Simon Mann, the British mercenary who attempted to organise a coup in the West African state of Equatorial Guinea four years ago, was sentenced to 34 years in prison at a court hearing in the capital, Malabo, yesterday. The sentence was two years more than the prosecution asked for.
Mann, 56, stood in silence as the sentence was read out by Judge Carlos Mangue in the heavily guarded courtroom. Mann was also ordered to pay a fine and compensation to the Equatorial Guinea state totalling around $24m.
Another defendant, Lebanese businessman Mohamed Salaam, received a jail sentence of 18 years, while four Equatorial Guinean nationals were given terms of six years each. Another was jailed for one year and one defendant was acquitted.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
South Africa, a fierce public opponent of African coups and mercenary escapades, knew all about it but apparently allowed it to proceed.
Of course they did! They also tipped off their pal ZimBob and the gov't of Guinea...just to make the west look bad and completely foil the plan. I suspect they were waiting for Mark Thatcher to turn up on site and capture him as well. This failed operation and the continued monitoring by the "Yard" doesn't pass the sniff test. It has Bay of Pigs written all over it.
(SomaliNet) In what would give him a fourth consecutive term as elected president, Ugandan incumbent Yoweri Museveni Kaguta has confirmed that he will contest in the 2011 presidential race.
The Ugandan leader however said this would take place with a trademark caveat -- that his candidature is the collective decision of the NRM delegates.
They'll have to ask nice ...
Mr Museveni finally broke his silence on whether or not he would seek another term in office at a late night meeting on Saturday held with legislators who hail from Busoga region. The President had convened the impromptu meeting at State House Entebbe to discuss the state of affairs in eastern Uganda. A source who attended the meeting told Daily Monitor that the President emphasized however that he would divulge more details about his 'availability' to run for office, when 'the right time comes.'
"If the NRM delegates ask me to stand, then I will assist you but if they have another option, I will go back and look after my cattle," Mr Museveni, a famed rancher, reportedly told the MPs after Bugabula North MP Gerald Menhya sounded him out on the subject.
The MP, according to a source, reportedly asked Mr Museveni to make his position clear before the legislators, regarding his future plans. "Mr President, are you standing again? Are you coming back or not?" Mr Menhya asked. The candid question drew a staid response from the President, who reportedly said it wasn't his duty to say 'yes or no', added the source.
"But we shall cross the waters when we get there," Mr Museveni is reported to have said and added, "I cannot swim where there is no water," telling the legislators that the decision on whether or not he should run again, hinges with the ruling party's national delegates conference.
The President's bold stand comes at a time when public debate is drenched in tales of succession battles within the NRM, questions about whether he is intent on extending his stay in power by running again, and whether the time is ripe for him to finally quit after a quarter of a century in power.
Of course he's going to 'run' again, and win. What's he going to do, retire to the ranch?
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Robert Mugabe's regime warned the West on Monday to 'stop meddling' in Zimbabwe's crisis as the veteran leader faced mounting pressure to cut a deal with the opposition after his one-man election.
'We appeal to foreigners and external forces to leave the resolution of the Zimbabwe situation to Zimbabweans alone,' Justice Minister Patrick Chinamasa told the state-run Herald newspaper. 'Britain, the US and the EU, in particular, should stop meddling in our affairs.'
Group of Eight industrial powers, at a meeting on the sidelines of the summit, were to urge African leaders to pile pressure on Mugabe over the violence-wracked vote boycotted by opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged Zimbabwe's parties to restore the 'rule of law' and said he would take up the crisis with African leaders. Ban, speaking to AFP on his plane as he arrived in Japan, said Mugabe's election lacked legitimacy. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown told his Japanese counterpart Yasuo Fukuda it was 'important to send a strong message to secure democracy in Zimbabwe,' a Japanese government official said. German Chancellor Angela Merkel meanwhile said new sanctions were to be discussed.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
'We appeal to foreigners and external forces to leave the resolution of the Zimbabwe situation to Zimbabweans alone,'
...and Mr Mugabe is Zimbabwean, so leave him alone!
Blockade them and let nothing in or out; people included. Like sending a kid to his room. If, after a while, they can prove to have learned their lesson let them out.
Zimbabwe urged the world on Monday to accept President Robert Mugabe's re-election and said any move to impose U.N. sanctions on his government would hurt everyone involved.
This week, the U.N. Security Council is due to discuss a U.S. and British-based proposal for financial and travel restrictions on Mugabe and his top officials as well as an arms embargo on Zimbabwe.
World leaders at a Group of Eight nations summit in Japan also raised the prospect of more sanctions on Zimbabwe unless quick progress is made to end a political crisis after Mugabe's re-election in a poll that drew global condemnation.
'It is the UK that is pushing for sanctions, but isolating and demonising Zimbabwe is not in the best interests of anyone. They should treat Zimbabwe as a partner rather than an enemy,' Deputy Information Minister Bright Matonga said. 'The people of Zimbabwe made a decision on June 27 and that decision has to be respected.'
