Mount St. Helens began belching a huge column of white steam Friday after days of rumblings and earthquakes that suggested the volcano that erupted with cataclysmic force in 1980 was about to blow its top again. It was not immediately known if this was the eruption that scientists have been warning of for days. For the past week, scientists have detected thousands of earthquakes of increasing strength as high as magnitude 3.3 at a mountain best known for its devastating eruption in 1980. The eruption killed 57 people and coated towns 250 miles away with ash.
#3
Bah! Instantly scooped. With a picture even. Editors can remove mine, above. Fox is saying on air that this is the eruption they've been warning about. Ash cloud not predicted to get far. Flights have been warned away though.
#7
BigEd , thanks for the data, it's a little Greek to me but I found a web-page which should assist in the link. Thanks again.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/01/2004 16:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Mark,
Type in (img src=url for picture), enclose in brackets, <>, rather than parentheses.
For this one type in (img src=http://www.geocities.com/yybalou/0410011245MSH.jpg),
#14
Umm, folks, I really hate to be the killjoy with the fun we're having, but remember, Fred pays for the bandwidth.
Small pics please if you must.
And hit the tipjar. Thankee kindly good sirs!
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/01/2004 17:49 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Fred's bandwidth should only be affected if he's hosting the pictures on the Rantburg computer--if you link to them it shouldn't affect Fred's bandwidth charges...although people with dial up connections might not be pleased if we get too many pix!
Gotta link to this CNN story referenced by Drudge. I'm sure this bartender gal is pleased that the fact she and her hubby called in sick to go see the volcano is documented on a national news website. Saturday night: "Sheri, I'd like to have to a word with you about Friday's absence..."
Posted by: Dar ||
10/01/2004 19:21 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Mr White. Not to be snarky I host all the imagies I post on my own website which I pay the bandwitdh for. Your viewing of an image hosted on my site does not effect Fred's bandwidth costs. If you look at the source url you will see that your browser gets that image from hosting site. Maybe you should learn how the internet works. As for folks on dial up well if they are used to it on every commercial news site out there they should be able to hack it at Rantburg. BTW I have sent Rantburg a donation.
Al Jazeera endorses beheadings
By Youssef M. Ibrahim
Feysal Al Qassem, the infamous anchorman of Al Jazeera's television show "Counter Direction," (or Alti jah Al Muaakess), took a debate on savagery to the limit last week.
Qassem hosted an Egyptian guest who for more than an hour was allowed to advocate, with sickening insistence, the beheading of hostages in Iraq as a legitimate act of resistance to what he called "these American dogs," regardless of whether the captives — who are of many different nationalities — are military personnel, civilians, aid workers, or spies. They are all mercenaries, the Egyptian man screamed, as Qassem cheered him on.
Truly, he who has no shame is not afraid. Arabism and Islam have nothing to do with such people.
Where does Al Jazeera, and Qassem, think it is taking their Arabic-speaking viewers — young and old — when they broadcast a talk show tantamount to issuing a fatwa, or edict, to murder in the name of Islam and God or Arab nationalism?
Do Qassem and his network appreciate how much damage they are doing to the religion of 1.2 billion Muslims, in addition to polluting the minds of many who watched him dish out this garbage?
Qassem — whose program is already known as vile, loud, and messy — descended further into ignominious behavior.
As the host of this unbelievable conversation, Qassem indulged a so-called political commentator arguing that severing heads is okay in the name of resistance to American occupation and — more important — to teach the Americans "a lesson."
How about what this teaches Arab children? What will they retain when they hear gratuitous invitations to kill, slash, hate, demean, and ostracize 'the other,' including innocent journalists, aid workers, and United Nations officials, men and women who came to help the Arabs of Iraq?
On Qassem's television show, the guest representing the opposing view, an Iraqi who argued hopelessly that such savagery is inhuman, was at a loss for words. Who would not be?
There is a point at which freedom of expression stops and advocating irresponsible bloody savagery begins. Clearly, Al Jazeera and Qassem have no idea where that point is. Sponsors, mainly the government of Qatar, should pull the plug on him and then apologize to Arabs, Muslims, and the whole civilized world for this smear.
Like it or not, Al Jazeera has a huge following of Arabic-speaking people. This is a public trust. If a satellite channel claims to speak in the name of Arabs, its bosses and sponsors must make sure it does not spit where it eats.
Al Jazeera has also given prime time to the rabid Egyptian so-called religious leader Youssef Al Qaradawi, who issued an edict allowing the killing of Americans in Iraq and wife-beating. The other day 'Al Itihad,' the Emirates Arabic daily newspaper, to its credit, denounced him as an "ignorant man" misleading Muslims. Abdel Rahman Al Rashed, the manager of the competing Arabic network Al Arabiya, also to his credit, describes Qaradawi as polluting minds and shaming Muslims.
It is now up to the Qatari government to stop these charades.
Al Azhar, the highest authority in Sunni Islam, has condemned as a crime the kidnappings and beheadings of anyone.
What's worse is that in electronic voting on the issue, a huge majority of Al Jazeera's viewers encouraged decapitation, with less than 10 percent voting against. The true calamity is that most of those who voted in favor were Arabs and Muslims living in the West with free access to the internet, enjoying the full freedom of Western democracies.
Youssef M. Ibrahim, a former Middle East correspondent for the 'New York Times' and energy editor of the 'Wall Street Journal,' is managing director of the Dubai-based Strategic Energy Investment Group.
#1
It's well past time to endorse car bombing Al Jazeera and other Arab media. They are the enemy. They spread hate of the infidel and give encouragement and sustenance to the Jihad.
Posted by: ed ||
10/02/2004 0:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Do Qassem and his network appreciate how much damage they are doing to the religion of 1.2 billion Muslims, in addition to polluting the minds of many who watched him dish out this garbage?
It's not a matter of whether "Qassem and his network appreciate how much damage they are doing to the religion of 1.2 billion Muslims."
It's a matter of whether those "1.2 billion Muslims" appreciate how much damage is being done to their so-called religion that is currently masquerading as a political ideology. If Muslims everywhere do not rise up against the spewing of filth like this, then they become part of the hate mongering.
Al Jazeera needs to have its broadcast facilities wiped off of the map. If they own their relay satellite, it should be blown out of the sky. These scumbags are the face of terrorism and nothing else.
#3
beheadings, indeed all non-consensual acts, are bad. Okay, now moving along.
