BTW I use both check and cheque, one is american and the other is a UK spelling-term for the same 'check'. But I'd like to believe that check is more promiment than its british counterpart, which is only used in the British Isles and Commonwealth . How many countries does that make up as opposed to North American countries? :confused: ps do not use check at the UK firm you mentioned

They already do,,,,,,

Tehran falling into a US psy-ops trap By Mahan Abedin Psychological warfare is fast emerging as the key component of the conflict between Iran and the United States. It is being used extensively by the latter to influence Iranian behavior in Iraq and secure a climbdown by the Islamic Republic in the intricate negotiations over the country's controversial nuclear program. As the Iranians analyze and react to this carefully crafted psychological-warfare campaign, they run the risk of miscalculating broader developments in the region. The most important of these is Saudi Arabia's new proactive foreign policy. In this climate of heightened tensions and widespread misunderstanding it is easy for the Iranians to dismiss Saudi diplomacy as yet another plank of America's psychological warfare against the Islamic Republic. Miscalculations of this kind can have drastic long-term consequences for Iranian interests in the Middle East. War of words Psychological warfare has been a feature of Iranian-US relations since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Both sides have made extensive use of it, not only to damage the morale of the other, but also as a way of managing the conflict and preventing it from escalating into a shooting war. But never has this psychological war been so intense and potentially dangerous as it is now. Given the unprecedented instability across the Middle East - with opposing factions allied either to Iran or to the US - there is a real danger of misunderstandings spinning out of control. As always, it is the Americans who have ratcheted up the war of words, with the Iranians trying to come to terms with it. The best analyses can be found on websites that are ideologically close to Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. These are often managed by second-generation revolutionaries with loose links to the Islamic Republic's security establishment. A highly illuminating analysis is provided by Dr Hossein Kachouyan, a professor of sociology at Tehran University and an expert on psychological warfare. In an interview with Raja News (www.rajanews.com), a website run by Ahmadinejad loyalists, Kachouyan provides a historical overview of the role of propaganda and psychological warfare in human conflict with a special focus on the Islamic way of war. Kachouyan concludes, "Given that the Americans are plagued by internal political disputes and international constraints in addition to huge political, economic and military problems associated with their aggressions [against Afghanistan and Iraq], they have no option but to engage in psychological warfare against Iran." He adds: "They are trying to cause splits in the internal [iranian] front ... and prevent us from pursuing our objectives by creating fear, doubt and division." [1] As an Ahmadinejad loyalist, Kachouyan is clearly referring to the Rafsanjani camp, which has lately started a widespread misinformation campaign against the Ahmadinejad government, accusing it of radicalism, unnecessary militancy, economic incompetence and disregard for the national interest. Another strong analysis (albeit a less sophisticated one) is put forward by Raja News' Qasim Ravanbakhsh. Ravanbakhsh identifies "Bush's foot soldiers" in the psychological-warfare campaign against Iran and concludes that the Islamic Republic should hit back with a propaganda campaign of its own and declare to the world that the US "cannot do a damn thing". [2] This confidence is only partially rooted in the factors outlined by the two authors - in particular Kachouyan - namely that the US lacks the requisite political will to wage war against the Islamic Republic. The main driver behind this conviction is the actual beliefs of Ahmadinejad and his hardcore supporters. With backgrounds in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (the IRGC, the Islamic Republic's large and competent ideological army), Ahmadinejad and his supporters believe the Islamic Republic is unconquerable; with its ability to project power well beyond its actual size and resources rooted in its "undeterrable" nature. It is very important to understand the origins and intricacies of this mindset. People like Ahmadinejad and Kachouyan developed their political consciousness not on the turbulent streets of the Iranian revolution but in the revolutionary decade of the 1980s, and especially in the front lines of the Iran-Iraq War. The belief that Iran faced much of the Western and Eastern worlds during the war is widely shared in the population, but it is especially intense in the networks linked to the second-generation revolutionaries. From their perspective, the Islamic Republic ensured its long-term stability by facing much of the world with modest means and with iron will as its only real strategic asset (against an enemy that enjoyed the unqualified support of much of the Arab and Western worlds). They believe that the culture of sacrifice born out of eight years of war, and the unique nationalist-Islamic political heritage it has spawned, will ensure the survival of the Islamic Republic against all odds. Furthermore, the very distinct features of the Islamic Republic (a political system that effortlessly combines democratic and theocratic ideas and institutions) and the intense loyalty it inspires among a substantial section of the Iranian population (as well as a considerable number of non-Iranians) enables the regime to face its only serious security threat, namely the United States. This belief in the "undeterrable" nature of the Islamic Republic in turn influences Iranian psychological warfare against the United States. While Iranian diplomats do their best to ease tension and neutralize US saber-rattling, the IRGC is busy conducting war games in 16 of the country's provinces. These latest military maneuvers follow numerous others during which the IRGC showcases new indigenous weaponry and boasts of its impressive missile capabilities. Moreover, the Revolutionary Guards have unveiled a new pilotless drone that they claim can be used to crash into US warships in the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, the IRGC claims that it recently managed to place its standard (logo) on the side of a US warship in the Gulf. [3] These activities were reinforced by the latest warning from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Islamic Republic's spiritual leader, that in the event of US aggression, Iran would target US interests throughout the world. This is not an empty threat. While the Americans are not overly concerned about Iran's conventional military capabilities (which are modest, IRGC boasting and ceaseless maneuvers notwithstanding), they cannot so easily dismiss the capabilities of the Islamic Republic's intelligence services and special forces, which are widely believed to be among the best in the world. The Quds Force But are Ahmadinejad loyalists correct in their assumption that US saber-rattling does not go beyond psychological warfare? Two developments in particular shed some light on this issue. The first is recent US allegations that elements of the Quds Force (the ultra-secretive special-operations arm of the IRGC) has been providing specialized technology - namely explosively formed penetrators or EFPs - to Shi'ite militias and insurgents in Iraq. While an exhaustive analysis of the US claims is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to point out that the allegations relating specifically to the technology have been met by widespread skepticism. Even before the allegations were made public, an article in Jane's Intelligence Review last month by Michael Knights, chief of analysis for the Olive Group, a private security-consulting firm, reported that British military intelligence had uncovered an entirely Iraqi network that arranged for the purchase and delivery of imported EFPs. Apparently this network was centered in the heart of the Basra Police, and included members of the Police Intelligence Unit, the Internal Affairs Directorate and the Major Crimes Unit. [4] Moreover, the central contention of the original US allegations - namely that the highest levels of the Iranian government were complicit in the killing of American soldiers - was so controversial that the US administration had to backtrack immediately, claiming that it was "not sure" if the Tehran government was involved. This position is ludicrous given the status of the Quds Force, a highly disciplined unit within the IRGC, which is in turn tightly controlled by the highest levels of the Islamic regime. Established in the early 1980s, and known inside the IRGC as the "2nd Quds Corps", the Quds Force is in charge of extraterritorial special operations. It has operated in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Sudan. In the early to mid-1990s, the Quds Force was in charge of a large-scale operation supplying arms and training to the Bosnian Muslims. Interestingly, this operation had the tacit approval of US officials who only moved against the Quds Force in Bosnia once the Dayton Peace Agreement had been signed in late November 1995. In post-Saddam Hussein Iraq, the Quds Force - alongside other Iranian intelligence agencies - is active in widening and deepening Iranian influence, especially inside the new Iraqi security structures. It is highly unlikely that the Quds Force would directly counter US power in Iraq, for this would not only endanger its operations (much of which the Americans have tolerated) but would also violate the core principles of Iranian policy in Iraq, which is to avoid confrontation with the United States. Seen in this context, the recent US operations against Iranian interests (namely the assault on Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's compound in late December and the raid on the Iranian Consulate in Irbil in early January) reinforce wider US psychological warfare against Iran and are designed to force its leadership to rethink some of its policies in the Middle