June 19, 2006: Over a hundred Taliban were killed in the last week, mostly by smart bombs, directed by Coalition troops on the ground who had located groups of Taliban. In one case, a large meeting of local Taliban activists was hit, killing over 40 of them, and leaving behind many valuable documents, and survivors who could be interrogated. While the Taliban have been conducting ambushes and attacks on remote villages, they have also been taking most of the casualties. The police are better trained and equipped than the Taliban, which relies on young, unemployed and inexperienced tribesmen for their manpower.
Many Afghans see the Taliban as the dying embers of the once mighty tribal system. As strong as the tribes still are, they are declining in power and influence. Consider them another victim of modern culture. Or, to put it more crudely, Hollywood, MTV and Silicon Valley gave too many tribal people an alternative to an ancient lifestyle. The youngsters have new ideas about how to deal with authority and power. The tribal elders no longer get the respect and deference they once had. The Taliban support all that was ancient and "good." But the majority of Afghans oppose the Taliban. They want their daughters to go to school and they want to elect their leaders. The battle between old and new has been going on for over a century in Afghanistan. But now the "old" are making a last stand, and fighting with an all or nothing desperation.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/19/2006 09:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
Mohammad here is Ichabod of the local Amish community. Hes going to give you pointers on how to properly maintain your rustic and anachronistic life style you like for you and your family and not have a pair of 500lb guided Danish Hams crashing down upon your abode.
Mogadishu, 19 June (AKI) - The president of Somalia's priovisional government, Abdallah Yusuf Ahmed, has accused Islamist fighters of using reports of the presence of Ethiopian troops in the country as an excuse to conquer more territory. "That of the entry into Somalia of Ethiopian troops is just a pretext for the Islamic Courts to advance their march - even on Baidoa," said Yusuf Ahmed, referring to the town where the provisional government is based, told the Arab network Al Jazeera.
However, the president said he was willing to negotiate with the Islamic courts who last week gained control of the capital Mogadishu driving out militiamen of a warlords coalition. He added that before talks could take place, the Islamic courts would have to halt their military advance on other towns and cities and recognise "the legitimacy of our government to co-operate with the national institutions and lay down their weapons".
But the leader of the Islamic courts, Ahmad Sherif, appears to have rejected the overtures. "We are the one who should be setting the conditions for dialogue, even if we won't do it in order to safeguards our national interest," the Islamist leader told the BBC.
"Who does he think he is, the president?"
Sherif reiterated his opposition to a document approved by the provisional parliament in Baidoa requesting that foreign troops be dispatched to Somalia. He also said that if Ethiopian troops did not withdraw from the country, he would consider ordering his fighters to attack Baidoa.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/19/2006 08:23 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
(SomaliNet) The leader of Islamic courts union Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed who is now in Jowhar town 90km (55) north of Somalia capital Mogadishu, warned the Ethiopian intervention into Somalia on Sunday and appealed to Addis government to withdraw its troops from southwest Somalia.
"Yes. Remove them, please."
As Somalinet correspondent reports Sheikh Sharif told the media in a press conference in Jowhar town that Ethiopia has invaded Somalia to help Somalis interim government. Ethiopia has no right to enter Somalia soil right now since it is longstanding enemy to Somali people, he said. "Somalia government is not a government elected by the population it was nominated by IGAD member states mainly Ethiopia, wanting to exploit the resources of Somalia and that is not unacceptable and it cant determine the future of the country," Sheikh Sharif said adding "we are calling Ethiopian government to pull out its troops from Somalia". Sheikh Sharif condemned president Yusuf for being behind the current tension ordering Ethiopian government to send troops to Somalia in a bid to fight against Islamists.
The Somalis went through a long, involved process to put the interim government together in Nairobi, a process that turned out to be useless since the warlords were intent on maintaining their feifdoms. Now the warlords are either gone or in temporary retreat — my guess is gone, the bubble of their power burst, and Somalia's facing its next problem. The Somali government is pretty useless, and I suspect it will slowly evaporate, but I could be wrong, depending on how well the various clans were accomodated. The Islamic Courts represent a local version of the Taliban, and it's doubtful we can leave them in power. Sheikh Sharif seems like he's bright enough to understand this — no Mullah Omar, he — so Somalia might be interesting for the next couple years. There's really no way to tell which way it's actually going to go.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
(SomaliNet) Muse Sudi Yalahow and Bashir Rage, the newly escaped warlords, are reported to have been seen in Elbur district of Galgadud region in central Somalia. Residents told local media that former trade minister Muse Sudi and his ally Bashir Rage, a warlord turned businessman reached in Dari village of Elbur district where former minister of national security Mohamed Qanyare and other members of the collapsed coalition of counter terrorism remained. Both warlords Sudi and Rage seemed to have joined their companions since they got isolation in Mogadishu where it is under the control of Islamic courts. No farther details on their presence in there.
Good riddance to the lot of them. They're no doubt plotting Dire Revenge™, but hopefully they've lost enough status to be gone permanently.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#5
"Drove ambulances during the Blitz"? I didn't know that. That took real skill -- the driver's test involved demonstrating a variety of skills with a crystal flower vase perched on the hood... which I'm told had to remain balanced, unbroken, and full of water and flowers at the end of the test.
Japan, Australia and the United States have united in saying that any test-launching of an intercontinental missile by North Korea would result in serious and stern consequences. Reports say Pyongyang has completed fueling a missile with the range to reach the United States, increasing the chances a launch might occur soon.
Seems like just yesterday we were told they hadn't started fueling yet.
U.S. officials told Reuters news agency it was difficult to remove fuel from a Taepodong-2 missile, making it appear likely that Pyongyang was serious about the launch.
Since word of a possible test-firing emerged last week, Japan and the United States have expressed growing concern. A short time ago, Australia's Foreign Minister Alexander Downer echoed their condemnation, warning the North Korean ambassador that "serious consequences would follow such a firing." "Such action would be highly provocative and would further isolate the DPRK," Downer said in a statement issued early Monday.
While North Korea has not commented on any potential missile launch, the official KCNA news agency said in a statement Saturday that alleged sightings of U.S. military surveillance aircraft over the country were creating "an imminent danger of military clash in the sky above those waters."
Some U.S. officials said North Korean leader Kim Jong Il could be bluffing to gain leverage in stalled six-party talks aimed at curbing Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. The talks include the two Koreas, Russia, the United States, Japan, and China.
#1
The irony here is that these Missles + WOT may be the only real opportunity any pro-democracy/
Western NK elements may have to de facto escape, or at minima initiate de-linkage, from Commie China's control. It'll be too late once China begins to militarily exert herself for Asian-Pacific hegemony.
#2
Washington said Friday it will not sit idle. We, of course, will take necessary preparatory steps to track any potential activities and to protect ourselves, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said. Such protective steps are presumed to include intercepting the missile at an early stage with Aegis destroyers in the East Sea.
Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso warned if the missile is dropped on Japan, it will be regarded as an attack." Tokyo says it will refer the matter to the UN Security Council for sanction.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/19/2006 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Will refer to the UNSC for sanction? That strikes me as a very weak -- not to mention slow -- response.
#4
Hell no, we'll watch long enough to determine trajectory, then either let it go (If a benign flight path) or shoot it down (If headed for Japan or the American Coast)
Either way the NORKS will claim a great victory and sabre rattle enough to breal their microphones.
I still think the very best thing to do is Laser it a few feet off the launch pad, lasers leave no debris to be swept up and propagandise around the world. (Not that it matters, the NORKS are good at "Inventing" evidence to suit.)
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/19/2006 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
A FORMER roommate of Private Jake Kovco, Australia's first military casualty in Iraq, has accused the army of making troops in Baghdad use second-rate equipment.