Posted by: Fred ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
'The people of Zimbabwe made a decision on June 27 and that decision has to be respected.
In one sense, the election was cleaner than elections in Chicago. In Chicago, dead people can vote. In Zimbabwe, people who don't vote for Mugabe are dead.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
07/08/2008 1:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Farmin B Hard is collecting for the Zim franchise of MoveOn.org
#4
Think yourself lucky that you are not subject to the mandates of the EU quangocracy, RIC.
47.9% - Vote against Mugabe in Zimbabwean elections, which EU described as a "travesty of democracy" and supported MDC decision not to stand in second round.
53.4% - Vote against Lisbon treaty in Irish Referendum, which EU "regrets" and would like them to run a second time.
#6
Zimbabwe urged the world on Monday to accept President Robert Mugabe's re-election and said any move to impose U.N. sanctions on his government would hurt everyone involved.
(Xinhua) -- Kenya has joined African countries that have refused to recognize Robert Mugabe as the president of Zimbabwe, Wetangula said in remarks published in the local media on Monday. Foreign Affairs Minister Moses Wetangula said Kenya would not recognize Mugabe's government as legitimate.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Toddlers who turn their noses up at spicy food from overseas could be branded racists by a Government-sponsored agency. The National Children's Bureau, which receives £12 million a year, mainly from Government funded organisations, has issued guidance to play leaders and nursery teachers advising them to be alert for racist incidents among youngsters in their care. This could include a child of as young as three who says 'yuk' in response to being served unfamiliar foreign food. I guess it's okay to not like fish and chips or shepherd's pie. Unless someone slips in some curry powder...
The guidance by the NCB is designed to draw attention to potentially-racist attitudes in youngsters from a young age. It alerts playgroup leaders that even babies can not be ignored in the drive to root out prejudice as they can 'recognise different people in their lives'. Errrr....you kind of want them to be able to distinguish between different people. Otherwise you have a severe developmental problem brewing.
The 366-page guide for staff in charge of pre-school children, called Young Children and Racial Justice, warns: 'Racist incidents among children in early years settings tend to be around name-calling, casual thoughtless comments and peer group relationships.'
It advises nursery teachers to be on the alert for childish abuse such as: 'blackie', 'Pakis', 'those people' or 'they smell'. 'Teach them to use 'infidel', 'limey git', etc. Those terms don't offend anyone.
The guide goes on to warn that children might also 'react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuk''.
Staff are told: 'No racist incident should be ignored. When there is a clear racist incident, it is necessary to be specific in condemning the action.' Well I think they should strap them in a chair, pin their eyes open, fire up the strobes, crank up the Wagner and show them the million frames a second slide show. That'll teach the little bastids...
Warning that failing to pick children up on their racist attitudes could instill prejudice, the NCB adds that if children 'reveal negative attitudes, the lack of censure may indicate to the child that there is nothing unacceptable about such attitudes'.
Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. The guide added: 'Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case.' Homeschooling the Tsarevich is looking better and better every day....
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What do they propose the teachers do, stuff it down their throats?
#2
If anybody where I work handed me a 366 friggin' pages! guide to anything, chances are pretty good it would end up in the circular file the moment they left. Oh, sorry. Recycle bin. My bad.
#12
I guess my idea might exclude some of the good people. Just don't like the idea that if there are not enough 'racial complaints' then that is a sign that more need to be found. It is simply clear whom this policy is aimed at - I love european food but one has to go out of their way to find something remotely spicey (even the hot wings in London only tasted like they were dipped in ketchup). More unelected policy makers - I am beginning to think it is more sinister than new agers getting older.
Friend of mine is about to head over to teach, wonder what they think of this craziness.
#13
Nurseries are encouraged to report as many incidents as possible to their local council. The guide added: 'Some people think that if a large number of racist incidents are reported, this will reflect badly on the institution. In fact, the opposite is the case.'
Sounds like they're getting ready to set up a quota system. Gotta feed that database. And what a database it's going to be!
(Xinhuanet) -- A human head and a note purportedly from a drug cartel threatening three officials of Oaxaca state, southern Mexico, was found near the home of the state's attorney general, authorities said Sunday. State prosecutors said the head and note were found Saturday inside a plastic bag left a few yards from Attorney General Evencio Martinez' house in the state capital. The note threatened Martinez as well as organized crime investigator Pedro Guzman and the leader of the state's governing party, Jorge Franco.
The note signed in the name of the Gulf drug cartel said officials must 'learn to respect that we are here and we won't leave.' A body matching the head was found outside the city. Officials said they have not yet identified the man.
Posted by: Fred ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
build the fence and guard our borders from this crap. To allow these animals free reign is incredibly stupid.
Posted by: Jan ||
07/08/2008 1:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
...because it worked so well when the Americans showed up with a purpose in Iraq. Hey, Mr. Cartel, don't read the American MSM about the 'failure' in Iraq, I'd catch up on the net that head dispatchers are becoming real rare when the right boys are let loose on yours. You don't want to end up on a 30 sec vid on YouTube, with a snarky tag on Rantburg, do you?
