Source: NNI
An official of the Taliban has said that their leader has appointed Hafiz Rehmatullah as Taliban commander in Khost province of Afghanistan. Mullah Rehmatullah was arrested early last year, then released when the Noorzai Pashtun threatened to break relations with the government.
The official who did not want to be named told Radio Tehran that Hafiz Rehmatullah would head and expand military operations in Khost province. He said that a large number of US forces are based in different parts of Khost and forces under the command of Rehmatullah would carry out series of bomb blasts and even suicide attacks against the Americans forces. Next time we catch him, we'd better kill him, rather than handing over to the Afghan government...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/11/2003 05:21 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Paint a bullseye on Hafiz. And, oh hey, he's a mullah! Isn't that a surprise.
The government has failed to provide military field hospitals deploying in the Gulf with a common type of specialised scanner, vital for treating head injuries, despite requests stretching back years, the Ministry of Defence's most senior radiologist claimed yesterday. Speaking under canvas in the radiology section of 33 Field Hospital, now treating military patients in the desert about one hour's drive from Kuwait City, Commander Peter Buxton, a Royal Navy officer, said the lack of a computer tomography (CT) scanner would hamper his work even without a war. Far cry from the old days of a battalion aid station.
"We are the only western nation that deploys field hospitals of this size without a CT," he said, adding that requests to the MoD for the scanner had gone on for "several years". A CT scanner allows images to be taken inside the body of tissue which would not show up on x-rays, such as the brain. "I think it's regrettable we don't have a CT on site," Cmdr Buxton said. "It's particularly important for closed head injuries of the sort you would receive both in battle and in non-battle cases."
Together with 500 back-up beds in civilian hospitals in Kuwait City, the military's medical preparations in the field are a sobering reminder of the scale of British casualties which could result from any invasion of Iraq. The hospital already has almost a hundred patients, mainly suffering from coughs, colds, pneumonia and asthma brought on by desert dust. Ninety-six servicemen and women have been sent home.
CT scanners are available to British troops on a Royal Fleet Auxiliary ship, the Argus, and in civilian hospitals in Kuwait City. But with 33 Field Hospital expected to move forward to the rear of any British advance, that would mean moving casualties further. "We really shouldn't be taking potentially seriously ill patients any further than we have to," said Cmdr Buxton, who in peacetime works in an NHS hospital in Portsmouth. "We have transferred people down to Kuwait City. It is possible, and hopefully nobody will come to any harm out of this. But if we are to do things to a good standard, then we should be using CT on site."
Colonel Kevin Griffin, the hospital commander, called it "the most capable hospital facility which has ever been deployed by the British army". He said CT scanners on the Argus, in Kuwait City, and at US military facilities would be there if British casualties needed them. "This is a coalition effort. If one of our patients has serious head injuries and requires CT imagery, he can go into US facilities. Likewise, if the US need some laboratory diagnostic facility, they can come here." I think there's less here than meets the eye, as US field hospitals will have them, and lots more. I'm just amazed, as a medical person myself, that one would take a CT scanner out into the field like this. I'm impressed.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 10:44 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Aren't they large devices? How large (size, weight) would the smallest CT be?
#2
I don't handle them, but I order CT scans as part of my work (I'm a lung doc). The scannners I've seen aren't necessarily built for portability. The X-ray beam device, table, motors, collimators, etc., are the size of a pick-up truck in aggregate. Then you have the computer system, generally a mini-computer of some kind (e.g., Silicon Graphics size built by GE or Siemens). And you need a power source. So I'm guessing that you'd need a semi-truck and trailer to haul the whole thing around. If the military threw money at the solution, you might be able to make a number of the components a lot smaller and lighter.
There's also the sturdiness factor to consider, though I would think the military has that figured out.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 20:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
To Doc Steve - Doc, I live in a small rural town in Colorado of only 900 people. We have a local hospital only by sheerest luck (a local cattle baron dropped dead and left a fund for building and maintaining one). We don't have a CT scanner.
But we DO get the use of one on a bi-weekly basis.
The state of Colorado has a portable CT scanner that makes the rounds of the rural areas on a regular basis. So I can tell you _exactly_ how large it is. And you were pretty close. The scanner and auxillary gear fill up one semi-trailer, and require two small 'expand-o-rooms' that are unfolded when it's parked.
Hope that's useful info.
Ed Becerra
Posted by: Ed Becerra ||
03/11/2003 23:44 Comments ||
Top||
Tony Blair drew back from immediately dismissing the obnoxiousClare Short from his sight cabinet yesterday. He apparently decided against making a martyr of his international development secretary when he is still struggling to win the useless vital UN vote on Iraq over which she threatened to resign. Though senior ministers and Labour loyalists were furious with Ms Short's accusations of "deeply reckless" management of the crisis, Mr Blair insists he is showing not weakness but an "absolute focus" on his diplomatic priorities.
"I'm busy right now. I don't have time to screw around with nitwits..."
As Ms Short went about her routine departmental business â praised by some anti-war gits MPs for speaking out â some colleagues believe she may now jump before she is pushed when Mr Blair finds the necessary reshuffle time.
"Clare who? Do we know anybody named Clare?"
Whips said she deserved the sack â later, but not now. But her political ally Dennis Turner insisted that Ms Short hopes Mr Blair wins at the UN and that she stays in post. "She wants to continue as secretary of state, she wants to serve her country in the way she is doing so magnificently," the MP said. By aiding and abetting the weasels?
During 24 hours of extraordinary drama that followed her "10 minutes to midnight" warning on Radio 4, the prime minister and Ms Short spoke briefly on the telephone â late on Sunday night and again yesterday morning â without divulging what was said or whether resignation was even discussed.
"Are you out of your mind?"
"Why should you be the one to get all the headlines?"
"'Cuz I'm the prime minister, and you're not!"
"I'm not?"
Both sides in the row feel let down, Ms Short because her privately stated foolishness fears about the danger of war were not being sufficiently acknowledged, Mr Blair because her lethally timed intervention undermines his efforts to do precisely what she wants: get a new UN resolution through the divided security council. She doesn't want war with the approval of a resolution; she doesn't want war and will undermine the PM to have her way.
The prime minister, who spent most of yesterday bashing the phone to secure the necessary votes, was furious about the radio interview, which Ms Short initiated. But he decided that dismissal for a clear breach of collective cabinet responsibility would only make it a far bigger international story. Anti-war MPs will see the move as proof that Ms Short is unsackable because she is voicing the fears of almost half the parliamentary Labour party, activists and the wider electorate about the looming war. Both sides might be right.
Some MPs now believe the disputed Iraqi policy has reached the point where Mr Blair's authority may crumble and his premiership end soon. That remains a minority view. Mr Blair himself believes that he has backed Ms Short generously as a minister, as has Gordon Brown, who spoke in support of his leader's policy yesterday, and included her in far more meetings on Iraq than is widely realised. Her budget has doubled since 1997. Ah, gratitude.
"He was surprised by these comments particularly since they had a one-to-one meeting last Thursday when these views were not expressed. He did not hear the interview last night because he began a conversation with one of the other world leaders at 10 o'clock last night," his spokesman said.
Didn't have the nerve to argue with him to his face, huh?
Ms Short's timing â a few days ahead of the much-delayed UN vote on a second resolution â puzzled MPs. Some thought she was responding to threatened resignations by unpaid PPSs on the bottom rung of government, others to provocations from ministers. Alan Milburn, the health secretary, spoke for many colleagues when he told reporters: "I was particularly surprised because of the huge effort that was going into securing a second resolution and all members of the government should really be behind it." Unless they're disloyal, in which case it's primo back-stabbing time.
The Blair ally, Peter Mandelson, said on BBC radio: "I think people will ask why she is choosing to say this, why she is choosing to say it now in such language and why she gave no warning of her criticism of the prime minister both in the cabinet last Thursday and also when she has spoken to him personally and directly since then." As I just said ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 10:32 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She's already been busted, she's not standing by a quote she made in 1999.
#4
It's looking more and more likely that Blair will have to accept a non-military role if indeed the UNSC voting falls short. If that is the case, the Brits could still provide valuable support with the US doing the bulk of the military work alone. After all is done, Blair can then send Short her fishing papers.
These people should have their heads kicked in. Pro-Saddam Antiwar protesters burned and ripped up flags, flowers and patriotic signs at a Sept. 11 memorial that residents erected on a fence along Whittier Boulevard days after the terrorist attacks in 2001 and have maintained ever since. However, although officers witnessed the vandalism Saturday afternoon, police did not arrest three people seen damaging the display because they were "exercising the same freedom of speech that the people who put up the flags were,' La Habra Police Capt. John Rees said Monday. I'd feel safe with these bozo's guarding my city...
Presumably, they were also destroying somebody else's property. Wonder if they got their training in Zim-Bob-we?
"For this to be vandalism, there had to be an ill-will intent,' he said. Thanks, Cap. You can get back to your doughnut now.
Rees said in order for police to take any action, the owner of the fence would have to file a complaint. Jeff Collison, owner of The RV Center in La Habra, who has allowed residents to add patriotic symbols to the fence on his property, said he just might do that. "Their free speech stops at destruction of private property. If they are allowed to come on my property and burn flags, does that mean I can go to City Hall or the police station and light their flags on fire because that is freedom of speech? To me, this is vandalism,' Collison said.
I'd sue them for every nickel their Mommies and Daddies have...
Some residents Monday hung signs criticizing those who destroyed the display. Tracey Chandler, a Whittier mother of four who has maintained the spontaneous memorial since it was created by other area residents soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, said she was shocked by the destruction. "They trashed 87 flags, ripped 11 memorial tiles made by myself and my children out of the ground and glued the Bob Dylan song to a sign that said, 'America, land of the brave, home of the free,'' she said.The Bob Dylan song she referred to is "With God on Our Side,' an antiwar anthem of the 1960s. How trendy.
"It's unbelievable, because there were absolutely no political messages on this fence. It was all about supporting our troops, which could mean bringing them home, and about remembering 9-11."
The "political" message was love of country, and respect for its people. The beauzeaux have neither...
Les Howard, a sociology professor at Whittier College, said the incident might be an indication of some confusion among people trying to stop a possible war against Iraq but uncertain how to express their sentiments. However, he said he does not condone the destruction of symbols important to those who erect them. Poor misguided, confused souls. How did I know he'd come up with something like that. Thanks, professor.
"Some think (the best way to support the troops) is to not question their role. Some think the best way is to pursue all means possible to avoid putting them in danger," he said. "That still does not excuse any desecration of people's symbolic participation."
I don't think our troops feel supported by the beauzeaux...
Chandler said she plans to rebuild the Sept. 11 memorial. "We are going to rebuild this memorial, and it will be brighter, bigger and better than ever,' Chandler said. ...and don't worry. Barney Fife and the boys will keep an eye on it for you. Just hope some snotty high school 60's wannabes don't decide to exercise their First Amendment rights on it.
#1
Do we expect less from the People's Republic of Kalifornia?
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/11/2003 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Names, I want names.
It's not that long a drive to La Habra, and I might want to exercise my freedom of speech by relieving my bladder on the feet of the perps.
Public affairs e-mail: maritza_sanchez@lahabracity.com
Mr. Brad Bridenbecker
City Manager
City of La Habra
201 East La Habra Boulevard
P.O. Box 337
La Habra, CA 90631
General Information Tel. #: (562) 905-9700
City Talk: 24-hour voicemail: (562) 905-9743 Home Page
#4
You know if it were not for the eleven or twelve decent people out there I'd vote to nuke the fault line and cast the goddamn rats out to sea, where are all those big dudes that bitch slapped Reginald Denny, maybe they need some exercise wacking some of the protesting pussies
#5
Ease up Wills. My parents live three blocks from there. It's a very middle class, Republican neighborhood. Don't confuse the half-million nutbars on the Westside with the other 12 million in the LA metro area who are just doing their jobs and bringing up their families.
#6
Isn't defacing the US flag a criminal offense and evidence of "ill-will intent"?
Isn't damaging someone's memorial a violation of the free speech and civil rights of the memorial makers?
Is Police Capt. John Rees limited to enforcing dog licenses and arresting drunks?
Posted by: Meyer Rafael ||
03/11/2003 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#7
i think what they need is a small detail of licensed armed-guards, issued with M-1's and fixed bayonets. Remember: Your free speech ends at the point of my bayonet.
These stories are really getting old.
OSCAR winner Jessica Lange was among a clutch of Hollywood stars today who helped deliver an anti-war petition â signed by more than 1 million people â to the US mission to the United Nations. I'd like to go over those signatures. How many times did Heywood Jablome sign?
Lange was joined by Ethan Hawke and Steve Buscemi in leading a small group of protesters to the mission in New York, where they handed over the petition which called for a tougher UN inspection regime in Iraq to replace the threat of military action against Baghdad. Lange's an aging, washed up has been, Hawke's a pretty boy with no clue. Buscemi I'm surprised at. He's an ex NYC firefighter who worked on the pile.
"I do not want my children to inherit the legacy of this war. Americans are a moral people and that requires that we do not let our government lie to us about the righteousness of our cause. This war will not serve the basic goodness of the American people and this is not the moral compass we can allow ourselves to be directed by," Lange said. When Hollywood folks start talking about "moral compasses", it's really time to go.
The signatures for the petition were gathered worldwide over the internet in just five days by a lobby group, Moveon.org, which is part of a peace coalition known as Win Without Thought War. Copies of the entire petition, which included 600,000 US signatories, were handed to all 15 members of the UN Security Council, ahead of a key vote this week on whether to set Iraq a specific deadline to disarm or face war. "We are calling on the world's second superpower, the general public, to rise up and tell their governments ... that we can contain and control Saddam Hussein without war," said Tom Andrews, the national director of Win Without War. Keep it up, Tom. Sammy loves you guys...
"We want to give the UN inspectors more time to do their job. It is not too much to ask," Andrews said.
"How much time, Tom?"
"How about another 12 years?"
Hollywood has lent a publicity-generating voice to the anti-war movement in the United States, specifically through its own lobby group, Artists United to Win Without War. There has been speculation that anti-war actors and actresses will use the upcoming Oscars ceremony as a forum to put their message across. Great. Another reason not to watch that celebrity stroke fest.
"I hope they do. I think that would be fun," said Ethan Hawke, who rejected the suggestion that the anti-war movement was unpatriotic. ...as stated previously, a pretty boy without a clue.
"I'm proud to be an American," he said. "That's why I'm here. I want to go on being proud of being an American." Ethan, when you cease to be proud to be an American, feel free to leave. I think we'll all get over the loss.
Posted by: tu3031 ||
03/11/2003 11:23 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
MoveOn.org was formed when Clinton was being impeached - they wanted America to ignore his felony perjury, public lies and corruption... and they talk about moral compasses? Riiiggghhttt
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2003 9:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
re: "how many of them are Haywood Jablome"
I signed an anti-war petition at a Sum 41 concert (great band, silly political views). I signed it "Adolph Oliver Busch; 420 Appeasement Lane; Neville Chamberlain, CA 66420" Wonder if that's one of the 600,000?
Posted by: Abu Hamza ||
03/11/2003 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
As far as this so-called petition goes, I just signed up Saddam Hussein 10 times, so I'd REALLY like to scope out their million signatures. At least NION let you see who signed. What bullshit.
#6
Get back to work, you twits. Nobody gives a shit about your opinion. You're supposed to ACT, y'know?
That's where you basically pretend to be somebody else, somebody with a life...
#7
Of course if these so called actors were indeed the "activists" the claim they be, the line should have been forming behind Sean Penn in Baghdad weeks ago... not that we should give Mr Peen credit for anything meaningful. Geez, if transportation was the main impediment they could have taken the Big Red Bus.