The Baghdad-based private also accused the army of being "cheap" over the repatriation of Pte Kovco's body, and of forcing troops to use what he branded poor resources while on stressful and dangerous missions in Iraq. His outburst came in a written statement tendered today to a board of inquiry into Pte Kovco's death.
The soldier, who can only be identified as Soldier 17, said pistols issued to Australian troops were old, and there were not enough of them. Based on his own personal experience, Soldier 17 said his rifle didn't work for the first three weeks he was in Iraq and he had been forced to wait for body armour during his training. "We are exposed and (have) insufficient resources," he said. "It is a matter of time before someone else dies because of these things."
Continued on Page 49
#1
A FORMER roommate of Private Jake Kovco, Australia's first military casualty in Iraq, has accused the army of making troops in Baghdad use second-rate equipment.
Don't compare your stuff to the Americans, but rather the rest of the world. The rest of the world can't afford to equip their forces in a manner consistant with the Americans, or pay them as well either. Just the facts of life [and death]. That's called history.
#2
That's called choices, as well. Also, a history of different kinds of missions that call for diffreent equipment. But, three weeks to make a rifle work? Did it lack a firing pin or something?
PRIVATE Jake Kovco dreamt about his own death one month before he was fatally shot in Baghdad this year, an inquiry heard today. Senior counsel assisting the board of inquiry into Pte Kovco's death in Baghdad, Colonel Michael Griffin, said details of the soldier's alarming dream were recorded in his personal journal.
Pte Kovco, 26, died after his own pistol discharged in his barracks in Baghdad on April 21.
Col Griffin said Pte Kovco had dreamt about being shot and dying exactly one month before his tragic death. "You will hear evidence exactly one calender month before he died, Pte Jacob Kovco had a dream about his own death in almost the precise circumstances I have described," Col Griffin said in his opening address to the inquiry, which began in Sydney today.
Col Griffin, who gave evidence via a video link from the Australian National Headquarters in Baghdad, also shed new light on the mysterious circumstances which led to Pte Kovco being shot in the head.
ROME (AP) -- Prosecutors have requested the indictment of a U.S. soldier over the shooting of an Italian intelligence agent at a checkpoint in Iraq last year, a prosecutor said Monday.
Let me think.....ummmm, no
Authorities were seeking the indictment on charges of murder and attempted murder, the official said on condition of anonymity because of a new law allowing only the chief prosecutor to speak to the media.
Prosecutor Erminio Amelio previously has identified the U.S. soldier as Mario Lozano. Local newspapers have reported that Lozano is from New York. From Wikipedia: Mario Lozano is a soldier in the US Army, who acquired notoriety after killing Nicola Calipari in an incident on Route Irish. The United States sought to protect his anonymity, but a blunder in data security by the Coalition Forces in Iraq revealed the names of all personnel involved in the shooting (the PDF report, written with Microsoft's word processor, containing all the names not even crypted accessible on demand). Lozano was a resident of the Bronx and Specialist in the First Battalion of the 69th Infantry Regiment, New York State National Guard and of the 3rd Infantry Division, based in Manhattan, New York.
How ironic is that? An Italian 'journalist', driven by an Italian agent, tries to run a roadblock in Baghdad, and gets shot by Mario from da Bronx.
Fabrizio Cardinali, Lozano's court-appointed lawyer, said last week he expected his client would be tried in absentia for murder and attempted murder. Officials at the U.S. Embassy could not immediately be reached for comment.
The death of Nicola Calipari by U.S. gunfire strained relations between Italy and the United States. The agent was heading by car to Baghdad airport on March 4, 2005, shortly after securing the release of an Italian journalist who had been kidnapped in the Iraqi capital when he was shot at the checkpoint. Another agent, who was driving the car, and the journalist, Giuliana Sgrena, were wounded.
Italy and the United States issued separate reports on the incident, after failing to agree on a shared version of events. U.S. authorities have said the vehicle was traveling fast, alarming soldiers, who feared an insurgent attack.
Italian officials claimed the car was traveling at normal speed (well, for italian's) and blamed U.S. military for failing to signal there was a checkpoint.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/19/2006 10:47 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How ironic is that? An Italian 'journalist', driven by an Italian agent, tries to run a roadblock in Baghdad, and gets shot by Mario from da Bronx.
YA, GO FIGER, FA'GETABOUDIT AN MOVEON!!
#2
This is so obviously politicized. There are ROEs. Get used to it. It's how you fight a war. I'm sure the guy followed the ROEs to the best of his ability. I'm sure the guy didn't wake up that morning and think "I'm going to kill me some innocents!". Murder won't fly in a million years. The only question I have is how well marked the checkpoint was. Any details, anyone? If it was well marked, they should put the Italians up for the same charges they are trying to dump on this guy, and stop trying to divert attention from the truth.
Posted by: grb ||
06/19/2006 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hey, what's with the little Uruguaian guy waving a red card around?
US ambassador John Bolton questioned the need for the United Nations (UN) to send peacekeepers back to East Timor, despite secretary-general Kofi Annan's consideration of a UN return.
Asked if UN troops left the tiny western Pacific nation too soon, Mr Bolton said, "Certainly not".
An Australian-led multinational force of about 2,700 intervened in East Timor last month to quell fighting between military factions that threatened the stability of the world's youngest nation, which became independent in 2002.
"I think we certainly want to do what we can to support the Australians and New Zealanders who are there and to consider what's appropriate," Mr Bolton said.
But he said the latest turmoil was unrelated to East Timor's independence from Indonesia.
The UN deployed some 7,500 UN peacekeepers in 2000 to replaced a previous Australian-led force that quelled violence by Indonesian troops and allied militia ahead of the independence vote.
The UN Security Council shut down the peacekeeping force last month, leaving a small political mission in the country.
Some council members favour a return of UN troops or police.
East Timor has asked for UN police for at least a year while the world body administers the country's elections, due next year.
The nation's leaders are assuming that military functions would be handled by Australia, New Zealand and Malaysian troops there now, Mr Annan said.
Mr Bolton says the cause of the violence is related to post-independence politics.
"But there is no argument that UN forces should remain in a country like East Timor forever," he said.
"What we need is a way to work thorough post-peacekeeping operations to graduation, so democratic countries can stand on their own two feet.
"That's what the people of those countries want, not a UN presence forever.
"That is not desirable for the countries involved, it is not desirable for the UN, it is not desirable for the other member-governments.
"I think responsibility and democratic control of your own government means doing it on your own."
Last week Mr Annan said he believed the UN had pulled out of the country too soon.
He sent an envoy, Canadian Ian Martin, to the country to assess the situation.
Mr Martin said a UN peacekeeping mission should provide law and order primarily in Dili, the capital, in advance of East Timor's May 2007 elections.
Bloggers could have their own area at the Conservatives' annual conference in a sign of a growing influence of Tory internet networks.
Blogs such as the ConservativeHome website are increasingly popular and seen as a way of understanding Tory thinking as the party plans its policy.
Tory blogger Iain Dale said plans for a conference blogging area showed how attitudes were changing.
Conservative headquarters have yet to confirm the plans.
But Mr Dale told BBC Radio 4's Today programme about the idea, which could give Tory bloggers the chance to "meet their audience".
"It just shows the power and influence that some blogs are having on the political process generally and on the Conservative Party in particular," he said.
'Connecting people'
The move would follow the US, where bloggers now appear routinely at political conventions.
The Democrats political convention in 2004 was the first time that bloggers were accredited to attend - with a launch by presidential candidate Howard Dean. The Republicans have followed suit.
Former Iain Duncan Smith aide Tim Montgomerie visited Washington earlier this year to explore how political campaigners were using the internet in the US.
Mr Montgomerie is editor of ConservativeHome.
He pointed to how his website had been able to piece together the confidential Tory A-list of candidates earmarked for winnable seats.
