Steven Petrow: Queeries: When He Won't Wear a Condom (World AIDS Day Edition)

Question:

"Every so often I meet a guy who tells me he just won't use a condom because (take your pick): 1) he can't stay hard; 2) he's too big; 3) he's allergic to latex; 4) he's HIV-negative; or 5) it's a mood killer. How do you suggest I handle these situations -- especially when I'm really turned on?"

Answer:

Let me start today by noting that it's World AIDS Day, which is held on Dec. 1 each year and -- as the official site in the U.K. proclaims -- "is an opportunity for people worldwide to unite in the fight against HIV, show their support for people living with HIV and to commemorate people who have died."

That being said, there's no better way to observe this day than to pledge to protect yourself and your prospective partners from HIV. And if there's any tool we have to prevent the continued spread of the virus, it's the much-maligned, low-tech (but lifesaving) condom.

I know you've heard this before (I certainly hope that you have), but latex and plastic rubbers, when used properly (and yes, that's key) with a water-based lubricant, provide a high degree of protection to each partner. But sometimes information alone doesn't do the trick. If only. Instead of going to the experts (as Mr. Manners often does), I decided to ask a friend of mine who recently became infected why his knowledge of safer sex didn't safeguard him:

"You can be armed with all the information in the world, but it's much harder to put it into practice when you combine casual sex, alcohol and drugs -- and put places like Fire Island into the mix. My suspicion is that somewhere along the line, I wasn't sober enough to do what I needed to do to protect myself, and there were enough of those nights that the statistical odds became stacked against me."

So, how do I suggest that you respond to these periodic ploys (and that's what they are) to have unprotected sex? It would be facile for me to suggest that you just say "no." Still, you can't make sound judgments if you're stoned, high, drunk, tweaked or toasted -- and there's no question that drug and alcohol use are closely linked with new HIV infections.

For now, though, let's take each of the objections to using a condom and do a little role-playing:

He says: "I can't stay hard."

The truth: It's true that in a fair number of instances, guys may lose their erections after suiting up. But there are a number of things you can do, like trying different brands of rubbers -- especially those that might not be as tight or as thick. More often than not, though, what you're hearing (and seeing) is a self-fulfilling prophecy based on a psychological response ("I don't like to wear a condom"). To counter that, try making the unveiling and capture playfully sexy and fun. If your buddy loses his erection as soon as the glove goes on, go back to first or second base for a while to help him get (re)stimulated while gloved.

He says: "I'm too big."

The truth: Condoms come in all sizes, my friend. Unless your partner is superhuman, there's a condom for him. He doesn't go shoeless because he's a big guy, does he? He shouldn't go without a glove, either. Among the jumbo-sized options are Trojan Magnum XL Lubricated, Durex XXL, and Kimono MAXX. Keep shopping for options until you find one that satisfies.

He says: "I'm allergic to latex."

The truth: Indeed, some men are, but there are condoms made out of plastic (polyurethane) that provide protection against HIV and other STDs. Be sure to use a water-based lubricant with either latex or plastic gloves. And remember: don't use lambskin condoms, since they don't protect against HIV and other STDs.

He says: "I'm HIV-negative."

The truth: First of all, a casual sex partner may not be 100-percent honest about his status if he's eager to get you into the sack. But even an Honest John can put you at risk -- he may think he's negative, but he may be wrong (which is a one of the primary scenarios for new infections). Generally, you must wait at least three months since your last risk of exposure to HIV to be reasonably sure that you're HIV-negative. Even if your guy really is HIV-negative, remember that there are all too many other STDs to be concerned about -- condoms protect you from more than just HIV. (By the way, when's the last time you were tested? If you're sexually active, be sure to get tested on a regular basis, at least annually, if not more frequently, depending on your risk factors.)

He says: "It's a mood killer."

The truth: Possibly, but be creative! If you plan ahead, a condom can be whipped out without losing your focus -- or your state of mind. And given the choice, I'll take a "mood killer" over the alternative.