#8
I wonder if anyone has looked closely at the funding sources for MoveOn.org? This is an outfit that came out of nowhere and suddenly has the wherewithall to run full page ads in the NY Times and freeway billboards in San Francisco (talk about preaching to the choir!). Where does all there money come from? Is a certain Middle Eastern country, or two, helping them out a bit?
At some point they have to file a tax return, unfortunately it'll be for 2002, and that's public. Wonder if an enterprising journalist might be interested in taking a look? Naaahhh.
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
03/12/2003 0:35 Comments ||
Top||
A grainy video purporting to show the arrest of two al Qaeda leaders has done little to deflect accusations that Pakistan may have staged this month's raid to give it leeway to abstain in a U.N. vote on an Iraq war. On Monday, the powerful military Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) held an unprecedented news conference to show foreign journalists what it said were images of a March 1 raid in Rawalpindi that netted al Qaeda kingpin Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. But few of journalists present were convinced the video â which did not show Mohammed's face nor any sign of a struggle â was genuine. Many said it looked like a crude reconstruction. On Tuesday, a former ISI chief said he believed Mohammed was actually arrested some time ago in a different city. "They are trying to cover up," Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul told Reuters. "I believe he was arrested before, probably in Karachi."
On the other hand, Gul is a fundo nutcake in his own right, with his own ax to grind and whatcha might call an imperfect record of truthful statements...
One intelligence source said Mohammed had been arrested three days before, from the Tench Batta suburb of Rawalpindi. Rumours of Mohammed's arrest had circulated in Pakistan for months, but were consistently denied. Gul said news of the arrest appeared to have been leaked at a critical time, just as Pakistan was facing huge U.S. pressure to support a U.N. Security Council vote authorising war on Iraq. On Monday night, a senior ruling party official told Reuters the government, under massive domestic pressure to oppose war on a fellow Muslim state, had decided to abstain in the vote, news that shocked British and American diplomats in Islamabad. I'm not shocked, are you?
The ISI earlier said it had called its first news conference in Pakistan's history to counter criticism in the Western media that it had not done enough in the war on terror. Gul said the raid may have been staged â and news of the arrest leaked â for the same reason, against the backdrop of the U.N. vote. Gul said the raid was conducted in far too casual a fashion to have been real, with police failing to properly surround or secure the house in a middle-class Rawalpindi suburb.
Inefficiency and sloppiness among the Pak coppers is nothing new...
Relatives of Ahmed Quddus, the son of the house owner, have maintained he was the only man in the house at the time of the raid. Neighbours said they heard no sound of gunfire â contradicting the official account, which maintains that Mohammed shot one intelligence agent in the foot with an AK-47 rifle.
No more gunfire than usual, anyway. This is Pakland, remember...
Within hours, news of the raid and arrest was leaked to foreign news agencies, something Gul also found incredible. "He has to be questioned, before you present him to the public eye," he said. "You don't present news like that."
Obviously they had a reason to break precedent, and yes, it probably did have to do with the impending Pak abstention...
In the video, an ISI officer is seen briefing half a dozen agents about the impending raid â in English, as opposed to Pakistan's Urdu mother tongue. Officials explained this was a reconstruction of the original Urdu briefing, but said the rest of the video was genuine. But many journalists were unconvinced as a calm cameraman shone his lights on the raiding party, and followed agents as they casually broke into the compound and the house, and walked up the stairs. There was no sign of a struggle â or of any urgency. The cameramen then focused on the back and neck of the man officials said was Mohammed, before the man was swiftly hooded. The video has not been released to the media for broadcast. The ISI says the financier of the attacks, Saudi national Ahmed al-Hawsawi, was also arrested in the same raid. But one Pakistani source said al-Hawsawi had been picked up at least one month before the announcement of his arrest, and that intelligence agents had voiced delight at the time. The intelligence source said Quddus' family was suspected of having sent Mohammed food, and Mohammed was said to have visited the house four or five times. Quddus is the son of an official in the Jamaat-e-Islami party, a key member of a religious alliance that opposes the military-backed government and has organised big street protests against war on Iraq. I'm surprised he was picked up. I'll be more surprised if he's convicted and serves any time.
Authorities say at least two other al Qaeda suspects have been arrested in houses linked to Jamaat-e-Islami members, but Gul said the party could be the victim of an official campaign to blacken their name. "Jamaat has never had any contacts with the Arabs (al Qaeda)," said Gul. Sure they don't
"They are at loggerheads with U.S. policy... and at this stage it would be an advantage to have them labelled as terrorists." Yes, it would. Frankly, I don't care when Khalid and al-Hawsawi were picked up. I'm just happy that they are in the bag.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 11:14 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Steve, you final comment hit the nail on the head. The ISI still has more work to do, though...
Prava apparently translates from russian into english as "huge grain of salt"
Around ten thousand Russian citizens have applied for entry visas into Iraq to defend this country against the planned aggression by the warmongering USA and UK, according to the Iraqi Embassy in Moscow.
Iraqi Ambassador to Moscow, Abbas Khalaf, declared last week that the Embassy had received around 3,500 requests, a number which has multiplied in the last few days, according to sources in the same Embassy.
The requests come from young males, some with combat experience, who describe themselves as âvolunteersâ who are willing to defend Iraq against the illegal armed aggression of the USA and the United Kingdom, two countries which continue to follow a belligerent stance on crisis management, wholly outside the generally accepted concepts of a New World Order based upon multilateralist approaches to problem solving, based upon the United Nations Organisation, a position championed by president Putinâs Russian Federation.
For those who present an adequate reason for travelling to Iraq, the Embassy provides a visa and transportation, free of charge.
First time as tragedy, second as farce.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/11/2003 09:37 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Pravda" = "Truth"
Truth is, they're toast! They better be bringing plenty of Prozac.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/11/2003 22:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yeah, and they're lining up to go fight in Chechnaya too...this is hilarious nonsense, but maybe they can team up with all the Arabs who'll be pouring in to defend Iraq, any day now.
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
03/12/2003 0:39 Comments ||
Top||
TEL AVIV â The U.S. military has been ordered to launch a war against Iraq on March 18, an Israeli official said in a televised report.
Israeli government monitor, Michael Gurdus, reported on late Tuesday that the order was relayed by U.S. Central Command to all American forces in the Persian Gulf. Gurdus told Israel's Channel 2 television that he heard the order being relayed to U.S. fighter-jet pilots and others over U.S. military radio communications he intercepted.
Gurdus is regarded as the leading communications monitor in the Middle East and works for Israel radio and television. He has broken numerous stories because of his ability to intercept and understand foreign-language civilian and radio broadcasts and communications. He said the U.S. military, in its radio communications, refers to Iraq as "bad cows" and "kabab", Middle East Newsline reported.
On Monday, Israel's media reported that the United States had demanded that senior Israeli officials stop issuing predictions of when the war would erupt. Israeli defense officials have concluded that the United States plans to strike Iraq after March 17, the deadline set for Iraq to answer questions regarding its missile and weapons of mass destruction programs.
#5
"Bad cows" and "Kabob"? Sounds more like a big barbeque is scheduled for March 18th... which means the war starts, say, on the 17th and it's burgers and bratwursts in Baghdad the day after?
Posted by: Just John ||
03/11/2003 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Sure it wasn't "mad cows" and "kaboom!"?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/11/2003 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Climb Mt. Nataka (sp) worked before, didn't it?
From Fox News, with contripbutions from the AP; posted as a followup to this article from earlier today.
The United States flatly rejected Tuesday a proposal by six undecided Security Council nations that the March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with U.N. disarmament demands be extended for 45 days. So they can be extended another 45 days, and another, and another . . . . Cameroon Ambassador Martin Belinga-Eboutou announced early Tuesday that he and five other ambassadors from key council nations — Mexico, Chile, Angola, Guinea and Pakistan — would suggest the 45-day deadline extension — along with the addition of benchmarks that Saddam Hussein would have to meet to avoid war. But a U.S. official discounted the proposal. "It's not going anywhere; there's only one resolution on the table," the official said. I've gotta put the phone down, and do what we gotta do.
But, in the face of almost certain defeat in the Security Council, and with France and Russia threatening to veto a new resolution, the U.S. and Britain signaled they would agree to a short extension of the March 17 deadline. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the U.S.-backed resolution would be put to a vote this week and indicated a readiness to compromise. But he said the proposal to push back the March 17 deadline by a month or more was "a non-starter." We've got to get inside there, before they kill some more.
"There is room for diplomacy here," Fleischer said. "Not much room and not much time." Time is runnin' out Let's roll.
Both the United States and Britain, which is under intense pressure at home to get U.N. backing for any military action, said they were willing to negotiate both the deadline and other changes to the resolution. "We are busting a gut to see if we can get greater consensus in the council," Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said late Monday. "We are examining whether a list of tests of Iraqi compliance would be a useful thing for the council. It doesn't mean there are any conclusions." In the New York Times, this is called a "unilateral rush to war."
Greenstock said Tuesday the March 17 deadline could be extended, but not by that much. Britain is "prepared to look at time lines and tests together, but I'm pretty sure we're talking about action in March. Don't look beyond March," he said... Reacting to the possible British compromise, French diplomats said the resolution would still mean authorizing war, which France is unwilling to do. "It would mess up our TotalFinaElf contracts."
However, the French Foreign Ministry in Paris indicated it was open to a really large bribe new ideas. "It's a new development and the future will tell us if it is a significant development," said Foreign Ministry spokesman Francois Rivasseau. "We've indicated we are open to dialogue." Nonetheless, he stressed that the "red line" set out by France cannot be crossed: "We want no ultimatum. We want no element of automaticity. We want our oil contracts. And ice cream. And a pony for our birthday.
And we've said we want what the inspectors say taken into account."
Russia's U.N. Ambassador Sergey Lavrov agreed. "We see no reason whatsoever to interrupt the inspections, and any resolution which contains ultimatums and which contains automaticity for the use of force will cost you money is not acceptable to us," he said.
While Washington and London worked on a possible compromise, council members agreed to hold another open meeting on the Iraq crisis at the request of the Non-Aligned Movement, which represents about 115 mainly developing countries. Most are thuggish dictatorships like Saddam's opposed to a war against Iraq. Diplomats said that would likely delay a vote until Thursday at the earliest. The open meeting will give nations from all parts of the world a chance to voice their views on an issue that has polarized the Security Council. It will also give supporters and opponents of the U.S.-backed resolution more time to lobby.
President Bush, meanwhile, was conducting an urgent phone campaign, seeking support from world leaders. Chinese President Jiang Zemin told Bush that inspections in Iraq should continue and the standoff should be settled without military action, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. Jiang told Bush there was "no need for any new resolution," said spokesman Kong Quan. "Hear that, guys? The Chinese said we don't need another reolution. If 1441's good enough for them, it's good enough for me! Let's roll."
In the Axis of Weasels anti-war camp, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin had traveled to Africa to bribe meet with the leaders of Angola, Guinea and Cameroon — three important swing votes on the Security Council. Japan has begun lobbying the undecided council members to urge support for the U.S.-backed resolution, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. Thanks!
In one call, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told Mexican President Vicente Fox that international divisions were putting the United Nations' authority at stake, the ministry said. "Mexico is taking an independent position and is not leaning to either side," Fox said.
The current draft resolution — which authorizes war anytime after March 17 unless Iraq proves before then that it has disarmed — requires nine "yes" votes. Approval also requires that France, Russia and China withhold their vetoes — either by abstaining or voting in favor. The United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico believed leaning toward the U.S. position. But with Germany, Syria and Pakistan preparing abstentions or "no" votes, Washington is left trying to canvass the support of Chile, Angola and Guinea. Like Neil Young said, Time is runnin' out Let's roll.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/11/2003 04:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I'd heard that Cameroon is firmly in the Frnech camp as is Guinea in all likelihood. With France and Russia threatening to veto no matter what, the Germans and Chinese clearly aligning in the no-war crowd, and Syria and Angola firmly opposed as well (Syria for sure, Angola most likely IMO), that leaves Mexico and Chile seeing as Pakistan has stated they will abstain.
So the alignment becomes 4 votes for and 6 against - real darned close to somebody's prediction of 4-11 for-against a few days ago.
Hopefully the President and the Joint Chiefs won't get cold feet. Let's go after the bastards already and stop pussyfooting around the UN. The UN's time is over. France is sealing its fate along with that of NATO. Time for a new alignment of power and nations. I say we withdraw from the UN, boot the whole kit-n-kaboodle outta' the country, and be done with the entire organization. We'd certainly save money paying for the budget (to which we give a disproportionate 25%).
Ian Douglas, a scifi writer, predicted in one of his trilogies that the US would one day end up shooting at the blue helmets. Henry Lamb, a noted columnist thinks so as well. His prediction might not be so far-fetched what with Kofi Annan saying that US action without UN approval would violate the UN charter and international law.
In 1765 Patrick Henry in an address before the Virginia House of Commons stated after decrying the British stamp act "If this be treason, make the most of it!"
I've heard many people talking about American hegmony and imperialism and I say "If this be empire, make the most of it!"
Just some humble comments from a wannabe politician (Lord alone knows why).
Thanks,
Greg
Greg Ellis For Congress 2004 (10th District US House, California)
#4
A rumor off a UK chat room, some of you guys would have fun there, talking to those euros.
Last week I was fortunate to speak to 2 MPs about France and their veto...what they told me wasn't pleasant.
The UK, with clandestine help from the US, have for some weeks been arranging 'compromise' agreement that will offer the inspectors 21 (or so) more days. France and co., fearing that they will look unreasonable (and more importantly, fearing that they will be locked out of the Middle East for the foreseeable future), will become forced into a corner: they will have no alternative but to approve, or abstain from, the resolution, taking all the waverers with them. If this happens it will be a sad end to the brave resistance that France, Russia, and the developing countries have exhibited against the US. If you disagree with war, then disagree with the compromise........It is a smokescreen for war. And another example of the USA blackmailing its way out of a sticky arrangement.
More depressingly when war begins, I was told, it will be like nothing previously seen. The war will be fought totally at night, and essentially be over in 6 days. After being told this I wondered how many thousands of Iraqis will be slaughtered due to the mortal fear of losing one American GI life.
#5
Anon (which Anon are you? You Anon's should pick numbers or colors or something),
As to how many Iraqis will die because of our "mortal fear" of losing American lives, that's the way it's supposed to be. The American army has always been willing to send a shell instead of a man. Our own Civil War taught us about wasting human lives in frontal assaults, and observing Verdun and Paschendale in WW I drove the message home. We WILL commit to assaults that have to be made (e.g., Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Normandy, Hue), but we will also work to avoid those situations. I don't know how many Iraqis (or Americans) will die, but the battle strategy of conserving American lives is thoroughly ingrained into the American military, AND in the American public.
As to the political scenario you posit, I must say that my read on it is that France vetoes regardless. They've invested almost all of their political capital in this; their reasoning is that America is the bigger threat, and their goal is to contain us. Losing this vote won't bother them, it will simply set the stage for further confrontations (e.g., the next stop in the 'War on Terror' tour) where they'll hope to do better. France is 'non' all the way, so I don't think your scenario will come to pass. We'll see in the next couple of days.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 21:11 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"a sad end to the brave resistance that France, Russia and the developing countries have exhibited against the US"
"USA blackmailing its way out a sticky arrangement"
Do I detect a bit of bias here? Are you sure you don't work for Reuters, Anon?
There is no way Bush is going to wait 21 more days. Our priority now are the men and women who are putting their lives on the line so people like Anonymous can have the freedom to spout his hatred of the US.
So OUR soldiers are supposed to die? How do you think wars are fought, by Marquis of Queensberry rules?