"Before, every Conservative activist in the country was very disconnected from the other activists but now through ConservativeHome and other blogs they can all join together," said Mr Montgomerie, who was aide to former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith.
Conservative MP Michael Gove likened the blogs to the daily scandal sheets handed from journalists to power brokers in centuries past.
"One of the secrets that most MPs have is how much time they actually spend visiting many of these blogs," he said.
"I don't think it's necessarily an obsession but I do think the blogs perform an enormously useful service."
Mr Gove warned that the range of views on the blogs should not be seen as representative of the Conservative Party as a whole.
Instead, they were "the views of those who are either ideologically fired up enough to post or those insomniacs who have nothing better to do than to share with us their views of the political world at three in the morning". An excellent idea. They should also invite American bloggers to attend. For once they could give detailed interviews and not only get their unedited words out, but get instant feedback from voters who, just guessing, are a LOT more conservative than their representatives.
When he delivered the West Point commencement address last month, President Bush compared his efforts to stand up to terrorists to Harry Truman's efforts to stand up to communists in the early years of the cold war.
Liberal pundits were outraged. How dare this Republican cite a sainted Democrat as his inspiration? Commentators such as Peter Beinart, the former New Republic editor, suggested that Bush should instead learn from Truman about the need to recognize the limits of American strength, eschew grandiose rhetoric and unilateral action, and encase American power in a "web" of multilateral institutions such as the United Nations and NATO.
This is a refrain that has been heard since 2001, and it is worth correcting the historical record before this mythology becomes accepted as fact. The reality is that Bush is far more multilateral, and Truman was much less so than commonly assumed.
For all of Bush's diplomatic stumbles, he has won the assistance of many allies in Iraq, the Horn of Africa, and beyond. Much of the military effort in Afghanistan is being turned over to NATO, which, at Bush's urging, has gotten involved in a conflict outside Europe for the first time. Bush also has been active in pushing free trade, just as Truman did, through treaties such as the Central American Free Trade Agreement. Bush has increased foreign aid. And in his approach to the North Korean and Iranian nuclear programs, Bush has been scrupulously multilateralist. Not successful but hardly unilateralist.
Truman, for his part, was less multilateralist than some of his admirers claim. True, he did preside over the founding of the UN, and he sometimes expressed grandiloquent hopes for this "parliament of man." But in practice his viewpoint was closer to that of his hardheaded secretary of State, Dean Acheson, who believed that the UN Charter was "impracticable" and who scoffed at the idea that "the way to solve this or that problem is to leave it to the United Nations."
Acheson did make effective use of the UN in 1950, when he secured a resolution authorizing an armed response to North Korea's invasion of South Korea, but only because the Soviet delegate was boycotting the Security Council. In any case, Truman had already committed air and naval forces to combat. As he wrote to Acheson, a UN failure to act would not have altered his plans - "we would have had to go into Korea alone." Truman was equally clearheaded about the UN's limitations in the British cutoff of aid to Greece and Turkey in 1947, which left those countries exposed to communist aggression. Truman told Congress: "The situation is an urgent one requiring immediate action, and the United Nations and its related organizations are not in a position to extend help of the kind that is required." So the US offered $400 million on its own.
The same pattern is evident throughout Truman's presidency. The decision to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki? A unilateral US initiative. The Marshall Plan to aid European recovery? Ditto. The 1948-49 airlift to break the Soviet blockade of Berlin? More unilateralism.
Even when Truman seemed to be the most multilateralist, there was usually more to the case than met the eye. Consider the Baruch Plan - which he floated in 1946 - to turn over all nuclear facilities and materiel around the world to international control. This seemed like an incredibly generous offer because the US was the only atomic power. But it contained "poison pill" provisions - mandating, for instance, "immediate and certain punishment" of violations, not subject to a Security Council veto - that astute observers realized would make it unacceptable to Josef Stalin. Truman never seriously considered unilaterally giving up the US atomic arsenal, as liberals such as Henry Wallace urged.
This is not meant to denigrate Truman's diplomatic initiatives. The creation of NATO in 1949 was particularly important. But not nearly as important as the decision to keep US troops in Europe, even before NATO existed.
Multilateral camouflage like NATO can make the exercise of US power more palatable, and it should be employed wherever practicable. But, whether in the late 1940s or today, progress on tough problems requires American action, alone if need be. That's something that Bush understands as well as Truman did - and that too many liberals still haven't come to terms with.
#1
To some extent boot is right, Truman was NOT exclusively multilateralist. But that, I think, misses the point. Truman did not see multilateral institutions as 'cover' but made the building of multilateral institutions a key aspect of his foreign policy. Its the difference between "multilateral when we can, unilateral when we must" and "unilateral when we can, and multilateral when we must"
Though Condi Rice is closer to the Truman model than some other folks.
But certainly you can see folks here who bitterly hate the UN, and disparage NATO, and basically ANY multilateral institution that doesnt always do what we want. Such folks existed in Trumans time - they DIDNT like Truman, in those days.
Look at three different perspectives on the France and Iraq to see what I mean. Kerry says we shouldnt have gone in, if France was against. Boot can make the case that Truman didnt share THAT approach. Some others have said it was right to go in anyway, but we should acknowledge that France had its own interests on that issue, and that the UNSC is still a useful body, and France a useful ally. While others have decided that made France an enemy, and the entire UN apparatus useless, or worse than useless. I dont think this later is the "Truman approach"
#2
LH, we should also note that at least some of Truman's more unilateral decisions were made during an all-out war. He didn't ask anyone's permission and wasn't about to.
As to the UN, count me as one of the disparaging voices. It's sad: I'd like the UN to succeed as an international forum to keep the worst excesses of humankind in check. But it doesn't and won't work, and for a simple reason: the day it admitted thug governments into good standing (e.g., Stalin), it surrendered control of the agenda. Democratic governments can't meet thug-governments half-way in any diplomatic exchange; it's always more like 90-10 in favor of the thugs, because the democratic peoples are used to compromise, and thugs aren't.
So the U.N. can't work the way it's structured.
Ditto NATO on a smaller scale, and the reason is, again, the recalcitrance of two members: France and Belgium. By loudly saying 'Non!', they prevent NATO from reaching reasonable agreements. It's the 90-10 argument again. That happens a few times (and it has), and the rest of us decide, 'to hell with them'.
The only way for democracies to succeed (roust the thugs and prevent genocides around the world) is to tolerate international institutions, use them when they're useful, go around them when they're not, and take a firm stand on principles. Bush has done this better than most, and that's why he's so hated by the pomo-tranzi types.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/19/2006 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
But in fact the UN has proved useful in a hundred areas. There are hundreds of areas where we rely on the technical agencies, some UN created, many preceding the UN, from the FAO, to WHO, to Postal and telecom orgs, to aviation, etc.
And even on security we rely on UNSC approved missions in many parts of the world. For jollies, go look at the UNSC website and look at the actual day to day agenda of the UNSC, and its work in places like Cyprus, Congo, Cambodia, etc. Places where even John Bolton wouldnt want them out.
Yes, we should use the UN where its good, and oppose it where its bad. But the question remains, should we attempt to strenghten the UN as an institution, weaken it, or be indifferent to its strength apart from individual issues? (and calling for substituting a league of democracies for the UN isnt an answer - A. plenty of democracies wont go along with that
B. for many purposes the UN works BECAUSE it includes all soveriegn states, and not just some ) Now Truman and his Dept of State worked to build the UN as an institution. Some in the admin seem to have consciously tried to reduce the influence of the UN. Rice seems more along the indifferent camp, but I could be wrong.