But if this were all so easy, we wouldn't have more than 40,000 new infections occurring each year here in the U.S. It's not easy at all -- especially when you're really turned on or on a high from drugs or alcohol. Again, my recently infected friend cautions: "Compared with friends who knowingly slipped up in terms of safe sex, I always thought I was a model in terms of precautions. But it only takes once. And the people you meet out and about (or online) for casual sex are all sleeping with other people where the same risk applies."

In other words, knowledge alone isn't power. Vigilance is a necessary part of the equation.

One last word:

There's a new documentary called We Were Here: The AIDS Years in San Francisco (just nominated for an Oscar) that is a must-see for anyone who lived through the darkest years of what was then called the "gay plague," and especially for those who didn't. Kudos to director/filmmaker David Weissman.

This column originally appeared on Advocate.com.

Steven Petrow is the author of Steven Petrow's Complete Gay & Lesbian Manners and can be found online at www.gaymanners.com. Got a question? Email him at ask@gaymanners.com or contact him on Facebook and Twitter.

?

Follow Steven Petrow on Twitter: www.twitter.com/gaymanners

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-petrow/queeries-safe-sex_b_1121522.html

cnbc debate family circus spanier jorge posada walmart black friday ad walmart black friday ad rick perry gaffe

Britain withdrawing some embassy staff from Iran (AP)

TEHRAN, Iran ? Britain set in motion the withdrawal of some diplomatic staff and families from Tehran on Wednesday as Iran's parliament speaker blamed Britain's "domination-seeking" policies for the storming of British compounds by hard-line Iranian protesters the day before.

Norway, meanwhile, closed its embassy in Tehran due to security concerns after Tuesday's assault on the British Embassy and a residential complex. Mobs hauled down British flags and ransacked offices in retaliation for Britain's support of tighter sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

In London, the Foreign Office said some diplomatic staff and dependents would leave Iran. But it declined to say how many people were being removed or give other details.

"Ensuring the safety of our staff and their families is our immediate priority," said the statement. It noted some diplomatic work is ongoing, though the embassy is officially closed.

The Iranian government has expressed regret about "unacceptable behavior" of protesters, whose attacks began after anti-British demonstrations apparently authorized by authorities.

But Iran's Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani said that the "wrath of (students) resulted from several decades of domination-seeking behavior of Britain."

Larijani ? addressing an open session of parliament Wednesday ? also called the U.N. Security Council's condemnation of the embassy attack a "hasty move."

Larijani's comments reflect the deepening diplomatic crisis between Iran and Britain, whose relations have in the past gone through periods of upheavals. On Sunday, Iran's parliament approved a bill to downgrade relations with Britain, one of America's closest allies with diplomatic envoys in the Islamic Republic.

Larijani insisted that the decision to scale back relations needs to be carried out immediately. But President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has remained silent and his representatives have publicly opposed parliament's decision.

Iran's Foreign Ministry said it must carry out the decision after the parliament vote was approved Monday by Iran's constitutional watchdog, the Guardian Council.

British Prime Minister David Cameron called Tuesday's attack "outrageous and indefensible" and said Iran's failure to defend the embassy and its staff was a disgrace and would have "serious consequences." The sites were pelted by rocks and petrol bombs and suffered what Cameron called "extensive damage."

"The Iranian government must recognize that there will be serious consequences for failing to protect our staff," Cameron said after a meeting with a security committee. The British governments has advised its citizens in Iran to remain indoor and avoid "all but essential travel."

About 24 British embassy staff and dependents are based in Tehran. All are adults since Britain will not post diplomats to Iran with small children for security reasons.

In Norway, foreign ministry spokeswoman Hilde Steinfeld said the decision to close the embassy was taken late Tuesday, but that Norwegian diplomatic staff have not been evacuated from the Iran.

Steinfeld did not give further details, but said "the decision follows security concern ... in context with the attack on the British Embassy."

Norway has four to five diplomatic staff deployed in the Iranian capital, she said.

Neighboring Sweden, which has not closed its embassy or evacuated staff from Tehran, also showed its disapproval of the attack by summoning the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Ministry in Stockholm on Wednesday morning.

"Iran has a duty to protect diplomatic premises and authorities there should have intervened immediately," Swedish Foreign Ministry spokesman Teo Zetterman said.