Can you please show me the proof of "Al-Jazeera endorsing beheadings" accusation? Did Al-J., as an organization, make a public statement as such? Or did they just interview someone on their show who said it?
Here in America, I have seen the head of the KKK interviewed on news shows, but I did not conclude ABC endorses the KKK. All the story you cite says to me is that one dude on a talk show said the violence is justified.
Recall that before we executed that dude who murdered abortion doctors, the pundits read his entire speech on national tv. Does everyone who carried, even read, his words endorse killing abortion doctors? No.
(Would you want to sit next to this guy on a long flight?)
From correspondents in London
October 2nd, 2004
LAWYERS for the singer once known as Cat Stevens have asked American officials to explain why they barred him from entering the country and formally requested his name be removed from a government "no fly" list.
The musician, now a peace activist named Yusuf Islam, was expelled from the United States last week after authorities diverted his London-to-Washington flight to Maine to remove him, saying he was suspected of ties to terrorism.
The Carter-Ruck law firm today said it had asked the US Government to explain why it considered Mr Islam a security risk.
"I remain bewildered by the decision of the US authorities to refuse me entry to the United States," the firm quoted him as saying.
"My solicitors have now made representations to the relevant US authorities and I have asked (British) Foreign Secretary Jack Straw to continue to use his good offices in order to bring this matter to a swift conclusion."
Mr Straw has complained to American officials about their treatment of Mr Islam. uhmmmm
The Associated Press
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/01/2004 7:30:52 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
How about this from the US Govt:
FOAD mr whats-yer-name, and the horse you came in on.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/01/2004 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Would you want to sit next to this guy on a long flight?
Yes I would. Because if he so much as farted he'd be wearing his ass as a hat.
Is this unbelievable?
No, nothing is unbelievable when it involves the arrogance, presumption, dishonesty and vicious bigotry of the British chattering classes and their sycophants.
What is the truth? British status-seekers, investors, and business hangers-on like this pompous knave Croke have been bought off with Arab money, it's that simple. This is especially true in any enterprise related to publishing, printing, or consumer products. Recycled oil loot is their life-blood and the whores who run them must bend over accordingly. You can't do business in the UK without being aware of this and it's high time non-dhimmified Brits made it a public issue.
Unless Britain's media becomes more balanced, a hostile climate could worsen. Britain's Jewish Chronicle can make for sobering reading these days. At a time when fanatical hostility to the State of Israel and the related rebirth of anti-Semitism in Europe have become commonplace, the shock value of the latest cemetery desecration or the latest distortion of Israel's actions in the Middle East has become subject to the law of diminishing returns. The more we hear about it, the less it affects us.
But last week's issue of that newspaper contains a story so appalling that it deserves to be heard by all. The author, Mark Scodie, relates the tale of how a 30-year-old Israeli woman, who wants to remain anonymous, was turned down for a job at a London-based Christmas decorations company called Gisela Graham. On rejecting the woman's application, the company's marketing director, Piers Croke, made a few comments in an e-mail to her about the reaction she was likely to elicit from potential recruiters by including on her resume' the fact that she had done two years military service in the Israeli army as a conscript.
The following remarks attributed to Croke were quoted in the Jewish Chronicle: "The natural reaction of most educated Europeans to the information you provide is likely to be 'So it was she who guided those gunships to targeted assassinations and the murder of women and children with indiscriminate bombing and strafing of refugee camps.'" It is difficult to know what might qualify as "educated" in Croke's mind, but higher education used to involve elementary instruction in logic and rhetoric. Croke betrays a complete ingorance of these subjects by attempting to put words in the mouths of others and by arrogantly presuming to speak for an entire class.
With this, be warned, Croke was merely warming up. "A sizable proportion [of Europeans and Americans] doubt the 'right' of Israel to exist. This has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. Nor is it racism - that is the kind of disgusting attitude which one might say is inherent in the idea of the State of Israel and, one might say, among a large section of believing Jews elsewhere, who regard the rest of us as inferior, unclean, and not chosen by God. What could be more racist than that?" One might say that an obvious strawman applied to "a large section of believing Jews elsewhere" is racist. One might also say that Croke is a pompous buffoon with a penchant for pretentious forms of expressions.
Many of us have been disappointed at a rejection letter. But this surely sets something of a world record in the art of kicking someone when they are down. The case has been referred to Britain's Commission for Racial Equality, the official body charged with combating discrimination on ethnic, national, or religious grounds, and Croke and his company have apologized to the woman in question. But the broader point here is as obvious as it is alarming. An apology from this son of a bitch is no more acceptable than one from his predecessors, Goebbels and Streicher. Euro-bigot support and incitement are a crucial factor in Islamo-fascist terrorism all over the world. Follow their path, share their fate.
The intellectual atmosphere in Britain has now become so hostile to Jews and Israel that the rantings one might usually expect from extremist political organizations have invaded the mainstream. In normal circumstances, after all, you would hope to be able to tell the difference between a job rejection letter from a respectable company and a tirade from a neo-Nazi fringe group. What is worse is that this case is no exception. Last year, Amit Dushvani, an Israeli biology student, had his PhD application turned down by Andrew Wilkie, professor of pathology at Oxford University, in the following terms: "I have a huge problem with the way the Israelis take the moral high ground from their appalling treatment in the Holocaust, and then inflict gross human rights abuses on the Palestinians because they wish to live in their own country." Prof. Wilkie, who was suspended but not fired, went on: "I am sure you are perfectly nice at a personal level, but no way would I take on somebody who has served in the Israeli army."
In May of the same year a motion was proposed at a conference of the Association of University Teachers, a leading union for university professors, calling for a total academic boycott against Israel. The motion failed but was supported by one-third of the delegates.
Posted by: Atomic Conspiracy ||
10/01/2004 9:46:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A little bit OTT, if I may say. Croke's assertion that:
"The natural reaction of most educated Europeans to the information you provide is likely to be âSo it was she who guided those gunships..."
Is betrayed by: "...a motion was proposed at a conference of the Association of University Teachers, a leading union for university professors, calling for a total academic boycott against Israel. The motion failed but was supported by one-third of the delegates."
In other words, Only 1/3 of some of the most left-wing and passionately unionistic university lecturers backed a call to boycott Israel academically. About what you'd fear, perhaps, but hardly indicative that most university educators are rabidly anti-Semitic.
Wilkie should've been sacked from Oxford. His actions have massively discredited the University's reputation. Piers Croke should share the same fate. You can email Gisela Graham at: sales@giselagraham.co.uk. Website here.
