 18 "The threat of terrorism and the threat of extremist ideologies has not abated. This threat has not evaporated, and we can't turn the page on it."

As per the news item referred to above, intelligence officials predict the pool of radical Islamists within the U.S. will increase over the next five years due partly to the ease of online recruiting means. Officials foresee "a wave of young, self-identified Muslim 'terrorist wannabes' who aspire to carry out violent acts."

Wait a sec, where does the aforementioned fit in the killings carried out in Indian city of Mumbai on Nov 26? Good question! Here is the answer: After hours of interrogation of the lone Pakistani terrorist captured alive by Indian authorities, the FBI (and probably CIA/NSA), British and Israeli Intelligence have found out for themselves that the Mumbai killings was planned and launched from Pakistan.

Now the curve ball! The people who were killed in Taj Hotel included 2-3 US intelligence operatives (as per media reports but obviously US won't deny or confirm it). What is disturbing for US intelligence is how did the Pakistani terrorists, who carried out the operation on Nov 26, know about the presence of the said US operatives. It was no mere coincidence that the attack took place on Nov 26 and that the terrorists came to Taj Hotel looking for people who held US and British passports.

Consider the following relevant aspects: If the news about presence of the said US operatives in Mumbai was not supposed to be known to any other country, then how come the Pakistani militants came to know about them. Does it mean there is a Pakistani mole in US system? Now, the flip side - if per chance the Pakistani agency (ISI) had some inkling about the said US operatives' presence (for some purported coordination amongst US-ISI), then obviously the information flowed to the Pakistani terrorists from ISI.

Both the above scenarios are frightening and worrisome from US point of view. All these years US was in a state of self-inflicted denial that there was no worry for US from Pakistani terrorism mainly targeted against India. But now it is clear to even the dumbest of the dumb that Pakistan was and is the staging base for deadliest of the terrorist operations, and these operations have potential ramifications that threaten US interests - inside and outside US.

To make matters worse, the terrorist outfits, including Lashkar-e-Taiba, Al-Qaida and Taliban get logistical and intel support from certain factions of Pakistani intelligence (ISI). The logistical and technical support provided by these factions of ISI includes recruiting, networking, and making suitably trained resources available to the terrorist units for their covert and/or overt operations on ground or in cyberspace.

Make no mistake, the anti-US elements in Middle-East may be simmering with anger and may be willing to wreak vengeance against US, but they lack the sophisticated capability and savvy to carry out any deadly attack inside US or against US targets outside US. Get this in your heads - if there is any deadly attack inside US or against US targets outside US in the coming years, or if any such operation is thwarted in the planning stages, the epicentre of the same will get traced to Pakistan (and its border areas with Afghanistan which, again, receives support from ISI).

It needs to be mentioned here that Taliban has announced that should India chose to launch any military action against Pakistan, it (Taliban) will be fighting alongside Pakistani troops. Whatever veil of separation was there, if any, about the umbilical link between Pakistan and Taliban, gets completely shredded by this announcement.

Counter-terrorism experts fear that Pakistan (through one of its surrogates) may have already passed on the dirty bomb technology to some terrorist outfit. News items, like, 'Disgraced Pak scientist Dr. Khan tried to sell nuclear technology to foreign elements' are meant to deflect international attention from Pakistan to something obscure and non-existent. Unfortunately, the western world deliberately allowed itself to be fooled by such red herrings.

But time is now up for US and its western allies to play idiot and live in state of denial about Pakistan's deadly machinations - these machinations encompass not only India but more importantly the western countries whose boots the Pakistani leadership chose to lick but only to fool them and further its (Pakistan's) own interests.

The only way to thwart the deadly machinations (againat US and its allies), which invariably are supported directly/indirectly by Pakistan's ISI, is to have comprehensive intel coordination amongst western allies (including Israel), and to carry out devastating surgical pre-emptive operations against the nefarious elements within Pakistan.

If US and its western allies trust and depend on Pakistan to root out elements inimical to western powers, then it will be their monumental foolishness. One hopes the new US administration will not be fooled by chicanery, dubiousness and manipulated lies of Pakistan.

If US has to protect its citizens from potential deadly terrorist attacks in future, it will have to bring itself around to stare the 'real' epicentre of terrorism planning (i.e. Pakistan) in its face and stamp it out. The notion that US is thousand of miles away from Pakistan/Afghanistan and hence it is safe is as nonsensical as it can be. Hope numbskulls and delusional fools will not be occupying the key policy making positions in US come 2009!

WHY IN GOD's NAME DID OIL REACH $147.27 ON JULY 11, 2008?!!

The whole world knows that crude oil prices are down - it even crashed below $40/barrel. Alright, so? So? Well, a simple question is bothering me no end. The question is: What changed in terms of demand for crude oil, from July 11 and now, that the oil prices are going southwards continually? Has the demand plummeted so much in last 5 months that it should cause the crude oil price to breach even the $40/barrel price?

And, another question that is disturbing me is: what were the factors that led to the price of $147.27/barrel in the first place? Or, was the $147.27 an artificially bloated price? Oh, how dumb of me! Of course, it was bloated like hell! Okay, but how was it artificially inflated to that level? What were the manipulating factors that caused it?

It may be mentioned here that there was a well known CEO who said around that time, when oil prices were riding the crests, that oil prices were high simply based on demand and supply relationship, that there was no hanky panky, and that oil traders played no role in pushing the floor price artificially. You know who that CEO was? He was none other than the CEO of a major oil producer - BP!!

So, can the 'great', 'intelligent' CEO of BP please explain why the oil prices are languishing now? Has the demand suddenly dropped so much - more than 70% - that the crude prices went crashing? Was he, when he tried to justify the upwardly moving prices, trying to create some sort of smoke screen, or is he really an idiot of highest order who did not have the requisite intellectual ability to fathom the actual reason?

Nah, chances of him being a classic idiot are remote given that he rose to the position of CEO. Surely, it doesn't seem that BP would have had a corporate goal to create a Guinness Book of Records of sorts by becoming the first oil company of that stature to install a super idiot as CEO.

Anyway, one thing is certain: the rise of oil to $147.27 and then fall to below $40 is definitely not result of natural market forces. Both these phenonmenon, especially, the rise to $140+ smack of something mysterious, surreptitious, insidious and befitting cloak-and-dagger operations.

So, what caused the oil prices to get skyrocketed upwards all the way to $147.27? Was there a high level international conspiracy? Who would be the players in such a conspiracy? There is no doubt that the biggest gainers of high crude prices were the OPEC, and other major oil producing nations, like, Russia, Venezuela and, of course, the oil companies.

Is it possible, then, that OPEC or some non-OPEC countries were in cahoots with oil companies to somehow enlist the help of oil traders in pushing up the prices. In all of this how can one ignore the role of the media - print or TV - which kept up the hysteria as if oil is going to run out soon, and it added to the maddening frenzy that besieged the world oil trade. Whatever it was, there certainly was something utterly fishy that happened at a very high level in pushing the oil prices to $147.27.

Then came the downward movement in oil prices as soon as the US financial institutions started to come down crashing like pack of cards. In view of that in Q3 of 2008, IEA made only a marginal reduction in global demand of oil in 2008 from their earlier estimates of 86.8 million barrels per day to little more than 86 million barrels. The corresponding supply figure, as per IEA, at that time was a little more than 88 million barrels per day. This clearly shows that the demand for oil was not estimated to shrink so drastically so as to warrant a drop of crude price from $147.27 to below $40.0 per barrel.

Just as the price spike to $147.27 seems very fishy, is the precipitous drop in prices also due to some fishy reason that the world doesn't know of? There is a theory that Saudi Arabia periodically causes the oil prices to drop below $50 per barrel to render the oil production projects in other countries to become economically unviable.

Let us think for a moment as to which countries will hurt most if the crude prices were to hover below $50 per barrel. Well, the countries who hurt most are Russia, Iran, Venezuela among others. Surely, US won't mind these three getting hurt economically.