As Patton said, the goal is to MAKE THE OTHER POOR BASTARD DIE FOR HIS COUNTRY. We WANT our guys to survive, is that hard to understand or are you a blithering idiot? Of course we have a "mortal fear" of losing American lives. These are OUR sons and daughters, jerkoff.
Leftists are truly and totally insane, not to mention suicidal.
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
03/12/2003 0:55 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Kinda makes you wonder what these anonymous posters are afraid of.
Edited for length.
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has suggested that America would be prepared to take military action against Iraq — with or without Britain. He told a press briefing that the US had alternative plans if the UK decides not to go to war with Iraq. But Downing Street has expressed surprise at his remarks, insisting that if Saddam Hussein made the wrong moves, then Britain would be in at the front. In fact, it was made clear that rather than scaling down the UK's involvement in the conflict, the opposite was happening. In recent days military planners have been talking about Britain's "military contribution being greater than we thought".
The remarks were probably directed at Clare Short and her friends...
But Mr Rumsfeld said: "To the extent that they are able to participate - in the event that the President decides to use force - that would obviously be welcomed. "To the extent they are not, there are work arounds and they would not be involved, at least in that phase of it." Asked if that meant the US would go to war without its "closest ally", he added: "That is an issue that the president will be addressing in the days ahead, one would assume." The comments will come as a blow to Tony Blair who says he is willing to work "night and day" to secure enough common ground among UN security council members for a second resolution. Tony, you're going to have to cut your losses. The time for negotiations is over.
Veteran Labour MP Tam Dalyell, a long-standing critic of Mr Blair's stance, forecast moves would be made to call a special party conference to challenge Mr Blair's authority. But Labour Chairman John Reid told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the prime minister enjoyed widespread support in his party and across the UK although he acknowledged Iraq was a "big test" for Mr Blair. According to the Guardian newspaper, security sources at the UN suggest the new deadline could be pushed back "a few days" beyond the March 17 deadline in the draft resolution. France and Russia have warned that they would veto any new UN resolution, while UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has said the legitimacy of any military action without a new UN mandate would be "seriously impaired".
#1
Does anybody understand whether Blair automatically loses his PM job if he loses his job as head of the Labor party. It seems that this is the key question. We had thought he was safe after winning what amounted to a confidence vote 2 weeks ago. I guess this is not entirely the case, or Rummy would not be bluffing about contingency plans. And I do mean bluffing, because it appears the Brits were to have a significant role in any war.
#2
I don't think this is a bluff. I think it's the best option the administraiton has right now. Without having to worry about Blair's problems we can get on with the business of ignoring the UN and liberating Iraq.
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/11/2003 15:42 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yes, he would no longer be PM if ousted by his party. That's a job taken by the leader of the party with the majority of MPs (or the most, if no one party has a majority).
Fact is, there's no one who could seriously challenge him at the moment because all the plausible potential leadership contenders (i.e. those who are still apparently sane and not outside of mental institutions only because the men in white coats have a sense of humour) are in his cabinet and supporting him, even 'old' labourites like the deputy PM, John Prescott, who's one of Tony's staunchest suporters.
I can't see the rug being pulled, but he might walk if the party did show itself to be livid with him.
If Rumsfeld's bluffing, he's chosen a dangerous tactic. This will pile pressure on Tony to support the US morally, if he must, but keep UK troops out of the action, which would please a lot of people here.
#4
...Of course if Tony were challenged to a contest, or stepped down, most of his cabinet would throw their hats in the leadership ring. And no doubt some would change their tunes. But they'd have to do a 180 about face on Iraq, and come out looking like they had an ounce of integrity left.
#5
My point was simply that if we planned on having the Brits provide approximately 20% of the force, then we'd need to replace this contribution should we go it alone. I am not aware of anyway this could be done quickly. Instead, I suspect we'd go in with what we have which could be a lot riskier and at odds with the President's promise to apply overwhelming force should the need arise.
That is not quite right - Blair is PM while he has "the confidence of the House" - provided he can muster the votes in a no-confidence motion he can stay PM. It doesn't matter who the votes "belong" to - he can stay Labour PM with the help of Tory votes if that is what it takes. It doesn't matter what happens in the Party room - the only vote that would actually matters would have to take place in the Commons. It would be decidedly weird for a Labour PM to rule only at the pleasure of the Tories, but it is possible.
Posted by: Russell ||
03/11/2003 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
This will pile pressure on Tony to support the US morally, if he must, but keep UK troops out of the action, which would please a lot of people here.
Bulldog,
I'm pretty sure that's the point. ;)
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/11/2003 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Russell, the party does have the pwer to remove the PM if he/she loses the support of the party they represent - it doesn't have to go to a commons vote of confidence - take Maggie! That was an internal power putsch...
#9
g wiz - You mean that would be a way of taking some heat off Tony? I don't think it would help him much. He'd be seen to be backing down, after all this time and personal investment. And he'd lose much of the support he enjoys from the Tories. He really can't go back now.
#11
Looks like Rummy is backing off his earlier statement:
"In the event that a decision to use force is made, we have every reason to believe there will be a significant military contribution from the United Kingdom."
In the case of Maggie the vote happened in the Party room, but was an accurate reflection of what would have happened in the Commons and so she resigned (i.e. she resigned before she was proven to have lost "the confidence of the House"). The Party Room could tell Blair to go, but if he chose not to tender his resignation to the Queen and retained "the confidence of the House" he could stay on as PM. I agree that the situation would be bizarre and unstable and he would be insane not to resign under the circumstances - but only the Commons can sack the PM (technically it is the Queen acting on the will of Commons) - the Party room can only "force" his resignation.
Just being pedantic - in practice you are correct - but on the law there is a wider set of possibilities.
Posted by: Russell ||
03/11/2003 20:09 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I listened to the press conference and Rummy was just talking about contingencies. I'm really surprised by the reaction. Also, Condi Rice told Blair in a phone call back in Jan that GW would understand if he couldn't go thru with it. She said GW felt that Blair was too important in the 'long run', i.e. Iran and NKor to risk over Iraq when we don't really need them.
Finally, the Labour Party chairman said this was just 'noise' from the Usual Suspects in the party. Remember, Labour was out of power for 20 years before Blair came into the picture - wanna bet they'll go back to the back bench for Clare Short...?
#15
Russell, I don't think your last point was pedantic - it was central. Blair's situation is not like Thatcher's because Blair has the confidence of the house, due in part to support from the Conservatives. There are about 165 of them, and it seems unlikely that Blair would lose that many from his own party. In the circumstances, with war about to begin, the usual rules may not apply. What is necessary is toughness - if Blair has to create a new 'coalition of the willing' in Parliament from some Labour and some Conservative MPs then he'll do it, rather than roll over because part of his party is mad at him. And everything should change once the fighting starts, for several reasons: non-extremist MPs will want to support the troops; and the war will be over fast without the horrors the lefties are predicting. After that, MPs will all be remembering how strongly they personally supported the heroic Tony Blair.
Churchill had his problems with Parliament, too, but he got the job done. So will Blair.
Posted by: Patrick ||
03/11/2003 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Still, the WaPo is sticking with the story that it hinges on how the UN vote goes. Perhaps Blair really is telling us that he won't go without a UN vote even if he could survive as PM. The fact is that the British public does not support immediate action, despite Blair's best efforts at leadership. We will know by the end of next week -- after Blair's decision and the reaction of the British electorate -- if the term 'English speaking peoples' still means somthing special.
#17
Russel and Patrick, "The Prime Minister must also retain the support of his or her party's parliamentary delegation, and in a number of cases including that of Neville Chamberlain and Margaret Thatcher, a party will oust a Prime Minister who appears to be unpopular" from the link I posted above - a PM MUST retain the support of his/her party. Technically it's not necessary, but it's inconceivable Tony would stay on under these circumstances, so, practically, it's irrelevant.
If the Labour party voted to remove Blair, or if there was a leadership contest he wasn't winning (a la Maggie), he would have no choice but to resign. I don't think that will happen, but if it did, he would go. I'd bet everything I own (which admittedly isn't much) on it...
This isn't WWII. Blair couldn't justify defying his own party in such a way. Sorry (and I am!), but that's how it is.
We are not actually in disagreement about the practicalities of the situation. In practice he, as you noted he would have no choice but to resign - the Party can force him to resign it can't sack him. If he chooses not to jump the Party by itself can not push him.
Posted by: Russell ||
03/12/2003 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
This is the Hitler-style bunker Saddam Hussein hopes will save him when the bombs start raining on Baghdad. The Iraqi dictator will scuttle 100 yards underground beneath tons of blast-proof reinforced concrete and steel. The £60million bolthole carries grim echoes of the bunker where Nazi leader Adolf Hitler fled and committed suicide as Berlin fell in the final days of the Second World War. Ironically it was built by a firm from GERMANY â now trying to block efforts to nail Saddam â and was tagged the Fuhrerbunker of Baghdad by the men who worked on it.
It is protected by huge steel doors and walls 9ft thick. But inside it is furnished with the last word in luxuries, even down to fancy loos and mother-of-pearl toilet roll holders. The details of Saddamâs secret bolthole beneath his presidential palace in Baghdad were revealed for the first time in Germany this week. It was built in 1982 as Saddam sought a refuge in case the war he had unleashed on Iran threatened his life. Architect Lorenzo Buffalo, who was commissioned to design it and find builders, said: âWith Saddam the motto âMade in Germanyâ, whether it be cars, furniture or bunkers, stood for something.â
Saddam demanded âNato standardsâ in withstanding fire, bombs, missiles and poison gas. Buffalo engaged the Dusseldorf firm Boswau and Knauer, which had built many air raid shelters for Hitlerâs Third Reich. It was codenamed Project 305 and costed at £7million, with 20 Germans overseeing hundreds of Iraqi and Filipino labourers. But the bill soared because Saddam insisted on luxuries such as gold inlay on light switches and elaborate tiling in the conference room. One worker told Germanyâs Focus magazine: âWe worked flat out, under great pressure to get the foundations and walls finished. All the time we were under threat of air attack from Iranian bombers.â The bunker is reached by a lift hidden beneath the swimming pool, walkways and car park of the palace guesthouse.
Another German company, Vereinigte Werkstaetten of Munich, was brought in to provide all the wood and fittings. Its workers were directed to make it âless of a shelter and more of a mini-palaceâ. The accommodation includes a living room for Saddam and his family, bathroom with whirlpool bath and a dressing room with built-in wardrobe. Saddamâs bedroom boasts a tent-style bed of the type favoured by another of historyâs notorious figures, Napoleon. It cost an amazing £20,000. There are several other bedrooms and bathrooms, kitchen with eating area, kidsâ rooms and quarters for guards. The command room is virtually a mini-Pentagon with video and communication links to Saddamâs forces in the field. Doors leading to an emergency stairway are made of 12in-thick steel capable of withstanding temperatures of 300°C.The walls could withstand an atomic bomb the size of the one that destroyed Hiroshima exploding 250 yards away. There is also an escape tunnel under the Tigris River, protected by three-ton doors.
The firms who built the bunker have both been absorbed by larger concerns in Germany. But a Boswau and Knauer worker said: âWhatever happens to Saddam, we are certain of one thing. In any American and British attack on Baghdad, the bunker will live through it.â
#7
A lot of good Hitler's bunker did for Hitler. And if Sammy is dopey enough to go in there, he'll get what he deserves. Just weld those doors shut and plug every air vent you can find. It'll make a fine time capsule to open a decade later.
Seriously, I've seen photos of Sammy during the Gulf War and he was moving around inside unadorned trucks. I don't thing he's going to be dumb enough to spend much time in this overdecorated hole in the ground.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/11/2003 18:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Maybe he'll trade his kingdom for a horse... err... donkey?
#9
Great job at having the hideout designed by the Germans , that is why US Army tested TODAY the new Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB, by dropping it from a military transport plane over a test site at Eglin, 60 miles east of Pensacola, Florida, just after 2 p.m.
MOAB, privately known in military circles as "the mother of all bombs," has been under development since late last year. The bomb carries 18,000 pounds of tritonal explosives, which have an indefinite shelf life. It replaces the Vietnam-era "Daisy Cutter," a 15,000-pound bomb with 12,600 pounds of the less-powerful GSX explosives.
As originally conceived, the MOAB was to be used against large formations of troops and equipment or hardened above-ground bunkers. The target set has also been expanded to include deeply buried targets.
But military officials announce that the MOAB is mainly conceived as a weapon employed for "psychological operations." Military officials say they hope the MOAB will create such a huge blast that it will rattle Iraq troops and pressure them into surrendering or not even fighting. Officials suggest perhaps the Iraqis might even mistake a MOAB blast for a nuclear detonation.
The MOAB is deployed on a pallet from a C-130 aircraft. It initially has a parachute, but as it deploys, the Inertial Navigation System and Global Positioning System take over. The bomb also has wings and grid fins for guidance. So no chance of missing the FUEHRER BUNKER
Reports from Paris say that President Jacques Chirac, fearing that intense U.S. diplomatic pressure is having its impact on the wavering votes in the Security Council, is privately urging Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to make a grand gesture. Chirac is proposing that the Iraqi leader convene a big news conference in Baghdad — including the CNN, BBC, and al-Jazeera TV cameras — and announce the dismantling of a headline-catching weapons system as a concession to the U.N. inspectors. The only problem seems to be Iraq's previous statements that it has no remaining weapons systems to hand over — despite the small print of the 173-page UNMOVIC inspectors' report that Hans Blix failed to specify in his U.N. address Friday. Well, there goes that plan.
One small section from the report is worth repeating, if only to emphasize the misleading tone of Hans Blix's optimistic report to the United Nations: "UNMOVIC has credible information that the total quantity of BW (biological weapons) agent in bombs, warheads and in bulk at the time of the Gulf War was 7,000 liters more than declared by Iraq. This additional agent was most likely all anthrax. ... Iraq's claim that anthrax production ceased at the end of 1990 does not seem plausible. ... seems highly probable that the destruction of bulk agent, including anthrax (at the Al Hakam site) did not occur. Based on all the available evidence, the strong presumption is that about 10,000 liters of anthrax was not destroyed and may still exist." Seems like there was a awful lot in that report that Blix forgot about.
Intelligence reports of Iraqi troops placing explosives in the oil fields around Kirkup, apparently preparing the well-heads for demolition, come with the disturbing footnote that local sources claim the troops are not Iraqi soldiers, but Iranians from the Mujaheddin-al-Khalq (MKO). Fierce opponents of the ayatollahs, the MKO have long been given protection, including bases, arms and training grounds, by the Iraqi regime. MKO defectors in Tehran last month told reporters from Britain's Sunday Times that Iraq had hidden large underground laboratories beneath a swimming pool at Ashraf, the MKO's main military base 43 miles north of Baghdad. U.N. inspectors have been barred from Ashraf, because Baghdad says the MKO bases are the sovereign territory of the Iranian government in exile, claiming it has no jurisdiction over them. Oh, that's cute! Wonder if Blix mentioned that little setback to anyone? Oh, of course, he's there to inspect Iraq, not Iran. Silly me.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 02:30 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thanks for nothin' ChIraq. Iraq first, then France. As for Ahsraf, I may be wrong, but isn't that Iraq? I guess we just flush "unfettered access" down the toilet. Better yet, let's just flush Blix , kick the UN off our soil and get on with it already!!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/11/2003 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The only problem seems to be Iraq's previous statements that it has no remaining weapons systems to hand over[...]"
I don't know why that would be a problem. Doesn't seem to have bothered naysayers heretofore.