#5
"Bring me the head of Alfredo Garcia!"
________
Seriously, and speaking as a Tucsonan - the cartels are already here in force - aided by the Mexican cultural tradition of "extended family" which simplifies cross-border business. Our national culture is changing...and not for the better...this is NOT nativist talk...my grandparents came from Russia...they did however willingly accept American ideals, left their superstitions behind them...and didn't spend evey other weekend traveling back to Russia to load up on contraband...
Russia will be forced to make a military response if the U.S.-Czech missile defense agreement is ratified, the Foreign Ministry said Tuesday. The statement came hours after U.S. and Czech officials reached an initial agreement on deploying elements of a missile defense system in the Eastern European country.
Guess the Lithuanian ploy worked ...
Russia says the system would severely undermine European security balances by weakening Russia's missile capacity. If the agreement is ratified, 'we will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods,' the Foreign Ministry statement said. It did not give specifics of what the response would entail.
In February, then-President Vladimir Putin said Russia could aim missiles toward prospective missile defense sites and deploy missiles in the Baltic Sea region of Kaliningrad, which borders Poland, if the missile defense plan went forward.
The U.S. has pushed the plan as necessary to prevent missile attacks by rogue nations, pointing to Iran as a particular concern. But Russia dismisses the likelihood of such threats.
#1
...we will be forced to react not with diplomatic, but with military-technical methods," the Foreign Ministry statement said. It did not give specifics of what the response would entail.
Well, you can't compete with us technically... so ... prayer? Black Magic?
#4
The old saying was that you can only deal with a German when you have your bayonet at his throat, and you can only deal with a Russian when you have your boot on his back.
#5
Methinks its dawning on PUTIN = VLADVEDEV that Russia can no longer use Radical Islam as hedge agz the US-West, China, etc. ala THE GREAT GAME OF GEOPOLITICS, and that Russia now has to focus on protecting its own butt from the very Islamist Proxies it helped empower during the Cold War + Post Cold War/9-11.
IMO THIS IS THE COVERT, PDENIABLE VLADVEDEV EQUIVALENT OF OSAMA THREATENING THE VATICAN.
Representatives of Germanys large Turkish community have criticized a new citizenship test that takes effect in September and are urging Chancellor Merkels government to allow Turkish-Germans to hold dual nationality.
Kenan Kolat, chairman of the Turkish Community in Germany said in an interview with Cologne-based daily Kölner Stadt-Anzeiger on Tuesday he was fundamentally opposed to a new citizenship test that will be introduced in September and test applicants' knowledge of the countrys history, politics and society. "We dont find the test a good idea at all," Kolat said.
The German government said last month it was introducing the test as an additional step to screening candidates applying for a German passport. In total, prospective Germans will have to tackle 33 questions on politics and democracy, history and responsibility and man and society -- 17 of which they must answer correctly.
Kolat said the 310 formulaic multiple-choice questions published by the interior ministry tested not only knowledge of Germany but "to some extent also attitudes." He suggested putting the questions to Germans at information stands in Berlin. "It would be interesting to see how that goes off," he said.
Kolats concerns are echoed by several opposition politicians who say the citizenship test poses new obstacles for immigrants wishing to apply for naturalization.
"We dont need new hurdles but rather a liberalization of the naturalization process by introducing dual citizenship," said Claudia Roth, head of the Green Party.
At 2.3 million, Turks make up the largest group of immigrants in Germany, and have long pushed for the right to keep both Turkish and German passports. Around 340,000 people over 18 will soon face the tough decision of choosing between German or Turkish citizenship, Kolat warned, adding that many young Turkish-Germans who had grown up in Germany continued to have a strong Turkish identity.
In 2000, Germany reformed its citizenship laws which had previously only recognized the principle of nationality by blood. The reform now allows foreigners who have lived in Germany for eight years to apply for naturalization. But the original plan to allow their children born in Germany to automatically become German failed in the face of fierce opposition by conservative parties. As a compromise, it was decided that naturalized children would have to decide at the age of 18 whether they wanted to keep their German passport or their foreign one.
Some point out that being forced to choose between nationalities could mean a conflict of identity and loyalties.
"To feel like a Berliner, an Istanbul resident, a Turk these arent contradictions, said Serdar Yazar, chairman of the Turkish Student Organization, adding that diverse identities are a reality.
Kerim Arpat, chairman of the European Network of Turkish Students, Graduates and Academics (EATA) said the government's policies had led to a "two-class society" in German schools with young EU citizens and Turkish-Germans from mixed marriages allowed to hold dual citizenship. "This is not just about a piece of plastic," said Arpat.
The next time the president goes to war, Congress should be consulted and vote on whether it agrees, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher.
In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branches. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in 'significant armed conflict,' or non-covert operations lasting longer than a week. In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action.
Hah. Right.