And what applies to the UN, applies even more strongly to NATO. Some of our NATO allies dont back us up on everything we want to do in the ME (of course weve done the same to them - remember Suez?) But NATO is still important, from our policy in the Baltics, to Afghanistan. And no, disparaging "old Europe" doesnt get us anywhere.
and there are more international institutions - there are the international lending agencied, which the left loves to hate, but which were key parts of the post war order, there are other regional groupings, some of which we are part of, and some of which we work with.
Take the EU. The impact of the EU in consolidating democracy in eastern europe, and even tempting countries like Ukraine and Georgia toward the West, is FAR MORE IMPORTANT than the fact that EU reps make wimpy sounds about the ME. But some folks have a pavlovian reaction to the EU (tranzi - atheists socialists) that doesnt respond to what the EU actually does as an organization, which is largely helpful to the US.
Pomo-tranzi - the words themselves are cant. Post modernism is a set of cultural and literary theories that have only an indirect relationship to politics - transnationalism is a joke - in Europe the retreat from nationalism is largely a pragmatic reaction to the failures of the nation state in the particular context of 20th c eastern european history - its not generalizable beyond Europe, and even in europe the EU is used for national purposes, and not just by France. Im sorry you run into lefty pundits who think the nation state is doomed by the EU, or who think Israel should disappear cause nations are obsolete - thats internet rot, not what serious political reality. But Tranzipomism is good for whipping up some folks, I suppose. Kinda like Zionist-imperialism, and with just as loose a relationship to reality.
Democrats plan to offer a resolution in the Senate on Tuesday seeking a timetable for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on Sunday. Recent polls show a slight majority of Americans favor such a course but White House spokesman Tony Snow said President George W. Bush would not consider it. Setting a timetable "would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster, not merely for the people of Iraq, but the larger war on terror," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."
The House of Representatives last week approved a nonbinding resolution which rejected a deadline for U.S. troops to leave Iraq and called the conflict there part of the broader war on terrorism. "Three years and three months and a bogging down, I think, suggests that the time has come for some discussion on where we go from here," Feinstein said, also interviewed on CNN. "I don't know why we are so afraid to stand up and say, 'look, we want to see an end to this thing'," she said.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Setting a timetable "would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster, not merely for the people of Iraq, but the larger war on terror"
Precisely what they seek for purely political purposes. It is beginning to seem to me that we should either buy off the Dhimmis or go ahead and kill them. They are determined to take us all down.
#2
Of course we can't kill them, and I think President Bush was trying to buy them off by not fighting their spending legislation -- but either they didn't realized they'd been bought, or they never intended to stay bought.
#3
Not sure how this would differ than the decisive vote last week in the Senate against a year-end pullout.
The more the donks push this shit, the worse they look. While a majority of Americans are apprehensive about the war, cut-and-run is even less popular.
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/19/2006 0:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
That answer won't work... cause it does nothing for our national security. So... anyone got an answer? And what is the precedent for this timetable? What other war have we participated in, that a timetable was established and to which we removed troops? Where is the history that backs up this solution?
Having graduated from a school system that demanded I learn and repeat, standing up, in front of my class in seventh grade, to recite the Gettysburg address as part of my grade, I didn't learn of any war in which a timetable was established for withdrawal.
So say you, Democrats? Is this a new strategy of how to win wars? This is our answer to those who no longer value life, and only desire to behead those of my country that have volunteered to protect me? To set a plan for withdrawal from their lands?
What is this timetable and what purpose does it serve? We set it, we meet this timetable. Terrorists settle in all over the globe. What have you gained?
Just needing some help here to understand this plan of an Iraq withdrawal plan.
Standing here, back in front of that seventh grade class, staring down at the floor, knowing my grade is up in the air... wondering, 50 years from now, what kids will be "reciting" as the reason for the "Great Withdrawal Plan from Iraq" that was so successful in the GWOT.
Seems to me -- Democrats were in charge for most of Vietnam. Democrats, according to Murtha are now taking credit for the removing of our troops from Mogadishu
Hummm -- Democrats -- what say you? To me, these are the only two "wars" that are perceived to have been lost by Americans. You want another notch in your belt? Okay... you remove the troops, then what? What is your plan for withdrawal, with an American victory
Any one out there have some directions for me? Cause I'm just a little confused by this vote on Iraq withdrawal plan.
#5
The timing was perfect for them cause we are actually winning, just like vietnam. They just can't let US win, can they? I would say the blood of ALL of the Soldiers are on their hands for pulling this stunt THREE TIMES IN A ROW. Such EVIL.
#6
I think it's time to pull the troops out of South Korea. That democrat president's war has been over for 55 years now. The troops are gettin old over there, and what about Kosovo ? How long are we going to hold hands there ?
By the way, I know the democrat party is finished now because, 6 years ago they ran Sen. Lieberman for Vice-president, and now they are running someone against him in the primaries. They are also beginning to chew up Hillary Clinton, famous front runner for the 2008 race. After denial comes self-destruction.
The Democrats have placed themselves in a position where the United States and the West *must* lose the WOT and lose big. To them the more dead americans the better for them. That is the only way they can claim *victory* and *save* america from the horrors of being a soverign(sp?) and free state. If they win you can bet there will soon be laws against speaking against Islam (but not Christianity or Judism) and we will find ourselves hogtied by laws and regulations and unable to defend ourselves or even think for ourseles much like europabia is now.
What kind of idiot would tell their enemy, "Ok, in 2 minutes I'll give up and let you have what you want!". Perhaps in this case not idiots - just traitors.
And if you think making a "We'll return if things get too bad" promise will work, you might want to consult with the South Vietmanese.
#9
I think it is time to shoot some democrats - that's what you do to traitors. They have no desire to allow the President to conduct this war, which is HIS duty, not that of the Senate or House. Once they authorize the use of force, everything falls into the hands of the President. Now they want to grab the reins, because it looks like we're winning. Shoot them. They are not working in the best interest of the United States, they are not "supporting and defending the Constitution of the United States, and bearing true faith and allegience to it". They are trying to keep the President from winning, which is aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States in time of war. Shoot about 30 of them, and watch how few democrats want to run in their place.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/19/2006 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Question -- let's just say, the Senate does pass some ridiculous bill, stating something like out by the end of 2007. Does the President, as Commander-in-Chief have to do what they pass?
Mostly what I see, they keep doing this, and come November, voters will know where they stand.
#11
Sherry, The president doesn't take orders from the Senate. The only thing the Senate can do is stop funding for the military, and the House would have to go along, or they could refuse to pass the spending bill which funds the military. Considering that military hardware is manufactured in every state, and almost in every Congressional district, and considering that shutting down the military could effectively shut down all ports and airports, it's not likely.
Original story behind subscription wall. Basically a moderate Muslim -- the type we're told makes up the vast majority of Muslims in the West -- lost every fight he made against the extremists in his mosque. This makes three cases like this that I know about. How many more are there? When will the press start, um, pressing this question?
After his firing, the Egyptian-born imam, Safwat Morsy, opened a new mosque in a basement just around the corner from the Islamic Society, in the heart of this city's gritty Tenderloin district. To swelling crowds, the Sheik Safwat has railed against "the traitor criminal Souleiman Ghali" and called for jihad, or holy war, against Israel and U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Our killed ones are in paradise and their killed ones are in hell," he told worshipers in 2003, in a sermon that was translated from Arabic for the court case....
Beware of "the new American Islam," Sheik Safwat warned followers in the 2003 sermon translated for the court case, "a faith that does not talk about the jihad; a faith that does not talk about the confrontation with tyrants; a faith that does not talk."...
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/19/2006 18:43 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
Check this out: While the United States gives Pakistan $700 million a year in aid, Islamabad still won't give us access to the former CEO of Pakistan's nuclear Walmart, A.Q. Khan - the only outsider with insider knowledge of Tehran's nuclear program.
According to the Pakistani government, Khan (under house arrest since 2004) and 12 of his cronies (recently acquitted by Pakistani courts) are "off-limits" - and the case of the most egregious example of nuclear proliferation ever is closed.