The assaults began after protest rallies organized by pro-government groups in universities and Islamic seminaries. It was not clear, however, if the attackers were mostly students or led by hard-line forces such as the basij paramilitary corps, which is run by Iran's powerful Revolutionary Guard.

The attackers ripped down the Union Jack, torched an embassy vehicle and tossed looted documents before riot police eventually cleared the areas. "Death to England!" some cried outside the compound in the first significant assault of a foreign diplomatic area in Iran in years.

Chants called for the closure of the embassy and called it a "spy den" ? the same phrase used after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran after the 1979 Islamic Revolution and held 52 hostages for 444 days. In the early moments of that siege, protesters tossed out papers from the compound and pulled down the U.S. flag. Washington and Tehran have had no diplomatic relations since then.

Britain broke off relations with Iran after the Islamic Revolution and gradually restored during the 1990s.

China, which is one of Iran's key allies, refused to criticize Iran by name for the attack on the British compounds, but said "the security and dignity" of diplomatic missions should be protected.

___

Murphy reported from Dubai, United Arab Emirates. Associated Press Writers Robert Barr in London and Louise Nordstrom in Stockholm contributed to this report.

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/britain/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20111130/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_britain

kourtney kardashian lipitor lipitor kourtney kardashian pregnant again kourtney kardashian pregnant again apple juice apple juice

FAA: Changes coming to prevent tarmac delays

WASHINGTON?? Administration officials promised Wednesday to make changes before the Christmas travel season in an effort to prevent airline passengers from suffering the nightmare of being trapped for hours on a tarmac with no way to reach an airport gate.

1. Don't miss these Travel stories

   1. Enjoy local foods during an airport layover

      It?s getting easier to eat well ? and to eat local ? at an increasing number of airports where branches of hometown restaurants and gift shops serve signature local dishes and locally-made foods.

   2. U.S. to world: Dude, where's my vacation?
   3. 6 songs that put cities in the spotlight
   4. Luxury hotels offering better loot
   5. Top budget travel destinations for 2012

"We can move pretty quickly on this," Federal Aviation Administrator Randy Babbitt told reporters after hosting a forum with airlines, airports and government officials on ways to prevent a repeat of an October incident that left hundreds of passengers stranded in Hartford, Conn.

Twenty-eight planes ? seven were large international flights ? arrived unexpectedly at Bradley International Airport on Oct. 29 during a freak snowstorm. The planes were forced to divert because weather and equipment problems prevented them from landing at New York-area airports.

Many of the flights sat on the ground for hours ? several for more than seven hours ? before they could either refuel and depart or unload their passengers. The captain of JetBlue flight 504 begged for help to get his plane to a gate, saying passengers were becoming unruly and he had paraplegic and diabetic passengers who needed to get off.

Within the next week, the FAA will begin including airports in national and regional conference calls they hold with airlines several times a day to discuss problems that are affecting the flow of air traffic. The agency is also launching a hotline and a webpage for airports to alert the FAA and airlines of problems on the ground such as difficulties with as snow removal and de-icing equipment or a shortage of available gates, Babbitt said.

Much of the chaos during the Hartford incident could have been mitigated by better communication among airlines, airports and air traffic controllers, Babbitt said.

If airlines had known so many flights were diverting to Hartford, some probably would have sent their planes to other airports in Providence, R.I.; Albany, N.Y.; Allentown, Pa.; and Baltimore, transportation officials said. Bradley, a medium-size airport, has only 23 gates and typically handles few international flights, officials said.

"This wasn't anybody's fault necessarily," Babbitt said. "People just weren't aware of what other people were doing. That's what we're going to try to alleviate going forward."

A Transportation Department rule implemented in April 2010 limits tarmac delays to a maximum of three hours before airlines must allow passengers to get off the plane. Airlines that exceed the time limit can face fines of up to $27,500 per person. Although Babbitt's comments appeared to relieve airlines of responsibility for the Oct. 29 incident, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood emphasized that his department's investigations into each of the flights that exceeded the three-hour limit aren't yet complete.