Baker, who served as secretary of state in the first Bush administration and co-chaired the 2006 Iraq Study Group, said the proposal isn't intended to resolve constitutional disputes between the White House and Congress on who should decide whether the nation fights. 'What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution,' Baker said in a statement. And I'm sure it will work as well as history indicates.
Optimist.
A new joint House and Senate committee would be established to review the president's justification for war. To do so, the committee would be granted access to highly classified information.
The panel has briefed the presidential campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, as well as congressional leadership. Spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama commends the panel 'for advocating that the president consult Congress more closely on issues of critical national importance like the use of military force.' McCain did not provide comment. But I'll bet he rolled his eyes.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence.
The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations -- a step most Democrats weren't willing to take because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way. Yeah, I guess 'at least be perceived' is technically accurate.
Which makes all their other posturing about this rather gutless, since they lack the courage of their so-called convictions.
The plan identified by Baker and Christopher, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton, would not necessarily resolve such issues in the future. But it would create a consultative process between the White House and Congress that currently does not exist. Also, calling on Congress to respond would exert significant political pressure on a president if he ignored lawmakers' wishes.
The consultative process does exist: no President will go to war without talking to Congress. Bush talked with them extensively before we went into Iraq. He got a resolution. He's been talking with them extensively since then, though he and the Dhimmis don't agree.
The panel studied the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of state. The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored the study. So much for being able to carry a big stick if this stoopid idea sticks, which I don't think it will. The founding fathers set things up the way they did for a reason. Sometimes it takes a king to get things done.
Georgetown, D.C.: This is going to sound pretty strange — I realize this — however it's really been bothering me and I need some advice. Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, has been frequenting my gym and though it's pretty cool seeing him around there's a downside. The man never — NEVER! — returns weights to the rack when finished with his sets. How does one tell such an important political figure to rerack his weights?
The way you tell children: Oops, you forgot to return your weights to the rack. I'm sure you don't want to leave the impression you're too arrogant to observe the basic courtesies of the gym.
#3
The way you tell children: Oops, you forgot to return your weights to the rack. I'm sure you don't want to leave the impression you're too arrogant to observe the basic courtesies of the gym.
NO,NO,NO, You do NOT say things a child will NOT comprehend, like don't want to leave the impression you're too arrogant to observe the basic courtesies of the gym.
You tell a child "Pick them up before you leave"
then you stand by the exit. (Children will NOT behave unless forced) and when they try to leave , you say "You MUST put those weights back" If they do, fine
But this is a critical point, they MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO REFUSE,
Once a child finds he can Say NO, and get away with it, a thug is born
If they say anything such as you Can't Make Me
you must immediately make them,
If they run to "Mommy"explain to mommy the weightd MUST be put away, and if their child won't do it, THE "MOMMY' must put them away, (That usualy does it)
In my particular case my son was told to pick up his clothes on the floor of his room(YOU CAN"T MAKE ME, YCMM) (He was seven) I said You really think I can't make you?
Answer NO (sticks lower lip out) MOMMY WILL PROTECT ME FROM YOU, My answer, We'll see about that I then took one wrist in each hand, stood behind him, and used his hands to pick up clothes off the floor and put them in the dresser where they should be, He's screaming like a stuck pig, making threats he can't possibly make happen, and in a short while the room had all clothes pickec up off the floor, then I let his hands go.
he complained bitterly to his mom, who said Hmmm, I had'nt thought of that
and tried to call the police saying I was "Molesting" him (Got laughed off the phone) and from then on the trouble out of him was cut in half.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
07/08/2008 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#4
How long ago was that, Redneck Jim?
I've lived in states where that would now get you a visit from social services and the threat of losing your son permanently.
#5
I can't imagine that happening. Either I did something right or my kids were exceptional. I expected certain minimal things of them, and even more of myself (single Dad). I was consistent (kids hate uncertainty) and fair among all three. All three made my life and theirs' better by doing their chores and more. I have no great insights beyond that, but my kids have done pretty well. Returning the weights to the rack would've been mentioned...once. By the way, my kids DO love me :-) and I never had to spank them, past an age (2+?) that they can remember. Not a professional, but the consistency thing is highly recommended, and if you're married? Don't let one parent be the "good" parent, and one the "bad"
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/08/2008 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Funny, but he strikes me as more of a Thighmaster guy.
Congress should pass legislation to require the president to consult lawmakers before going to war, according to a bipartisan study group chaired by former secretaries of state James Baker III and Warren Christopher.
In a report released Tuesday, the panel says the current law governing the nation's war powers has failed to promote cooperation between the executive and legislative branch. It says the 1973 resolution should be repealed and replaced with new legislation that would require the president to inform Congress of any plans to engage in "significant armed conflict," such as operations lasting longer than a week.
In turn, Congress would act within 30 days, either approving or disapproving the action.
Baker, who served as in the first Bush administration and co-chaired the 2006 Iraq Study Group, said the proposal isn't intended to resolve constitutional disputes between the White House and Congress on who should decide whether the nation fights.