#2
Croke wrote a letter to the Guardian on Sept. 28, 2001 saying that the response to 9/11 smacked of "vengeance", which is so unfashionable, dahling.
(Read the hand-wringing, pants-wetting Madeleine Bunting article he's agreeing with here. The pertinent stuff is five paragraphs from the end.)
I'm assuming that this is the same Piers Croke, on the theory that there can't be too many Piers Crokes living in London.
His company also offers Christmas decorations in the "Bridget Jones" look for those who find that old-fashioned green and red just too, too jarring against their sophisticated, understated decor.
However, he's not above justifying the deaths of tiny, helpless children if it will allow his company to wring a few more miserable pence from their soon-to-be-bereft parents:
It is impossible to try and anticipate what children might or might not do with a product and it is clearly impossible to ban everything that might be dangerous. We need a commonsense approach to toy safety.
Common sense?? But what of those poor individuals who completely lack any common sense, hmmm? Wouldn't a truly caring person care about them, too? Think of the children!
#4
What % of Britons share this reptile's views? How many do so quietly?
Got anything to back up your insulting insinuation that a large percentage of Britons are anti-Semitic? Presumably these are the same 'majority of Britons who despise Ariel Sharon' you claimed to be aware of earlier.
#5
Got anything to back up your insulting insinuation that a large percentage of Britons are anti-Semitic?
Just my experiences at London dinner parties and the experience of yamulke-wearing jewish friends who, while at Oxford, were invariably sneered at and made the subject of snide jokes by the polite classes of that university town.
Perhaps my and my friends' experiences are not indicative; I hope not. Which is why I asked for some hard evidence.
#6
Bulldog, have a look at the British govt., which presumably represents the majority of Britons, and see if you can find one member of said govt. (Tony Blair aside) who is not rabidly hostile to Israel. "Yes," the old argument goes, "but that is not necessarily anti-Semitic."
OK, so why then does the JEWISH STATE warrant such disproportionate criticism? Why not direct criticism towards deserving nations such as Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudia Arabia?
#8
Just my experiences at London dinner parties and the experience of yamulke-wearing jewish friends who, while at Oxford, were invariably sneered at and made the subject of snide jokes by the polite classes of that university town.
Invariably? Really? I doubt that. It's possible that they each had a complaint to make, but: they were invariably sneered upon - by everyone?! That's crap.
..see if you can find one member of said govt. (Tony Blair aside) who is not rabidly hostile to Israel.
The onus is on you to demosntrate the ridiculous proposition that they are all, besides Blair, "rabidly hostile to Israel". What shite.
#9
Bulldog, check out the next televised meeting that Blair and the boys have - the ones where they fire questions at him on policy and he staunchly defends himself. Watch the jackals bay for blood when the subject of Israel comes up and watch Blair vainly trying to fend them off. It will be quite an education, I promise.
#10
BD - "invariably" was over the top. Point taken. But the incidents ai described were so frequent as to suggest an atmosphere that tolerated anti-jewish insults. Again, I hope you're right, but my experience inclines me toward pessimism.
Pretty telling that Britain's official news agency has been expelled from Israel for its blatant and outrageous anti-Israeli bias. I don't believe that the Beeb is a fringe organization, and think it safer to assume that more Beeb viewers than not consider the Beeb take on Israel to be close to the truth.
A POLITICAL researcher working for high-profile UK Independence Party Euro MP Robert Kilroy-Silk has been accused of inflaming racial hatred by claiming the Prophet Mohammed was a paedophile and castigating Islam as a false religion. Outspoken solicitor Tony Bennett, of Chippingfield, Old Harlow, insists his views, which were published in the Sunday Telegraph at the weekend, are based on historical fact.
Come now, guv'nor, facts don't matter any more!
His comments have been condemned by the Muslim Council of Britain but Mr Bennett said this week he had received a lot of support. "These are things that should be brought into the public domain and talked about," he told the Star. Mr Bennett, who was sacked from his role as assistant to local UKIP MEP Jeffrey Titford in 2001 for writing disparaging remarks about a former colleague, carried out his research following the 9/11 attacks. He concluded Mohammed had between 16-22 wives and had sexual relations with a child bride.
Maybe cause it says so in the book?
He criticised those in the Muslim community who "cry Islamophobia" whenever such comments are made. And when asked his opinion on Islam, he said: "It's a false religion. They deny that Christ was the son of God. The Koran itself talks about Christianity being a false religion."
He's going to get the ArchDruid angry with him now.
Yet Mr Bennett also condemned racial stereotyping, insisting: "There's no hatred here. Many Muslims in this country are hard-working people who just want to get on and I have no problem with them. ... I am dealing with historical facts that are in Islamic textbooks." And he pointed to the fact that he assisted Asian postal worker Mahmood Siddiqui, who was awarded £130,000 compensation after claiming he was subjected to racial abuse while working at the Royal Mail sorting office in Harlow, as proof that he was not anti-Muslim.
Inayat Bunglawala, Essex spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, described Mr Bennett as an idiot. "Those kinds of remarks, saying the Prophet was a paedophile, are utterly unacceptable even if they're true," he said. "The Prophet is held in huge respect by Muslims the world over and he changed the course of history. The best thing we can do is try to ignore him. I think Mr Bennett is not fit to lick the shoes of the Prophet."
Not that he'd try.
He added: "His main claim is that the Prophet married an underage girl but at that time in Arabia they had different laws."
"And she had the body of a 12 year old!"
The Rev Andrew Forys, of Our Lady of Fatima Church, in Howard Way, Harlow, said: "I don't know Mr Bennett's argument or his views so I can't comment, but I'm against religions attacking other religions.
"Except for jihad, because we need to be culturally sensitive, you know."
"Want some of this warm milk? It's really frothy!"
"I'm not against religions arguing — that's something we should be doing to try to prove our point."
"Except that they'd blow us up if we actually did."
Charles Jackson, president of the Harlow Jewish Community, accused Mr Bennett of trouble-making, while the Rev David Kirk-wood, of St Paul's Church, in The High, Harlow, said: "There are differences of opinion between Christians and Muslims but it's very important we respect each other's beliefs and that we don't try to undermine the founder of their religions."
"Except for jihad, and beheadings, and other stuff to which we have to be sensitive."
Posted by: tipper ||
10/01/2004 12:38:16 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
other than saying that Mohammed was a devil worshiping, murdering, raping, thieving, lying, s***bird of a subhuman who raised the Satanic spirt of allan to "god" level...I have no opinion.