While the world frets over possible timelines for an Iranian nuclear-weapons breakout, many critical questions about Khan's network still exist. The United States, European Union and United Nations must press Pakistan to fully reveal Khan's involvement with Iran - and others.
What makes Khan so critical to understanding Persia's nuclear puzzle? By all accounts, he's the only person outside of Iran capable of providing some of the missing pieces on the plans and capabilities of Iran's largely clandestine nuclear program.
While lining his pockets with over $100 million, Khan (the father of the Pakistani bomb), passed critical nuclear know-how to Tehran, helping it develop the uranium-enrichment capability needed both to produce nuclear-reactor fuel and to make nuclear weapons.
Pakistan's Dr. Strangelove not only passed Tehran technical engineering drawings for producing centrifuges (long cylinders spun at high speeds to enrich uranium), but also sold Iran the centrifuges themselves.
But exactly what type of centrifuges did Khan provide? We know he sold the mullahs 100-plus of the older, less efficient P-1 (Pakistani type 1) centrifuges, now in use at the Natanz enrichment facility in central Iran.
The fear is that he also sold them Pakistan's next generation of centrifuges, the P-2. These more advanced tools would significantly truncate Iran's timeline for enriching uranium to "weapons grade" for use in a bomb.
And Khan may have gone beyond help with enriching uranium, by providing highly technical engineering drawings for machining highly-enriched uranium metal into the "pits" required for a nuclear weapon.
Another big question is the nature of Iran's program. U.N. inspectors recently found traces of enriched uranium on equipment from the Lavizan-Shian defense complex near Tehran, which Iran bulldozed in 2004 before IAEA officials could inspect it.
The Iranians, of course, claim the residue and machinery is Pakistani. So why was the enrichment equipment found at a military base? Tehran has long insisted that its armed forces are not involved in its nuclear program.
There are many questions for Khan. He helped North Korea and Libya with their nuclear-weapons programs. While Tripoli has now given up its nuke program, Pyongyang's is still active. And North Korea will soon test a new ballistic missile, capable of reaching the United States.
According to those in the know, Khan henchmen also visited Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Nigeria and Sudan - and maybe more. With Khan now 71 and rumored to be in poor health, the world may be running out of time to get him to shed some critical light on all these matters.
Because Pakistan's government won't cooperate, U.S. intelligence and the IAEA are still trying to fully unravel Khan's global proliferation network - parts of which are still active, according to experts.
Why is Pakistan resisting a full Khan confession? To shield others, it's widely believed: A number of Pakistani luminaries, mostly in the intelligence and armed services, were likely complicit in, or knowledgeable of, Khan's nuclear network.
But despite this inconvenient truth (and Pakistan's vanity over the sins of its national hero), the regrettable fact is that Khan - and Pakistan - have made the world a much more dangerous place, from Iran to North Korea.
With all that's at stake over Iran's nuclear program - crisis diplomacy, potential interruptions of Persian Gulf energy flows, economic sanctions and possible military action - more Pakistani cooperation is essential. Failing to come forth on Khan's Persian "peccadillos" only makes the situation more volatile.
Yes, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has his hands full with terrorism/extremism right at home, and doesn't need his life made tougher. But "case closed" simply won't cut it.
Pakistan is largely responsible for today's nuclear challenge in Iran. It's incumbent upon Islamabad to make "good" on this "bad" by fully disclosing Khan's - and his associates' - activities with Iran and North Korea - and any others, as well.
Peter Brookes, a senior fellow at The Heritage Foundation, is the author of A Devils Triangle: Terrorism, WMD and Rogue States.
Posted by: john ||
06/19/2006 15:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Someone needs to snatch this sumnabiatch.
Posted by: DanNY ||
06/19/2006 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I love the title
Posted by: john ||
06/19/2006 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
KHAR: About 800 tribesmen protested the death of journalist Hayatullah Khan in Bajaur Agency on Sunday and demanded that the government provide safety to the media, agencies reported. Hayatullahs body was found on Friday, handcuffed and shot in the back, near Mir Ali in North Waziristan. He had been abducted from the same area on December 5 last year. The protesters rallied in Khar, the main town in Bajaur Agency, chanting Oppressors! Answer for (Hayatullahs) blood, and Protect journalists in the tribal region.
They demanded that the administration track down Hayatullahs killers, and called for an explanation from the government regarding allegations that Hayatullah had been kidnapped by intelligence agencies. No one has claimed responsibility for abducting or killing him, but his relatives claim that he was taken by intelligence agencies. In January, a Pakistani government official had said that Hayatullah might have been abducted by Islamic militants.
Hayatullah worked for Pakistans Urdu-language daily Ausaf and the European Pressphoto Agency, and was abducted just days after photographing shrapnel from a Hellfire missile allegedly fired by an unmanned American warplane targeting Al Qaeda leader Hamza Rabia in Mir Ali. His widely published photograph contradicted a claim by the government that Rabia had died while making bombs in his hideout in Mir Ali.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
GENEVA (Reuters) That alone should tell you every thing you need to know. The byline should be Franz Kafka. - The U.N. Human Rights Council, heralded as a new start in the world body's attempt to uphold fundamental freedoms, opened on Monday under pressure to show it can do better than its discredited predecessor.
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan was among government ministers and dignitaries to address the inaugural session with calls to avoid the finger-pointing and political point-scoring that hampered the work of the disbanded Human Rights Commission.
"This council represents a great new chance for the United Nations and for humanity to renew the struggle for human rights. I implore you not to let the opportunity be squandered," Annan said.
"The eyes of the world -- especially the eyes of those whose human rights are denied, threatened or infringed -- are turned toward this chamber and this council."
Unlike the 53-state commission, where members were nominated by regional blocs, the council's 47 members were elected by the U.N. General Assembly, a change which proponents say makes it more difficult for rights violators to win a seat.
One of the biggest criticisms of the 60-year-old commission, among whose successes was the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, was that it made it too easy for states with a poor record to use membership to protect themselves from scrutiny.
While some states whose rights records have been questioned, such as Cuba, Saudi Arabia, Russia and China won election, others failed or did not even stand.
The United States, which has faced worldwide criticism for its handling of terrorism suspects, did not seek a seat, although it has not ruled out a future candidacy.
Iraq's deputy prime minister says Iraq has an agreement to take over security responsibilities from Australian, British and Japanese forces in southern Iraq this month. Deputy Prime Minister Salam Zikam Ali al-Zubaie was responding to a Japanese news report that Australia, British and Japanese troops will transfer security responsibilities in southern Iraq to Iraqi authorities next week, and soon withdraw from the area. "There is an agreement to take over the security responsibilities from the British, Australian and Japanese forces in southern Iraq during this month," al-Zubaie said. "We hope that the Iraqi security forces will live up to their duties there. It is the dream of all Iraqis that our forces will handle security issues all over Iraq."
At a defence meeting of the three countries last week in London, British officials told their counterparts that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki will announce the transfer of security authority in southern Iraq next Tuesday, Kyodo News agency reported, citing coalition sources. London will then announce the pullout of its forces from the southern province of Al Muthanna, and Tokyo and Australia will follow with similar announcements, Kyodo said.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Here's hoping the Iraqis take the bit in their teeth, and take care of Iran's little proxies.
While three major British newspapers published reports contradicting Israel's claims that its military was not responsible for the murder of seven members of the Ghalia family on a Gaza beach over a week ago, a German newspaper casts doubt on the authenticity of pictures taken soon after the bloody incident.