"What we aim to do with this statute is to create a process that will encourage the two branches to cooperate and consult in a way that is both practical and true to the spirit of the Constitution," he said in a statement.
A new joint House and Senate committee would be established to review the president's justification for war. To do so, the committee would be granted access to highly classified information.
Congress' involvement in approving combat operations became a central issue in the Iraq debate last year, when Democrats tried to force President Bush to end the war. While Congress had authorized combat in Iraq, Democrats said the resolution approved only the invasion and not a five-year counterinsurgency.
After taking control of Congress in January 2007, Democrats tried to cap force levels and set a timetable for withdrawals. While they lacked a veto-proof majority to put the restrictions into law, the White House argued that such legislation would have violated the Constitution by infringing upon the president's right as commander in chief to protect the nation. Democrats disagreed, contending there was ample precedence.
The one surefire way for Congress to have ended the war was to cut off money for combat operations -- a step most Democrats weren't willing to make because they feared doing so would have hurt troops in harms' way, or at least be perceived by voters that way.
The plan identified by Baker and Christopher, who served as secretary of State under President Clinton, would not necessarily resolve such issues in the future. But it would create a consultative process between the White House and Congress that currently does not exist. Also, calling on Congress to respond would exert significant political pressure on a president if he ignored lawmakers' wishes.
The panel studied the issue for more than a year and consulted more than three dozen experts. Other members of the panel include former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton, who in 2006 led the Iraq Study Group with Baker; former Attorney General Edwin Meese III, and Strobe Talbott, former deputy secretary of State.
The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored the study.
#3
For the record, what is commonly called the War Powers Resolution is actually an act of Congress passed over the veto of Nixon.
It requires consultation with Congress before military action and every President has done this. It also requires an authorization before 60 days has passed since military force was used.
The real problem here is that Congress actually wants to complain about the use, the success, the rules, the barriers to, the requirements for the use of military force but does not want to ever take responsibility for actually authorizing it.
Legislation can be crafted to make it appear to correct the problems with the 1973 act (which has never been tested in the Supreme Court and which may be unconstitutional), but it won't fix the "don't blame me, I'm just here to complain" attitude of legislators
#4
The real problem here is that Congress actually wants to complain about the use, the success, the rules, the barriers to, the requirements for the use of military force but does not want to ever take responsibility for actually authorizing it.
Congress will acknowledge that they authorized the war. Under false pretenses, if the war is unpopular. What they want, and what the founders specifically and explicitly denied them is a voice in conducting war. They had seen war conducted this way during the Rev olution and they were not about to allow the mistake to be repeated. So Congress gets to start wars and end them, but the President gets to fight them. And congress will be unhappy until the constitution is overturned. No president will alloiw this to happen.
#6
The 'problem' is the curse of December 7th. The founding fathers never in their imagination thought we'd be tagged with maintaining and operating a major military force across the world. The Constitution wasn't written with those objectives in mind, but the historical memories of Charles I, Cromwell, the the Revolution in mind. They sought to control the Executive in engaging in war making power not just by legislative acts like declarations of war, but also through the maintenance of a small standing army. They understood that the President shouldn't have to convene to Congress every time some conflict developed on the frontier or the country was subjected to an unanticipated invasion with Congress not in session and unable to immediately respond. The management tool therefore was the funding of the Army [who's funding is explicitly restricted in terms of years in the Constitution]. In the major conflicts which would happen since then 1812, Mexican-American War, ACW, Spanish American War and WWI would see the major demobilization of any standing army accumulated during the conflict. It was WWII and the situation with which America was presented that altered the dynamics. With it came a large standing military force committed worldwide facing contingencies that could at short notice demand the intervention of American interests. The President since has had a tool that the founders tried to avoid. The world just didn't let their posterity have that option. The one legitimate Constitutional tool Congress has to limit the Executive is to cut the size and funding of the force available to commit to any action. Congress understands that is a nuke handgrenade, taking out the thrower and target alike. No one has the balls to come up with a Constitutional amendment to alter the relationship. So every one bitches and passes meaningless legislation that does nothing but grant the Judiciary even more power in a process that the founders would be shocked at.
The real choice is to fundamentally choose in this world to be part of the total process and therefore keep plodding along with the tools we have, or go isolationist and simply try to ride out the storm that will follow. To be the master of one's fate or the victim of others actions.
#8
MHW,
Not only was the War Powers Act passed over a Nixon veto, but it's been generally assumed by both sides that if the WPA ever went to the Supreme Court, it would die a quick and spectacular death. IMHO the problem doesn't go back to WWII, because the postwar military really was cut drastically back. It sadly dates to the Korean War and Harry Truman, who (of all people) should have asked for a declaration of war against North Korea.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/08/2008 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"When i hear the words Christopher and Baker I release the safety catch on my gun."
#10
IMHO the problem doesn't go back to WWII, because the postwar military really was cut drastically back. It sadly dates to the Korean War and Harry Truman, who (of all people) should have asked for a declaration of war against North Korea.