Airlines say there are a lot of reasons for extended tarmac delays, most related to airport congestion created by poor weather. If planes are held at gates because poor weather prevents or slows departures, then incoming flights have trouble finding a free gate. Sometimes planes sitting for hours in line waiting to take off are unable to return to gates where new planes have taken their place. Customs and security officials won't allow passengers off international flights unless they have enough officials to process them or a secure place to hold them until they can be processed.

Airlines, which opposed the three-hour rule, say many of the delays are beyond their control. For example, one of the problems at Bradley was that there weren't enough U.S. Customs officials on duty to handle the influx of large international flights with hundreds of passengers. Indeed, the room Customs officials use at Bradley was far too small to accommodate all the passengers waiting to be processed that day, officials said.

The airport received 20 inches of snow during the storm, which marked the first time that area of Connecticut had received over an inch of snow in October in more than a century of record-keeping, a National Weather Service official told the forum.

The storm knocked out power to the airport several times during the day. Luggage belts quit working. Tugs that move planes out of the way couldn't get traction on the ice. Planes had trouble refueling and de-icing because of the power outages, preventing departures.

If a plane can't get de-iced, "you might as well just weld the aircraft to the ramp ? it's not going anywhere," Babbitt said.

And if planes can't depart, there's no room to unload planes that have landed.

No one, including controllers, had a complete picture of what was happening, Babbitt told the forum.

"There is a lot of knowledge out there," he said. "If everyone had access to the whole picture, they wouldn't have continued to send planes to (Bradley)."

But FAA officials acknowledged they shared some responsibility for the episode as well. The agency was in the midst of a scheduled shutdown of navigation equipment for servicing at John F. Kennedy International Airport when visibility rapidly deteriorated and winds kicked up. Several industry officials questioned why FAA continued with the maintenance shutdown in light of the forecast storm, but LaHood said no one had anticipated a snowstorm that severe in October.

The problems were exacerbated when other FAA equipment at Kennedy and nearby Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey malfunctioned in freezing temperatures. Reports of wind shear limited the use of some runways, forcing changes in flight paths that decreased the number of planes that could land at Kennedy, Newark, LaGuardia Airport in New York and Teterboro Airport in New Jersey, which was closed for a time.

More than a dozen planes were diverted to Logan International Airport in Boston, but Logan had problems as well. One of the diverted planes was an Airbus A380, the world's largest commercial passenger plane. Logan, which doesn't normally serve A380s, had to close a runway for a time because there was nowhere else to put the supersize plane. Tarmac space to accommodate planes at Logan was further limited by a military flight that happened to bring soldiers wounded in Libya to the U.S. for medical care that day. Logan officials said they had to make room on the tarmac for 10 ambulances.

An FAA review also found that it wasn't necessarily obvious to controllers that an unusually large number of flights were being diverted to Bradley, agency officials said.

Among FAA's proposals to airlines and airports for better information-sharing:

• Creating a webpage monitored by FAA where airports can continuously update information. Airline dispatchers could check the site before deciding where they want to send flights unable to land at their intended destination. Airlines, rather than controllers, decide which airports they want to send diverted flights to based on factors such as personnel and equipment at the airport.

For example, if a plane spends too much time on the ground, the flight crew may exceed the maximum number of hours they're allowed to work in a single day under FAA safety regulations. In those cases, airlines have to find another flight crew and get them to the plane before the flight can depart.

• Expand FAA-hosted teleconferences with airlines to include airports. FAA and airline officials exchange information in teleconferences each day about weather-related and other difficulties affecting the flow of air traffic around the country, but airport officials generally don't join those conversations.
• Create a better system for air traffic controllers to identify diverted flights. While special handling would not be provided based sole on diversion status, it would heighten situational awareness about the potential for congestion on the ground at airport and for planes in the air to run low on fuel.
  

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45495946/ns/travel-news/

barnes and noble nook bcs rankings 12 days of christmas a christmas carol arkansas football player dies anne mccaffrey anne mccaffrey

Teen gets busted for driving high on 'DUI'

TLC

Teen Deshonte is in big trouble with his mother.

By Anna Chan

Bad boys bad boys, whatcha gonna do? Whatcha gonna do when mama comes for you?