#2
With out being crude I'll go one better. Islam is a satanist cult. Mohammed was a murderer, racist, pedophile and thief. Islam is a religion that practices pedophilia and pederasty as a culturally accepted norm. Saying so is not outrageous. In fact the opposite is try. Claims that Islam is a normal religion is outrageous, ignorant and factually untrue.
#4
in other news the muslim council of britain reiteratted their support of doing away with TRUTH as a complete defense to libel laws
Posted by: SON OF TOLUI ||
10/01/2004 1:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Islam is not a satanic cult; its just that one of the strictures is that you bow down, then get down on your knees, and let Satan drive! And while your down there, you put you head btwn your knees and kiss your ass goodbye.
Posted by: Comment Top ||
10/01/2004 3:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Fatwa from the loony-fringe in 5.. 4.. 3.. Well done Mr Bennett for being prepared to stand up and criticise the Koran - doubtless he'll be called a nutter by all and sundry across the political and religious divide.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
10/01/2004 4:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
You guys know as well as I that the more one learns of the true tenants of the Koran, the more you have to believe that there is no way in hades this could have been inspired by God!
It's a false religion used by a bunch of assholes to commit crime!
Man, how stupid must Cat Stevens really be? What a freaking tool!
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
10/01/2004 5:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
He probably took too much acid in CATmandu and got converted to Islam by a terrorist who had his eye on Cat's bulging money belt.
#9
He added: âHis main claim is that the Prophet married an underage girl but at that time in Arabia they had different laws.â
And this changes the facts in what way, exactly? OK, she wasn't "underage" then, but we're also discussing a madman with absolute power. The same lunatic dictator who forced his son to get a divorce so he could marry his daughter-in-law.
There's really not all that much to admire about Mo'. Not by civilized standards, anyway.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/01/2004 9:56 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Underage? He married her when she was six years old and consumated the marrage when she was nine years old. She was still a child.
Its not the laws of man he violated but the laws of nature - how many nine year old children do you know who are physicaly developed enough (not to mention mentally or emotionally) to handle it?
#11
i dont give a double fuck what the hell big Mo did or didnt do in the 7thc century. There are SOME muslims who beleive in big Mo, who, god bless em, are risking their lives to fight the killer jihadis. There are other believers in big Mo who murder children and slice peoples heads off - and who, BTW have no compunction about murdering other followers of Big Mo. And then there are other muslims who are lost in nuance, like its ok to kill Jews but not Christians, or to kill Jews in Israel and Christians in Russia, but not in Europe or America, or its ok to kill Jewish babies in the West Bank, but not so good to do so in Tel Aviv. Im concerned with what we do about these three groups, how we strengthen the first, kill off the second, and knock sense into the last, with a combination of soft AND hard measures - Im not concerned with the details of the life of big Mo. since its pretty obvious to me that you can believe in Big Mo and still be on the right side of things, and you can not believe in him (like certain leftie idiots) and be on the wrong side.
#12
The war on terrorism, âis a long-lasting ideological struggle . . . it ought to be called the struggle of a totalitarian point of view that uses terror as a tool to intimidate the free.â --George W. Bush
"I have no doubt Iraq is better without Saddam; but no doubt either, that as a result of his removal, the dangers of the threat we face will be diminished. That is not to say the terrorists won't redouble their efforts. They will.  This war is not ended. It may only be at the end of its first phase. They are in Iraq, murdering innocent Iraqis who want to worship or join a police force that upholds the law not a brutal dictatorship; they carry on killing in Afghanistan. They do it for a reason. The terrorists know that if Iraq and Afghanistan survive their assault, come through their travails, seize the opportunity the future offers, then those countries will stand not just as nations liberated from oppression, but as a lesson to humankind everywhere and a profound antidote to the poison of religious extremism.  That is precisely why the terrorists are trying to foment hatred and division in Iraq. They know full well, a stable democratic Iraq, under the sovereign rule of the Iraqi people, is a mortal blow to their fanaticism. That is why our duty is to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan as stable and democratic nations. Here is the irony. For all the fighting, this threat cannot be defeated by security means alone. Taking strong action is a necessary but insufficient condition for defeating. Its final defeat is only assured by the triumph of the values of the human spirit." --Tony Blair
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. --Winston Churchill
"Islamic Terrorists are harbingers of death, destruction, chaos, hopelessness and oppression, fueled by a sick, psychologically underdeveloped and twisted social schema, psychosexual arrest, and lack of true education, balancing on a pseudo-intellectual, emotionally-based sado-masochistic teeter-totter, wrapped in a death wish, under the guise of false morals and religion, which amounts to nothing more than an excuse for base brutality and self-agrandizement in a vain quest to appease a god which demands vile acts of violence in exchange for illusory rewards of carnal self-indulgence.â --ex-lib
Well, what can I say . . . all great minds think alike. : ) (tee-hee---just a bit of fun on a dreary, rainy Monday)
Answer to CrazyFool (#10): You're absolutely right. Nine-year-olds do not have the physical, emotional, or psychological development to process sexual encounters of any kind. For a grown man to have had a sexual encounter with a six- or nine-year-old, is so reprehensible, I find it difficult to even come close to describing what this kind of thing does to children. An extremely excellent site on sexual abuse of children is at this link.
BTW, good for Mr. Bennet: Why should this topic be "off limits" somehow? Talking about it is not "Islamophobia." Anyway, the term "Islamophobia" is just a strategy to derail critique. You know who probably really does have actual "phobias" related to Islam? The children and families of Beslan.
#13
I hear you loud and clear, Liberalhawk (#11), and I basically agree. Still, it's vital to understand "Big Mo's" world in order to understand aspects of his "legacy" today.
#14
LH: I agree - however the apologist are trying to depict 'Big Mo' as some sort of pious, peaceloving, religious prophet and he simply wasn't - they are truely censoring this researcher from giving an objective historical view.
I find it strange that the MSM screamed 'Censorship!' when certain religious figures complained about 'the last temptation of christ' (which was fiction and not based on fact as far as I know) but are totally silent on these attempts to censor this political researcher's work which is based on the Islamic historic text and their own scriptures.