I understand your approach, but the US, while downsizing the physical force, substituted its monopoly on atomic weapons as a counter force and maintained commitments and token forces world wide as a 'show of force'. The mindset of being 'engaged' created by WWII hadn't disappeared. For a couple of years it was thought possible to be committed on the cheap. The first 'peacetime' draft was initiated by Truman in 1948 in response to the Soviet blockade of Berlin. In 1949 the Soviets explode their first nuke made possible by the communist espionage efforts and the American monopoly ended. North Korea invades the south in 1950.
#11
The problem is nobody holds the Congress accountable for voting for something and then later backtracking. If you did not have enough time to read something you should not sign it. That is the job of Congress for crying out loud. Cowards.
And the other problem is the declaration of war should have very large font letters stating DECLARATION OF WAR on the top so there is no doubt. Don't fuzz it up. Then attach spending and things directly to that so when the war is declared over any bills attached also end. It's not rocket science.
#12
I say that the American People declare war on Congress.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
07/08/2008 21:53 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The founding fathers never in their imagination thought we'd be tagged with maintaining and operating a major military force across the world.
I couldn't disagree more. They clearly thought they were creating a republic that would grow to be equal or superior to any European power. One of their greatest concerns was whether a nation of such broad expanse could survive as a republic. But that it would have great expanse they never doubted. That they could not see today's world in many details is as clear as that we cannot imagine the details of the world of 250 years from now. But I daresay they would be less surprised by the way things have turned out thus far than we would be by the world 250 years hence.
What they would be surprised at was that the United States would stop growing.
Blaming the standing army of the cold war on the Japanese is ludicrous. It was due to HW Bush alone.
Had Stalin not threatened Europe we would have demilitarized as we did after prior wars. But Stalin was foolish enough to make his intentions clear before we had forgotten the lesson of Munich.
As a result we rebuilt a standing army for 50 years of warm and cold war. It was at the end of this war that we did not remotely attempt to demilitarize. Blame HW Bush for the continued militarization of the US. Had he disbanded NATO and brought home the troops we would have been much better off.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. -- Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama knows that to win the vote of current and former military members and their families, he has to prove himself. 'Precisely because I have not served in uniform, I am somebody who strongly believes I have to earn the trust of men and women in uniform,' Obama said in a July 2 interview with Military Times as he contrasted his lack of service with that of Republican presidential candidate John McCain, a Navy retiree and Vietnam veteran who has years of experience in Congress working on national security issues.
'I do not presume that from the day I am sworn in, every single service man or woman suddenly says, 'This guy knows what he is doing,'' said Obama, a freshman U.S. senator from Illinois, in his most extensive interview to date on a wide range of military issues.
Earning trust, he said, means listening to advice from military people, including top uniformed leaders, combatant commanders and senior noncommissioned officers and petty officers. It also means standing up for the military on critical issues and keeping promises, Obama said. Obama said he hopes the military community will see him as 'a guy looking out for us and not someone trying to score cheap political points.'
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/08/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So, throwing the war on terror under the bus, something the troops deeply believe in or they wouldn't have volunteered life and limb to fight this war, will gain thier trust?
This guy is too much like his father, make promises to one woman, then leave her for another.
Like father, like son.
Posted by: a yankee ||
07/08/2008 0:58 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Community organizing skills in a Chicago Ward aren't actually impressive to the military. Maybe Mr. Ayers putting in a few words won't help the earning part either
#4
wanting to talk to Iran North Korea and everyone but our military leaders doesn't work very well either.
When did he say he'd go over there again, as though it will make much of a difference now, we already know where he is on these issues.
Posted by: Jan ||
07/08/2008 1:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
No, no, no, Jan. You missed the part where he said he, unlike Bush, has no preconceived notions about Iraq.
See? Feel better?
Posted by: Bobby ||
07/08/2008 5:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think I got this figured out:
If you're an opponent of the war and think the United States of KKK-A deserves to lose, in order to vote for Obama, you have to believe (1) he was serious about withdrawal in 16 months no matter what, and (2) he's just BS-ing now to get elected and will pivot again as soon as he's inaugurated.
If you prefer that we win the war, then in order to vote for Obama, you have to believe (1) all that stuff about withdrawal in 16 months no matter what was BS to get the rabid BDS sufferers to vote for him in the primary, and (2) what he's saying now is what he'll really do and we should believe him this time.
Posted by: Mike ||
07/08/2008 6:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Here is an easy way to earn the troops trust.
Don't stab the troops in the back:
don't make their sacrifices go in vain:
don't cut their support off:
don't make disparaging comments about them:
don't make disparaging comments about their efforts:
make sure they stay until the job is done.
#8
Yankee hit a nerve. It will be interesting to see if the fruit-tree meme ever hits the MSM. But I bet it gets repeated a lot over a quiet beer, though. One of those old saws educated people scoff at until they become old educated people.