So, was US part of some concerted action to engineer such a drastic drop in crude prices? One may argue that low prices would impact adversely the profits of big US oil companies who are said to be very close to the Bush administration. But then national interests always take precedence over corporate interests, never mind even if they happen to be US corporate entities. One may mention here for the record that owing to sharp drop in oil prices the OPEC countries are estimated to have cumulatively lost more than $700 billion dollars.

Whatever may be the real truth, one thing is certain - the rise of oil price per barrel to $147.27 can not be justified by any rational economic theory. In other words, the rise of prices in first half of 2008 was due to some very high level concerted operation. But who were the main actors in doing this, that is not clear at present. May be in some future time the truth will see the light of the day.

Equally intriguing is the steepness of the fall in prices. Who knows who pulled the rug from underneath the feet of the beneficiaries of high crude prices. Who is trying to cut whom is not clear, some thing very sinister of very high level can not be ruled out. Why this inference can not be dismissed aside is because the global demand for oil has certainly not contracted by more than 70 percent during the period July-end 2008.

In Nov/Dec 2008, OPEC announced cuts of 4+ million barrels per day to stem the falling crude prices. Analysts say market did not feel buoyed by these cuts, and depressing economic news continued to pummel the oil prices. The consensus among the crystal ball gazers is that oil may hit $75 per barrel only in 2nd half of 2009.

It seems a James Bond like figure may only be able to unravel the saga of rise and fall of crude prices in 2008, I am kidding. Seriously, the unprecedented rise and fall of crude prices in latter half of 2008 is something that is extremely serious and people somehow need to reach to the bottom of this story. While the world will wait eagerly for the truth to be unravelled, the immediate challenge facing the G-20 nations is to somehow reverse the recessionary situation and bring the economies back to growth mode.

When the economies look up again, the oil prices will automatically find the motivation to move upwards. Will another cycle of unprecedented rise in crude prices commence? We will have to wait and see. But before that let us hope that the global economy gets back on track soon. Amen!

CANADIAN OILSANDS AND ITS RELEVANCE TO USA's ENERGY STRATEGY

As Jan 20, 2009 draws near when President-elect Obama takes office, there is a bit of apprehension on the northern side of US border as to what trajectory will the new administration follow with regard to energy strategy, and what implications it might have for Canadian oilsands.

The apprehension gets more acute because of the choice of Secretary Energy-designate Dr. Steven Chu. The perception in the market is that Dr. Chu is a strong proponent of nuclear energy (though he has concerns about how to dispose off nuclear waste), and also a known supporter of alternative sources of energy.

But Dr. Chu's personal views about oilsands is not available in great detail; it is said that he probably doesn't hold this abundant resource, available so close to US, in very high esteem. One of the possible reasons for this is attributed to the prevailing environment related brouhaha surrounding this unconventional source of petroleum.

It is true that synthetic crude oil produced from oilsands generates more GHG as compared to conventional crude oil production, and there are concerns about the tailings management aspect of oilsands too.

But before going too much in to concerns surrounding oilsands, and what it does to the environment, it is important that we pause here for a moment or two, and concentrate on this GHG thing and its so-called contribution to global warming.

It is true that there has been some increase in global temperature in the past decade but what the general public does not get to focus on and/or get to know about, in proper detail, are the following very pertinent aspects related to global warming:

• That global warming has been taking place during last tens of decades (even when there was no oilsands, or coal based industries); that global warming is cyclical


• That Scientists have not been able to provide any convincing explanation as to why global temperatures went up cyclically in the past decades when industrialization was no where near current levels


• That scientists in the world don't know even today, or can not explain conclusively as to what is/are the real cause(s) of global warming (all that the environmentalists do is to keep shouting from the roof tops is that CO2 is the villain)


• That seabed methane release has a significant impact on global warming but scientists have not been able to offer any proper explanation on this phenomenon


• That scientists have not been able to understand and/or predict accurately the interrelationship between cooling of earth, that's taking place since the big bang event happened, and GHG effect


• That scientists are not clear how and why La Nina effect negates the so called GHG effect and allegely causes colder spell globally (average temperature of globe in 2008 was 0.3 degree celcius less than previous years, and this is attributed to La Nina effect)


• That CO2 emissions contribute at best around 5% to overall GHG scenario


• That oilsands' CO2 emission is a small component of overall global CO2 emission quantities

All I want to highlight to people is that as of present, scientists DONOT know, I repeat, the scientists DONOT know for certain what are real causes of global warming phenomenon. So, when the scientific community does not know the real causes of global warming, then why the hell they convey just a portion of the whole story (namely the GHG effect) to people and keep trumpeting about it? May be there is some agenda behind it!

Yes, CO2 may be contributing to GHG effect but it is not THE villain which it is made out to be for global warming, and by logical understanding of the aforementioned bullet points it is amply clear that oilsands is not THE villain which can potentially cause some kind of 'disaster' to this planet.

I am not a lobbyist belonging to any oil company nor am I trying to gloss over the concerns relating to GHG emissions. I am a rational thinker who does not jump on any bandwagon just because it is fashionable to do so which seems to be the case with a number of eminent people when it comes to environment. I don't see any virtue in sticking any environment related poster on my back and crying my voice hoarse about some doom and gloom scenario for this planet without having a clue as to what I am talking about.

The bullet points mentioned above do not, by any stretch of imagination, suggest that oilsands industry should abandon its technological endeavours to minimise CO2/SO2 emissions, or should not adopt better tailings management processes.

In fact, Canadian province of Alberta, which has the largest oilsands deposit in the world, has taken a giant step towards mitigation of CO2 issue by allocating $2Billion for carbon capture and sequestration. As well, the provincial government is incentivising the oilsand companies towards adopting innovative strategies for effectively managing the environment un-friendly aspects of oilsands processing.

Now, it is well known that Mr. Obama in his election rhetoric mentioned frequently that he would like US to be less and less dependent on Middle-East oil. One of the faster ways to achieve this is to get oil supplies from Canada - whether from conventional or unconventional sources. And, Canada is poised to play its part with so many of the oil companies willing to invest in oilsands industry.

One of the most vital advantages for US in expanding US-Canada oil ties is the geo-political angle. Canada is a close ally of US - militarily and otherwise - NORAD is one example of US-Canada alliance. Canada is a politically stable country, follows democratic system of governance, has a strong and unbiased judicial system, and shares a historic relationship with US. Canada is a country which US can trust and rely on in good or bad times.

Guided by these premises only some Canadian oil & gas companies like, Encana, Husky have formed strategic partnership with US oil companies to process the bitumen supplied from Alberta to across the border to south. Some US companies like, ConoccoPhillips, Imperial Oil (owned by Exxon-Mobil) are implementing projects to produce bitumen from oilsands and transport the same via pipelines to their refineries in US. All this bodes well for US from the standpoint of having stable assured supply of oil without the fear of any disruption.

But the apprehension is that under the new dispensation if some folks in the US Dept of Energy in their over enthusiasm start to throttle the bitumen supply from Canada because some chest thumping ignoramuses are portraying it to be THE evil causing all environment aberrations, then it will be more damaging to US's long-term energy strategy of becoming independent of Middle East oil.

Canada will hurt obviously because its biggest customer (US) will not have been buying its bitumen. In such a situation Canada will then have to look for other customers - China seems to be prime candidate to fill in the slot vacated by US. This certainly won't be good from US's geo-politico-military game plans. But then Canada will not be liable to be held responsible for entry of a new buyer for the abundant bitumen because after all Canada also needs to earn revenue for its own economy.

One hopes the new US Secretary of Energy will be guided by pragmatic and a rationalist's approach while at the same time remaining fully cognizant of the rock solid time tested US-Canada relationship and its contribution to US's interests and strategies.

No one disputes that alternative sources of energy should be explored and developed but that approach need not be predicated on strangling a stable source of energy (oilsands) based on unsubstantiated cause-and-effect scenarios attributed to it. Hopefully, the new US administration will not allow its vision and judgement to be clouded by irrational populism, and therefore will not stray in to alleys which don't lead to actualization of interests of USA and one of its closest allies - Canada.

PAKISTAN - THE MAIN SOURCE OF ISLAMIC TERRORISTS - NEEDS TO BE KICKED HARD TO COOPERATE MEANINGFULLY!