East and compromise on the nuclear issue. Saudi Arabia: Old pawn or new kingmaker? In recent months, Saudi Arabia has shifted from its long-established role as a low-profile, behind-the-scenes regional player to pursue a more active foreign policy. This has been particularly evident in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. In Lebanon, the Saudis have played a major role in easing tensions between the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and the Saad Hariri camp on one side and the Hezbollah-led opposition on the other. The Saudis have only been successful because of Iranian cooperation. Both sides thrashed out a deal during Ali Larijani's recent visit to Riyadh. Apparently Larijani - the secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council (and the country's chief nuclear negotiator) - had submitted a letter to King Abdullah that was signed by both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. The letter stated Iran's willingness to work with Saudi Arabia to reduce sectarian and political tensions in the Middle East. In the case of Palestine, the Saudis have almost single-handedly brokered a truce between warring Hamas and Fatah factions and engineered the creation of a national-unity government. While Iran cannot be happy about this Saudi success, apparently the Iranians were confident enough that the Saudis would be unable to displace Iranian influence over Hamas that they did nothing to undermine the deal. While Iranian-Saudi relations have been steadily improving since the early 1990s, this level of cooperation (especially in the treacherous political landscape of Lebanon - where the two countries pursue very different objectives) is unprecedented. The key question is, why are the Iranians appeasing the House of Saud? Iranian perceptions about the House of Saud are not very favorable. While the Iranian diplomatic community regards the Saudis as "enablers" of US foreign policy in the Muslim world, the hardline supporters of the Islamic Revolution go much further and regard the historical function of the House of Saud as pawns of the Western powers. They served the British during the heyday of their empire and now serve the Americans, so the argument goes. These hardliners tend to stay loyal to the late ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's famous statement that "we may reach peace with Saddam but we will never accept peace with al-Saud", even if they have not done much to undermine Iranian-Saudi detente. It is entirely possible that Iranian cooperation with the Saudis over the political standoff in Lebanon and (to a much lesser extent) the deal that has ended the bloody factional strife between Hamas and Fatah (at least for the time being) is informed by the view that these latest Saudi maneuvers stem not so much from creative Saudi initiatives but pressure from Washington. And this US pressure can only be understood in the wider context of intense US psychological warfare against Iran, so the policymakers in Tehran may argue. If this is indeed the case, then the Iranians have badly miscalculated. All evidence suggests that the Saudis have decided on a more proactive foreign policy largely because of Iran's growing role in the region. Far from neutralizing US intrigues, by engaging more closely with the Saudis the Iranians are in fact bolstering the position of their only serious regional rival. The Iranian diplomatic community has long believed in the value of engagement with Saudi Arabia, arguing that the ejection of US forces from the region can only come about as a result of deep and wide-ranging Iranian-Saudi understanding. This view was articulated to the author by Dr Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh in an interview with Saudi Debate. [5] However, the wider Iranian policymaking community (in particular Ahmadinejad loyalists) believe in keeping the Saudis at arm's length hoping that America's weakening position will in turn weaken the Saudis. It is interesting that Ahmadinejad loyalists have not protested about the recent Iranian overtures to the House of Saud. In this respect they may be taking the psychological-warfare argument too far, thereby neglecting wider regional realities. After all, not every major development in the Middle East revolves around the United States. By drawing too close to the Saudis, Iran may be undermining its traditional allies, in particular Syria, whose president has just paid a visit to Tehran partly because of concerns over the recent Iranian-Saudi "deal", which undercuts Syria's position in Lebanon. In the final analysis, as the Iranians counter intense US psychological warfare, they run the risk of misinterpreting wider regional developments. These may prove costly in the long term, especially in regards to the balance of Iranian and Saudi influence in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. While the House of Saud enjoys the backing of the United States and has impressive resources, it - unlike the Islamic Republic - suffers from a major legitimacy deficit. Iranian policymakers ought to beware of this and plan their long-term approach to this declining monarchy accordingly. source