#15
Islam is the antithesis of Christianity and Judaism. It's an attempt by the Arab mind to build a wall between themselves and the rest of civilization, based on a perception that as long as Christianity and Judaism exist, they will be relegated to second-class status. After all, Abraham sent Hagar and her son Ishmael, the founders of the Arabic nation, away after the birth of Isaac. Consider it an extreme example of sour grapes, and a manmade creation to show "see, we're just as good - no, we're BETTER, 'cause our prophet is the LAST one." Like all manmade religions, it's so filled with internal inconsistencies it's collapsing upon itself, and only the "true believers" can't recognize the fact. The entire terrorist movement is an attempt to cover up the fact that Islam is becoming more and more irrevevant, and the "facts" purported by Islam are harder and harder to believe. Islam has turned (once again)to hate and murder to try to salvage itself, but these tendencies are only speeding up the self-destruction.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/01/2004 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#16
OP, I hadn't thought of it before, but the jihadists must really hate Mormons and their prophet Joseph Smith. The Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints has to trump the 7th century folks on the chronological holy meter.
#17
I would like to thank Mr. Bennet for his perceptive views. Knighthood might be appropriate.
Posted by: John ||
10/01/2004 18:39 Comments ||
Top||
#18
What LiberalHwak said. It's becoming increasingly clear that the US will have to carry the military burden in this war pretty much on our own, as the EUers desert us on Iran and offer nothing useful outside Afghan and, in a few shining cases and for a few months more at most, Iraq.
So we'd damn well ought to start finding real and serious allies in the frontline states, including the cultivation of sensible and brave muslim voices wherever we can. I don't give s**t about postmodern EUros secretly rooting for our retreat and retrenchment; it's the other, non-European populations' hearts and minds that really matter.
Instead of quoting the article, here's some necessary background on the unfamiliar geography and history involved. The article concerns two of Russia's autonomous republics in the North Caucasus: Kabardino-Balkaria and Karachay-Cherkessia. As the hyphenated names imply, each republic is home to two distinct ethnic groups, and all four are traditionally Muslim. Back in the 1920's, these four nationalities were geopolitically "mismatched" to discourage anti-Soviet nationalism. During WW2, the Karachays and Balkars (kindred Turkic tribes) were deported to Central Asia and Siberia (just like the Chechens), while the Kabardins and Cherkess (both Circassian tribes) managed to stay on Stalin's good side. The two Turkic tribes were eventually rehabilitated and returned to their homelands but understandably hold a grudge against both Moscow and their Circassian neighbors. In both republics, local politics are a balancing act between the two titular ethnic groups. Like their neighbors in North Ossetia, the two Circassian ethnicities tend to be more loyal to Moscow (although the Ossetians are predominantly Christian, whereas the Circassians are, traditionally at least, mostly Muslim). It's a volatile and complex situation that was already reaching a boiling point before Beslan... as the article points out.
Posted by: The Caucasus Nerd ||
10/01/2004 3:57:59 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Germany has set out a controversial proposal to stop illegal immigrants reaching the European Union by sending them to holding centres in North Africa.
The idea is backed by Italy, but has drawn concern from other EU nations over cost and human rights.
France questioned the financing of the plans, and whether they would respect human rights and raised the prospect of the centres attracting human traffickers.
Sweden says there is no quick fix to stopping economic migrants coming to Europe in search of a better life and urged the EU to look at ways to address the root causes of illegal immigration.
In 2003, Britain was forced to drop similar proposals to set up asylum centres outside the EU after pressure from Sweden and France, which argued they were in breach of international law.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/01/2004 7:13:02 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The headline completely distorts the proposal. The idea is create holding centres (kind of "safe havens") in North Africa for Africans who want to claim political asylum in the EU. More than 90 percent of Africans who claim political asylum in the EU are actually economic migrants. The German proposal is (up to now) backed by Italy, Poland and Denmark.
The British proposal included sending political refugees (or those who claimed that status) who had reached EU soil already, back to Africa into those centres, which would be a breach of international law.
#2
So the proposal is to establish a legitimate and, hopefully, safe alternative to crossing the Straits of Gilbraltar in pontoon boat fashioned from 55 gallon drums.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/01/2004 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's still a proposal at this stage but the U.S. tried something similar to stop the Cubans drowning at sea I think.
#6
EU law says that when a refugee reaches EU soil (and has not transited thru a "safe" country) he/she must be allowed to stay until asylum hearings are finished.
Another problem is when "refugees" shred their passport after arrival and it can't be proven where they come from. In that case they cannot be sent back to the state they hail from. This is a problem African asylum centres would avoid.
Whether they would really do much to stem the refugee flood is another question. The German position seems to be that it's better to do something than just sit and wait.
#7
Sorry I thought is was an international law. Well I am all for respecting laws that make sense but in the case of economic refugees the laws done't make sense. We have several million ilegal economic refugees here. We send them home they come right back. Good luck.
The United States and France agreed Thursday to cooperate more closely on terrorist cases and combatting organized crime, signing new deals both sides said signaled better relations. Perben and Ashcroft signed two accords updating a U.S.-French extradition treaty and facilitating the transfer of terror suspects. Ashcroft said the agreements were a sign of stronger ties between the two countries following disagreements on how to fight terrorism. The closer cooperation "will allow us to engage in the fight against a wide variety of crimes, not just terrorist offenses, in a way that is up to date and expeditious," he said. Their talks were held on the margins of a U.S.-EU meeting on terrorism. Perben told reporters he had asked Ashcroft "to obtain clearer information" about the detentions of the three French nationals in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo. "Ashcroft said he would examine their situation as quickly as possible," Perben said. Authorities have struggled for months to bring home the three, being held on suspicion of participating in terror-related activities. Four other prisoners held at Guantanamo were returned to France in July.
Wring them dry and ship the husks to the French.
France and the United States have been at loggerheads over how to tackle terrorism and the U.S.-led war in Iraq. "These agreements are a powerful reaffirmation that we work shoulder to shoulder in defense of freedom and the rights of citizens," Ashcroft said. "These are historic agreements, both for what they say and what they symbolize."
Wonder who gets to do the heavy lifting?
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/01/2004 12:04:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
My boycott all things french is still on, until I see boots on the ground helping us chase down the islamo baddies!
via Cracker Barrel Philosopher Hailed as heroes by U.S. troops in Afghanistan
Hailed as heroes for their crack shots in the mountains of Afghanistan, a group of decorated Canadian snipers were considered traitors by their fellow soldiers for the simple reason they worked alongside American troops. That's the troubling allegation behind a new probe under way by the Canadian military."The chief of defence staff is concerned about the nature of the complaints that he's heard and he wants an independent investigation to get to the bottom of it," Marin told the Star. "These are very serious allegations," Marin said.