The recent terrorist attacks in Indian city of Mumbai has clearly brought out that Islamic terrorists not only find safe haven in Pakistan, they are also being trained and deployed by Pakistan's ISI. This has been put beyond any shade of doubt by Ajmal Amir Kasab, the lone captured terrorist in Mumbai.

This terrorist has written a three-page letter to the Pakistani High Commission, stating that as a citizen he was entitled to seek legal help from his own country to fight his case in Indian courts. The document finally settles the debate about the origins of Kasab and his fellow terrorists, and also establishes that the Mumbai attack was planned and launched from Pakistani soil.

US is rightly worried about threats to its own citizens from such attacks, Why? Because, these terrorist acts are supported and abetted by ISI - Pakistan's intelligence agency. This is the same agency which helped, in concert with CIA, in creating and training Taleban to fight the Russians during their occupation of Afghanistan.

It is no secret that ISI has factions which still sympathises with Taleban, Al-Qaida and the Islamic terrorists. One of the main reasons why US and NATO forces have not been successful to that extent in Afghanistan, and there is resurgence of insurgency is because the Taleban supporting faction of ISI provides necessary intel and logistics to the adversaries of US/NATO forces.

The reason for American worry is that the pro-Taleban faction of ISI may be covertly supporting some Taleban operation to strike within US. There seems to be some warnings already to this effect. One may ask, why this faction of ISI would support such an act to take place in US? The answer is simple: As long as the Al-Qaida remains alive, ISI would continue to have some leverage with US. Musharraf used this leverage very effectively for his survival.

ISI virtually acts as an autonomous organisation reporting only to the Army chief of Pakistan. This agency is rarely in control of democratically elected Prime Minister or President of Pakistan. Former President Musharraf could control ISI by virtue of having the Army Chief's post at the same time.

Also, the continuance of Taleban and Al-Qaida assures unmitigated flow of funds for ISI, these funds are used by ISI bosses to amass their personal wealth and also to carry out it covert operations in various countries, including India. These covert operations are used by ISI bosses as bargaining cards vis-a-vis their political masters for furthering their own careers.

However, whenever Pakistan is asked to cooperate in actions meant to take out the Taleban/Al-Qaida, it enthusiastically responds but only through glib verbiage. But what happens on ground actually depends on what the controlling factions of ISI decide to do. Generally, the action on ground is just a sham to show to the American masters that Pakistan is cooperating.

Moreover, Pakistan is also the breeding ground of new terrorists - they are created in the hundreds of madrassahs operating in that country. These institutions are providing a steady supply of half-mad radical Muslims ready to die for any 'jihad'. They just need to be brainwashed as the captured terrorist in Mumbai calls it "I was misled, Lashkar's devils ensnared me." (Lashkar is a terrorist outfit supported by ISI).

These madrassahs produce jihadis with newer ideas to operate, the recent one being termed as 'asymmetric tactics'. This tactics was in evidence in the killing of 3 British soldiers in Afghanistan by a 13-year old suicide bomber.

If US, Britain and other west European powers want to be safe from potential Islamic terrorist attacks, they will need to kick the ISI real hard to make it kneel and cooperate in fighting Islamic terrorism. The kicking needs to be done literally using the booted foot, and in the form of most uninhibited tongue lashing through to turning the screws militarily and economically.

Pakistan cooperates best when it is kicked with hobnailed boots. History testifies to this. Maharaja Ranjit Singh and his commander-in-chief Hari Singh Nalwa used this philosophy to subjugate and stamp out any potential opposition from the then areas of what constitutes today's Pakistan and Afghanistan (including the border areas between the two countries). It appears this truth has finally dawned on Bush administration but only too late.

As well, it seems President-elect Obama knows a bit of the history, that's why he did tough talking saying "we will stamp out any attempt to repeat Mumbai-like killings." May be he knows the Pakistanis better than the previous American presidents.

So, in summary if US and its western allies want to see an end to the Islamic terrorism in the world, they got to kick Pakistan in to submission and force it to cooperate in real sense in war against terror. But if US continues to allow itself to get fooled by sweet-worded assurances of Pakistani leadership and the ISI, there will be more American blood to be shed - whether in Afghanistan or on the US soil itself. One hopes this will not happen because US would have seen through by now the Pakistani sham and its habit of lying shamelessly.

US AUTO GIANTS REAPING THE FRUIT OF THEIR OWN INEFFICIENCIES!

One can hear fervent appeals to save the three top US auto manufacturers - GM, Chrysler and Ford - from going under. To lend greater urgency to this, it is being disseminated that if these three American auto giants are not saved, potentially one or all three of them may be purchased by some company in India or China.

Before looking at this China/India angle let us very quickly try to understand why these three companies are in this disastrous situation in the first place!!

Did it ever occur to the top management of these companies as to how the Japanese car manufacturers, like, Toyota and Honda, are making fairly big profits from their plants in North America whereas they (US auto makers) are struggling? Why did it never occur to these three sinking companies that they should look closely and find out the reasons how Toyota and Honda were continually increasing their market share in North America ?

It is not that here is someone trying to be wise with the advantage of hindsight. No, this is not the case. The fact of the matter is that even a novice management graduate also knows that there is no room for complacency or arrogance or aversion to change in 21st century business environment, especially, in an industry like auto industry.

Auto industry typically thrives on innovation - whether it is to do with newer models or new technologies, better features, cost reduction or smarter customer service approaches. The three US giant auto-makers totally failed on this front. Of these the worst performer on the innovation front has been GM who lived in their own world of fantasy thinking like morons that the world will move according to their whims and fancies.

These American auto-makers never bothered to heed customer complaints, or seek customer feedback. They thought they can continue to make giant gas-guzzling monsters and the blinkered north American customers will continue to buy their crap. Yes, this was true till the Japanese came on the scene.

The Japanese were quick to realise that they probably couldn't make their way in to the pick-up truck segment and, therefore, they should adopt innovation, aggressive salesmanship and top-class customer care - both pre-sales and after-sales - in the car segment. And, they went after the car segment with well thought out strategies.

Honda and Toyota diligently worked on customer feedbacks and were nimble footed in bringing out new models, making changes in existing models to meet the public demand and taste, and their budget too. Obviously, they started catching customer attention more and more. Initially the American companies could unsettle the potential customers by letting an undercurrent flow in the market that Japanese cars/vehicles are not reliable, safe etc.

But companies like Honda and Toyota countered this perception by offering still better value for money. They improved their quality to such an extent that the customers started to ignore and then disregard any information about unreliability of Japanese vehicles. Soon Toyota, Nissan and Honda introduced their luxury segment vehicles, namely, Lexus, Infiniti to convey to the market that their products are not only good and reliable, they are capable of bringing upper crust vehicles too to the discerning customers.

Gradually, the situation in US and Canada changed so much so that the pre-owned Japanese cars started commanding better prices as compared to pre-owned GM, Ford or Chrysler cars. Only some selected brands like Escalade or Lincoln carried some reasonable value in the pre-owned auto sale segment. Eventually, the American auto brands fell far behind their Japanese counterparts.

GM or Chrysler didn't bother to change their models nor did they bother to see any virtue in manufacturing fuel efficient vehicles. Nor did they think of innovating and competing in terms of prices. They simply didn't try. Their overheads may be higher as compared to Honda, Toyota but the American auto industry didn't bother to trim overheads or handle inventory as efficiently as the Japanese auto makers do. In fact, the Japanese auto makers took inventory management to a different level altogether.

Of the three, Ford at least tried, albeit much later in the day, to keep in step with Honda, Toyota, Nissan by introducing competing models. Ford Escape, in fact, became one of the most favourite models in Canada. Their another model - Mustang - appealed to the hip crowd and carved a niche for itself. But then Ford made some acquisitions, e.g., Jaguar, Land Rover that didn't work well. They had to eventually let go off them.

So, what is currently facing GM, Chrysler and Ford is no surprise at all. It is so ironic that the country which boasts of top engineering schools, best management institutions should be finding itself in dire economic straits. It clearly goes to show that you don't need Harvard or Stanford to excel in business and beat the competition. What you ACTUALLY need is open mindedness, pragmatic business sense, desire to work hard, non-complacent and unarrogant attitude.