Crime of Selective Memory To assume responsibility for one's failures as well as successes is the truest sign of maturity and wisdom; also it is the only way to evolve and grow. This means a nation can never grow without learning from its past mistakes, as the philosopher George Santayana said, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it". However as I look at the present day Arabs I see a nation which is engulfed by chaos and beset by misery without any hope of an exit from its current tragic state. They are a people consumed by hate, self-pity and desperate lethargy. This is a lethal combination that only results in utter blindness and ignorance of their history leading to false assumptions that leave them incapable of lifting themselves from the depths to which they have sunk. We started by blaming our plight on the advent of colonialism that wasn't entirely true. If the Arab nation was invaded and raped by different foreign powers the reason was both foreign greed and an innate weakness in Arab society that allowed nations like the UK, Italy, France, and finally the US to exploit it. Colonialism was to the Arabs what a virus is to an enfeebled body. We had fossilized long before colonialism arrived on our shores. Our society had ceased to evolve or grow socially, culturally and economically but somehow we found someone else to blame for everything and that too the "Turks". We blamed the Ottoman Empire for every ill that afflicted us. This doesn't mean that none of the colonialists is to blame for our suffering. Only we should admit our own share in all this. Then as though all that befell us in the past wasn't enough, Israel entered the scene stealing our lands, killing and expelling the people and when we failed to retrieve our lands or get even the minutest part of justice from the world we fell into despondency and lethargy blaming once again every ill in our society on a Zionist conspiracy - be it the impoverishment of our society, the mounting illiteracy, oppressive regimes, endemic corruption, the wasted natural resources, the oppression of women and the utter wasteland which we have created from the Atlantic to the Gulf. We claimed that had it not been for Israel we wouldn't be cursed by corrupt and oppressive regimes spreading ignorance and fear in every part of the Arab world. We claim that it is the Zionist who plots in the dark fooling us into fighting each other whether in ridiculous border wars or tragic civil wars. It is "they," the enemy who wasted our wealth and forced our best and brightest to immigrate to foreign lands in search of a decent life and better education. They are the ones who made us the tragicomedy that the Arab world has come to represent in the eyes of the world. Finally, "they" are to blame for the latest folly, which is the war in Iraq. I don't deny that the Zionists are our enemies and that they have committed terrible crimes and still do against the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular. However, we need to admit our own responsibility for the tragic situation in which we find ourselves today. Amid the terrible noise and din we made by blaming our enemies for all the catastrophes, which befell our nation, we forgot the one most important component in our misery - "ourselves". We forgot what we did and didn't do. We forgot our faults and our mistakes, our betrayals and letdowns; we forgot our history and now that history has caught up with us. Those who invaded Iraq found a weak country and a weaker region that allowed them to do what they wanted with Iraq and the rest of the Arab nation. Now, when all the past excuses are no longer valid or have proven to be a deception we search frantically for anyone to blame but ourselves for the chaos into which our region has been cast. And who might this terrible new enemy be? Who is to blame for Iraq and the savage sectarian war which rages there? Who is to blame for the war in Lebanon and the political impasse that it now languishes in? Who is to blame for the starvation and planned genocide of the Palestinians? Who possibly is to blame for the Arab misery? The emphatic answer of course is not the Arabs; they are always the victims of others' machinations and today's villains are none other than a wicked minority guided by the more wicked "Iranians". I would laugh if it weren't so tragic. We forgot what the Arab majority have done for centuries to the minority through oppression and persecution forcing them to live on the margins of society and that is why they are today one of the poorest segments of Arab society. Have we forgotten how we watched in silence as Saddam Hussein, the false hero of the Arabs, massacred the Iraqis in the south at the end of the first Gulf War? Today we find ourselves engulfed in a sectarian war in Iraq, which threatens to spill over to the entire region. The monster that Iraq has become is our creation. Have we forgotten that Saddam was the favorite child of the Arab masses in the 1980s and how he committed genocide against the Kurds while nobody said anything? The Arabs didn't consider it of any consequence that an entire race of people was being exterminated in Arab lands at the hands of Arabs. We are reaping today in Iraq the fruit of our indifference. I could go on since the list of our past mistakes is long but I don't think I would have the space in this article. So, I come to the latest Arab folly of blaming Iran for all our ills of today. If anyone should fear the aggression by another in this part of the world it should be the Iranians. It was Iraq that attacked Iran in the recent past and not vice-versa or have we forgotten that too? Iran hasn't attacked anyone for the past century and it was Iraq that attacked it, aided by many of the Arabs, dragging us all to a long war that only resulted in killing and maiming millions on both sides. Before we head into an all-out war against an imagined enemy again and before we destroy the future of another Arab generation, I beg you to sit down and take a deep breath; then open a book of our recent history and read it and learn from it please, learn where we committed mistakes and how to fix them. Then know who your real enemy is and begin to put down an effective plan for defeating that enemy. The Kurds, the Shiites, Iranians, the Africans or the Berber were never the enemy and can never be since they are us and we are them. Reem Al Faisal is a photographer and writer from Saudi Arabia. She is the grand-daughter of the Saudi king Feisal. She has shown her photographic art exhibits in France, Egypt, China and Korea. She was the first artist from a Gulf state to hold an exhibit in Palestine. She is a strong activist and opponent of all forms of imperialism, including the war in Iraq. link