Saddam Hussein has opened a training camp for Arab volunteers willing to carry out suicide bombings against U.S. forces in case they invade Iraq, Arab media and Iraqi dissidents said Tuesday. The dissidents, speaking by telephone from Jordan, said scores of Arab volunteers have gone to a special camp run by the Iraqi intelligence service near the town of al-Khalis, 40 miles northeast of Baghdad. Hello, Mother
Hello, Father
Here I am at
Camp Jihad-a.
The worst part about the School for Suicide Bombers is the final exam. Only the guys who flunk can go on to other operations...
Most of the volunteers are Islamic activists who belong to pan-Arab groups that maintain close ties with Saddam's regime. The Qatar-based Al-Jazeera satellite television station reported Saturday that a group of Arab volunteers was being trained in urban warfare in a camp near Baghdad. The station said its Baghdad-based reporter had visited a camp, some 15 miles northeast of the Iraqi capital, and interviewed several Arab trainees, who said they were ready for "martyrdom". The Iraqis will fight to the last Arab volunteer
An Egyptian volunteer who identified himself only as Abu Abd al-Rahman said he traveled to Iraq secretly, leaving behind his wife and children, to join the camp. He told Al-Jazeera his venture was a "God-blessed martyrdom-seeking mission."
"I mean, I'd do anything to get away from that woman..."
"We seek God's satisfaction. We seek victory first, and martyrdom in the cause of God second. You are well aware of what is happening against Iraq. This is clearly an injustice against an Arab, Muslim country," he said. Asked about his three children, Abu Abd al-Rahman said: "God will take care of them, and anyone who is taken care of by God will not be forgotten." God's gonna take care of you, Abu. Just not in the way you were taught.
Another volunteer identified as a Libyan called al-Sunusi told Al-Jazeera the volunteers hate the Bush administration, which he says, represents evil. "I am not afraid. I am not afraid. I came here to carry out jihad (holy war) against the U.S. arrogance," he said.
A Syrian mosque preacher who gave his name as Abu Izz al-Din said he came to Iraq to attain his "goal of martyrdom." "No nation can attain the weapon of martyrdom seekers, regardless of the technological and scientific advancement they might have," he said. "The weapon of martyrdom-seekers is special to the Muslim nation. We will be able to confront them with this weapon, God willing." Martyrdom-seeker, meet our weapon, MOAB.(Mother Of All Bombs) Diyar al-Umari, an Al-Jazeera reporter who said he visited the camp on a tour organized by the Iraqi government, described the volunteers as coming from a number of countries and political movements. "The fighters here say that the weapons of the United States and Britain may be lethal, but they are martyrdom-seekers. In this case, they say, the U.S. forces may confront a case that is very unusual to them," al-Umari reported. "Those martyrdom-seekers aspire to change the shape of the looming war." You want martyrdom, you got it!
On Monday, the highest authority in the Sunni Islamic world, the Islamic Research Center at Cairo's Al-Azhar University, declared that war against Iraq will be a "new crusade" compelling every Muslim to perform "jihad." While opposition to a war against Iraq is strong in the Arab world, many Muslim scholars say suicide is against Islamic teachings. Never stopped them before.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 03:03 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/11/2003 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Wha...? Where did this "Lokks like this is a job for" come from? I think somebody was trying to post a comment at the same time as me.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/11/2003 14:05 Comments ||
Top||
#4
All in one camp? Nice....looks like this is a job for Big Blu.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/11/2003 14:31 Comments ||
Top||
#5
These jihadi suicide boys will have no more impact on the war than did the "human shields".
Posted by: Mark ||
03/11/2003 14:32 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I can see this as a Fox Special - "When Human Shields go Bad!"
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/11/2003 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Camp MOAB
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/11/2003 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Abu: "So, I'm here, Allah. Where are my 72 virgins?"
God: "Oh, Abu, my son. I'm afraid you got the translation wrong. It should say '72 Virginians'!"
US-backed psychological operations inside Iraq appear to have intensified with the launch of a new propaganda radio station, New Scientist can reveal. The broadcasts target the elite troops of the Iraqi army and the country's oil workers. The new radio station is called Sawt al-Tahrir al-Iraq, meaning Voice of Iraqi Liberation. The station broadcasts programmes twice a day, at 0630 and 1830 GMT at the radio frequencies 1206 and 4025 kHz. Analysing the power of the station's signal allowed MÀkelÀinen and a radio enthusiast in Egypt, Tarek Zeidan, to trace it a broadcasting base in Sulaymaniyah, northern Iraq.
This outpost is used by the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, one of the dissident political groups in the region, to broadcast another program - Voice of the People of Kurdistan. Shortly after this show ends, the new Iraqi one begins. The Voice of Iraqi Liberation does not identify who is behind the transmissions - so-called grey propaganda. But its broadcasts tell members of the Republican Guard to defy Saddam Hussein's orders and join with coalition forces in building a new Iraq. "Don't listen to the orders of the dictator, don't shoot those who came to liberate you," said one programme. "Look forward to a bright and happy future of Iraq."
Iraqi oil workers have also been warned against sabotaging oil reserves: "The oil wells and government installations belong only to the Iraqi people, and any deliberate damage to these sites will be considered as a capital crime. The next regime and government in Iraq will put on trial all those who participate in the execution of those orders as war criminals." MÀkelÀinen, who operates the website DXing.info for radio-tracking enthusiasts, says the origin of the station can easily be determined from its content. "One way or another I'd say the American's are involved," he told New Scientist. "It could be indirectly, by channelling money to opposition groups inside Kurdistan, or they could just as well be producing the programmes. They sound rather professional."
The US military already broadcasts propaganda from aircraft flying near Iraq. Another radio station discovered in February 2003 appears to be broadcasting so-called black propaganda. Radio Tikrit started off supporting Saddam Hussein, but changed its stance after a couple of weeks to become highly critical of the Iraqi president and his government. GOOOOOOOOOOD MORNING IRAQ!
#1
"Iraqi oil workers have also been warned against sabotaging oil reserves."
I don't think I'm being paranoid thinking New Scientist couldn't resist implying the radio station's preoccupied with safeguarding Iraq's oil supplies. NS has a fairly left-wing aganda, as evidenced by the fact that loony left geriatric technophobe MP Tam "I've never used email and I'm proud of it" Dalyell writes the magazine's parliamentary reports.
The United States on Tuesday suspended U-2 surveillance flights over Iraq after Iraq forced two of the American planes to return to base, a senior U.S. official said Tuesday. The official stopped short of saying the Iraqis threatened to shoot down the aircraft. Perhaps a US CAP is in order.
Multiple flights are permitted under a U.N. Security Council resolution approved last November, and the Bush administration is seeking clarification from U.N. inspectors. UNMOVIC, The U.N. weapons inspection agency, had given advance notice to Iraq of the flights. The Iraqi threat is fresh evidence of Baghdad's unwillingness to cooperate with U.N. inspectors, another U.S. official said. Any chance we could send up an unmanned U2 Plane and let the Iraqis shoot it down ?
Two American U-2 planes were already in the air. They were the seventh and eighth sent on a surveillance assigment since the Security Council approved the resolution unanimously, and that the flights had been coordinated with the U.N. inspection agency. But Iraq "raised a fuss," this official said, and the two flights were recalled. American diplomats are checking with the U.N. agency before resuming U-2 flights.
Raised a fuss, did they? Think they might have had something to hide?
The dispute punctuated a behind-the-scenes effort by the United States and Britain to win support for a new resolution designed to back the use of force as a last resort to disarm Iraq. U-2 flights are conducted as part of an elaborate useless inspection arrangement designed to determine whether Saddam Hussein has secretly stored chemical and biological weapons in defiance of U.N. resolutions.
#2
Word this morning is that the Iraqis were upset that they didnt get a warning phone call from UNMOVIC giving notification of the flights.
Gosh, they sure act like they've got something to hide to me!
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/11/2003 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It makes me feel all warm and fuzzy that UNMOVIC is extending such courtesy about prenotification to Iraq for U2 overflights. This reaching out to Saddam is so idiotic altruistic.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/11/2003 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The weather forecast for Iraq is showers for the next day or so followed by an extended period of clear weather. So it's too cloudy for U-2 photos today -- and by tomorrow night they may be obscured by the shapes of B-2's, etc.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/11/2003 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Kind of makes you wish the bean-counters at USAF had have kept the BLACKBIRDS flying, doesn't it? Saddam could have had all the notice in the world and he still couldn't have done squat.
The previously reported story on this bomb from the Evening Standard seems to have gotten their facts mixed up. Fancy that.
Although the Direct Strike Hard Target Weapon concept was unfunded as of 1997, in early 2002 it was reported that Northrop-Grumman and Lockheed Martin were working on a 30,000-lb. earth penetrating guided conventional weapon, said to be known as "Big BLU" or "Big Blue" [which is also the nickname of the 15,000-lb surface burst BLU-82]. Big BLU will be GPS guided and feature cobalt-alloy penetrator bomb body that enables it to penetrate to depths of up to 100 feet below the surface before detonating. The bombs are so large that a bomber such as the B-2 could carry one of them. As of March 2002 reportedly three Big BLUs had been ordered by the Air Force on an urgent basis ["Inside The Ring," By Bill Gertz and Rowan Scarborough, Washington Times March 15, 2002 Pg. 10]. The Air Force is also investigating whether a similar size weapon could be used in a blast-only configuration, to replace the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter blast weapon dropped from the MC-130. Two bombs with the same nickname, that's where the confusion comes from.
The Direct Strike Hard Target Weapon is a 20,000 lb. class precision guided, adverse weather, direct attack bomb employed on the B-52 and B-2 aircraft. It will make use of the GCU developed by the JDAM program which uses GPS aided INS for adverse weather guidance. Precision accuracy will be attained by using differential GPS (DGPS) technology demonstrated on programs such as Enhanced Differential GPS for Guidance Enhancement (EDGE) and Miniature Munition Technology Demonstration (MMTD). The weapon will make use of the JDAM interface under development for the B-52 and B-2 aircraft and would be carried internally using new suspension hardware within the bay. The warhead will be a 20,000 lb. penetrator with dense metal ballast. This concept uses the Hard Target Smart Fuze (HTSF), an accelerometer based electronic fuze which allows control of the detonation point by layer counting, distance or time. The accelerometer senses G loads on the bomb due to deceleration as it penetrates through to the target. The fuze can distinguish between earth, concrete, rock and air. So much for that bunker, Sammy. There's a graphic on the Global Security website showing just how big this puppy is. Click on the title to view.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 11:25 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sam, your palaces are going to be a mess when these things gets through with them.
#2
Actually, the post I put up is that MOAB bomb that was referred to in comments - last week? AJC online sez they're going to test them at Eglin and warns about the rattling from the blasts
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2003 10:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Frank, I just read that story about the test. They really need new nicknames to keep the press from getting these mixed up. Hope that the AF releases the video of the MOAB test.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The people and Mayor of Moab, Utah, are rather upset about the naming of his weapon. Sorry, no link.
The nice thing about daisy cutters and a "blast only configuration" of this weapon is that they turn cargo planes into weapons platforms.
#5
I think the Cargo plane delivery system is considered "slow" from a defensive viewpoint, even if BLU does deploy from a decent altitiude, and the ability to put this on a fast moving bomber lowers risk and improves targeting... although it does sound like Horseshoe targeting is plenty acceptable anyway... close enough is close enough!... I did see a link that described the thermo physics of the existing daisy cutter that was chillingly detailed in what it is like to have your "picnic" disrupted by one of these devices. Basically explosion eats up all Oxygen in the blast area as it explodes outward in a fireball, creating a large uncontained vacuum. If you survive that, praise Allah, the zero pressure area sucks air back in at 2000 MPH, and it drags any airborne debris with it superheating it into flaming dust balls...If you are not blasted away, you better be able to hold your breath for a few minutes cause its going to be like sitting in my barbeque when that spider decided to "winter over" in my propane line. Whooomp!
I can't find the link, but there was about 5 different kill zones when this device goes off, or "doorways to martyrdom" depending on your proximity to the device...from vaporization, like in "War of the Worlds" to your garden variety "Hairs on fire! Hairs on fire!" dance... Let's see.. was that "stop, drop and roll or drop, roll and stop"? Concussions for a thousand yards... and long term "Beltone hearing aids" for the lucky survivors.
via Drudge edited for brevity
The US has made a superbomb which could be used to frighten Iraq into submission. It will be deployed in Paris
They'd better snap it up, if they're gonna make the prom...
The giant device contains 21,000lb of high explosive and dwarfs the huge "daisy cutter" bombs used against the Taliban in Afghanistan. "Tikrit here we come"
The Pentagon intends to test the bomb and videotape the results as a warning to Iraq of what the US could inflict. Military planners believe just the sight of the bomb exploding could frighten Iraqi soldiers into surrendering. Tape of a test of a superbomb was shown on American TV last night, the cloud of its explosion almost as large as a small atomic blast. I didn't see it - and I have a Japanese American TV
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2003 11:28 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The new superbomb is an upgrade of an already devastating weapon used by the Americans against al Qaeda and the Taliban.
*Nicknamed Big Blue, it contains 21,000lb of conventional high explosive, an increase from the 15,000lb BLU-82 "daisy cutter" used at least four times on tunnels and caves in Afghanistan.
* It was originally designed to clear helicopter-landing zones in Vietnam and works by detonating a few feet above ground level and destroying everything in its path.
* The warhead is packed with Gelled Slurry Explosive, which is detonated with a high explosive booster. The slurry is poured into the bomb's casing which is then loaded on to a plane and launched by parachute at 6,000ft.
* Eleven BLU-82s were dropped during the first Gulf War, according to some experts "as much for their psychological effect as their destructive power".
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2003 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Unlike the old Daisy Cutter, this one is GPS-guided. It looks more like a JSOW than anything else.
#3
The bomb, known as the Massive Ordnance Air Blast, or MOAB, is guided to its target by satellite signals. This was to be its first live test. The bomb is so powerful that it's detonation was expected to create a mushroom cloud visible for miles. The Air Force bomb scheduled for its initial test Tuesday in Florida is much bigger than another conventional bomb. The next-biggest is the 15,000-pound BLU-82, dubbed the Daisy Cutter. Jake Swinson, spokesman for the Air Armament Center at Eglin Air Force Base, Fla., said there would be no onsite news coverage of the test for safety reasons, but an Air Force chase plane would take video that would be made available later to news organizations.
Other officials said the Air Force expected to have the bomb available for use in an Iraq war.
"If the warfighter wanted to use it, I'm sure we could make some available," Swinson said, adding that he had no information on whether or when the weapon might be used in combat.
Test is scheduled between 12-5 CST. Video should be available for tonights news. Bet Fox runs it.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Fox is already reporting that it was tested at 1pm "their time" (i.e. Eglin time). I assumed that was Eastern, but it may be Central.
#5
1 PM Central it was. Fox News has been running a still picture of this beast. Massive round body, painted orange for the test. Huge fins on the back that would fold out to retard desent after the drop. You can see the white circle on the rear that houses the GPS antenna. Crescend, this thing doesn't look anything like a JSOW. If anything, it looks like a 1950's first generation H-bomb. And the troops have already renamed it, MOAB stands for Mother Of All Bombs. I like it.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
How about a second test in say California on those bastards that wrecked the 9-11 memorial, I am not a violent person, but those ___ckers need a beating bad
#8
I'm still trying to figure why it has to be precision-guided, when it'll take out an entire county...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/11/2003 16:41 Comments ||
Top||
#9
well, it was big...fox just showed a clip of the blast taken from afar, but it doesn't look nuclear. The disappointing part is the lack of a view where it sucks the oxygen away then the superheated gases burn everything within a country mile to a cinder....poor bastards
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2003 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I must've seen the wrong picture, then...the one I saw was not as much wide as it was very long, bright safety-red. Maybe that was the "Hard-Target" weapon?