Let us see what plans the three about-to-sink American auto makers bring to their lawmakers so that the US Congress gets convinced about providing financial succour to them. It will indeed be sad to see the demise of American auto industry which was once a proud creation of American Henry Ford!

"TEAM OF RIVALS' MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST RECIPE FOR OBAMA

It is interesting to read that people are finding similarities in names of rumoured appointees to President-elect Obama's cabinet and what former President Abraham Lincoln did during his cabinet formation process. Induction of some of Lincoln's rivals in his team has been called "team of rivals".

In Obama's case his Democrat race rival Hillary Clinton's name is doing rounds for Secretary of State's position. In fact, Mr. Obama has already chosen one of his rivals - Democrat nomination race rival Joe Biden - as his running mate.

It seems Mr. Obama derives lots of inspiration from former President Abraham Lincoln and it is possible that he may be thinking seriously about co-opting some of his 'rivals' in his cabinet or for some important position in his administration.

However, one hopes that the similarities between Mr. Obama and Mr. Lincoln would end at team formation level only.

What I am alluding to is that Dei Gratia there would be no similarity between the two with regard to end of their political careers. Media reports indicate that a certain section of American society is not able to reconcile to Obama's victory for American presidency.

Let me illustrate this point. MSNBC ran a report on Nov 15 titled "Obama election spurs race threats, crimes - From California to Maine, 'hundreds' of incidents reveal racism in America". Two sections of the report particularly caused some unease and concern. One stated - "One (incident) was in Snellville, Ga., where Denene Millner said a boy on the school bus told her 9-year-old daughter the day after the election: "I hope Obama gets assassinated."

The other stated - "Potok (Mark Potok, director of the Intelligence Project at the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate crimes), who is white, said he believes there is "a large subset of white people in this country who feel that they are losing everything they know, that the country their forefathers built has somehow been stolen from them."

One hopes that Mr. Obama will be provided impregnable protection by the concerned security agencies and he will be able to usher in the 'change' that he wants to bring in the country.

Back to his "team of rivals". Mrs. Clinton for Secy of State is in my opinion not a good strategy for simply the following reasons: Did Senator Clinton really do something notable in foreign policy matters? What is her claim to fame in terms of diplomatic achievement, and what did she do in her career, including when she was First Lady, to justify that she has some special acumen for full-time diplomatic assignment?

Media reports say that John Kerry of Massachusetts and Republican Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, also are thought to be under consideration for Secy of State position. John Kerry?!! Does he have the necessary rapier-like sharpness and the grasp to justify even shortlisting? In 2008 he appears too dull and out of depth to merit any consideration.

Of all the names, Bill Richardson seems to be the best candidate of them all. He has undertaken 'real' diplomatic assignments; he has good grasp of energy issues too. He seems to be slightly less sharper though than he used to be 8 years ago.

I wonder, is there no one else in whole of US who could be talent scouted for this position, say, someone like Condi Rice? If the eventual appointee has to be from someone who endorsed and/or campaigned for Obama, in that case Richardson seems to be the best bet.

If at all, Mrs. Clinton could be assigned to overhaul the health care system because the campaign rhetoric of both Clinton and Obama on health care issues were almost same. For this assignment any baggage of Bill Clinton will most likely not be an impediment for Hillary - neither during the cabinet nomination process, nor during discharge of her job. To be honest, Bill can be a real nuisance. He is too shrewd to be corralled.

Let us hope Obama's well wishers and able advisers will guide him to zero in on most appropriate choices to fill his cabinet positions. As well, President-elect Obama and his family will be suitably protected from all potential dangers and hazards. The world is waiting with bated breath for Mr. Obama to step in to White House and help usher in changes the world desperately needs.

WILL BUSH TRY EARTH SCORCHING TACTICS TO MAKE LIFE DIFFICULT FOR OBAMA?

From the various dicussions on the American TV channels I get an impression that President Bush is rushing some executive decisions which may not be very easy for President-elect Obama to overturn. Some commentators are of the view that while leaving office Bush wants to make sure that Obama should not be able to implement his campaign promises so very easily.

It seems that the Bush tactics is to somehow make Obama look bad in the eyes of the people who are eagerly waiting for 'change' to happen in US in various facets of life of an average American. If this was true, then it must be said that Bush is a master actor - better than Brando, Hanks, Hoffman. Why I say this is because on one hand the outgoing highly despised president went on record to say that 'he will do everything possible for a smooth transition of President-elect Obama', while on the other hand he is reportedly spreading thorns in the path of the incoming president.

It can be argued that nothing had happened in the aftermath of the election that could have engendered a change of heart of the idiot-like, moron-like Bush. Surely, he or his party don't gain anything by extending constructive cooperation to Obama. If Obama can deliver on what he had promised, his stock in the eyes of the American people will go sky high.So, from Republicans' perspective, Obama's presidency should be made as difficult as possible.

Republicans are fretting no end after humiliating defeat in congressional elections. Recent ilk of the Republicans have had training from Karl Rove in how to carry out negative game plans. And, from this guy probably Bush learnt that shamelessness is a virtue in politics.

Whether it is financial succour for the soon to collapse American auto industry or timely support to the ailing banking sector, Bush administration doesn't seem to be in mood to do anything that may remotely look similar to what Obama was rooting for lest such an action should put the Democrat in brighter light.

Even if Bush wanted to adopt a conciliatory approach in his last days of lameduck presidency, his no. 2, i.e., Vice-President Cheney will not let do it. The twisted faced trigger happy egotistical tin god is so stubborn in his attitude that he can not bring himself out of the gutter politicking habits.

So, I don't think it will be prudent for Obama camp to believe that there will be some positive outcome of the one hour plus meeting held between the outgoing and the incoming Presidents. On the contrary Obama should plan for how to tackle the slew of last minute decisions that Bush will leave behind for his successor to grapple with and get bogged down.

One must say that such a tactics - something akin to earth scorching - is not going to help the American people at large. It is unfortunate that the Americans got Dubyah as President who excelled in screwing up everything that made US the most powerful and number one country in the world. The result - today US is having to go to world with a begging bowl in hand to save it from further economic hammering.

At best what the American people can do is to pray to God to give a modicum of sense and intelligence in the thick and dense head of George W so that he could do something to help large sections of the society. But it is pray only that people can do, and hope for the best. After all, you can not reduce a single day from now till Jan 20 - the day on which the people will see the back of intellectually challenged G W Bush.

MR. OBAMA, PLEASE HANDLE INDIA (AND KASHMIR ISSUE) WITH CAUTION!

This is a open letter to President-elect Barack Obama on the above subject.

Dear Mr. Obama,

Hearty congratulations to you on your election to the presidency of United States of America!

Many, including me, heard your comments on your first press conference with great interest. The media is also reporting about your team formation process and the 'deliberate haste' that you are proposing to exercise. So far so good.

However, there are some media reports that suggest that you are considering to bring in former President Clinton to act as a mediator for resolving Kashmir issue. You are reported to have said during your luncheon meeting with Clinton in New York recently, “We should probably try to facilitate a better understanding between India and Pakistan and try to resolve the Kashmir crisis so that Pakistan can stay focused not on India, but on the situation with those militants (on Pak-Afghan border).”

The news is also rife that Gen David H Petraeus, who took over as commander of the US Central Command on October 31 and visited Pakistan and Afghanistan soon after that, has reportedly nominated Ahmed Rashid and Shuja Nawaz, author of the recently published book on Pakistani Army called "Crossed Swords", as members of a brains trust to advise him on a new strategy towards Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Ahmed Rashid (along with Barnett Rubin) in an article in Foreign Affairs called for a “grand bargain” in which the Pakistani state trades a course correction on its western front with a more sustained international effort at resolving the Kashmir dispute with India. Former Pak president Pervez Musharraf justified abandoning the Taliban regime in September 2001 as a legitimate price Pakistan had to pay in order to keep up its support for militants in Kashmir.

But the outgoing US administration rightly found it difficult to accept such a trade-off, especially, after the brutal murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl which highlighted the fact that there are no walls that separate the terrorists operating in different parts of Pakistan.