#9
That's it, Obama. Talk to our enemies, let them know you're willing to appease their demands. Convey a perception of weakness such that we wind up with another 9/11 on our hands. Sit down and project your civility with murderous religious militants bent on the destruction of America and the establishment of an Islamic state. Have tea with President Tom whilst his henchmen are working in the background on nuclear devices to be aimed at the US. Break bread with al-Sadr and let him know that we understand and feel his pain even as he issues orders to strike hard at the infidels. Have some warm and fuzzy discussions with Hezbollah's leaders who are in the midst of a campaign to destroy Israel first, and then on to the US.
One cannot reason with unreasonable people. It's a cuddly feeling to want to resolve differences with talks. The hard and cold reality is that the leaders with whom he wants to talk are cold-blooded and hard hearted. They mean the destruction of our nation.
Never ever trust them. Ever.
Posted by: Walter S ||
07/08/2008 8:44 Comments ||
Top||
#10
....that everybody who is willing to lay down their lives on behalf of the United States and can do so effectively,
Strangly worded, not that he would know anything about it selfless service anyway, the worthless piece of kak.
#12
It's an exotic world for you 0. You'll have to adjust to an atmosphere with more integrity, trust and honor than you've ever encountered in all your time in Chicago or the beltway. The troops have no intention of being another 'one under the bus' O. In your high flying life these days you missed the story about the Marines who refused to testify in a witch trial in Blue Country. When the chips are down and the situation is darkest, the troops rely upon each other, even on to death or as the Great Liberator called it, the last full measure of devotion. They hear talk all the time. It doesn't take long for the troops to smell a poser among their ranks. The troops have no time for posers. You can buy generals by the handful [just ask Wesley], but you can not buy the loyalty of the troops but through loyalty back to them. It's a two way street. Checking PM on the undercarriage of the bus is not going to get that result.
#14
What BHO wants is to turn the military into another welfare program. He will spend all the money on "personnel programs" not military training and equipment.
The only thing he would use the military for would be disaster relief around the world, particularly enemy states. So why would they need guns?
#15
like his Freudian slip the other day: "My Joint Chiefs of Staff"
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/08/2008 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Military members and their families deserve better pay and benefits, he said, and although money might be hard to find for a generous increase, he supports increasing basic pay to keep up with inflation and private-sector salaries, and he believes housing allowances need to be increased so young service members and their families can afford adequate places to live.
He seems to have confused the military with another special interest group, easily bribed into compliance with cash.
I'll believe he's interested in the military when he actually goes and visits some units & talks to some troops. Have I missed any photo-op visits over the last two years?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/08/2008 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Let me re-phrase: I'll believe that he *wants* us to think that he cares about the military when he starts making a big deal out of doing photo-ops with the troops. Hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue - so what do you call it when they don't even bother with that tribute?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
07/08/2008 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Not sure Frank, whether it was in that same discussion, but he also added,
"I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator
," said Obama.
Did I miss his resigning from the Senate?
#20
#16 Military members and their families deserve better pay and benefits, he said, and although money might be hard to find for a generous increase
THERE it is! First predicted here a couple of weeks ago. Watch him release his plan for a BIG military pay increase when he gets to the Gulf. So Cook County, Chicagoesque. One must wonder if he speaks to Jimmy Carter DAILY!
Why don't you come back in 20 years when you actually have something to put on your resume?
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
07/08/2008 11:27 Comments ||
Top||
#22
LOL - I heard the US Postal Service was going to issue new stamps... with BHO's resume on them
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/08/2008 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#23
So he is going to earn their respect by paying them off? I don't see how that would do it (knowing the people I know in the military) other than, "Thanks for the money, but you are still an ass." or "All I am is a dollar amount to you?" It took years to earn the respect of my firefighter group and there is no money involved in that, so figure that one out mr. lawyer.
Even jf'nk at least took a helicopter ride in Afghanistan (Pampers unavailable for comment).
#24
I didn't ponder it before, but its a bad bad precedent to try to 'buy' the troops favors. Ask the Roman rulers. It tells you something when you have to buy favor that it treats the military as a separate constituency, one with significant influence not only as an entity of itself but its credibility in the society as a whole that you would make such an effort, and that it is one in which the pay off is in cold hard cash not grandiose symbolism. Competing egos for the office of Caesar bidding up the army. Not good. However, the pursuit of power never was about morality.
#26
So he is going to earn their respect by paying them off?
It works in Chicago. They call it 'quid pro quo' which is Latin for 'piles of frozen money in the freezer'.
As long as Obama has respected and revered military advisors like Weasley Clark (Hero of the Battle of Pristina Airport) and HalpUsJohn Kerry (failed Presidential goofus), he will have all the military respect & trust he can handle.
#27
Too late doofus. you have already said enough to never earn the trust of this vet. and i can probably find another 25 or so easily within the little ol' factory out here in beeyouiful Skagit Valley, WA.