This is the weapon I am referring to. It's certainly rounded, but much longer than it is wide (unlike the much pudgier Daisy Cutter). It has two winglets extending from about midway from the nose. A black "plug" in the back has what looks like a company logo on it. This seems to be the "stowed" configuration, without anything extended. I have not seen the actual video of the test, and this was the only image I've seen of it.
#12
Crescend - that was the one - I agree with Steve, they need to design nicknames so that the media can get them straight...in the video it actually might reflect the hard-target penetration...it had much less blast-acceleration outward, not like the daisy cutter vids I've seen
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2003 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Just saw a picture of the whole weapon on the news, the shot Fox was running was just of the back end and it looked like it curved to a end. Boy, was I wrong! It looks to be about 4 ft in diameter and 30 feet long. Has short stubby wings about half way along the side and has a curved point. Looks like a space ship from a early Buck Rodgers serial. This is the MOAB, the hard target penetrator is much thinner and has the classic BLU shape with fins front and back.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 19:38 Comments ||
Top||
Stories by Turkish Press Scan/Press Review on Tue. PROTOCOL THAT OPENS DOORS
We are announcing the memorandum within the framework of the renovation motion allowing shipping which irritated Parliament Speaker Bulent Arinc since he did not know about it. Details of the first ''memorandum of understanding'' within the scope of ''renovation motion' allowing U.S. military activities in Turkey have become clear. The memorandum foresees establishment of nine separate U.S. land bases in Gaziantep, Mardin, Dicle (Diyarbakir), Oyali (Sirnak), Nusaybin (Mardin), Oguzeli (Gaziantep), Sanliurfa (military base), Birecik and Viransehir. Under the protocol, Turkey can ask U.S. soldiers to leave the country without showing any reason. The U.S. Customs Undersecretariat has to send equipment under the circular #91-99 dated May 2. Pre-permit declarations will be sent to the Office of General Staff seven days beforehand. The U.S. personnel will behave in line with the administrative regulations in Turkish facilities and respect to Turkish laws. The United States will pay all the costs stemming from their activities. The U.S. soldiers will carry identity cards outside the bases. The U.S. soldiers will wear their uniforms only when they are on mission. We have to tell the General Staff (not the government) what we are planning to bring into Turkey in advance. Fox News was showing video of a line of self-propelled 155mm, er, "construction equipment" moving out of the port.
BUSH PHONES BUT CAN'T GET PROMISE
U.S. President George W. Bush, who spoke to Justice and Development Party (AK Party) leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan by phone and congratulated him on being elected as deputy, was not satisfied with the issue of motion. Bush asked Erdogan when the second motion would be submitted to parliament. When he was expecting a positive response, Erdogan listed Turkey's reservations. Erdogan wanted participation of Turkmens in the leadership council and increase of economic package.
ACTIVITY CONTINUES IN BASES AND PORTS
Activity continues in bases and Iskenderun port which will play an important role for northern front in a possible U.S. military operation against Iraq. Major Ruhi Caliskan who confiscated weapons of U.S. soldiers who tried to leave the port without permission was assigned to another department in the port. Slap on the wrist because it made the news.
A total of 46 vehicles went to Mardin, Gaziantep and Silopi. There is also activity in Incirlik Base. A total of 15 buses carrying U.S. soldiers went from Incirlik Base to Gaziantep. Dispatch of military equipment and vehicles from Iskenderun port continued on Tuesday within the framework of renovation in bases and ports. Sources told A.A correspondent that trucks loaded with military vehicles and equipment left the port in the morning. Meanwhile, routine activities continued in Incirlik base in Yuregir town of southern Adana province. Hangar doors are open while a tanker plane and C-17 cargo plane landed at the base. Renovation also continues in the base. It looks from the outside like the Turks are letting us land equipment, but not many troops while we wait for approval.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 11:44 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bu tif we get the heavy equipment in place, it would be fairly easy to fly the troops in at a moments notice?
Posted by: john ||
03/11/2003 8:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Troops are already there, just not mated with their weapons.
Posted by: Brian ||
03/11/2003 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Donât you think if the new PM cant get the bill through, doesnât that speak volumes about his majority in the house. Apart from the economic problems that he has to face if the US aid does not reach Turkey.
The economic cost to that country troubles officials most. Turkey is only just beginning to shake off the effects of a two-year recession in which the value of the lira fell by half and thousands of Turks lost their jobs, 301,000 in the latest quarter alone. One of the country's rare hard-currency earners, the tourist industry, has already been hit by the looming conflict, with bookings for this year cancelled by the thousands. All in all, the Union of Turkish Chambers of Commerce reckons the war will cost the country $16 billion.
The relations with Europe are again in jeopardy after the Cypriot issue proved to be snafu (An acronym coincidentally used by soldiers in World War II: Situation Normal All F****d Up).
I am beginning to believe that the American victory will come without Turkey's help.
Foreign ministers from around the globe will take turns speaking their minds on Iraq Tuesday as the U.N. Security Council continues to ponder a resolution authorizing war with Baghdad. The council was planning to hold an open debate Tuesday on the Iraq crisis after the United States and Britain were forced to delay a vote on a hard deadline for Iraq when it became clear their proposed resolution wouldn't get the support it needs — despite a flurry of personal appeals from President Bush on Monday.
Toldja we weren't going to get it...
The United States had hoped to present the resolution to the council on Tuesday, setting a March 17 deadline for Iraqi disarmament or war. But the vote was put on hold when it became evident that America and its allies had not yet won the nine votes they needed for a majority. "I don't rule out listening to other governments as we go through this process and seeing what we come up with," State Department Richard Boucher said Monday.
Bush is expected to work the phones again on Tuesday in an effort to save the resolution. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said consultations were ongoing and a vote could come anytime later in the week. "The vote will be the day we get nine or 10 votes, and I think we're getting close," said Spanish Ambassador Inocencio Arias, whose country is co-sponsoring the resolution with the United States and Britain. But even if they gain the votes, it's not enough. French President Jacques Chirac declared that his country would veto any resolution that opened the way to war. The Russians also said they would vote against the proposal as it was currently worded.
Both the United States and Britain said they were willing to negotiate the deadline and other changes to the resolution. During a closed-door council session late Monday, British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock suggested a two-phase approach to the resolution, in which Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would have 10 days to make a "strategic decision," to disarm, council diplomats said. The inspectors would then have a brief window to verify whether Iraq was carrying out a set of tests — or "benchmarks" — before the decision to wage war was made. Some of the fence-sitting countries were talking about delaying the ultimatum by as much as a month, until April 17 — though that stands no chance with the United States, as hundreds of thousands of American soldiers awaited their orders in the Persian Gulf.
Pakistan's prime minister said his country, a key swing vote on the council, wouldn't support war with Iraq. Ruling party spokesman Azeem Chaudhry said Tuesday that this meant Pakistan would abstain from voting. Chile, another vote which Washington is after, also suggested it's not ready to embrace the resolution without changes. The United States is assured the support of Britain, Spain and Bulgaria, with Cameroon and Mexico leaning heavily toward the U.S. position. But with Germany, Syria and now Pakistan preparing abstentions or "no" votes, Washington is trying to canvass the support of Chile, Angola and Guinea.
Meanwhile, in Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blair battled a growing revolt within his own party. Noting the pressure at home and at the United Nations, Blair said he was open to a compromise. "We are talking to all the other countries about how we ensure that we can make a proper judgment about whether Saddam is cooperating or not," he said. One example, Blair said, would be whether Iraq was allowing inspectors to interview scientists outside the country.
Australia is also taking some heat for its government's hard-line stance against Iraq. While Prime Minister John Howard prepared his pro-Washington case against Iraq for Tuesday, a top Australian intelligence adviser resigned Tuesday to protest the government's policy.
On Monday, chief U.N. weapons inspectors Hans Blix told the council that an Iraqi drone recently discovered didn't constitute a "smoking gun." Blix said Iraq should have included the drone in its December weapons declaration but he's not sure if the unmanned vehicle was illegal. But the United States and Britain say it's one more nail in the coffin for Saddam, unless he can convince the council before March 17 that he has fully disarmed. If the resolution is defeated, Bush and Blair have said they would be prepared to go to war anyway with a coalition of willing nations. But U.N. support would give the war international legitimacy and guarantee that members of the organization share the costs of rebuilding Iraq.
But the White House argued the opposite Monday, saying a lack of support would hurt U.N. credibility. If the United Nations fails to act, Fleischer said, "that means the United Nations will not be the international body that disarms Saddam Hussein. Another international body will disarm Saddam Hussein. So this will remain an international action, it's just the United Nations will have chosen to put itself on the sidelines."
But France and Russia seemed undeterred. "No matter what the circumstances, France will vote 'no,"' Chirac said Monday. "There is no cause for war to achieve the objective that we fixed — the disarmament of Iraq. His foreign minister met top Angolan officials Monday to lobby the undecided African members of the council.
Bush made an urgent round of phone calls to eight world leaders trying to salvage the resolution on Monday. Chinese President Jiang Zemin told Bush that weapons inspections should continue and the standoff should be settled peacefully, the official Xinhua News Agency reported. Jiang was also called by Blair. Bush also spoke with Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, South African President Thabo Mbeki, Sultan Qaboos of Oman, Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, Turkish governing party leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, President Abdoulaye Wade of Senegal and President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria.
Posted by: Bent Pyramid ||
03/11/2003 11:59 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Blixie is unwilling to state that the drone represents a smoking gun. Is it time yet for Powell to state in public that Blixie is biased??? Depends on the reaction from the "undecided 6". I have seen nothing on their reaction to the drone and the other weapons found this week.
#2
Someday soon they'll all be around with their hands out. Make damn sure we remember who supported us and who stiffed us when that time comes. And it will come.
#4
Betcha we DO get the 9 plus a veto or two. Fox news reported this evening (EST) that 3 of the U6 were coming 'closer' to the US position. I just can't imagine Mexico and Chile staking their future on an Iraq vote. The 3 african nations, either. France has already staked out it's future as anti-US, but is it possible that they can bribe or threaten the others better than the US?
I think GW will consider 9 with a veto a victory. Whoever issues the veto will then be isolated. Real high-stakes poker.
International weapons inspectors have stumbled upon a new kind of bomb in Iraq that could be filled with chemical or biological agents and strewn over populated areas, Fox News has confirmed. Baghdad also may have in its possession a drone aircraft capable of spraying harmful agents over its enemies. Armed with this new information, U.S. officials are expected to press chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to admit he has found a "smoking gun" â the irrefutable evidence many countries have been looking for before they agree to wage war against Baghdad â in a closed-door session of the U.N. Security Council on Monday. American officials hope this will help the U.S. and its allies garner more international support for military action against Iraq after March 17, the deadline proposed in an amendment to a U.S.-British resolution before the Security Council.
"It's incredible," a senior diplomat from a swing-vote Security Council nation told the London Times. "The report is going to have a clearly defined impact on the people who are wavering. It's a biggie."
The New York Times reported Monday that U.S. officials say Iraq has reconfigured rocket warheads from its stockpiles of imported or home-built weapons. Some of these makeshift weapons have been used by Iraq with both conventional and chemical warheads. But officials told Fox News that the weapons are not rockets, but large bombs that can be dropped from wings of airplanes. Soccer-ball-sized cluster bombs then are released from the larger bombs. When triggered by a fuse, these smaller submunitions can disperse chemical or biological agents. "We're aware" of the munition and drone discoveries, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday. "It's a matter of no small concern because of how dangerous these weapons can be and the fact that they can carry chemical and biological [agents]," he added.
This all could make life much more difficult for Saddam, who, in the past few days, has been trying to prove to the world that he is cooperating with weapons inspectors to prove he has no banned weapons. Senior U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News on Monday that the inspectors initially found just one of these munitions, then another, and eventually uncovered the manufacturing capability. Submunitions â designed to be expelled as a bomber nears its target â are rubber covered so that when they hit the ground, they bounce up. This increases the blast radius, which is why they are used for high explosives.
But Baghdad's submunitions aren't rubber covered.
Though Iraq claims the weapon is used for high explosives, the munitions have holes bored into them. These holes are usually used to inject chemical or biological weapons into the warhead, making these types of submunitions an ideal carrier. U.S. officials say the Iraqis apparently have hundreds of these weapons, which were discovered sometime within the past several months. Iraq claimed these cluster munitions were used as high explosives and were supposed to bounce. It said the rocket was designed as a conventional cluster bomb, which would scatter explosive submunitions over its target, and not as a chemical weapon. But the United States didn't buy that argument, and the Iraqis have now admitted that some might have been configured as chemical weapons. "If you take the kinds of fuses we know they have, and you screw them in there, when these things come out from the main frame and they explode inward, chemical agents come out," one U.S. official told the Times. "These can be used for biological weapons, too."
U.S. officials are expected to argue that this is just one more nail in Iraq's coffin, especially in light of a 167-page report handed out to the U.N. Security Council by Blix on Friday. The report details Iraq's 12-year history of deception when it comes to weapons inspections. The United States and Britain are hoping this part of Iraq's "catalog of deception" â as Secretary of State Colin Powell called it last week â will help win over some countries who thus far have been fence-sitters on a U.S.-backed resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq.
Powell said Sunday that Blix should have made more of the evidence in that report when he appeared before the Security Council last week. "When you look at page after page of what the Iraqis have done over the years to hide, to deceive, to cheat, to keep information away from the inspectors, to change facts to fit the latest issue, and once they put that set of facts before you, when you find you those facts are false, they come up with a new set of facts â it's a constant pattern," Powell said on Fox News Sunday. He hinted that the United States would release more information about prohibited weapons as the council debates a resolution this week. "That's the kind of thing we're going to be making some news about in the course of the week and point this out," he said. "And there are other things that have been found that I think more can be made of."
Another piece of information that supports the U.S. position is the discovery of a secret drone in Iraq, the London Times reported on Monday. Fox News has learned that this drone is probably larger than the one mentioned by Powell in his intelligence briefing of the council on Feb. 5. During that briefing, Powell said the United States had watched an unmanned Iraqi aircraft be test-flown for 310 miles non-stop in a racetrack pattern. He said then that Iraqi drones, fitted with spraying devices, could produce a chemical or biological attack not only on Iraqâs neighbors but also, if transported, on the United States.U.N. sources told the London Times that the latest drone was found by a team led by a British weapons inspector and wasn't mentioned in Blix's oral presentation Friday because more information was being sought. A reference to the drone was included in the 167-page report Blix submitted.
"I think he could have said a lot more about Iraqi non-compliance," Powell said.
#1
Isnât that too much of a coincidence, whenever Hans Blix presents a report, to the Security Council, within a week inspectors find something big.
After the last report, they found the controversial al-samoud missiles. This time again within a week they find the drones and NOW ânew kind of bombsâ.
This also means that President Bush is working on right kind of assumptions- and the step to disarm and kick out of Saddam is based on good judgment and sagacity.
There is also a nice photo of the buggers...pop rivets and coconut shells.
Posted by: Dick Saucer ||
03/11/2003 7:42 Comments ||
Top||
#5
GWB and Powell need to jettison this goddamn UN bullshit and get on with the task of taking out Saddam. There is NO MORE work left to be done on the vote-getting front; if a stash of shells were found that had chem or bio agents in them, France and Russia STILL WOULD NOT CHANGE THEIR VOTES. Fawning over the worthless and toothless UN at this late stage is simply a COLOSSAL WASTE OF TIME AND EFFORT.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Powell, enough is enough. Lets get moving already.