Mr. President-elect, the foregoing, which I tried to keep as brief as I could, is meant to provide a background so that I could make a sincere request to you: In your administration's eagerness to deal with anti-American forces in Afghanistan/Pakistan please do not push anything on India regarding Kashmir.

Mr. Obama, American interests will be best served if your administration can get Pakistani military to forswear involvement in politics for all time to come. Once that step is taken in earnest, the policy of building alliances with or tolerating terrorists in Afghanistan, Kashmir and Pakistan itself would naturally come to an end.

Instead of achieving the above, if your advisers get launched on the so-called “grand bargain” trajectory, it will be like trying to address the surface rather than trying to hit the root cause. And, in the process the strong partnership which got built between US-India during the last four years can potentially get undone.

Mr. President-elect, India has unhappy memories of some of your foreign policy advisers — Anthony Lake, Strobe Talbott, Robert Einhorn and Richard Holbrooke. Please tell your State Dept folks to DELINK Kashmir from any US strategy on Afghanistan. It doesn't require much brain to understand that support to any terrorist elements, be it in Kashmir or in any part of the world by any govt (in this case Pakistan) is totally unacceptable.

What I am trying to say, if your policy advisers tell you that to incentivize Pakistan (read Pak military & ISI) to help US in winning against Taleban, US has to mediate and 'solve' Kashmir issue (in some way that would please Pak), there is nothing more foolish, illogical, unethical, unprincipled than this.

If YOU didn't subscribe to anything Bill Ayers purportedly said about radicalism, how can you let your judgement be clouded by any "grand bargain" strategy which predicates itself on pleasing one set of radical elements (i.e. the militants in Kashmir) to almost beg support from a govt (Pakistan) to serve US interests.

If you don't handle the Kashmir issue from moral, logical grounds you may end up screwing up an excellent alliance that got built up between US and India - an alliance which has far more strategic spin-offs for US than one could imagine.

My suggestion to you would be that before embarking on any US-Pak-Afghan policy that potentially impacts India, please have a chat with your running mate, Joe Biden. He will have a lot to contribute in finding a strategy that on one hand will get US its desired outcome, but at the same time it will not seek to bulldoze India in some uncomfortable situation which will have immense potential negative knock-on effect.

You may also like to consult Karl Inderfurth, one of your foreign policy advisers.

I hope you will handle India (and Kashmir issue) in a 'deliberate' and sensible manner. Please remember it takes a long time to build a mutually advantageous alliance; and it takes a far shorter time to weaken and/or destroy that alliance!

With warm regards.

IF OBAMA WAS 'INFLUENCED' BY REV WRIGHT THEN McCAIN COULD BE A 'COMMUNIST'!

The McCain campaign is running an ad which purportedly seeks to convey that since Senator Obama attended Rev Wright's church for number of years, surely he must have been 'influenced' by Wright's ideology. The ad seeks to sow race based division to get the white votes for the Republican ticket.

Now, let us see what McCain himself says about what he went through during the Vietnam war. He says that he 'carries scars on his body' which he claims were inflicted on him by the North Vietnamese when he was a prisoner of war. People know that he was a POW for five and half years.

Let us think about it a bit dispassionately and logically. It is common knowledge that North Viets, who were communists, tried all they could to brainwash their prisoners with the communist ideology apart from whatever level of torture they would decide to inflict on the POW's to extract information. McCain, in fact, did eventually sign a confession to his supposed crimes against the Vietnamese people and holds that it was only extracted after weeks of pain inflicted by his tormentors. In a more recent interview Mr McCain explained the signing of the confession as his failure.

Therefore, it stands to reason that McCain must have undergone a sustained brainwashing regimen during the five and half years of his captivity. Mind you, brainwashing in captivity is carried out based on proven psycho-neurological methods. These methods, as would be obvious to any layman, are designed to cause far more effective and permanent change in thinking pattern of a person (in this case the POW's) as compared to any speech delivered in an open and religious environment (of a church) where the fundamental focus is on God, Jesus, Bible and the associated teachings.

People very well know how effective the indoctrination processes are in a regimented camp, or in a school or in captivity situations. Classic example in modern days are the Muslim radical suicide bombers who are indoctrinated in a closed environment. McCain never denied that he was brainwashed. And, the military records are also not public about what kind of debriefing he received from US military after his release from captivity.

So, what makes the American feel so safe to believe that McCain is not a communist in his thinking?! One may argue that he is a Republican, and hence he cannot be a communist. But people forget that so many American double agents who worked for former Soviet Union (and may be working now for Russia) appeared totally western in thinking and never betrayed any communist leaning whatsoever.

It is also important to bear in mind that the brainwashing methods adopted by the communists were so effective that it used to become part of the psyche of a person, and worst part of it is that the brainwashed person would never know that he has got changed as a result of brainwashing. That person's changed thinking gets revealed at most unexpected moment, at a moment that would be most damaging to the system to which he is assumed to be loyal.

A minor manifestation of that can be exemplified. When McCain said he wanted more troops in Iraq, as long as it takes, to 'defeat' the enemy, in fact, his sub-conscious was dictating the rhetoric rather than the logical faculty of his brain. The fact of the matter is that in his sub-conscious he carries the emotional scar of a shot down pilot and a prisoner. So, in his overt behaviour McCain likes to see the 'enemy' pummelled to pulp whether or not it is dictated by the ground realities.

Likewise, his every reasoning will be clouded by the emotional scars, and may be by the brainwashing that he might have had at the hands of communist North Viets. It will not be surprising to see McCain making bizarre decisions. His recent rushing to publicly announce that he advised the Georgian President that US will protect Georgia against the Russian 'invasion' is a classic example of that.

On the other hand, what is the extent of any likely effect on a person, who is sitting as a part of a congregation, of any talk delivered to the crowd essentially in a religious environment ? Moreover, the sermons vary every week unlike the brainwashing in a torture chamber where the indoctrination dose is thousand times heavier and dangerously focused to cause maximum alteration of a POW's mind.

What I am driving at is this: if McCain would say that he is not a communist because he could somehow sustain all the brainwashing at the hands of the communists since he had the mental strength, what makes him (and his party) to believe that Obama did not have the mental strength to prevent him to be affected by Rev Wright's so-called anti-white speeches?

In summary, if someone would be so foolish to believe by the McCain ads that Obama was 'influenced' by Rev Wright's speeches, in that case such a person should also be willing to believe that McCain could also have been 'influenced' by the brainwashing by the communists and, hence, the 72 year Senator could be a 'communist'.

One hopes that the American society will not get divided by the poison filled tactics of McPalin who are getting desperate and increasingly seem to be losing their mental balance. Again, a dangerous sign how disastrous and damaging these two can prove to be for US's interests when under pressure. God save USA from these psychopath-like hackers of American societal fabric.

UNBIASED ASSESSMENT OF McCAIN-PALIN RHETORICS

I heard both McCain and Palin's Nov 1 campaign speeches. I heard with an open mind, and memorised the key points. Mentioning them below, and the questions that immediately came to my mind in their context is written in Red within brackets alongside:

McCain: "Obama is a re-distributor of wealth; I will help create wealth." (Q: How does McCain propose to do that? No hint of that from Mc, or any explanation about his strategy)

McCain: "Obama will increases taxes on you; I will reduce taxes." (Q: What did Mc mean by 'you'? Did he mean all the middle class folks standing in the crowd? Is Obama going to tax every middle class earner, or, just the people having annual income more than $200,000? Will Mc's tax reduction be significant for middle class, or will it benefit the rich more? Mc does not shed any light on this aspect)

McCain: "Obama's tax policy will impose taxes on 50% of small businesses, like that of Joe-the-Plumber." (Q: Is the 50% figure accurate? On what basis Mc said 50%? Do 50% of all small businesses in US really earn more than $200,000 annually?! Btw, Joe-the-Plumber is not a small entrepreneur, nor does he plan to buy one, and Joe's annual income is not even $80,000; so, how is Joe-the-Plumber going to be impacted by Omaba's tax policy?)