"COPS" it isn't, but TLC's upcoming new reality show, "DUI," reveals what can happen when drivers get behind the wheel after one too many drinks. Or in the case of one teenager, what happens when the police?detect the scent of?marijuana emanating from the vehicle.

In a sneak peek, officers pull over a car after noticing one of the headlights is out and learn that the teen driver, Deshonte, and his passengers were enjoying some weed in the vehicle. But rather than cuff the young man (who was on the way to get some food, naturally), the police call his mother instead.

And boy, is she angry. "Deshonte, this is not your $&%*#&^ car! ... What if they would've towed my car? What if you'd have went to jail?! *smack!*"

Check out the clip, but beware of adult (bleeped) language:

"DUI" premieres at 9 p.m. on Dec. 1 on TLC.

Do you think the show can help reduce the number of DUIs? Share your thoughts on our Facebook page.

?

More in The Clicker:

Source: http://theclicker.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/30/9123537-teen-gets-busted-for-driving-high-on-dui

ok state ok state kurt budke regis philbin regis and kelly reno fire regis philbin last show

Gizmodo Gallery's Big Ass Home Theater: We Will Rock You [Gizmodo Gallery]

We're installing a tricked out entertainment system in Gizmodo Gallery. Why? 1) Because we can. 2) Because we want to watch movies instead of working. 3) Because we want to help you build one of your own. More »

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/Dt_gQ4Vmxmk/gizmodo-gallerys-big-ass-home-theater-we-will-rock-you

steve jobs commencement speech sarah palin espn body issue ijustine visionary guy kawasaki jani lane

Iranian protesters storm British diplomatic compounds (Reuters)

TEHRAN (Reuters) ? Iranian protesters stormed two British diplomatic compounds in Tehran on Tuesday, smashing windows, torching a car and burning the British flag in protest against new sanctions imposed by London.

Britain said it was outraged and warned of "serious consequences." The U.N. Security Council condemned the attacks "in the strongest terms." U.S. President Barack Obama said he was disturbed by the incident and called on Iran to hold those responsible to account.

The attacks come at a time of rising diplomatic tension between Iran and Western nations who last week imposed fresh sanctions over Tehran's nuclear program, which they believe is aimed at achieving the capability of making an atomic bomb.

Iran, the world's fifth biggest oil exporter, says it only wants nuclear plants to generate electricity.

The embassy storming is also a sign of deepening political infighting within Iran's ruling hardline elites, with the conservative-led parliament attempting to force the hand of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and expel the British ambassador.

"Radicals in Iran and in the West are always in favor of crisis ... Such radical hardliners in Iran will use the crisis to unite people and also to blame the crisis for the fading economy," said political analyst Hasan Sedghi.

Several dozen protesters broke away from a crowd of a few hundred outside the main British embassy compound in downtown Tehran, scaled the gates, broke the locks and went inside.

Protesters pulled down the British flag, burned it, and put up the Iranian flag, Iranian news agencies and news pictures showed. Inside, the demonstrators smashed windows of office and residential quarters and set a car ablaze, news pictures showed.

One took a framed picture of Queen Elizabeth, state TV showed. Others carried the royal crest out through the embassy gate as police stood by, pictures carried by the semi-official Fars news agency showed.

All embassy personnel were accounted for, a British diplomat told Reuters in Washington, saying Britain did not believe that any sensitive materials had been seized.

Demonstrators waved flags symbolizing martyrdom and held aloft portraits of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has the final say on matters of state in Iran.

Another group of protesters broke into a second British compound at Qolhak in north Tehran, the IRNA state news agency said. Once the embassy's summer quarters, the sprawling, tree-lined compound is now used to house diplomatic staff.

An Iranian report said six British embassy staff had been briefly held by the protesters. British Foreign Secretary William Hague said the situation had been "confusing" and that he would not have called them "hostages."

"Police freed the six people working for the British embassy in Qolhak garden," Iran's Fars news agency said.

A German school next to the Qolhak compound was also damaged, the German government said.