#7
IMHO this exercise, while frustrating, seems to have a purpose or at least some positive elements. The disgusting antics of the French, along with the Blix â el Baradai circus, are having a beneficial effect in that they are de-legitimizing the UN and convincing one of the more important subsets of the US population â the reasonable but uninformed (or misinformed) middle American - that Bush is justified in proceeding with the pre-emption doctrine without UN sanction.
From the NY Times
âAmericans are growing impatient with the United Nations and say they would support military action against Iraq even if the Security Council refuses to support an invasion, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll.
The poll found that 58 percent of Americans said the United Nations was doing a poor job in managing the Iraqi crisis, a jump of 10 points from a month ago. And 55 percent of respondents in the latest poll would support an American invasion of Iraq, even if it was in defiance of a vote of the Security Council.â
The process now is painful, but being able to ignore much of the UN bloviating in the future will be a very useful thing.
#8
The more noise they make now, the more obvious it will become that they are idiots, and not to be trusted, when it turns out (as we all hope) that their predictions, their slanderous predictions even, were wrong.
Posted by: George Stewart ||
03/11/2003 17:06 Comments ||
Top||
Edited for length from the International Herald-Tribune.
American and British commanders are devising a strategy that they hope will enable them to defeat the Iraqi military without utterly destroying it. Land-war commanders have been devising procedures to make it possible for entire Iraqi units to signal the allies that they prefer to stay out of the fight. Units that indicate they intend to stay on the sidelines will be exempt from air and land attack and may not even be taken prisoner, allied officers say. Start with a big white flag, Achmed, and go from there.
That's a crummy idea. I hope this is a bad report, or disinformation. Give them the choice: surrender or die. Neutrality is something you accord to countries, not to military units. That's a real good way to end up with an armed and dangerous enemy at your back.
"If they show the right signals and do not want to be part of a defense of Saddam's regime and weapons of mass destruction, we will do everything in our power to not target those either with air or ground formations," Lieutenant General David McKiernan, commander of allied land forces, said in an interview.
If we do that, it's going to cost us casualties, and maybe lots of them. You read it here first...
Air-war commanders are planning to limit their attacks on Iraq's infrastructure to reduce the hardship for the Iraqi people. In the 1991 Gulf War, the United States attacked Iraq's power plants and electrical grid to try to deprive of power air defense units and other Iraqi forces. This time they intend to conduct more focused attacks, seeking seek to avoid interrupting the civilian electrical system.
Are we going to have Commando Solo playing "Kumbaya" over and over, too?
The strategy is intended, in part, to speed the advance toward Baghdad and hasten the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime by letting American and British forces bypass dispirited and ill-motivated Regular Army units.
Who will then brighten up and bite us in the collective ass...
The strategy is also born of the realization that it is important not only that U.S. and British forces prevail but how they prevail. Otherwise Phil Donahue will get his show back and torture us all worse than Uday ever could.
I sounds like Phil Donahue was the goddamn planner!
Even as they make the final preparations for a military campaign, allied commanders are making plans to administer and rebuild Iraq after Saddam is deposed. Allied commanders want to elicit the support of the Iraqi public, which planners hope will be more accepting of foreign forces that have spared its sons. Allied military planners are also hoping that the soldiers in the Iraqi army can become part of the new military in a post-Saddam Iraq.
If we beat the crap out of it, why would we want to keep it? If they don't start all over from scratch, they import the existing traditions, which aren't what you'd call savory...
"At the end of this we want to have an Iraq that is a viable country to build up," McKiernan said. "I personally can see a utility of the Iraqi military for the future of Iraq. No doubt about it."
If they keep it, they'd better remake it into an external defense force, not an instrument of "internal security" or something for a subsequent Iraqi government to rattle at its neighors.
The allied goal of decisively defeating the Iraqi military without causing too many casualties is by all accounts a difficult mission. Some military experts question whether a blunt instrument like the military can be used in such a discriminating way. Even some air-war planners acknowledge that some Iraqi ground units may be pummeled because they are basically in the wrong place at the wrong time: that is, in the direct path of the invasion force driving into Iraq. Air and ground commanders have been studying their foe, trying to figure out which units are most likely to fight and how long they can wait before attacking them.
I think, reading this mess, that I've come to the conclusion that we're going to lose a lot of people trying to fight a war without hurting anyone.
"We are going to have to make some difficult choices, and sometimes we are going to simply have to destroy equipment and destroy Iraqi soldiers," Major General Dan Leaf, the senior air force officer in McKiernan's headquarters, said. "We have a plan and strategy and targeting methodology to minimize the loss of life and leave units in some cases almost intact. You can also target within a unit. The first units that affect us are artillery. If I were an Iraqi artillery man I might be looking for another line of work." I would at least get far away from the artillery tubes. Major General Robert Scales, the retired commandant of the Army War College, said the approach can work but is not easy to execute. Regarding efforts to target Iraqi ground forces, he said, it depends on a good intelligence about the foe's morale, the quality of its leadership and a sense of the unit's importance to the enemy's defensive scheme. "We will know from intelligence that some of Iraq's Regular Army units have been abandoned by both sides," Scales said. "The more difficult decision is how much of the Republican Guard and which ones to go after."
How about all of them? War's over when the RG is all dead.
American aircraft have been dropping leaflets urging the Iraqi military not to resist. But the allied forces have yet to spell out the precise procedures the Iraqis should adopt if they wish to avoid a confrontation.
"Confrontation" is what you get when you occupy the dean's office. Confrontation isn't warfare.
One concern is that detailing the procedures too soon would allow troops and security organizations loyal to Saddam's forces to use them to dupe and ambush American and British troops. There are a number of measures that could be demanded of the Iraqis as a war approaches; for example, asking them to turn the turrets of their tanks so that they do not threaten allied forces, or calling on Iraqi troops to move away from their heavy weapons and armored forces. A main concern is calling on the Iraqis to take steps that can be observed by allied warplanes. "Take these white panels, Achmed, and lay 'em out on the ground."
"What sort of pattern, Ishmail?"
"How 'bout an arrow towards Saddam's nearest palace?"
Conway said that FA-18s, Harrier jets and Cobra helicopters from the Marines' air wing would identify Iraqi forces that are three to four days away from being confronted by Marine ground forces. If the Marines detect indications that the Iraqis do not want to fight, they will try to communicate with the Iraqi forces and work out an arrangement to sideline them for the war. "We would like to have them capitulate and take care of their own troops in something other than a prisoner of war camp," Conway said. "That makes it easier on them and makes it easier on us. We can say: 'Stay over there. We won't bother you. We won't attack you. But you have to understand that you are out of this and you are part of the new Iraq.'" When was the last time an invading army showed this much concern for the soldiers of the other side?
It's a crummy idea, and it's going to have crummy consequences. I hope it's discarded sometime around noon on Day 1.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 12:21 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Look at those poor Iraqi who tried to surrender to the Brits. They misread the signals. One would guess that special forces is already working with lower levels of the Iraq Army, otherwise the surrender process is going to tie up operational forces and slow the whole march down. I would think it is much more time consuming to deal with surrender than retreat? These guys have no desire to retreat, they see safety moving forward than going back into Saddam's clutches. Plus handling all the intel they may provide; they will know where the Rev Guard, the boobie traps, and the mines are.
Posted by: john ||
03/11/2003 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I have a GREAT idea - put these plans into action by GETTING ON WITH THE JOB, instead of engaging in endless talking.
#4
You got that right tu3031! The true purpose of war is to destroy the enemy. You only back off when the enemy has had enough and offers unconditional surrender. For cautionary examples of misguided mercy, see any history of early Northern generals in the US civil war. Meade, Burnside and McClellan were especially notable for lacking the guts to finish off the enemy and thereby indefinitely prolonged the war and cost thousands upon thousands of soldiers their lives - entirely due to their misguided reluctance to kill.
#5
Salvaging the Iraqi army is like trying to fix a car with a bent frame. It is still a car with a bent frame.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/11/2003 15:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The purpose of war is to destroy the enemy's will to fight. Destroying the enemy is one possible outcome of destroying his will, but not always necessary. The NVA won in Vietnam without ever destroying the US Army in the field. They did, however, destroy our national will to continue the war to a successful conclusion.
#7
Fred, Paul, et al., I hear you. I'm not ex-military and I'm certainly no strategist. I had thought the idea was along the lines suggested by 11A5S: if these guys are already broken and have no will to fight, just move 'em to the side and get on with the principal objectives. If we have a surplus of troops moving it makes sense to grab all of these guys, collect their weapons and head 'em off to prison camp. But if they aren't going to fight and you've got a point to get to quickly (e.g., the oil wells, or a vital bridge, etc.) then just tell the Iraqis to sit still, behave, we'll be along to deal with you in a while, and oh, see that B-52 overhead with lots of bombs in it?
Again, I'm no military genius, but when I first read this I though, "hmmm, clever." But maybe it isn't.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 21:21 Comments ||
Top||
The United Nations withdrew its civilian staff and a fifth of its peace-keeping troops from the border between Kuwait and Iraq yesterday amid growing signs of preparations by US troops for a military strike. The holes in the fence was a good indicator!
The Kuwait-Iraq Observer Mission (Unikom), which has monitored the border for the past dozen years, upgraded its alert status to "red" as senior officials conceded that chances of avoiding a conflict appeared to have disappeared. Raising the alert status meant that about 230 civilian staff and 150 Bangladeshi peace-keepers were sent back to Kuwait City, while the 195 military observers and the remaining 625 troops were told their patrols must be confined to daylight hours. A UN official said the civilians had been moved back from the border "for their own safety". Daylight hours? That will make monitoring the border, um, effective.
With the Security Council deliberating on a resolution from Britain and the US that would pave the way for military action, Unikom officials admit the alert status could be raised again soon, which would force the observers and peace-keepers to be withdrawn. Arrangements have already been made to move observers out of the region in the event of a war, with Westerners having been given visas for Italy and non-Westerners with Bangladeshi visas. Observers said they had seen continuing activity by US troops in the so-called Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) in preparation for a northward move by troops, tanks and artillery. On Friday it was revealed that private contractors had been cutting holes — big enough to accommodate a tank — in the 125-mile fence that marks the border between Iraq and Kuwait. Yesterday it was reported that American troops had started dismantling sections of a sand ridge that also runs along the border. Who hired the private contractors?
It was also said that US troops had been seen moving in ready-made bridges that could be used by tanks or other armoured vehicles to cross defensive trenches that were dug by the Kuwaiti authorities in the southern part of the DMZ.
Sounds like action is proceeding and that nobody's paying much attention to the talk-talk at the UN...
US forces have yet to comment on their activities in the DMZ. The zone, stretching six miles into Iraq and three miles into Kuwait, is only supposed to be entered by UN personnel as well as Kuwaiti and Iraqi border guards, carrying only handguns, in their respective zones. As such, any troops would be breaching the UN's rules. The rules work about as well as their resolutions.
The red-alert status is the third highest level used by Unikom. If this was raised to the next level the peace-keepers would stop all operations. At stage five they would evacuate the country. What's the color code for that?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 12:26 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Does anyone know what countries make up the "peace keeping" force there? I'd be interested in that.
#2
Steve---Color code for evacuation is yellow. Elementary, my dear Watson.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/11/2003 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
not brown?
> On the eve of battle between Germany and France...
>
> On the German side the general turns to his aide and
> says, "Aide, get me my red jacket. In the event that
> I am wounded, I don't want the men to see me
> bleeding. I don't want anything to discourage them.
> I want them to carry on and win this battle."
>
> On the French side the general turns to his aide and
> says, "Aide, get me my brown pants."
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2003 18:43 Comments ||
Top||
Britain and the United States will launch a desperate drive to win wider support for a war on Iraq today by agreeing to important concessions on a second UN resolution. The two countries have decided to delay until later this week a vote in the Security Council and have accepted the idea of a short, clear "checklist" of disarmament demands for Saddam Hussein, defining the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction yet to be accounted for. British diplomats in New York will even discuss suggestions from the so-called "swing six" Security Council members that the 17 March deadline for compliance by Iraq be put back. But Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, and Condoleezza Rice, the National Security Adviser, showed little sign of flexibility on extending the deadline beyond 17 March. Good for them.
General Powell and Tony Blair aim to secure a consensus among Chile, Mexico, Pakistan, Angola, Guinea and Cameroon, the members whose votes could secure the UK-US-Spanish resolution. And allow the French to veto.
The political dangers of not obtaining a fresh UN mandate were underlined yesterday when Mr Blair suffered the first resignation over the issue. Andy Reed, the parliamentary private weenie secretary to Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, quit in protest at the lack of time being given to UN weapons inspectors. Twelve years wasn't enough, Andy?
While everyone's concentrating on this hoo-raw, the Marines are dismantling the fences and sand berms. FoxNews reported today that the U.S. had cancelled two U2 flights because of Iraqi threats — which would be a material breach.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 12:34 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is complete, utter insanity. What are they screwing around for ? It will be 11-4 against, like I'm saying for weeks now. 11-4, after which Blair will be sacked and sent to the ICC. Attack or retreat (and let France have their Arab-European empire).
Posted by: Peter ||
03/11/2003 6:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I do not know much about the British Parlimintary
System.Could someone explain to me why a"private secretary resigning is important?
And what is the purpose and importance MPs.
Isn't the House of Lords like the U.S.Senate and House of Commons like our House of Represetatives?
#3
In retrospect, Powell should have introduced a deadline resolution when he briefed the council in Feb. Better yet, he should have given a 'resolution by this date or we bomb' deadline. Better yet, we should have had a deadline when Bush spoke to the UN in Sept. Better yet, we should have started the war several months ago.
#4
I agree with Peter. Everytime it appears the US will act a deadline is extended, the dance with the UN continues, more changes are made, etc. It is obvious that France, Germany, etc. will never go along so why keep trying. Bush talks tough but then backs down a few days later. I'm not as impatient as those who expected action last fall but as expected action has gone from January to February to March to maybe April to ? it is becoming very discouraging.
#5
Raptor, parliament system, House of Commons is much like the House of Representatives, and the House of Lords is equivalent to the Senate, except that it's function is mostly ceremonial and members are appointed by Prime Minister.
Prime Minister is Leader of the party with the most seats in Commons. You would call him House Majority Leader. Britain has a hereditary monarchy instead of a President, prime minister becomes defacto leader of the county, but not officially head of state.
Prime Minister usually appoints Cabinet Ministers from among members of his majority party from the House of Commons. As additional reward/pay perq, assistant cabinet ministers or Under-Secretaries, are also appointed. There is no confirmation process. When an under-secretary resigns, he loses his perq but still sits as a house member.
The British House of Commons http://www.parliament.uk/
State of the parties at 4 October 2002
Labour 410
Conservative 163
Liberal Democrat 53
Scottish National Party/Plaid Cymru 9
(SNP 5/PC 4)
Ulster Unionist 6
Democratic Unionist 5
Sinn Fein 4
(Have not taken their seats)
Social Democratic & Labour 3
Independent 1
Independent Conservative 1
Speaker & 3 Deputies 4
(Do not normally vote)
Total 659
Government majority 165
In other words, Tony Blair would have to have 165 Labour members or vote aginst him to lose his majority, but there are 163 Consrvatives who would vote for him over the war. So his whole party would have to abandon him before he was in trouble. Consevatives would see this as an advantage except since Maggie they have been led by guys who prefer panty-hose to trousers.
Posted by: john ||
03/11/2003 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The UN's agenda is to water down resolutions, like 1441, debate, delay, debate delay. The US needs to hold the UN to the 17 March date, and quit trying to kiss ass for votes. Powell made his case. Those who are with us now will be with us. The others who are against us will always be against us or will run after us later when we are leading. Give the UN inspectors a warning to have their bags packed and be ready to go and let us move on. We are just playing into the appeasers hands by going along with the UN charade now.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/11/2003 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
Once again Islam Online enlightens us to the truth about the motives of the Filipino Regime; it's all about the oil!