Palin: "Joe-the-Plumber got Obama to state in very simple terms what he (BO) is going to do - Obama is going to re-distribute wealth, like socialism". (Q: Is increasing taxes on higher income brackets, and decreasing taxes on middle class 're-distribution' of wealth? Can this be characterised as socialism? Graduated tax rates, i.e., higher tax rates on higher taxable income is something very common in various G-7 and other OECD countries. Is Canada or Japan or Germany or Italy a socialist country?! Then what is Palin talking about when she says Obama is going to spread 'socialism?!)

McCain: "Palin and I will drain the Washington swamp." (Who or what is Mc referring to as 'swamp' in Washington? Does he mean - economic mess, trillion dollar deficit, collapsing health care, and so on? Well, all this happened and/or got exacerbated during the last 8 years of Bush tenure. And, McCain supported Bush 90% of times; so, which swamp will he clean? Does he mean to say that he will clean himself - his own brain? Isn't it all contradictory?)

In summary, from the analysis of campaign statements of McLin coming just 3 days before the election, I am not finding anything in their rhetoric that tells the American people about their plans, about what they are going to do. Instead, their whole rhetoric simply revolves around how 'bad' is Obama and his plans.

To any thinking, discerning, rational voter the above would immediately convey that McCain-Palin have nothing substantive to offer which will really help the larger sections of the population (i.e. middle-class). In fact, if one reads their statements carefully, quite often they are found to be deriding themselves (e.g. 'draining the Washington swamp').

If one takes in to account the inaccuracies/gaffes committed by McCain and Palin and juxtaposes with the above analysis, one would come to the inescapable conclusion that these Republican candidates are totally incompetent, unqualified, intellectually deficient for the posts they are running for.

On top of that if you place the recent indictment of Palin in 'Troopergate' incident, her connections with black magic, McCain's recent actions with regard to handling of US economic crisis, you will shudder (unless you are a blind and irrational McLin supporter) to visualize America's future in the hands of these two incompetent persons.

The question is: would the American people like to see the beginning of America's decline by electing McPalin? Well, this is a decision only the American people can make. Hope they will pause and invest their full wisdom before making this decision!

WHY SENSIBLE REPUBLICANS ARE DESERTING McCAIN?

CNN ran a ticker on Oct 29 which screamed "Shays takes swipe at McCain". In the body of the news it wrote: "New England's lone House Republican appears to have publicly broken with his party's standard-bearer, saying John McCain has not run a clean campaign and is likely to lose his bid for the presidency.

'I just don't see how [McCain] can win,' Connecticut Rep. Chris Shays told the Yale Daily News earlier this week. 'He has lost his brand as a maverick; he did not live up to his pledge to fight a clean campaign'."

The report further added: "Fellow Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl and former GOP presidential Candidate Mitt Romney also have reportedly said they think McCain is likely to lose. Jon Kyl denied making the comments, though the Arizona Daily Star later produced audio indicating he did."

Other Republicans breaking ranks include Former Maryland Sen. Charles Mathias, former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Why are these Republicans feeling so disgusted with McCain? Shays has already highlighted some of the reasons. General Colin Powell so eloquently gave his assessment of McCain and his campaign on Meet the Press program recently. In essence, these Republicans got pissed off by McCain's brainless and falsehood based approach to his campaign.

One inherent problem with the 72 year Senator from Arizona has been that he is intellectually dwarfed. On top of that he made some silliest of comments and choices. McCain's choice of Palin speaks volumes of his lack of sound judgement. His remarks about American economy during recent economic turmoil clearly indicated what a big stupid he is.

A nincompoop does not have to have horns to show to the world that he is a nitwit. His/her words or actions convey that. This is exactly what has happened with McCain. He asked about Obama's so-called association with Ayers when Obama was 8 years old. How on earth could anything be more nonsensical than this?!

He made similar foolish assertions day after day; one can go on and on with the list of gaffes the Republican candidates committed. Most recently on Oct 29, Sarah Palin mentioned about Obama's association with some Palestinian person named Rashid Khalidi. But she forgot to mention to the public that Republicans had provided about $500,000 to Khalidi for one of his studies. The Chairman of the committee which decided to fund Khalidi's study was none other than McCain himself.

So one lie after another, one stupid association after another thrown at Obama to paint him in bad light, annoying robocalls, lack of grasp of issues which really affect average Americans - all these snowballed to put off the sensible Republicans so much that they felt compelled to publicly denounce McCain and predict that the republican candidate is doomed to be defeated.

To make matters worse, the over-ambitious, straight-faced liar Palin gave enough clear indications to the media that her sight is set on 2012 presidential election. She has gone 'rogue' as the McCain insiders have already started calling her.

Only a miracle can save McCain-Palin ticket from defeat on Nov 4. But Palin has already invoked God to help her. But does divinity help liars, or poison filled persons, like, Palin? One hopes not. One hopes God will provide some response to Palin for unnecessarily dragging Him in the elections! And, His response may not be just a light rap on the wrist.

LAST GASP REPUBLICAN DIVERSIONARY TACTIC WITH INCURSION IN SYRIA!

BBC website reported on Oct 26 "US helicopter-borne troops have carried out a raid inside Syria along the Iraqi border, killing eight people including four children, Syrian officials say.
The official Syrian news agency Sana said the raid took place in the Abu Kamal border area, in eastern Syria. It said that American soldiers on four helicopters had stormed a building under construction on Sunday night.
The US says it is investigating. It has previously accused Syria of allowing foreign militants into Iraq.
Syria has summoned the US and Iraqi envoys in Damascus to protest at the raid.
If confirmed, the raid would be the first known attack by US forces inside Syrian territory, says the BBC's Natalia Antelava."

In a separate article on same day BBC's Diplomatic correspondent, Jonathan Marcus writes "But its (US action's) timing is curious, coming right at the end of the Bush administration's period of office and at a moment when many of America's European allies - like Britain and France - are trying to broaden their ties with Damascus."

He further writes "Whatever the local military factors involved in this US operation, it would be unthinkable to imagine that an incursion into Syria would not require a policy decision at a high-level."

So, why did some one very high in Washington - either the President himself or the Defence Secretary - authorised this incursion? The answer is simple: it is a tactic to give McCain, who claims he knows more than Obama on security issues, to divert the election campaign focus from the perilous current economic crisis to security matters.

It is just a ploy to give McCain and the Republicans, who are badly trailing in opinion polls, some straw to clutch on to. Some political analysts had felt about 9-10 months back that US may resort to adventurism in Iran to ensure Republican victory in Nov this year. But somehow this option didn't seem to be feasible because of high cost attached to it and potential of dangerous politico-military fall out. An Israel led adventure also did not seem feasible because of continued political instability in Israel for the last few months and even now.

So, Iran being not an option to do some gun-boat diplomacy, the outgoing Republican administration looked at other 'cheap' options. And, they found Syria to be not only a 'cheap' option to strike but that any action vis-a-vis Syria could be relatively easily justified to the American people and the international community.

Republicans are staring down the barrel for a double whammy - loss in Presidential election, and Democrats getting the magic figure of 60 in Senate. With opinion polls showing precarious condition of Republicans on both the fronts, it is hard to assume that Bush administration will watch the situation idly and twiddle its thumb.

So, the outgoing administration seems to have decided to play the military card against Syria which is notorious in US as being anti-America. They probably reasoned to themselves that whacking Syria, even in a limited manner, would be a safe bet politically and may help the Republican cause in some way.

Some one may say that the above is a cynical view. But in all fairness it should be said that it is not a cynical commentary on this incident. It is not a biased view because one may ask: why did US wait all this long to carry out this incursion? After all, movement of insurgents and foreign fighters from Syria into Iraq has long been a bone of contention between Damascus and Washington.

There is, therefore, hardly any doubt about the political motive of the timing of this military raid. As the BBC Diplomatic correspondent noted further in his article 'this action of US is in marked contrast to European efforts to engage the Syrians.

With French President Nicolas Sarkozy in the lead, a number of European countries have sought to bring Syria in from the cold.'

Incursion in Syria is an attempt by the outgoing President and his cronies to administer 'CPR' to the sinking Republican poll campaign. It remains to be seen whether the US voters can discern this diversionary tactic and prefer to remain focused to more bread and butter issues.