Contradictions
According to new findings, testimonies and hospital records, deadly blast at Gaza beach, which killed Ghalia family members, occurred at time of shelling, not after; British Guardian, Independent, Times newspapers publish findings casting doubt on Israel's claims
German daily Sued Deutsche, said pictures taken by Zakaria Abu Irbad, 36, a cameramen with the Palestinian independent news agency Ramattan, contradict Palestinian claims that an IDF shell killed the Ghalia family and point to the possibility that the event was staged to hold Israel responsible.
Irbad was the first journalist to arrive at the s cene after the attack and Ramattan sold footage of Hadil weeping on the beach by her dead father to all major news broadcasters.
The newspaper said in footage of the beach taken by an IDF drone at the time of the attack, five craters left by IDF artillery shells could be seen, but that 250 meters away people could also be seen.
The paper said it is strange that although shells exploded 250 meters away from a beach site where Palestinian families congregated, no one was seen running away or panicking.
Irbad told the newspaper he was told of the attack by paramedics who guided him to the scene.
But no paramedics are seen until later in the footage, raising suspicions that he was first to reach the scene.
Moreover, if Irbad was the first to get to the scene, why were most bodies covered by sheets? Who was there first to cover the bodies? The newspaper asked.
'Did girl give instructions to cameraman?'
The newspaper also doubts Irbad's claim that Hadil was not injured because she was in the water when the shell exploded. His footage show her dry and fully clothed.
Another question raised by the newspaper is a shot of a man carrying a rifle next to the dead body of Hadil's father. The newspaper said in earlier footage, the same man was seen lying on the beach among the injured.
The footage also shows paramedics in green clothes and a dozen of bearded men looking for evidence. The newspaper asks whether the men are Hamas affiliates and wonders why they were preoccupied with collecting evidence rather than helping the injured.
Did Hamas men hide evidence from the scene, as claimed by eyewitnesses interviewed by Israeli broadcasters?
The newspaper said Irbad evaded most of the questions addressed to him.
Asked why he didn't try to calm Hadil instead of filming her he said: "She asked me to film her. She wanted to be seen next to her father to show the world the crimes that Israel is committing."
The newspaper finally asks: "Did the shocked 10-year-old girl, who had lost her father minutes earlier, give the cameraman direction instructions?"
Posted by: Captain America ||
06/19/2006 00:21 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No real surprise. I suspected as much at the time.
Human Rights Watch criticized Jordan's arrest of four legislators who visited the family of slain terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, calling it a violation of freedom of expression. "Expressing condolences to the family of a dead man, however murderous he might be, is not a crime," Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division, said in a statement Saturday.
The legislators, members of Jordan's largest opposition group, visited al-Zarqawi's family home in Zarqa, 27 kilometres northeast of Amman, on June 9, two days after the "al-Qaida in Iraq" leader was killed in a U.S. air strike north of Baghdad. One of the legislators, Mohammed Abu Fares, described al-Zarqawi as a "martyr." Abu Fares and three others - Jaafar al-Hourani, Ali Abu Sukkar and Ibrahim al-Mashwakhi - were arrested two days later and charged with "instigating sectarian strike" and "fuelling national discord." They remain jailed, serving 15-day detention orders.
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Expressing condolences to the family of a dead man, however murderous he might be, is not a crime,"
#5
I see HRW's point. Whenever I express condolences to the family of a bereaved terrorist, I always highlight how the deceased was a martyr and how the current government sucks. Jordan should really lighten up....
(KUNA) -- Security forces that Fatah announced it would deploy in the West Bank city of Jenin are illegal, said the Palestinian Ministry of Interior and National Security Saturday. Spokesman for the ministry Khalid Abu Hilal said in a statement to reporters that no faction had the right to deploy forces under the pretense of protecting the safety of Palestinians. He added that special forces were responsible for ensuring the safety of Palestinians.
Fatah's so-called "special protection forces" had been deployed in Jenin to enforce order. Asked about the merging of executive departments within Palestinian security bodies, the spokesman said, "Procedures are underway with the aim of training and rehabilitating the police forces."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fatah still gets most import taxes collected by Israel, and they still have as big as a ten to one advantage over Hamas, in arms.
I suspect that Fatah will wait until Hamas loses most public support, owing to economic chaos, and then make a move. Imagine if Hamas terrorists were refugeed by Fatah. They couldn't blame Israel for that.
The U.S. Department of Defense is trying, without much success, to get Congress to put half a billion dollars to build several dozen conventional warheads for its Trident, submarine launched ballistic missiles. The twelve American ballistic missile subs (SSBNs) would have two of their 24 missiles equipped with conventional, rather than nuclear, warheads.
That would enable your $31 million Trident missile, equipped with its new, $14 million conventional warhead, to deliver the equivalent of a 2,000 pound JDAM anywhere on the planet, within 60 minutes. There are two problems with this. First, is there really enough potential need to justify spending that kind of money?
Second, you have to set up a "hot line" to nations that have ballistic missiles aimed at us (Russia, definitely, probably China, and maybe France) to quickly warn them that the SSBN missile launch, their early warning systems just picked up, is not the beginning of a attack on them. Without this hot-line treatment, those other nuclear powers might let their paranoia get the best of them, and fire their own nukes at us.
The U.S. Navy is touting the non-nuclear Trident warhead as a useful tool in the war on terror. So far, they have not made an interesting case. Note that hundreds of billions of dollars have been spent on SSBNs over the last half century, and none of these ships has ever fired any kind of shot in anger. For that we can all be grateful, but it does appear that the SSBN guys are getting a bit antsy.
#1
I think that one of our older Tridents should be converted into a "Sea-View"-style scientific ship. Not only would such a ship be incredibly useful for US Navy purposes, but it would actually make a profit.
That is, one of its biggest missions would be to scout out undersea ore deposits literally worth trillions of dollars.
Mining companies are already used to very high degree-of-difficulty just to mine low-grade ores. They would do whatever is necessary to mine oceanic medium and high-grade ores, and consider themselves lucky. Invest a few billion, make tens of billions.
On the pure science side of things, it could play host to as many as 100-150 scientists at a time. "Running loud", so that everyone would know where it is, it could have free reign to all international and coastal waters, and even some major rivers.
Because the boat carries a large amount of lead bars for ballast, they could be arranged as a protective wall, so the the boat could recover dangerous radioactive waste that was intentionally dumped at sea, representing a major contamination hazard.
This could be a grand solution, looking for hundreds of problems to solve.
#2
Mmm...resources...such as magnesium nodules on the ocean floor? They already tried that idea...isn't that why they built the "Glomar Explorer" in the first place? ;)
The conventional Trident is a solution looking for a problem.
#3
I think the Trident is a perfect solution for the Iranian problem!
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
06/19/2006 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
If they're only talking about putting a glorified JDAM on top of the thing, then IMO forget it. I thought they wanted to convert it to carry some super-heavy burrowing bunker buster.
#5
isn't that why they built the "Glomar Explorer" in the first place?
Heh. Funny how the idea of hoovering up untold riches from the sea floor seemed to evaporate after a certain rooski sub was recovered. Almost makes you think it was a cover story or something.
"Interest in the potential exploitation of polymetallic nodules generated a great deal of activity among prospective mining consortia in the 1960s and 1970s. Almost half a billion dollars was invested in identifying potential deposits and in research and development of technology for mining and processing nodules.
These initial undertakings were carried out primarily by four multinational consortia composed of companies from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy, Japan and two groups of private companies and agencies from France and Japan. There were also three publicly sponsored entities from the Soviet Union, India and China.
In the mid-seventies, a $70-million international joint venture succeeded in collecting multi-ton quantities of manganese nodules from the abyssal plains (18,000+ depth) of the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean.
Significant quantities of nickel (the primary target) as well as copper and cobalt were subsequently extracted from this "ore" using both pyro and hydro methods. In the course of this 8-year project, a number of ancillary developments evolved, including the use of near-bottom towed side-scan sonar array to assay the nodule population density on the abyssal silt whilst simultaneously performing a sub-bottom profile with a derived, vertically-oriented, low-frequency acoustic beam.