The Filipino government is trying to have control of resources of the southern Muslim island of Mindanao and is considering listing the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) as a âterrorist organizationâ for that purpose, according to a report Tuesday, March 11. News sources complementing the report, by local Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO) linked to the Bangsamoro people, added that the government is also using the Abu Sayyaf kidnap group to cover for attacks against Muslim groups in several areas of Mindanao, including MILF-held territories. See, you don't get news like this anywhere else. Well, except for North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Paleostein, but you get the idea.
The 12,000-strong movement, fully armed and trained in specific warfare with government forces, has been the target of accusations by both Manila and Singapore, linking it to the Jemaah Islamiya (JI) and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda groups. Both groups are allegedly terrorist organizations sowing chaos around the world while the MILF is being tagged as the group that offered both the JI and Al-Qaeda military training in Mindanao. The report indicated that the Filipino government will not relinquish possession of the Muslim regions to the MILF due to its economic potential. Mindanao, the MILF says, has oil reserves and other resources that would be sufficient to rebuild the region and give the Muslims a chance to live a better life after years of struggle and killings. And we've all seen how wonderful life in oil producing Muslim nations is. Right? Hello?
Most countries don't want to give up parts of themselves, not even to armed Muslim groups financed by Soddy Arabia...
MILF leader Haschim Salamat has already prepared a report sent to the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) indicating the needs for the region to develop its resources. Salamat said to IOL in an earlier interview the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and other Muslim nations were ready to assist the MILF in its endeavor to develop the region. Saudi has been assisting the MILF quite a bit, behind the scenes of course, they being so modest and all.
Meanwhile, President Gloria Arroyoâs government is said to have seriously considered putting the MILF on its list of terror organizations after it suspected the Islamic group was involved in last weekâs Davao City airport bombing, Defense Secretary Angelo Reyes said on Monday, March 10, 2003 as reported by the Philippines Star newspaper in Manila. Reyes admitted that a terrorist tag could jeopardize peace initiatives involving the MILF. He added that the government has yet to declare the group a terrorist organization. "We have not done that yet and we are studying it. This is because we know that definitely it will have repercussions on the peace talks." He said. Very productive, those peace talks. Don't want to stop those.
Not even if they are a terrorist group, trying to grab off a part of the country...
Arroyo, speaking separately Monday, said the recent actions by the MILF made them appear to be a terrorist organization. "I am calling on the MILF leadership to stop such attacks and harassments against individuals. Such actions, including the sabotage of transmission lines, only bolsters the argument made by more and more people that the MILF is not a political organization but a terrorist group." "You keep killing people and someone might think you are the bad guys. You don't want that now, do you?"
The Philippines does not have an anti-terrorism law and moves to enact such legislation have been stalled by the definition of terrorism itself. "While everybody is debating the precise definition of terrorism, the common thread is that the target is civilians. So, I am asking them to stop attacking and harassing civilians," Arroyo said. That's telling them!
Last week, suspected MILF fighters allegedly killed 21 people and wounded more than 150 in a bomb blast at the Davao International Airport. Reyes said that despite the MILFâs alleged role in the airport attack, the government did not want to shut the door to a settlement to the long-running Muslim insurgency. The government has already filed multiple murder charges against Salamat and other top leaders after investigations revealed that a group member allegedly triggered the bomb explosion at the waiting lounge outside the Davao airport terminal last Tuesday. MILF military chief Al Haj Murad, political chief Ghadzali Jaafar and spokesman Eid Kabalu were among those charged. The MILF had denied any role in the airport terrorist attack. It had earlier said the murder charges dimmed the prospect of resuming peace talks with Arroyoâs administration. The talks have been suspended for two years. NGO sources in the region say they suspect the government is using the Abu Sayyaf to carry out bombings and create an atmosphere of eternal conflict in the region. Abu Sayyaf is a government tool, you heard it here first.
The government and the MILF signed a shaky ceasefire pact in Kuala Lumpur in 2001 but it was shattered last month after the military launched a major offensive at an MILF camp in the town of Pikit in North Cotabato province, allegedly used as a shelter for terrorists, kidnappers and bandit groups. One in the same, but who cares.
The MILF rejected the government claim that it had harbored criminal groups and insisted that the real objective of the offensive was to oust the MILF from the area and capture its top leaders. Some 200 people, mostly MILF fighters, died in the offensive which led to a declaration of an all-out war by Salamat. More than 100,000 people have been displaced during the Pikit invasion by the military.
That sounds like the right moves to make...
But the Filipino President is to seek Malaysia's help to bring Filipino Muslim fighters to the negotiating table and end escalating violence in the southern Philippines, sources said Tuesday. "The president will dispatch a special envoy tomorrow to meet with the acting Malaysian prime minister in a new bid to help end this bloodshed," a highly-placed source told Agence France-Presse. Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, who is on leave, reportedly gave Arroyo an "open-ended" offer during their talks last month for Kuala Lumpur to host any peace talks between Manila and the MILF. Being totally un-biased, I'm sure he will be a big help.
Predominantly-Muslim Malaysia has been acting only as a facilitator in the negotiations so far. Facilitator of a lot of things.
Aside from Malaysia, Libya is also involved in talks to lure the MILF to the peace table. They'll be a big help.
In a related development, Philippine Foreign Secretary Blas Ople has called for a meeting with Manila-based ambassadors of the OIC member nations on Thursday, March 13, diplomats said. The objective of the meeting was not immediately available. But a panel of envoys from OIC has put off a visit to the southern Philippines due to an escalation of violence there, diplomats said Tuesday. Must be worried about the army attacking all those good Muslims.
The OIC team was scheduled to visit the troubled region on March 18-21 to look into the implementation of a 1996 peace agreement between the government and the MNLF. The centerpiece of the pact was the creation of a Muslim autonomous region in the southern island of Mindanao called Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). Give them an inch.......well, you know.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 01:40 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
This is by Bill Gertz at the Wash Times; he's usually pretty reliable. Edited for length.
Al Qaeda is seeking recruits in the Middle East for terrorist attacks on oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in the event of U.S. military action against Iraq, U.S. intelligence officials say. We should be expecting this.
The al Qaeda recruitment is targeting radical Islamists in Saudi Arabia and Yemen who are willing to conduct suicide attacks and other sabotage against the oil fields outside Iraq. The threats to oil facilities highlight the possibility that military acton will disrupt the flow of oil from the Middle East, where most of the world's oil originates.
It's also an opportunity for Qaeda to grab some credit where an action might have been pulled off by the Iraqis...
U.S. intelligence officials said there are few details on the terrorist recruitment effort. It was derived from sensitive information obtained in the past week. Intelligence officials view the targeting of oil fields outside Iraq as part of al Qaeda's efforts to conduct economic terrorism. Since U.S. forces ousted Afghanistan's Taliban regime, disrupting al Qaeda's main base of operations, the terrorist group has sought to decentralize and focus on economic targets. There's lots of those, and you don't have to be too organized to send a splodydope into an oil fied.
Saudi Arabia has about 1,000 oil wells, most located in the Ghawar onshore field near the country's east coast and the Safaniyah offshore field in the Persian Gulf. The Ghawar field includes wells in the cities of Ain Dar, Shedgum, Uthmaniyah, Fazran, Ghawar, Al Udayliyah, Hawiyah and Haradh. Saudi Arabia holds about one-fourth of the world's known crude oil reserves, and Kuwait has about 10 percent. The Saudis produce between 8 million and 10 millions barrels of oil a day. Kuwait's daily production is about 2 million barrels. Kuwait has four major crude oil production areas, in the north, west, southeast and at Wahfra, near the Saudi border. The fields have more than 2,000 wells. U.S. and Kuwaiti military forces have stepped up security at some of Kuwait's oil facilities, according to a report Thursday from Kuwait by Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Khaled Muhammad, a spokesman for the Kuwait Oil Company, said plans are in place to protect his country's oil resources. "There is an emergency plan set up between the Kuwait Oil Company, the Ministry of Defense and all the government [emergency services] in Kuwait just in case of anything escalating from the possible war against Iraq," he told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. A total of 700 Kuwaiti oil wells were sabotaged by fleeing Iraqi troops in 1991. The sabotage included sending explosives down well shafts, setting off huge oil fires.
U.S. military helicopters were spotted patrolling areas near the Al Burgan oil field in southern Kuwait last week, and Kuwaiti police have stepped up patrols around oil facilities. The threat to sabotage Saudi and Kuwaiti oil fields coincides with an audiotape message from the dead bin Laden, broadcast in Qatar on Feb. 12, urging his followers to support Iraq and fight the United States.
Iraq pumps between 1.5 million and 2 million barrels of oil a day, but U.S. officials estimate that a post-Saddam Iraq could produce between 7 million and 10 million barrels a day. That could drive prices back below $18 a barrel.
Meanwhile, U.S. officials say they have detected signs recently that the Iraqis had planted explosives at oil facilities in Kirkuk, in northern Iraq. "There are indications that has taken place," one official said. U.S. defense and intelligence officials said Iraqis have moved explosives toward oil fields in the south as well. As reported in Rantburg.
The Pentagon released a statement last week that said U.S. forces would seek to prevent Iraqi sabotage of its approximately 2,000 oil wells, 500 in the northern part of the country and 1,500 in the south. "Recent information revealed that Iraq has received 24 railroad boxcars full of pentolite explosives," the statement said. "U.S. plans are first to prevent the destruction of Iraq's oil fields and second, if unable to prevent the destruction, to control and mitigate the damage quickly."
In an interview last month with CBS' Dan Rather, Saddam said his forces would not sabotage the country's oil wealth and accused the United States of plotting such actions and then blaming him. "Iraq does not burn its own wealth just its people, and it does not destroy its own dams just its society. We hope that this question is not going to be used by those who intend to attack us, to cover their backs while they themselves destroy Iraq's dams and oil wells. Iraq will not destroy its oil or dams but will use them and protect them for the benefit of Iraqis," Saddam said. So will we.
Of course, Sammy says he doesn't have any WMDs, too...
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 02:00 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I missed the part where they said who the pentolite came from.
Does Ted Kennedy know about this? They'll be hell to pay when he finds out.
Show the flag and pass the ketchup was the order of the day in House cafeterias Tuesday. Lawmakers struck a lunchtime blow against the French and put "freedom fries" on the menu. And for breakfast they'll now have "freedom toast." The name changes follow similar actions by restaurants around the country protesting French opposition to the administration's Iraq war plans. It won't do much of anything, but a nice touch.
"Update. Now Serving in All House Office Buildings, 'Freedom Fries,'" read a sign that Republican Reps. Bob Ney of Ohio and Walter Jones of North Carolina placed at the register in the Longworth Office Building food court. Both Republicans. When the Dims find out they'll probably get a court order to stop it.
Jones said he was inspired by Cubbie's restaurant in Beaufort, N.C., in his district, one of the first to put "freedom fries" on the menu instead of french fries. "This action today is a small but symbolic effort to show the strong displeasure of many on Capitol Hill with the actions of our so-called ally, France," said Ney, chairman of the House Administration Committee. Ney, whose panel oversees House operations, ordered the menu changes. The French Embassy in Washington had no immediate comment, except to say that french fries actually come from Belgium. So why don't we rename them Euroweenie Fries and cover everybody? Or Surrender Fries?
Ney said he was of French descent and "once the French government comes around we can get back to talking about french fries." I don't think they really care. They probably think fries are just another sign of our cultural inferiority.
On a more serious note, Republican Jim Saxton of New Jersey has proposed a ban on Pentagon participation in this year's Paris Air Show and restrictions on French participation in any postwar construction projects in Iraq. But House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said at a news conference that applying legislative sanctions to France was not necessary. "I don't think we have to retaliate against France. They've isolated themselves pretty well," he said.
#1
Tom DeLay has it about right. They have isolated themselves pretty well. This french fry et al thing is pretty small potatoes (sorry, I could not help myself; I had to say it). France has a history of selling its foreign policy to middle east oil suppliers. Look at what they did in 1973. The French have backed themselves in a serious corner, and they have a very significant potential fifth column. Let France serve as a very serious lesson to all of us.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/11/2003 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Personally, I've stopped buying French bread. Now I buy weasel bread.
(It's the same stuff, baked in the local store. I just put a different name on the grocery list.)
#4
Uh, guys? "French" fries don't really have anything to do with France at all. They actually hail from Belgium - I know, I KNOW, that's not much of an improvement, but still. Actually, the "french" in "french fries" refers to the method of cutting the potatoes into long, thin strips for frying, which is called "frenching". "French-cut" green beans are called that for exactly the same reason. As a matter of fact, I vote for calling them "chips", because that's what the British call them, as in "fish and chips" (what we call potato "chips", the Brits call "crisps").
Posted by: Joe ||
03/11/2003 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Angie, that's not very precise. "Weasel bread" could be French white bread OR German black bread, right?
Egyptian police were deployed in force Tuesday in a southern village after a Christian-Muslim row in a barber's shop degenerated into the shooting of two people. The row started at a Coptic Christian barber's in the village of Mansheyat Deebes, some 30 kilometres (20 miles) from Minya, when a Muslim and a Coptic customer Sunday fought over who was next in line for a shave. "Me first! No, I was next! Ouch!"
The argument was sorted out but the next day a dispute broke out between the families of the two customers and the Copt's 67-year-old grandfather wounded two people with a pistol. Grandpa drug out his shooting iron. "I'll teach you not to dis ma kinfolk!
Local police arrested the man and confiscated the gun, but hundreds of police reinforcements have since been sent in to prevent the outbreak of inter-confessional strife. Armed clashes between the Coptic and Muslim communities are a frequent occurrence in the region. Armed clashes between everybody over anything.
In 1997, nearby Abu Qurqas was the scene of the massacre of 11 Copts in a church that was perpetrated by an outlawed Islamic militant group, Jamaa Islamiya, which at the time was targeting police and Christians. Good thing this didn't happen in a real Islamic state or the boys would have been running home to get their AKs, RPGs, bomb belts, etc.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 12:56 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Armed clashes between everybody over anything."
After more than a month of delays, the Air Force launched a defense satellite that will allow faster communication between U.S. defense officials and battlefield commanders. The blast off on Monday of the Boeing Delta 4 rocket was the first space launch in the United States since space shuttle Columbia broke up over Texas on February 1. The $200 million satellite will become part of the United States' national security communications network, which relays secure data to the White House, U.S. embassies and military personnel. The launch was also the first military mission of an Air Force program designed to produce and launch rockets in a more efficient and less expensive manner. The launch had been scheduled for February 7, but was postponed out of respect for the Columbia astronauts. It was postponed again February 10 to give engineers a chance to check for potential problems in a steering mechanism. Lets see a show of hands to those who believe this cover story?