Finally, it will not be surprising at all to see US military carrying out something sensational before Nov 4 to provide the vital dose of oxygen needed by McCain, and the Republican senate candidates for their political survival.

WILL FREE-MARKET SUPPORTERS PLEASE SHUT UP!

John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, is trying to paint his Democrat rival as a socialist by saying that Obama's so-called "spreading the wealth" phrase essentially aims to kill capitalism in US. What McCain is trying to do is to scare American voters in whose psyche 'capitalism' resides at a sub-conscious level.

Not that every American understands the nuances of capitalism, free market theories or what socialism actually means but probably every American equates uncontrolled free enterprise with capitalism and somehow thinks that it is synonymous of democracy. And, when the Arizona senator creates the sceptre of socialism in his speeches he is trying to touch that part of American psyche and create a fearful revulsion in the voters' minds.

It is a good tactic for McCain, and it may work to some extent. But if this guy really believes in "Country First", he should understand that the so-called free-market mechanism without any oversight has brought US to this economic cataclysmic state. First, let us quickly recap what one of the staunchest supporter of unregulated free-market said the other day.

Alan Greenspan, who was Fed Chairman from 1987-2006, while deposing in front of US House of Representative's Government Oversight committee on Oct 23 acknowledged under questioning that he had made a “mistake” in believing that banks, operating in their own self-interest, would do what was necessary to protect their shareholders and institutions. Greenspan called that “a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works.”

He went to admit that the "flaw" in the assumptions he used over the past 40 years were that banks and other financial institutions were best able to protect the interest of their shareholders.

The financial crisis even prompted the Republican Greenspan, a cheer leader for free markets, to propose that government consider tougher regulations, including requiring financial firms that package mortgages into securities to keep a portion as a check on quality. He said other regulatory changes should be considered, too, in such areas as fraud.

Now, let me mention some relevant excerpts of what the Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, said at the Asian-European leaders' meet on Oct 23. Singh, a noted economist himself, stated:

"The international financial crisis has resulted from three failures:
(a) A regulatory and supervisory failure in major developed countries;
(b) A failure in risk management in private financial institutions;
(c) A failure in market discipline mechanism
These are not my views but those of the distinguished Managing Director of the IMF, with which I agree. We must analyse objectively how and why these failures have occurred with such ferocity. This is necessary to put in place a new set of rules which will prevent recurrence of such failures. The sad truth is that in this age of globalisation we have a global economy of sorts but it is not supported by a global polity to provide effective governance."

What the aforementioned people - Greenspan and Dr. Singh - are essentially trying to say is: stop the chest thumping stentorian pro-free market assertions; recognise the inherent greed in human psychology and put in place mechanisms that will prevent such financial melt-downs.

What is said above does NOT by any means usher in socialism, nor does it mean that capitalism is moving towards ultimate death, all this means is - for God's sakes don't remove the referees from the hockey game and allow the players to regulate themselves, the result will be chaos on the ice!

I am not sure McCain, who is intellectually challenged, will understand all that is stated above. On his part, the Republican candidate, who has his back to the walls, will clutch on to anything by which he can scare the voters away from the Democrat nominee. 'Scare the voters' tactics has been used by Republican in the past, they are trying this again.

Do the American voters see through the Republican tactics? I don't know for sure. But one hopes for America's sake that they do. Because, if they don't they will end up with a Prez and a Veep who are a disastrous combination of senility, dis-ingenuity, shamelessness, pathological abhorrence for truth, one-upmanship, utter lack of intellectual ability and gargantuan incompetence. God help America!

'John McCain was never tortured in my jail’, says Tran Trong Duyet

Reproducing herebelow the relevant excerpts from a news item published on Oct 25, 2008 in the famous British newspaper "The Times".

"On one bank of the Truc Bach lake a small electricity sub-station is plastered with flyers touting a local plumber. Along the road is an aerobics studio where youngsters lazily sip coffee and browse the papers. Thirty yards out across the water – rancid and bobbing with dead fish – is moored a handful of pedal boats shaped like swans.

It was within this unlikely triangle of landmarks – exactly 41 years ago this Sunday – that John McCain crash-landed and, say his captors, began his run for the United States presidency.

For even if the cold, barely conscious US Navy officer did not know it at the time, says Le Van Lua and the other Vietnamese whose lives entwined with Mr McCain’s that day, this little spot of Hanoi is undoubtedly where pilot turned politician. If fury had prevailed, it is a transformation that might never have happened, says Mr Lua, 61, a factory worker who was the first on the scene after the crash and swam out to retrieve the battered, politically valuable prize.

He mimes clutching Mr McCain’s hair in one hand and a kitchen knife in the other: “I didn’t care about the politics, I just saw a man who had killed so many Vietnamese that I longed to kill him. He was injured badly and at the time I was desperate to finish him off. We only stopped because we were told he was more valuable alive. Now I’m glad I did stop: that day was truly the turning point in his life.”

Mr Lua’s account of that day – along with Vietnamese accounts of the five and a half years that Mr McCain spent as a prisoner of war – differ significantly from the presidential candidate’s own record. Mr Lua speaks of quickly getting Mr McCain to the safety of a police station (now the aerobics studio) before any harm was done. Mr McCain writes of mob attacks on his shoulder, ankle and groin with rifle-butt and bayonet.

Where the accounts differ most starkly is in the period of Mr McCain’s long incarceration as a PoW – first at the prison known as the Hanoi Hilton, then at The Plantation.

Tran Trong Duyet, the former prison director who now surrounds himself with caged birds in a house in Hai Phong, first met Mr McCain a year after he had been shot down. He recalls a defiant rule-breaker, the patriotic son of an admiral and a fervent believer in the war. What he does not recall, however, is a victim of torture or violence.

“I never tortured or mistreated the PoWs and nor did my staff,” says Mr Duyet in contradiction of Mr McCain’s account and those of other prisoners. “The Americans were dropping bombs on military and civilian targets – so it’s not as if they had important information we needed to extract.” Mr Duyet says that he sympathises with Mr McCain and other PoWs for claiming that they were tortured. “It’s up to the Americans to decide whether or not he counts as a hero. He was very brave, very manly, he dared to argue with me and he was very intelligent. But all the talk of being tortured is for the sake of votes.”

The McCain campaign refused to comment on the claims yesterday. Mr McCain did eventually sign a confession to his supposed crimes against the Vietnamese people and holds that it was only extracted after weeks of pain inflicted by his tormentors. In a more recent interview Mr McCain explained the signing of the confession as his failure.

The full article is avaialble at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article5010491.ece

WHY PALIN IS REALLY A DISASTER FOR McCAIN AND USA

If McCain's mental faculties are working alright, even to some extent, he must be ruing his decision of having chosen Palin as his running mate. The reasons for this are umpteen. However, if he is not feeling angry about his decision, there could be one possible explanation - the 72 year Senator is too besotted by Palin's physical charm.

Let's face it, the Governor of Alaska is far more attractive than Cindy McCain. No wonder the hockey-mama got pregnant even at the age of 43 years. One wonders whether any naughty amorous thought ever crosses the old man's mind when he hugs his running mate. You mean, umm, somekind of a Viagra moment? Well, well.

Anyway, one thing is heartening in the current campaign - the American voters are showing far more political maturity than what they were 4 or 8 years back. The voters are able to see through the mean, falsified, twisted TV campaign the republican candidates are running.

This is evident from the opinion polls. Not only McCain is trailing Obama by double digit, Palin is faring horrendously in all categories. Her image is plummeting at an alarming rate in the minds of all rational voters of US. On top of that such news like the GOP has spent US$150,000 in accessorizing Palin is certainly not going down well with the average voter either.

Also, the independent investigation held that the Alaska Governor had misused her position in the incident popularly known as "troopergate". This clearly brings out a very disturbing aspect of her character and that is - she is a mean, vindictive, scheming person who will not hesitate to resort to any means if anybody runs foul of her.