For the countless American soldiers whose lives were saved by sharp eyes and crack shots of the snipers, the Canadians were seen as heroes. But other Canadian soldiers resented their close affiliation with the American troops and made no secret of it when the snipers returned to their base in Afghanistan and then home to Canada, a source told the Star. ... The snipers, members of Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, 3rd Battalion, were sent to Afghanistan in late February 2002 as part of the first deployment of Canadian Forces in that country after a U.S.-led coalition launched its war against terrorism. More than 20 kills were unofficially accredited to the snipers during Operation Anaconda in Shah-i-Kot Valley. Five of the snipers were nominated for one of the highest awards given by the United States military — the Bronze Star, two of them with Vs for Valour, marking exceptional bravery. But in what was a signal of the troubles they were encountering, awarding of the American medal was delayed by Canadian protocol officials.
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/01/2004 10:56:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the Bronze Star, two of them with Vs for Valour, marking exceptional bravery
#2
When I was Toronto last month, the locals were all still abuzz with the story of a recent hostage situation where a police sniper took out the perp with one shot, right out from behind the hostage. I told my friends that the police sniper was prolly ex-military, and that the Canadian snipers were our best allies in Afghanistan. I'm sure you all will be surprised that the Torontonians had no idea how good their snipers are...
#3
I'm sure you all will be surprised that the Torontonians had no idea how good their snipers are...
I'm surprised they knew we had a military at all. Actually, Canada has a lot of things...but no one knows about it. For example, Toronto has a Heavy Urban Search & Rescue team, that could've been used to save a guy trapped in a hole a while ago. But, they weren't called, and the poor guy had to lose his life.
Canada also have a Disaster Assistance Response Team, which could have been helpful in Haiti, but...well, even if they were called they don't have the airlift capability to get there.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/01/2004 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Shipman, two of the awarded Bronze Stars had "Combat V" ribbons attached.
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
10/01/2004 12:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Even more amazing considering the nature of the gun control laws in Canada...
#7
the Bronze Star, two of them with Vs for Valour, marking exceptional bravery.
You see, its just not me but these guys too that have V's for valor on their medals. Of course, they use bullets from 2000yards and I used spitballs from 30inches!
#8
The "V" for valor has been questioned regarding Kerry's medals.
Joe Citizen in Canada is not too supportive of our efforts. Have run into serious anti-war "attitudes" up there. They seem to be satisfied with letting us do the heavy lifting so they can have government sponsored health care. In the past (say WWII and Korea) we had good support from the Canadians.
Doubt the 2000 yard kill.
Posted by: John ||
10/01/2004 18:00 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The "V" for valor has been questioned regarding Kerry's medals.
That was re Mr. Kerry's Silver Star. Bronze Stars can be awarded with a 'V'.
#12
The Bronze Star can be awarded for meritorious service as well as for bravery under fire. I had a friend who got the Bronze Star in WWII for figuring out how to keep the radios working in 8th Air Force. Bronze stars awarded for bravery in combat are distinguished by a V device that is worn on the ribbon. V stands for Valor.
#13
I have quite a few friends in Canada, made over the Internet in the past five years, or from early association with a Canadian-based oil exploration company I worked for briefly. There's a growing divide between Canada west of Ontario and the rest of the country, especially Quebec. Unfortunately for the Canadians and their current particular form of government, the vast majority of the population (65% or more) lives in either Quebec or Ontario. The rest of the nation has little say in matters of state. The resentment is very real, and building. If things continue as they are now, ANYTHING could happen in Canada in the next ten years.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/01/2004 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#14
I doubt it, OldPatriot, since that 65% that's hard left will have a lock on power for years to come ...
It's not race that determines my opinion of the person, it's growing to be nationality. ;-)
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
10/01/2004 19:59 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I got a bronze star for stuff I did in a combat situation, but the one with the V was for action under fire.
And the Candians are the best snipers - those guys broke Gunny Hathcock's unofficial recrod.
Betcha the snipers are from out west, not from the east.
#16
Anti-war feeling is common in most free countries - including the US. I don't remember another case where it has been reported as prevalent in a country's military.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/01/2004 22:00 Comments ||
Top||
Bush and 'But'-Head John Kerry made some strong and sensible statements during the debate last night, but did you notice what the next word usually was? Here are some Kerry quotes:
"I'll never give a veto to any country over our security. But . . ."
"I believe in being strong and resolute and determined. And I will hunt down and kill the terrorists, wherever they are. But . . ."
"We have to be steadfast and resolved, and I am. And I will succeed for those troops, now that we're there. We have to succeed. We can't leave a failed Iraq. But . . ."
"I believe that we have to win this. The president and I have always agreed on that. And from the beginning, I did vote to give the authority, because I thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, and I did accept that intelligence. But . . ."
"I have nothing but respect for the British, Tony Blair, and for what they've been willing to do. But . . ."
"What I want to do is change the dynamics on the ground. And you have to do that by beginning to not back off of the Fallujahs and other places, and send the wrong message to the terrorists. You have to close the borders. You've got to show you're serious in that regard. But . . ."
"I couldn't agree more that the Iraqis want to be free and that they could be free. But . . ."
"No president, through all of American history, has ever ceded, and nor would I, the right to pre-empt in any way necessary to protect the United States of America. But . . ."
"I've never wavered in my life. I know exactly what we need to do in Iraq, and my position has been consistent: Saddam Hussein is a threat. He needed to be disarmed. We needed to go to the U.N. The president needed the authority to use force in order to be able to get him to do something, because he never did it without the threat of force. But . . ."
Maybe Kerry misunderstood when someone told him he needed to have the "qualifications" to be president. But it'd inspire a lot more confidence if he had followed any of these remarks with a "therefore" clause instead of a "but" one.
As Colin Cowherd said on ESPN Radio this morning...Kerry is nothing but a poser.