Saturday, a problem with a fuel pump housing and a countdown glitch postponed the launch again. High winds forecast for Sunday night pushed the launch to Monday. And the best part is it will take several days for people on the ground to be able to predict the orbit, and even more days to get that info out to the field, so for at least a month we'll be able to get a clear unobstructed view of whats on the ground.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/11/2003 01:42 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Hundreds of Zimbabwe's "green bombers", militiamen trained to murder and harass President Robert Mugabe's political opponents, have fled to South Africa claiming they have been beaten and starved. The green bombers, named after the colour of their fatigues, have been blamed for the murders of dozens of officials of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC). Aid agency workers and human rights groups said the militia was organised to spread terror in rural Zimbabwe. Many of those who fled to South Africa said they were coerced into joining President Mugabe's youth training scheme, while others were lured by promises of regular pay and food. At four training camps they were indoctrinated with the propaganda of the ruling ZANU-PF party and taught how to kill and maim. "We were told we had to hunt down all MDC people in the villages and given training in frightening them," said "Luke", 15, from Matabeleland, who fled last month. "Sometimes we were given names of people and told to torture and even kill them. We were trained to hurt and kill people who did not support ZANU-PF." Wonder if Bob's got Iraqi advisors on this, or if they're making it up as they go along?Luke, who was unwilling to give his real name to protect his family, said he joined the training scheme after being promised money and food. But he said: "We were beaten by our instructors and forced to share one small bowl of food among many," he said. South African newspapers reported that another youth had fled after being forced to take part in the murder of his uncle, an MDC supporter. Another said he was part of a large group instructed to terrorise a village suspected of being sympathetic to the MDC just before a visit by Information Minister Jonathan Moyo, Mr Mugabe's propaganda chief. Johannesburg's Sunday Independent reported that the green bombers were given alcohol and marijuana before being sent on killing missions "because then you will feel nothing for anyone". Drunken, hopped-up killers.
The newspaper quoted a 22-year-old who said he was part of a group of 13 instructed by a woman commissar at the Border Gezi youth camp to murder a local MDC chairman. Most of the militiamen interviewed, aged between 15 and 28, were reluctant to apply for political asylum in South Africa because they feared being returned to Zimbabwe. The South African Government declined to comment but police said they suspected an increasing number of Zimbabwean refugees were involved in serious crimes, including murder and armed robbery. When you can't even feed the killers that are keeping you in power, you're in trouble.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/11/2003 10:48 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mugabe still gets unwavering support from The Union of Black African Presidents. When democratic countries like the US and Britain impose sanctions against Mugabe, we are accused of "neo-colonialism". Meanwhile, France invites Mugabe for a legitimizing visit in defiance of EU sanctions. And Mugabe was treated with respect at the recent "Non-Aligned Movement" carnival of Saddam-supporting America-bashing in Malaysia. You may remember the enthusiastic reception he got in Johannesburg last year.
Mugabe is kept afloat by investment from Libya and has crushed Zimbabwe's independent press.
Somehow, Mugabe is (like the PA) praised as a freedom-fighter whose bold defiance of Western oppression gives all Africa reason to be proud.
This sickening display of the ethics of the "international community" provides yet another convincing argument for unilateralism. The UN's typical failure to ameliorate the horrors in Zimbabwe reveals that organization as a club of dictators that is an obstacle to peace and freedom in the world. (sorry for ranting...but can you blame me?)
Posted by: Arthur Fleischman ||
03/11/2003 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
You know things must be bad on the Continent when you flee to South Africa for "safety"... but there clearly are much, much worse places.
The Palestinian parliament granted day-to-day responsibility for Palestinian affairs to a new post of prime minister today, but left ultimate authority over the security services, negotiations with Israel, and other matters firmly in the hands of Yasir Arafat. "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss" - the Who
The prime minister's precise powers were left vague enough that it will largely be up to the first holder of the job to define and develop them, maneuvering between Mr. Arafat and the reform-minded Palestinians and foreign governments that are trying to curb his authority. Just staying alive while the "militants", Arafat, Israelis and disgruntled Paleos encircle him will be a major achievement
Mr. Arafat, who under the law adopted today has the power to nominate and fire the prime minister, has chosen for the position Mahmoud Abbas, his No. 2 in the hierarchy of the Palestine Liberation Organization. keep your friends close, and your enemies closer
The parliament did not formally endorse that choice today, and Mr. Abbas, a (mild, very mild)critic of the Palestinians' armed uprising, has said he wants to be sure the position has authority before he accepts it. But the Palestinian legislators were acting with Mr. Abbas in mind, many of them in the hope that he will use the post aggressively to reform Palestinian governance. Can't do that with Arafat holding control - the whole idea of a PM was to get a semi-corrupt, as opposed to totally corrupt, Paleopolitical structure in place to replace Mr. Babywipes hisself
"We cannot make the change at once," said Suleiman al-Rumi, an opposition legislator from Rafah, in the Gaza Strip. "We take powers one by one. We build stone by stone." If we let him be credible, then where would we be? On the road to progress, and that would not help the intifada!
The legislative changes made today require Mr. Arafat's approval. As, apparently, everything else does..
During a day of procedural bickering over precise statutory wording, Mr. Rumi was at one point teased by Gazan colleagues for not playing his usual troublemaking role. But, pronouncing himself satisfied as he collected his papers this evening, he said, "There is nothing to oppose here." "...and if we did, what difference would it make? It's all a sham."
Israel denied 10 legislators "militants" permission to travel here from Gaza, and at least one, Marwan Barghouti, is in detention, accused by Israel of terrorism, a charge he denies. Nevertheless, this was the best-attended session in Ramallah of the 88-member Palestinian Legislative Council since the early days of the conflict more than two years ago, because Israel eased its usual restrictions to let most attend. "Leave your weapons, explosive belts and Qassam rockets at home please."
That, together with Israel's muted response to the appointment of Mr. Abbas, was a sign that Israel would like to see this process succeed — or at least that it would not like to be seen as the reason for its failure. The United States has been pressing hard for months for the appointment of a prime minister, seeing that as a means of curbing Mr. Arafat's authority and ultimately replacing him. Nice try - we'll see if Arafat even lets him speak
Mr. Abbas, who is known as Abu Mazen, has solid relationships with Israeli and American diplomats, and he was the Bush administration's preferred candidate for the job. Diplomats seeking to restart peace efforts say Mr. Abbas, who is expected to accept the post, will need concessions from Israel like an easing of closures or an end to targeted killings of militants to enhance his popular standing. But violence continues to outstrip any diplomacy. How about showing Paleo progress first? Impossible you say? why?
Tonight, Palestinian gunmen opened fire near a settlement in the West Bank city of Hebron, sparking a fierce battle with Israeli troops, the army said. [One Israeli soldier was killed and five were wounded, Reuters reported on Tuesday.] Two settlers were killed Friday night in a Palestinian gun attack nearby, in the settlement of Qiryat Arba. That's not Paleo progress
Palestinians reported tonight that an Israeli armored column had entered the central Gaza Strip near the town of Khan Yunis. That cause/effect thing Fred keeps harping about...
Yet, in a sign there may be some Israeli-Palestinian cooperation behind the scenes, Israeli troops pulled back today from two areas of the northern Gaza Strip that they seized Thursday in what the army called an open-ended mission to suppress Palestinian rocket fire. The army said it was maintaining positions elsewhere in northern Gaza. A senior Israeli official in Jerusalem said Israel had struck a deal with Palestinian security officials to withdraw from that particular area in exchange for Palestinian action there against the rockets. "There has been a quiet understanding," the official said. "You keep it quiet and we'll be understanding"
Top Palestinian officials in Gaza, who recently discussed the Israeli actions there, declined to comment. It might be politically embarrassing for such officials to be seen now as agreeing to help protect Israelis, particularly since the army on Saturday killed a top Hamas leader, Ibrahim al-Makadmah, in Gaza City. Nice whacking! 5 Hellfires = good intel on who was in the car - that'll make Hamas more nervous
The new positions in northern Gaza, in and near Beit Lahia, had put Israeli armor in areas densely populated with civilians, and military leaders acknowledged that the operation carried high risks. Since mid-February, when Hamas blew up an Israeli tank and killed four soldiers in Gaza, the army has staged numerous raids there, killing dozens of people, including civilians. Those "civilians" generally were engaged in throwing rocks, fire bombs, explosives... ya know, the stuff normal Paleo civilians do
The army characterized the troop movement as a redeployment, saying the soldiers would return as necessary. Don't make us come back here.... Asaf Lidrati, an army spokesman, said Israeli forces had been positioned within Gaza but farther to the east, near the Palestinian town of Beit Hanoun. Casting doubt on the possibility of any renewed Palestinian security effort, he said the army had established a mile-deep "security zone" in northern Gaza that it felt free to flood with forces in the event of renewed rocket fire. "Maybe at this very moment, for the last five or six hours, there are not forces in this spot," he said, referring to Beit Lahia, "but they can be there in no time." Oh, a 5 -6 hour lull? now who said they weren't making progress in the "peace process"
The new prime minister will operate within the Palestinian Authority, which was created in the Oslo peace process to provide limited self-rule to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Mr. Arafat is president of the Palestinian Authority, which has seen its powers curtailed, its institutions hollowed out and its buildings flattened during the conflict. Cause/effect again....
The Israeli Army has seized control of substantial parts of the West Bank and, last week, for the first time took up positions in parts of Gaza. Israel has accused the Palestinian Authority under Mr. Arafat of doing little or nothing to curb terrorism, and even of fomenting it. Palestinians accuse Israel under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon of seeking to destroy their approximation of a national government and, with it, their dream of statehood. "approximation"? LOL
It was unclear today precisely what kind of system of governance the Palestinians were moving toward. Somalian?
"Ba'athist," I'd say...
Reaching for a model, some legislators spoke of France. Is that a compliment Dominique?
But advisers to Mr. Arafat said they were thinking more in terms of Jordan or Egypt, where the prime ministers are less potent. Impotent?
Only the prime minister will have the power to appoint other ministers, but his overall government will be subject to approval from the president. The president can fire only the prime minister. This will be like treading water until Arafat meets his demise and/or civil war erupts with IJ and Hamas
But the prime minister will also be accountable to the legislature, a boisterous body that appears to long for an executive it can chastise, having chafed at Mr. Arafat's frequent disregard. Today, when he finished a speech to the legislators announcing his appointment of Mr. Abbas, Mr. Arafat said that he assumed from their show of hands that they approved his choice. In fact, he was quickly informed, they were just approving the idea of having a prime minister. The prime minister was granted "responsibility for law and order and internal security." But the legislators left intact an article declaring that "the president of the Palestinian authority is the highest leader of the Palestinian forces."
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/11/2003 01:25 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So let me get this straight: They have a council of 88 members who are looking to France as a model. Well they can have lots of meetings, form committes until the end of time, and generally obey Parkenson's Law for the greater entertainment of themselves and Rantburg. Well, if they quit booming, then that may be considered progress. Ahhh hrummmmm.........
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/11/2003 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
The South Korean military issued a "statement on the north" in a bid to kick up a row instead of expressing support and sympathy with the DPRK which exercised its self-defensive right by letting fighters of its people's army force a reconnaissance plane of the U.S. imperialist aggression forces to fly away. Awwwwwwwww. You hurt our feelings. Why are you saying bad things about us? We love our brothers in the South. Of course, we may have to nuke you someday, but we'll feel really bad about it.
Commenting on this, Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary terms it an act against the nation and peace. According to a news report, the South Korean ministry of defence in a "statement on the north" issued on March 7 slandered the north and went the length of admonishing it over the incident of the U.S. reconnaissance plane which occurred on March 2, asserting that "such incident may have a serious impact on the security situation" on the Korean Peninsula and "it is a reckless military action." Us? Reckless? No, our South Korean brothers and the Japanese are "reckless". The imperialist U.S. agressor forces "run amuck". We consider ourselves "soft and cuddly".
The commentary goes on:
The South Korean military authorities put the fellow countrymen in the north on edge at a time when the very dangerous foal eagle joint military exercise aimed to inflict disasters of a nuclear war on the nation is now under way in South Korea, the Rsoi drill is to be staged there under the simulated conditions for a war against the north, a U.S. aircraft carrier Carl Vinson is deployed in the waters off South Korea and 24 B1 and B52 bombers and more than 2,000-strong U.S. Forces have been amassed on Guam Island all of a sudden for the purpose of mounting a preemptive attack on the DPRK. This is intolerable. It appears that we've gotten their attention.
The reckless behaviour on the part of the South Korean authorities will only result in bringing the inter-Korean relations back to those in the period of confrontation. If they are truly concerned about the danger of war created on the Korean Peninsula, they should not slander the fellow countrymen in the north while siding with foreign forces but stop the joint war exercises with the U.S. aimed to invade the north, respect the spirit of the June 15 Joint Declaration and opt for protecting the interests of the nation. They should know that days of those who dare provoke the north are numbered. Yes, the NKs are "your fellow countrymen" but they will destroy you if you provoke them. I can't wait for unification with these boys.
I think we can safely dispense with regarding the Nobel Peace Prize as carrying anything resembling prestige. Perhaps it should either be retired, or not awarded to anyone for any action within the previous 20 years.
The North issued a statement saying: "Hyundai's co-operation deserves the nation's appreciation. This should be regarded as our expression of brotherly love which cannot be purchased with any amount of money."
"But which wouldn't have been forthcoming without a hefty payment..."
The money, of which £120 million was paid immediately preceding the summit in 2000, won Hyundai exclusive rights to negotiate business deals with the North, including running tourist trips to Mount Kumgang, just north of the border, and an industrial park in the city of Kaesong.
"Hey, Kim! Hyundai's got a factory at Kaesong, but they expect us to work for peanuts."
"Mmmmm... Peanuts!"
The statement appears to be an attempt to persuade President Roh to veto the inquiry, which his supporters have said will damage further attempts to improve relations. The Sunshine policy rests on the principle that the key to long-term peace is a calming of the North's traditional paranoia by business ties, transport links and reunions of families separated by the country's 50-year division. The statement also focused on a key theme from Pyongyang â that the obstacle to reunification is not its policies, but American aggression. "The US should admit its despicable crime and stop inciting North-South confrontation at once," it said. Anyone else thinking of Gollum from Lord of the Rings?
#2
They just executed the two ministers that were involved with receiving the Money.
It's not nice to embarass Kim Jong Il. The Dear Leader that has a bad hair day every day.
Posted by: Michael ||
03/11/2003 7:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They'll never takes our plut preshusses, no no, bad yankees. We makes more preshusses, yes yes, mooooore preshusses and we throw them toward the bad yankess, and ...................(tune in later for another installment, folks)
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/11/2003 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
North Korea test-fired a cruise missile into the sea off its east coast today, the second in two weeks, South Korea's Defence Ministry said. I'm wondering if these missiles have a "best if used by ..." date on them.
North Korea also said its interception of a US reconnaissance plane a week ago was an act of self-defense, and warned that South Korean support for the United States could lead to a confrontation. This is alt-F6 on Rodong Sinmun's word processor.
There had been indications that North Korea was planning to fire a missile. The Pentagon had reported a North Korean warning to ships to stay out of a sector of the Sea of Japan from Saturday to Tuesday. Major Kim Ki-Beom, a spokesman at the Defence Ministry, said the missile was believed to be an anti-ship missile similar to one that North Korea test-fired on 24 February. That launch came on the eve of the inauguration of South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and amid escalating tensions over Pyongyang's refusal to abandon efforts to develop nuclear weapons. In Tokyo, the chief of Japan's Defense Agency, Shigeru Ishiba, said: "We don't think this will have any significant impact on our national safety, but we are monitoring it closely." Meanwhile, South Korea was trying to determine whether the new test was successful. It had said the earlier one was a failure since it appeared to have exploded in mid-air. That one apparently was past its "used best by" date.
Or somebody used it for antimissile target practice...
US officials had sought to minimize the significance of the earlier missile test, saying it involved a small weapon and not one of North Korea's stockpile of long-range ballistic missiles. US and South Korean officials are more concerned about a possible North Korean test of a Taepodong-2 missile, which analysts believe is capable of reaching parts of the United States, though there are widespread doubts about its reach and accuracy. In 1998, North Korea test-fired a Taepodong-1 missile over Japan and into the Pacific. Testing a Taepodong-2 would give our guys plenty of opportunities to track one — the more we learn now, the better.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/11/2003 12:59 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wonder what N.Kor would think if Japan parked a couple of thier Ageis ships in the area and shot down one of those Taepodongs.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