Mind you, she is very ambitious too - politically, I mean. This makes a dangerous cocktail in terms of her personality traits. So, if per chance McCain wins, she might outshine Cheney in being one of the meanest, nastiest VP. For all you know, she might even become an extra-constitutional authority unto herself and undermine the President's office big time. This could potentially spell danger to the country itself.

And, if for some reasons the Arizona Senator becomes incapable of discharging the duties of the President, Palin will assume Presidency, and, boy, she may go berserk! On top of that her utter lack of any sensible knowledge on matters important to country will be perfect recipe for national disaster.

It seems majority of American voters realize all this and that's why opinion polls are indicating what a huge millstone has Palin become around McCain's neck. But it is also necessary that the rest of the voters also get to understand this for the sake of their own country's good. Some fanatic republicans may not like to see the reality, too bad. But as long as they remain in minority it will bode well for US.

I AM SERIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT PROSPECTS OF GLOBAL RECESSION

The Bank of Canada cut the overnight lending rate by another 25 basis points on Oct 21. In his commentary the BoC Governor Mark Carney mentioned some very ominous things.

First, there is chance of global recession. Second, US is already in recession. Did you read correctly about US being in recession? I bet, you did! Third, he said that because of close trade ties between Canada and US, Canada will also be affected though it may just be able to avoid recession.

After reading Mr. Carney's remarks the thought that came to my mind was: Has Fed admitted that there was recession in US? I don't recall Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke having said that US had been taken over by the 'R' phenomenon.

May be Benrnanke is trying his best not to mention the 'R' word before Nov 4 US presidential election in order to avoid the massive embarrassment that will be caused to the Bush administration which in turn will hit McCain-Palin hard.

But Carney has nothing to fear, hence he could be more forthright in his assessment of US economy. Now the next question is, have we seen the worst yet? Or, there is more to come!

As far as Europe is concerned, no new bad news is emanating from there. Nor is any bad news coming out of Asia yet. That leaves US. It seems there is likelihood of some bad news emerging from US in coming weeks and months.

What does that bode for the world? Well, it is obvious that if the biggest consumer spending society, i.e. US, starts to clam up further it will mean less exports to US from Europe, China, and Canada. It will hurt Indian companies too to some extent.

The drop in consumer spending in US will trigger a vicious downward spiral in various economies which may eventually lead to global recession alluded to by BoC Governor. If not recession, there is certainly a danger of stagnation enveloping the globe.

So, to counter the possibility of looming global recession/stagnation the US needs to take some more bold steps. And, they have to act quickly. But if the Bush administration postpones those measures till the presidential election in order to prevent further potential damage to the Republican ticket, it might exacerbate the situation seriously.

Liquidity crunch situation has got to be tackled on war footing by US. The European countries have already been proactive in this regard and they are not fighting shy of taking any measures they think necessary.

Let us hope better sense will prevail and the US government and the Congress will act quickly to bring in next set of measures to deal with financial crisis that is threatening to devour the US economy and consequently cause a serious damage to global economic order.

The outgoing US President has 3 more months to show some leadership and effect some good to his country. But if he chickens out at this crucial stage, he will go down in the history as that Captain who chose to take the life raft and run away rather than try to save his ship from capsizing.

Texans are not known to chicken out. One hopes Dubyah will not allow the Texan image to be brought in to disrepute!

WHY McCAIN IS NOTHING BUT A SENILE JOKER!

These days I am getting free entertainment by watching snippets of 72 year John McCain talking on some TV channel or the other. His comments make me laugh and I am enjoying every bit of it. And, yeah, I also pity the Arizona Senator for his growing senility.

Let me tell you about the snippet that made me laugh a lot. McCain speaking on a TV channel on Sunday repeated in his 'hushed' voice "We must know the true relationship between Mr. Obama and Bill Ayers". As soon as I heard this sentence I burst out in laughter. Why?

Because Senator Obama met Ayers when he (Obama) was only 8 years old. And Mr. McCain wants to know the 'true' relationship between the two?!! Do you mean, McCain wants to know what was the true relationship between the two when Obama was just 8? The whole of US knows that Obama didn't meet Ayers until years later they both happened to be on the same Board . Incidentally, on this Board there were some strong pro-Republican folks also.

So, what makes me laugh is what 'relationship' detail is the 72 year senile McCain looking for ? You know, the straight face and seriousness with which he (McCain) asks such idiotic questions makes me feel more amused. The most bizarre aspect of this is that the Arizona Senator thinks in his mind as if he had just stated something brilliant.

I feel sorry for the depletion that has taken in McCain's mental faculties. As it is he was intellectually challenged (he was in the bottom 10 of his military training cohort), and now he is fast skidding on the slope to ultimate senility. I have already mentioned in one of my previous posts about his vacuous, dumb smile. If you visualize the two together - his foolish smile and his idiotic remarks - you can not but burst out in laughter.

Another remark that proves beyond any shade of doubt what a numskull McCain is. This one is about so-called 'distribution of wealth' alleged to be proposed by Senator Obama based on which McCain labels the Illinois Senator to be 'socialist'.

This again is another foolish comment because the 72 year old senator does not seem to have any idea as to what makes one socialist and what constitutes 'socialism'. It is very clear that as McCain finds himself trailing more and more, and as his running mate Palin publicly disagrees with him over and over on campaign strategies, the Republican presidential candidate is going further berserk - mentally.

So, if you want some relaxation after a day's hard work, simply watch the senile McCain trying to say something profound with utter seriousness. Don't try to look for any meaning in what he will be saying because there won't be any substance in them, just enjoy the inanity of his pronouncements and laugh.

By the way, comedy script writers the world over are taking a break because they are not having to exert much to create something funny, they are getting all the material free of cost courtesy 72 year intellectually challenged McCain. These people surely don't want Nov 4 to come soon!

POWELL CORRECTLY ASSESSES McCAIN AND HIS CAMPAIGN

Former Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Colin Powell made some very insightful comments on Oct 19 which every American voter must keep in his/her mind when he/she goes to vote on Nov 4.

Powell's comments stem from rational analysis rather than from blind irrational approach to analysing any issue. For example, Powell criticized his own Republican Party for what he called its narrow focus on irrelevant personal attacks over a serious approach to challenges he called unprecedented.

How very correct Powell is! US is facing such serious economic turmoil, and at that time instead of proposing how McCain could help in meeting the challenge, he is going negative on his rival. The Republican ticket is only busy in focussing on 'how bad the other is', instead of focussing on 'why they (McCain-Palin) are better'.

In an election when one candidate goes completely negative on his rival, you know what it suggests? It suggests that that candidate has nothing better to offer, that's why he is only talking about the other candidate. Are the American voters going to buy the negative tactics of McCain-Palin? Not if they think carefully and rationally like Powell.

Another illustration of Powell's rational thinking: Powell said McCain’s choices in the last few weeks — especially his selection of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his vice presidential running mate — had raised questions in his mind about McCain’s judgment.

That's right - McCain's judgement is indeed questionable. McCain failed to comprehend the disaster that befell Wall Street. He first said US's economic fundamental's are strong, then he backtracked and again said something gibberish.

McCain's assessment of strategy that US should follow in Afghanistan is/was totally erroneous. McCain's position on Iran is/was totally flawed. His position on how to deal with anti-US elements hiding in Pakistan-Afghanistan border is absolutely incoherent and confused. In sum total, McCain's judgement is hopelessly weak, disjointed, mis-informed and questionable.

Powell also rightly condemned McCain-Palin efforts to falsely connect Obama with Muslims. The former 4-star General set the record straight by stating that Obama was a lifelong Christian, and also denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims.

Not only are McCain-Palin are tacitly approving the spread of this nonsense that Obama is a Muslim, they are damaging the very fabric of American society which prides itself on racial harmony. Do McCain-Palin have any idea of how much damage they are causing to United States? Do they not realize that they are destroying the peaceful integrated societal structure US citizens enjoy by sowing the seeds of hatred by talking of so-called terrorist connection of Obama (BillAyers ads).

I am sure every sane minded and rational American must be feeling outraged by McCalin tactics and must be praying that let Nov 4 arrive fast so that the Americans can get good riddance from this obnoxious, narrow, mean, nefarious minded Republican ticket. Amen!