1. October 2002: Kerry Voted For Use Of Force Resolution Against Iraq. Kerry and Edwards voted for the Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. (H. J. Res. 114, CQ Vote #237: Passed 77-23: R 48-1; D 29-21; I 0-1, 10/11/02, Kerry Voted Yea)
2. April 2003: Kerry Promised Not To Attack President When War Began, But Weeks Later, With Troops Just Miles From Baghdad, Kerry Broke His Pledge And Called For "Regime Change In The United States." (Glen Johnson, "Democrats On The Stump Plot Their War Rhetoric," The Boston Globe, 3/11/03; Glen Johnson, "Kerry Says Us Needs Its Own 'Regime Change,'" The Boston Globe, 4/3/03)
3. May 2003: In First Dem Debate, Kerry Strongly Supported President's Action In Iraq. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "I said at the time I would have preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater opportunity, but I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein, and when the President made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him." (ABC News, Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Columbia, SC, 5/3/03)
4. September 2003: Kerry Said Voting Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Would Be "Irresponsible." Doyle McManus (LA Times): "If that amendment does not pass, will you then vote against the $87 billion?" Kerry: "I don't think any United States senator is going to abandon our troops and recklessly leave Iraq to - to whatever follows as a result of simply cutting and running. That's irresponsible." (CBS's "Face the Nation," 9/14/03)
5. October 2003: Kerry Voted Against The $87 Billion Supplemental Supporting Our Troops. (S. 1689, CQ Vote #400: Passed 87-12: R 50-0; D 37-11; I 0-1, 10/17/03, Kerry Voted Nay)
6. January 2004: After Voting For War And Trailing Candidate Howard Dean In The Democrat Primaries, Kerry Says He Is Anti-War Candidate. CHRIS MATTHEWS: "Do you think you belong to that category of candidates who more or less are unhappy with this war, the way it's been fought, along with General Clark, along with Howard Dean and not necessarily in companionship politically on the issue of the war with people like Lieberman, Edwards and Gephardt? Are you one of the anti-war candidates?" KERRY: "I am -- Yes, in the sense that I don't believe the president took us to war as he should have, yes, absolutely." (MSNBC's "Hardball," 1/6/04)
7. August 2004: In Response To President's Question About How He Would Have Voted If He Knew Then What He Knows Now, Kerry Confirmed That He Would Still Have Voted For Use Of Force Resolution. SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it's the right authority for a president to have. But I would have used that authority as I have said throughout this campaign, effectively. I would have done this very differently from the way President Bush has." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 8/9/04)
8. September 2004: Kerry: Iraq Is "The Wrong War In The Wrong Place At The Wrong Time." "Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry on Monday called the invasion of Iraq 'the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time' and said his goal was to withdraw U.S. troops in his first White House term." (Patricia Wilson, " Kerry on Iraq: Wrong War, Wrong Place, Wrong Time", Reuters, 9/6/04)
9. September 2004: Kerry Says There Were No Circumstances Under Which We Should Have Gone To War, But He Was Still Right To Vote For It. IMUS: "Do you think there are any circumstances we should have gone to war in Iraq, any?" KERRY: "Not under the current circumstances, no. There are none that I see. I voted based on weapons of mass destruction. The President distorted that, and I've said that. I mean, look, I can't be clearer. But I think it was the right vote based on what Saddam Hussein had done, and I think it was the right thing to do to hold him accountable. I've said a hundred times, there was a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it. The president chose the wrong way. Can't be more direct than that." (MSNBC's "Imus In The Morning," 9/15/04)
10. Kerry Said That The Removal Of Saddam Hussein Has Left America "Less Secure." KERRY: "Saddam Hussein was a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell. But that was not, that was not in and of itself, a reason to go to war. The satisfaction - The satisfaction that we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: we have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure." (Sen. John Kerry, Remarks At New York University, New York, NY, 9/20/04)
11. Kerry On Whether The Iraq War Was Worth It: "It Depends On The Outcome." DIANE SAWYER: "Was the war in Iraq worth it?" KERRY: "We should not have gone to war knowing the information that we know today." SAWYER: "So it was not worth it?" KERRY: "We should not - it depends on the outcome ultimately, and that depends on the leadership." (ABC's "Good Morning America," 9/29/04)
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/01/2004 3:25:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Kerry's kinda like my golf game some days, he's all over the freaking place!
To my knowledge, Sawyer, is the first MSM entity to call Johnny boy on his erratic, wait let me check wind direction first, stance on Iraq.
Shoot if the media would do it's damned job only 5% of the time this election would already be over. But alas, the MSM will be calling Kerry the "come back kid" or something stupid like that.
I must admit as a Bush supporter that I was dissapointed in W's performance last night. He didn't step on his Johnson or anything but he didn't seem sharp and really on his game either. To bad, he could have dealt Kerry a death blow with a better showing.
Posted by: RJB in JC MO ||
10/01/2004 5:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If Kerry's goal last night was to show that he's not a flashback-suffering, golddigging schizo warHeRoSLASHWarCRImiNal, then he succeeded.
But if his goal was to put forward intelligent, serious policy prescriptions for Iraq, Iran and North Korea, he failed utterly. The man spoke clearly and fluently, but what he actually said, in many cases, was fatuous.
The most asinine little fairy tale he repeated-- and he's been slapped down again and again on this by the Euros and by US leftists themselves-- was the one about how "Help is on the way" from France and Germany in the form of soldiers in Iraq. Again, idiocy delivered in a steady voice, a la Ted Baxter. And there was also the foolishness about bargaining with the mullahs, and the stupidity of unilaterally throwing away the bunker-buster missile that Clinton's team used to scare Khaddafi in 1996 and deter him from continuing with his own underground nuclear program.
EARTH TO KERRY: EUROPEAN "HELP" IS NOT "ON THE WAY". The lefties know it, the French Germans Belgians Swiss Spanish Dutch and Danes know it, your own people know it. So stop insulting everyone's intelligence and try another tack, surfer dude.
And do not f*** with our deterrent by throwing away our bunker-busting missiles. It's not 1983, and you're not Helen Caldicott.
Sky TV just had a panel 'discussion' on the debate featuring none other than Maureen Dowd and some British professor who soon established his credentials as a Loony Leftist. Dowd, predictably, spoke about the hormonal appeal Bush generally has for the ladies, saying he hadn't cracked it this time. I was pissed-off enough about this outrageous crap and lack of even a pretense of balance in the selection of the panelists to e-mail Sky a short, sharp letter. It's disapointing. Sky is usually more even-handed than CNN or BBC. Not this time, although the host did try to get some sense out of the panelists with some pertinent questions - which they soon turned into propagandist mush.
Kerry is a real chameleon:
You don't find too many like John Kerry
He can be stern or be merry
Or pompous or sad
Or obnoxious or mad
whatever might gain him the presidency
This was the headline and the first sentence of an editorial in today's New York Times:
THE FIRST DEBATE
"This campaign was so hungry for real discussion and substance that even a format controlled by handlers and spin doctors seemed like a breath of fresh air."
The NYT complaining about SPIN? Welcome to our Brave New World.