The technology and art developed during the course of this project were never commercialized because the last two decades of the 20th century saw a glut of nickel production (mined in Ontario, Canada). The estimated $3.5-billion (1978 US dollars) investment to implement commercialization was an additional factor. Sumitomo Metal Mining continues to maintain a small (place-keeping) organization in this field."
However, this is what I would call "easy technology", like picking up the fruit that has fallen from a tree. It's a lot harder when you have to make a ladder to get up in the branches to pick the fruit.
How *would* a mining company mine ore from the ocean floor? Most likely using explosives to shatter the rock, then using conveyor belts to take the rock to the surface.
But the bottom line is that, if the mining companies just know where to mine, they will figure out a way to mine. Miners are very good that way.
(As an aside, 18th Century Spanish silver mines in Mexico had only minimal steel for tools, yet developed advanced mining operations using mostly what was commonly available: manpower, wood and rawhide.)
#10
First, is there really enough potential need to justify spending that kind of money?
First, I'd say this is stretching it, even for strategypage. A half-billion? That's peanuts in the world of the DoD. Look at it this way, we got the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska defeated ($300-something million), just use that money, add another $100+ million and call it a day.
Posted by: BA ||
06/19/2006 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I always thought they should have kept around a few of the old Pershing II landbased ballastic missles for this kind of mission. They had a 2000 mile range and 7 minute flight time. They had very good accuracy pre-GPS and could have been made a lot better now.
The key part also pointed out and this is what DARPA has definitely been looking at is the re-entry bus. If they can slow it down correctly on re-entry they can put approximately 5 tons worth of payload or so on the sucker. More if they redo most of the missile and give it a higher payload by offsetting the booster for smaller range. Imagine 5 tons of SDBs or 5 tons of the 500lb JDAM units each guided to a separate target from near re-entry heights of 200,000+ ft.
June 19, 2006: September 4, 2005: Late last year, the U.S. Army began issuing the new ACH (Advanced Combat Helmet) on a wide scale. At the same time, the marines began distributing a similar "Marine Corps Lightweight Helmet", which is actually 15 percent larger than the ACH (but still smaller and lighter than the older helmet). Since then, there has been a dispute over whether or not fabric padding should be inserted between the webbing like helmet liner, which rests on the wearers skull, and the top of the helmet. The army believes the padding provides additional protection from bomb blasts. The marines say they are still studying the issue. Without the padding, the helmets are lighter, and cooler to wear in very hot conditions. But Congress, and private charities (that are distributing free helmet liners to marines) got involved, and raked marine procurement officials over the coals. Such disputes over "defective weapons and equipment" are a staple of the media, politicians, and anyone looking for a little attention. Most of these crusades are based on bad facts, no facts, or invented facts.
The army expects the ACH to have replaced all the 1980s era PASGT (Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops) helmets by the end of 2007. This Kevlar PASGT design was a third generation combat helmet, and nicknamed the "Fritz" after its resemblance to the German helmets used in both World Wars. The German World War I design, which was based on an analysis of where troops were being hit by fragments and bullets in combat, was the most successful combat helmet in both world wars. This basic design was finally adopted by many other nations, after the American Kevlar helmet appeared in the 1980s. Most of the second generation helmets, which appeared largely during World War II, were similar to the old American "steel pot" design. The fourth generation helmets, currently appearing, use better synthetic materials and more comfortable design.
The PASGT came in five sizes, and weighed between 3.1 pounds (size Extra Small) to 4.2 pounds (size Extra Large). The new ACH weighs a third less than the PASGT, and uses a new type of Kevlar that provides more protection. The ACH will stop a 9mm bullet at close range, and rifle bullets at longer ranges. The ACH is smaller, and does not cover as much of the neck. This was important, because the newer protective vests (like the bullet-proof Interceptor) ride high on the back, thus becoming very uncomfortable when the soldier is prone and trying to fire his rifle. The ACH eliminates this problem. The ACH was first developed as a special project by the U.S. Army Special Forces, and was so successful that the rest of the army began buying them.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/19/2006 09:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The German World War I design, which was based on an analysis of where troops were being hit by fragments and bullets in combat, was the most successful combat helmet in both world wars.
Just take into consideration, that the 'new and improved' designed is predicated upon the belief that we will not face an enemy capable of delivering significant artillery or other fragmentation ordnance.
#2
The K-pot is still better than that old steel pot. The big probelm with the PASGT was the weight and its bulkiness. Soudns like the replacement has fxed the bulk issue without sacrificing the protection, and as a bonus it has helped the weight issues as well.
June 19, 2006: A South African firm (Denel) has introduced an upgraded version of its 20mm sniper rifle. This weapon is intended mainly for destroying equipment at long ranges. The latest version of the NTW 20 can be quickly equipped with either a 20mm barrel (producing a 59 pound weapon) or 14.5mm (a Russian caliber, producing a 64 pound weapon.) The rifle uses a three round magazine. The 20mm projectile weighs four ounces, and moves at 2,200 feet per second. The 2.25 ounce 14.5mm bullet moves at 3.400 feet per second. That's why the 14.5mm barrel is heavier. Moreover, the operational range of the 14.5mm round is 1,800 meters, while for the 20mm it's only 1,300 meters. In the hands of an expert shooter, both rounds can hit targets over 50 percent farther. The only 14.5mm ammo available is armor-piercing incendiary. The 20mm has that, plus a high explosive round.
There are only two other 20mm sniper rifles available; the Hungarian APH RK20, and the Croat RT20. All of these 20mm rifles were developed from similar World War II weapons, used for anti-tank work. But those weapons weighed 200 pounds and up. The modern 20mm rifles benefit from advances in recoil suppression technology. You don't risk a broken shoulder firing the NTE 20. It's also not as difficult as it appears to transport. The NTW 20 breaks down into two 33 pound loads. Thus a two or three man sniper team can handle it.
Users include commandos, police and peacekeepers. That's because the NTW 20 is able to disable vehicles or weapons at a distance, and with minimal collateral damage. In Africa, for example, warlords like to equip their gunmen with heavy machine-guns mounted on the backs of pickup trucks. You want to take these down from a distance and, since these trucks are often parked in the midst of civilians, you want to do it without large explosions.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/19/2006 09:20 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Who would have thought that a busted idea like the anti-tank rifle would actually come back? What's next, PIATs for infantry?
#2
Not good for tanks. But for peacekeeping forces and anti-terrorist units it should work wonderfully. Great for taking out suicide cars, technicals and other weird stuff that irregular forces throw at you.
I suspect that this would only piss off a Striker though.
#11
I'll join the Marines if they let me run one of those!
Posted by: grb ||
06/19/2006 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#12
bigjim
tell your picture taking friends to put a ruler or quarter or something with known dimensions in the weapons picture
it would also be interesting to see the kind of impact that the projectile has... I presume it would easily go through the hood of a pickup truck if the angle wasn't too close to tangent
#18
mojo, my maths completely escapes me. I do remember allouettes back in '76 as the k-car geting 3 x 20 mill shots off before the kick destabilised the platform, accurate from a long way away = dead gooks, but only 3 rounds at a time.
Do I divide the weight of the round by the ft/lbs? (and what do I do with the fps)?
#20
For reference a round of the ammo is about the size of a bottle of RedHot, and considerably heavier.
As for me, the .338 Lapua round is all that I need in the long distance role, and for routine hunting .308win match grade is A-OK. Varmint and plinking I do with 7.62x39 AK (Czech).