Its night time here ps when you get a job, dont write 1.000.000.000,00. You will be shown the door pretty sharpish pps its 'cheque' in most parts of the world

It was obviouse from your initial post you wanted someone to raise the issue of how figures should be written hence why you wrote 1.000.000.000,00 instead of a simple $1 billion which is how it should be represented when in amongst written text. I raised it just to see your reaction I work with people in Thailand, Indonesia, USA, Sudan, Iraq and they all use the same system as i do. The majority use the system this system.

^^Nice pic. We will just have to wait and see then.

The guy is in hospital and people are protesting against him! That just about says it all!

Scousers

I cant see an oil tanker passing through that one :confused: Tallest bridge (look at the number of pillars required)

Great to see

^^Thats the thing saxib. I dont recall a bridge across a sea. Maybe a river, a bay, a lake etc but this is the sea. There is no other project to learn from. Throw in the hundres of ships who pass through everyday and stiff oposition from the said organisations. If the UAE will not want the money back then by all means go ahead with it. But i just dont see it happening.

^^The bulk of the costs would not be in Labour but rather engineering and commercial. How high does the bridge have to be? How wide the spans? Will the construction effect the ships? How long for? How will the foundations be done? Insurance? etc Very early stages but i just dont see it happening. Too must risk. Any risk managers in the house?

^^do you guys know somethingwe dont?

Jay, The youth players dont get paid that much. I think Abdisalam will begoing to school aswell until he is 16. Every club has a youth system. If they are good enough they will be promoted to the reservse (2nd team) then the full team. There are Somalis at many clubs at youth level. Its only a matter of time IA.

^^Thanks Soma! Analysis Rikaard showed his lack of tactical awareness last night. Ok he went for the win but was it good to take the risk of having 1 centre back? Rafa was great again. He gave a good taking to at HT and the boys responded. Sissoko was a giant and I hope he is ok for the second leg. The ref was a wuss! What a weak ref and the diving by Ronaldhino every time someone came close to him was just silly. Sissoko’s injury was due to him being fouled by Barca got the foul. Looking forward to that unique Anfield atmosphere in 2 weeks time. Nuune and Ngonge, what are your thoughts?

^^The question is what will you be doing for a month?

Originally posted by me: ^No not because its long, but because its a busy shipping lane. You cannot just construct a bridge on a busy shipping lane without there being an International consensus. Yemen or Djibouti alone cannot decide whether to build a bridge there. Thats why I am saying I would believe it if they said that they would build a tunnel. They have to ask for PERMISSION first. Plus what benefit will it have for Africa or the Middle East? Nada Nothing Nopes.The problems or Africa and M.E are corruption and mismanagement, they should deal with that first and stop wasting time on fantasy projects. Me, you are 110% right saxib. The project will not happen for the following reasons. Cost A 14 km bridge across the Red Sea does not cost a mere $1billion (that’s only 500billion sterling). Maybe for 3 times as much yes. Engineering A bridge that long in that location needs to be very high with huge spans (to let the ships through). With the depth of the sea to consider aswell, it is very unlikely it can achieve it’s purpose without compromising on certain factors. This will then inevitably have an impact on the passage of ships in that area. Shorter spans and lower bridge will make certain ships make a small ‘diversion’ around Africa. Commercial Maritime organizations, oil companies, the Suez Canal Company etc will all object to the project as it will have profound effects on the passage of ships and their businesses. Lets not forget these are international waters aswell so many organizations do have a say on things. A quick sprinkling of the greenback around Djbouti and Yemen would settle the issue if push came to shove. Economic A quick feasibility study would determine Djbouti and Yemen have absolutely nothing to offer each other apart from Qaad! MKA, $1,000,000,000 – that’s how the majority of the world would write $1 billion dollars. Yes there are other ways of writing it (so I’ve been told) but having worked in and studied finance I’m yet to come across it. Even here in the ME they use comas and not decimal points.

Begs the question who will pay for it? Is that 1 billion? or just 1 dollar?

^^Because you will probably turn it around at the Emirates (still cant get used to the name of your new stadium, it has an almost plasticy feel to it)

^^Afrikaan! I'll wait for the Chinese to come round,,,,, di vi di?

^^I dont get to read the tabloids anymore saxib (probably for the better) but hey i dont think it will impact on the game. I know you want us to lose cos you may meet us in the next round

No saxib. I dont want to get into trouble besides i dont know what your talking about. I dont trust you!

Yes. Is it wrong?

We apologize the site you are attempting to visit has been blocked due to its content being inconsistent with the religious, cultural, political and moral values of the United Arab Emirates. If you think this site should not be blocked, please visit the Feedback Form available on our website.