BRITAIN OUTRAGED

Police appeared to have cleared the demonstrators in front of the main downtown embassy compound, but later clashed with protesters and fired tear gas to try to disperse them, Fars said. Protesters nevertheless entered the compound a second time, before once again leaving, it said.

British Prime Minister David Cameron chaired a meeting of the government crisis committee to discuss the attacks which he said were "outrageous and indefensible."

"The failure of the Iranian government to defend British staff and property was a disgrace," he said in a statement.

"The Iranian government must recognize that there will be serious consequences for failing to protect our staff. We will consider what these measures should be in the coming days."

The United States, alongside the European Union and many of its member states also strongly condemned the attacks.

There have been regular protests outside the British embassy over the years since the 1979 Islamic revolution that toppled the U.S.-backed shah, but never have any been so violent.

The attacks and hostage-taking were a reminder of the 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran carried out by radical students who held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The United States cut diplomatic ties with Iran after the hostage-taking.

All British embassy personnel were accounted for and safe, a British diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Reuters in Washington.

The diplomat said the attack likely flowed from Britain's November 21 decision to impose new sanctions on Iran because of its nuclear program, including a ban on British financial institutions dealing with their Iranian counterparts.

"It's impossible, really, not to reach that conclusion," the diplomat said, suggesting that the protests may have been sparked by the Iranian authorities.

"In the past we have certainly had demonstrations that have ... been sanctioned, if not encouraged, by the government. I don't know about this one. I don't think we'd put it past them," said the diplomat.

"It's hard to imagine, in a place like Iran, that these were some kind of spontaneous (event)," said a State Department official who declined to be identified.

INFIGHTING

The demonstrations appeared to be a bid by conservatives who control parliament to press home their demand, passed in parliament last week and quickly endorsed by the Guardian Council on Tuesday, for the government to expel the British ambassador in retaliation for the sanctions.

A lawmaker had warned on Sunday that angry Iranians could storm the British embassy.

"Parliament officially notified the president over a bill regarding degrading the ties with Britain, obliging the government to implement it within five days," Fars news agency quoted speaker Ali Larijani as saying.

Ahmadinejad's government has shown no willingness to compromise on its refusal to halt its nuclear work, but has sought to keep channels of negotiation open in an effort to limit the worst effects of sanctions.

An Iranian official told Reuters the storming of the British compounds was not planned by the government.

"It was not an organized measure. The establishment had no role in it. It was not planned," said the official, who declined to be identified. Iran's Foreign Ministry said it regretted the attacks and was committed to ensuring the safety of diplomats.

Police arrested 12 people who had entered the north Tehran compound, Fars said, quoting a police chief as saying they would be handed over to the judiciary.

Protesters said they planned to stage a sit-in at the gates of the north Tehran compound and would not move until they were told to do so by Iran's religious leaders.

Britain, along with the United States and Canada, imposed new unilateral sanctions on Iran last week, while the EU, France and Italy have all said financial measures against Tehran should be strengthened.

(Additional reporting by Hossein Jaseb and Hashem Kalantari in Tehran, Parisa Hafezi in Istanbul, William Maclean and Adrian Croft in London and Arshad Mohammed in Washington. Writing by Jon Hemming, editing by Andrew Roche and Christopher Wilson)

Source: http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/rss/world/*http%3A//news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20111129/wl_nm/us_iran_britain_embassy

pharrell kellie pickler silver bullet joshua komisarjevsky russell simmons russell simmons joseph kony

After NATO strike, can US-Pakistan relations be patched up one more time? (VIDEO)

Pakistan announced it was closing its borders permanently to the transport of NATO supplies into Afghanistan. The move was one more retaliatory measure in a long-troubled relationship.

As Pakistanis burned American flags over NATO airstrikes on Saturday that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, the government in Islamabad announced a full review of US-Pakistan relations ? signaling a new low in a relationship that already appeared to be at the breaking point earlier this year.

Skip to next paragraph

At the same time, the crisis showed signs of taking on regional dimensions, with China weighing in on the side of Pakistan in an apparent tweak of the United States.

Pakistan said on Monday it was closing its borders permanently to the transport of NATO supplies into Afghanistan after the weekend?s deadly airstrikes on a Pakistani border outpost. The measure promised hardship for US and allied military operations, but it also had a familiar ring, as one more retaliatory measure in a long-troubled relationship.