Not the rebels we're hoping for, but it's something
MANILA President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo of the Philippines has abruptly declared that she has found a way to eliminate a stubborn Communist insurgency through a strategy of "all-out war" coupled with development programs to discourage peasants from joining the revolution. Numbering no more than 10,000, the Communist guerrillas spread across the archipelago country have waged a Maoist rebellion for almost four decades, captivating the poor masses in the countryside, and surviving the state's repeated attempts to crush them.
Administration officials were upbeat about the prospects for peace after Arroyo's announcement over the weekend, but some analysts outside the government warned of the possibility of increased human rights violations while others were skeptical about a strategy that has proven to be ineffective in the past. One analyst even went so far as to declare that this would crush Arroyo, not the Communist Party of the Philippines and its armed wing, the New People's Army, or the CPP-NPA.
"The CPP-NPA has done enough in setting back peace and development for more than 30 years," said Ignacio Bunye, Arroyo's spokesman. "The time has come to finally defeat this threat through a combination of military operations, law enforcement and pro-poor programs," he said, adding that Arroyo "is determined to accomplish what past administrations have failed to do." Arroyo's national security adviser, Norberto Gonzales, declared on television Monday: "They want war so we will give it to them."
On Friday, Arroyo promised to release 1 billion pesos, or $18.7 million, in emergency funds and ordered the Budget Department to find even more to improve one of Southeast Asia's least equipped armed forces. Avelino Cruz, Arroyo's defense secretary, said part of the money would be used to provide basic services, potable water and schools to poor communities.
Founded in 1969, the New People's Army has grown from a ragtag band of radical university students into one of the most enduring Communist insurgencies in the world. Its members adhere to what the group calls "Marxism- Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought," taking advantage of the country's rugged terrain, capitalizing on extreme poverty in the rural areas, and exploiting the blunders and the repression of past regimes, particularly that of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, to widen its base. Today, it claims to have a presence in 70 out of 79 Philippine provinces, with government estimates of its forces ranging from 7,000 to 10,000. Its fighters make several attacks each week against government targets as well as businesses who refuse to pay what the rebels call "revolutionary taxes."
The rebels effectively run many communities that the government cannot reach, dispensing their own brand of justice, teaching students and peasants their version of Philippine history, and implementing their own agrarian program that often entails forcibly taking land away from landlords. Their influence is such that politicians, even Arroyo herself, have to deal with them, especially during elections, when politicians can only enter Communist-controlled territories after paying certain amounts. In many areas outside the capital, public officials deal with the New People's Army all the time.
It is this dynamic between the rebels and local politicians, as well as the corruption, low morale and lack of equipment in the Philippine military that skeptics say could prove critical in the success or failure of Arroyo's offensive.
"Unless you are prepared to accept the unlikely notion that local politicians suddenly found wisdom and agreed with President Arroyo's view of the Communists, the all-out war will fail because it is no different from previous unsuccessful attempts to defeat them," said Benito Lim, an expert on governance and security issues at the Ateneo de Manila University.
Amando Doronila, a political analyst, said Arroyo's war initiative "sharpens the administration's tendency toward strong-arm rule." In an article in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on Monday, Doronila wrote that Arroyo was using the anti-communism stance "as a polarizing issue upon which the Arroyo administration seeks to mobilize broad political support to ensure serving out its term till 2010." Many here believe that this strategy against the rebels is meant to drain support from Arroyo's political enemies, who have allied themselves with the Communists in seeking Arroyo's ouster, because she allegedly cheated in the 2004 elections. Already, Senator Panfilo Lacson, a major opposition figure, has said he supported the government's policy against the communists, but questioned Arroyo's approach.
"If she really wants to develop the country, she should improve our education system, for instance," Lim said. "How many Huey helicopters can a billion pesos buy? One? How can you defeat this insurgency with that?" Instead, he said, "the anti-communist scare has made administration hostage to alliance with the military for regime maintenance and survival." More likely, he said, this "will crush her administration more than it will the insurgency."
Rafael Mariano, a leftist congressman, said "a purely military solution will not solve the insurgency problem. Addressing the root cause of the armed conflict, like landlessness and injustice, over the negotiating table remains as a viable solution."
Posted by: Steve ||
06/19/2006 13:41 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
The grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini, the inspiration of Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution, has broken a three-year silence to back the United States military to overthrow the country's clerical regime. Hossein Khomeini's call is all the more startling as he made it from Qom, the spiritual home of Iran's Shia strand of Islam, during an interview to mark the 17th anniversary of the ayatollah's death. "My grandfather's revolution has devoured its children and has strayed from its course," he told Al-Arabiya, an Arabic-language television station. "I lived through the revolution and it called for freedom and democracy - but it has persecuted its leaders."
He also made clear his opposition to Teheran's alleged development of a secret nuclear weapons programme. "Iran will gain real power if freedom and democracy develop there," he said. "Strength will not be obtained through weapons and the bomb."
Mr Khomeini, 47, is a Shia cleric, but he believes that the holy men who have run the country since 1979 - to whom he dismissively refers as "wearers of the turban" - abused their power following the overthrow of the Shah. The Dubai-based satellite channel's website spelt out his backing for armed intervention by America, a country excoriated as the Great Satan by his grandfather and Iran's current rulers. It stated: "As for his call to President Bush to come and occupy Iran, Hossein Khomeini explained that 'freedom must come to Iran in any possible way, whether through internal or external developments. If you were a prisoner, what would you do? I want someone to break the prison [doors open]'."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What, again? He really feels strongly about this.
Iran will shun direct talks with the United States on Iraq despite being encouraged to take part by an influential Iraqi politician, an official said on Sunday. On Saturday, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a key Shi'ite Muslim party closely allied to Iran, said in Tehran such direct talks could benefit both Tehran and Baghdad. However, he told reporters he was not an intermediary carrying messages from the United States.
"Talks between Iran and the United States are in Iraq's interests and could be in Iran's interests as well because the United States is present in Iraq and in the region," he said. But Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi on Sunday told a news conference: "We do not have talks with the United States on the agenda now."
Posted by: Fred ||
06/19/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That's okay. We didn't want to really talk with you anyway. We have much better ways of getting our point across.
#2
Is Iran trying to put out signals that they control every aspect of negotiations and dealing with us or what? These guys need a bitch slap for all the world to see who really holds the stick.
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.
(SomaliNet) The leader of Islamic courts union 
(SomaliNet) 
Democrats plan to offer a resolution in the Senate on Tuesday seeking a timetable for a phased withdrawal from Iraq, California Sen. Dianne Feinstein said on Sunday. Recent polls show a slight majority of Americans favor such a course but White House spokesman Tony Snow said President George W. Bush would not consider it. Setting a timetable "would be an absolute, unmitigated disaster, not merely for the people of Iraq, but the larger war on terror," he said on CNN's "Late Edition."
Iraq's deputy prime minister says Iraq has an agreement to take over security responsibilities from Australian, British and Japanese forces in southern Iraq this month. Deputy Prime Minister 
Human Rights Watch criticized Jordan's arrest of four legislators who visited the family of slain terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, calling it a violation of freedom of expression. "Expressing condolences to the family of a dead man, however murderous he might be, is not a crime," Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East and North Africa division, said in a statement Saturday. 
(KUNA) -- Security forces that Fatah announced it would deploy in the West Bank city of Jenin are illegal, said the Palestinian Ministry of Interior and National Security Saturday. Spokesman for the ministry Khalid Abu Hilal said in a statement to reporters that no faction had the right to deploy forces under the pretense of protecting the safety of Palestinians. He added that special forces were responsible for ensuring the safety of Palestinians.
Iran will shun direct talks with the United States on Iraq despite being encouraged to take part by an influential Iraqi politician, an official said on Sunday. On Saturday, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), a key Shi'ite Muslim party closely allied to Iran, said in Tehran such direct talks could benefit both Tehran and Baghdad. However, he told reporters he was not an intermediary carrying messages from the United States.