(PS, your big mouth wife ain't helping you so very much, either)
#28
An Army poll taken among recent recruits showed that among the pollees overall the primary reason for enlisting was to serve the country. Results differed a lot depending on which subgroup the recruits fell into. For African Americans, service came in behind career issues.
Obama's tuned into that demographic among the troops, I suspect.
#29
I want to add that I know and respect many Black career soldiers who put service and sacrifice at the top of their values list. That poll definitely does not speak about them. It was done by human resources command and looked at the self-identified motivations of kids considering whether or not to enlist.
#30
The reasons for choosing to enlist on the one hand, and later choosing to re-enlist on the other are likely very different. I suspect that the groups converge in motivation for choosing the latter.
But what about the nation that issued the passport? Would it not be much easier for them to look into the backgrounds of their own citizens prior to issuing passports? Absolutely, and all nations should, but few take even a cursory look into the matter. Why should they? For most of them, their nationals are well behaved and to investigate each passport applicant would involve costs depending on the depth of the inquiry. But what if the nations of the world accepted responsibility, or more precisely, accepted financial responsibility, for the criminal acts of their passport holders while in another country? What effect would such a system have? Errett believes the benefits to the United States and almost every other nation in the world, by adopting the POP plan would be enormous.
LONDON (AFP) Oil prices nosedived by almost five dollars on Tuesday as falling global equities and resurgent concerns about an economic slowdown stoked fears about future energy demand, traders said.
The oil market, which hit record heights close to 147 dollars a barrel last week, also sank after the Group of Eight (G8) rich nations warned on soaring crude costs and appealed for more production, they added.
Brent North Sea oil for August delivery plunged 4.88 dollars to 136.99 dollars a barrel. New York's main oil contract, light sweet crude for August delivery, tumbled by 4.95 dollars to 136.41.
Crude prices fell heavily "amid concerns over the general health of global economies following a sharp sell off in equities," said Sucden analyst Nimit Khamar."Many economies face a bleak economic outlook which could reduce the demand for oil, especially at current prices."
World stock exchanges suffered sharp falls Tuesday on fresh fears for the banking sector, with the French market hitting a three-year low following big losses in Asia and the United States, dealers said.
In Japan on Tuesday, eight of the world's most powerful leaders called for efforts to cool sizzling oil prices, warning soaring fuel and food costs were a threat to world economic growth."It seems to me like oil traders are looking with some interest at the headlines coming out of the G8 meeting," said Dave Ernsberger, Asia director of global energy information provider Platts in Singapore.
The London Brent contract hit an all-time peak of 146.69 dollars and New York crude struck a record high of 145.85 dollars last Thursday.
The G8 said Tuesday that it was ready to take action to cushion global growth from runaway energy costs, but stopped short of announcing concrete steps on the second day of an annual summit.
The G8 nations -- Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States -- said the world was "facing uncertainty," although they remained positive about the long-term resilience of their economies.
Oil slumped on Monday, losing almost four dollars in New York, on the back of easing geopolitical tensions over Iran's nuclear program and a strengthening US dollar.
However, jitters about key crude producer Iran returned on Tuesday. Iran would "set on fire" Israel and the US navy in the Gulf as its first response to any American attack over its nuclear programme, an aide to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned on Tuesday. "The first US shot on Iran would set the United States' vital interests in the world on fire," said Ali Shirazi, a mid-ranking cleric who is Khamenei's representative to the naval forces of the elite Revolutionary Guards."Tel Aviv and the US fleet in the Persian Gulf would be the targets that would be set on fire in Iran's crushing response," he said, according to the Fars news agency. If I'm the North Koreans, I'm suing for copywright infringement...
The United States and its top regional ally Israel have never ruled out attacking Iran over its nuclear drive, which the West fears could be aimed at making nuclear weapons.
#1
This might be the first cracks in the dam of overpriced oil. Something the real oil experts have been pointing out for a long time--that there is no reason for oil prices to be this high, except in a speculative bubble.
So the question becomes, how low will oil go when there is a stampede to sell?
#2
I don't know, but I hope a lot of speculators lose their asses (and kneecaps and homes) when they can't pay their shorts
Posted by: Frank G ||
07/08/2008 19:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Saw a chsrt of the last year or so and this is not out of line with normal variability. If it continues tomorrow that's starting to get exceptional. Chinese and Indians have reduced subsidization of oil prices for domestic purposes. That will have an effect.
NOW IS THE TIME TO PASS THE OIL IMPORT FLOOR TARRIFF. KEEP OIL ABOVE $100 PER BARREL.
FOX NEWS > reports that as per Perts the DTERIMENTAL SCALAR EFFECTS/CONSEQUENCES OF GLOBAL WARMING WILL LIKELY NOT MANIFEST OR APPEAR WORLDWIDE FOR ANOTHER TWENTY YEARS [NLT 2030 r.o.?]???
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.
Zimbabwe urged the world on Monday to accept President Robert Mugabe's re-election and said any move to impose U.N. sanctions on his government would hurt everyone involved.