Twice already this year ? in May, when US special forces launched a raid into Pakistan that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden, and a few months before that, when Pakistan arrested a CIA officer in the killings of two Pakistanis ? relations between the two wary partners were described by some policymakers in both capitals as nearing a divorce.

Each time, the relationship was revived to some degree by high-level visits and an unvarnished taking-stock of mutual interests. But now, the weekend strike was the deadliest on Pakistani forces in the decade-long Afghan war. And a range of Western and Pakistani military and civilian officials are questioning how long repair will take, or whether it will be possible at all.

Pakistan?s relations with the US and NATO will not be ?business as usual? after Saturday?s deadly strikes by helicopter gunship, Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani said in interviews Monday.

NATO officials promised to conduct a full investigation of the weekend incident, but on Monday the attack and its diplomatic aftershocks showed signs of reaching new regional dimensions, with China uncharacteristically wading into the fray.

?China is deeply shocked by these events,? a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, Hong Lei, said in a televised statement Monday. ?China believes that Pakistan?s independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity should be respected and the incident should be thoroughly investigated and be handled properly.?

The Chinese and Pakistani foreign ministers also held a lengthy telephone conversation on the incident, according to their offices.

Some Pakistani media announced that the government would refuse to take part in reconciliation efforts with the Afghan Taliban, but Mr. Gilani insisted that decision had not yet been made. The US is especially keen to see Pakistan involved in those efforts, since it does not believe reconciliation in Afghanistan can advance without Pakistan?s support.

Pakistani Interior Minister Rehman Malik did announce that the closing of border crossings to NATO supply convoys would be permanent. The closure posed an immediate logistical problem, with NATO convoys and their supplies already starting to stack up inside Pakistan.?

On the other hand, less than half of the supplies used by US and NATO forces in Afghanistan enter from Pakistan. That?s because the history of tit-for-tat relations between the US and Pakistan had led the US to diversify its supply routes into Afghanistan away from a heavy dependence on Pakistan.

The result is that, while still troublesome, the border closure today constitutes less of a chokehold, as a growing slice of supplies enter Afghanistan through the so-called northern route from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

Some analysts of US-Pakistan relations say they assume the two countries will paper over their differences once again. But they also say this incident is likely to reinforce Pakistan?s determination to stick to its own interests to the detriment of a US it believes is set on pulling up stakes in the region anyway.?

?Even if ? as seems most likely ? Pakistan does reopen its supply routes to the US and [international forces in Afghanistan], relations will remain so tense that new incidents and crises in US and Pakistani relations are inevitable,? says Anthony Cordesman, in comments Monday on the Center for Strategic and International Studies website. ?This will undermine the already uncertain chances the US can actually achieve any stable benefits from the war after 2014 ? either in Afghanistan or Pakistan.?

More broadly, the NATO airstrikes may have opened the way to new rivalries in the region. Opening a northern supply route into Afghanistan required Russian approval, a process that took some time as Moscow weighed the pros and cons of aiding NATO?s, and in particular America?s, presence in Afghanistan.

Russia ultimately decided it had no interest in seeing Afghanistan sink back into instability or even renewed Taliban rule. But China?s motivations in taking a public stance on Saturday?s attack appear to be more focused on Pakistan ? and on US involvement there and in Asia more broadly.

China?s comments followed on the heels of President Obama?s extended trip to Asia, which was widely interpreted in Beijing as part of a US effort to reassert its interests in the region and to contain China.

For its part, Pakistan has repeatedly brandished its relations with China as a potential alternative to its ties with Washington. When the US signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Pakistan?s archrival India, for example, some Pakistanis warned that their country could turn to Beijing if Washington did not offer Pakistan a similar deal.

Source: http://rss.csmonitor.com/~r/feeds/csm/~3/78Z8GJJeF94/After-NATO-strike-can-US-Pakistan-relations-be-patched-up-one-more-time-VIDEO

uk basketball iowa state faroe islands faroe islands corso james arthur ray james arthur ray