#4
The exchange on North Korea was instructive. John Kerry would place North Korea on an even par with the United States and snub other interested parties in the region. On one hand he demands we form alliances and when confronted by one he runs away from it.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
10/01/2004 8:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Bush's comments were based on what he has done and what he will do.
Kerry's comments were based on lies, spin and the war position d'jour. There are 30 days for Bush side to educate the public that his words and his deeds don't match.
#7
I suppose that ripping Kerry's heart out would not be presidential, but I certainly had the urge when he spun bilateral on North Korea after spinning multilateral on everything else. My advice to all of you: SwiftVets. I just hit the $50 button.
Posted by: Tom ||
10/01/2004 8:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I saw the debates last night. I thought Kerry was shown to be the "I'll do anything to be president--really I will" type of guy he is, and that he couldn't ever be anything but a complete disastaster with more power, but three polls are showing that Kerry came out ahead. Can somebody explain this to me?
I'll tell you what else I don't like (from AP News):
"Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who informally advised Bush on how to debate his friend and Senate colleague, told reporters in Miami on Friday that the debate was probably Kerry's "brightest moment" in the last six weeks. "He presented himself well, John did," McCain said. "Kerry came out slugging."
Some "friend."
John McCain is just like Kerry--he betrayed men to the enemy and they still hate him for it--he's just a hell of a lot better at covering his tracks. So I'm not surprised, just thinking that because McCain touts his b.s. and claim "Republican, Republican!" that people will blindly go along with it, including the President.
Thanks DDB, lex, RJB--but will somebody PLEASE tell me why most Americans still don't get it. Kerry is a loser and, to me at least, that's as plain as day.
#9
My "formerly ABB, now he'll decide on Election Day who he hates less" husband pronounced last night's debate a Bush win, and wondered why such a large percentage of questions were about Iraq, when relations with Europe, Asia and Mexico are also important to revealing each candidate's foreign policy stance. He particularly wanted to hear Kerry respond to the Chirac/Schroeder announcement that they would not send troops regardless who wins in November -- he'd heard about it on NPR(!!).
As for the lopsided polls, DU posted hotlinks to about 20 of them last night...so unless the polls were not on the internet, there is no way they could have been untainted.
So please don't be depressed, ex-lib, think of them as DU propaganda, not factual information, 'k? In about a week the professional poll results will come out, and then we'll see something closer to reality. In the meantime, take a couple of deep breaths, do at least 20 minutes of aerobic exercise daily to keep your seratonin levels up, and remember that there are two more debates wherein Kerry and Edwards can demonstrate how unfit for command they really are.
#10
I saw the debate and it was obvious that The President did a better job as a speaker and in clearly explaining his position. Kerry looked and spoke only to the moderator but President Bush looked into the camera and into the audience when he spoke showing confidence and honesty. To me the President clearly showed his position that America's leadership should be steadfast and not wavering in order for our troops, the Iraq government and other countries to have confidence in us. Our soldiers and other countries will not listen, believe or follow a leader that is undecisive and flip-flops as special intrest groups arrest his agenda. The liberal news media will stop at nothing in trying to make scary Kerry look better than he does. Even the cameraman and producer tried to show side shots of Kerry to make him appear as if he was talking to the audience rather than the moderator where he almost never looked away. While President Bush's camera position would not change, Kerry's camerman even tried to raise Kerry's statue during side by side shots, raising his image slightly higher than President Bush's image in order to project dominance. The camerman for Kerry would slightly move the camera up and down to try to disguise this posturing as a camera shot adjustment.
The Spin after the debate was all completely liberal bias. I think the Dims were so excited that FrankenKerry didnt completey blow it with a Vietnam rant that they projected him the winner.
President Bush stayed on target, answered the questions directly and his judgement has my confidence.
#11
ex-lib: Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who informally advised Bush on how to debate his friend and Senate colleague, told reporters in Miami on Friday that the debate was probably Kerry's "brightest moment" in the last six weeks. "He presented himself well, John did," McCain said. "Kerry came out slugging."
McCain isn't the problem. He hasn't said anything bad about Kerry, but Kerry is his friend. You can't be expected to insult someone just because he's on the other side of the political spectrum. Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar are the guys who really need to stop grandstanding. Their remarks about Iraq were most unhelpful. McCain, by contrast, has been publicly supportive and only mildly critical about the situation in Iraq. If GWB loses this election, he can credit Lugar's and Hagel's efforts in Kerry's behalf.
#12
Sorry, ZF. But I still don't trust McCain AT ALL, and I do think he works behind the scenes against the President and the Republican party (and Rush agrees with me). Besides, I talked for over an hour with the Vietnam Vets who served with McCain and they hate him for the same reasons the swiftboat vets hate Kerry.
Johnnie Bartlette: I really liked your post. My background in in broadcast news, and I absolutely hate what the media does with camera on these things--and, of course, they know what they're doing. Last night I was watching the debates on c-span internet streaming video, and all they showed was a small split screen the entire time. Fascinating, though, that Kerry was "attached" to the moderator: "help me, help me." He really is a very insecure man. I'll be they had to do a lot with make-up to cover up that fake tan, too. But it was a little too gray, I thought. And did you notice that Kerry lingered with Teresa on stage, after the Bush family had left, so they could get a camera/sound "op" of people cheering for them. Too much.
#13
Quit sweating, dudes. Mondale dusted Reagan in their first debate, and it meant f***-all to the election results. I remember the same brief exhilaration in the mOndale camp after that debate-- 'twas nothing more than the realization that their guy had a pulse after all.
The only way that a debate matters is if a candidate slips on a banana peel. You don't win a debate; you only lose one. Bush didn't lose this one. It was if anything a very marginal, hari's-breadth win for Kerry. Which only means that Kerry's not finished yet.
If unlike me you live in a swing state, I'd advise y'all to get away from the computer, walk over to your nearest Bush-Cheney office, and start hitting the phones and/or pavement.
Turnout, esp in OH PA FL MO CO WV and NM, will win this thing. So get going.
#14
This has been a much-needed wake-up call. A bit like the Yankees losing the first game of a series with Oakland. Complacency is (was) far and away the Bush team's greatest enemy.
The fact is that Bush is a flawed candidate whose lead is explained almost entirely by the fact that Kerry is even worse. Expecting Kerry to fall on his face is not a winning campaign strategy.
So if you want to win this thing, move beyond the Swiftie scare stuff and attack Kerry on the tough policy choices that lie ahead:
1) European "Help" is NOT "on the way"
2) Bunker-buster bombs are the only really effective stick we can waive at the mullahs-- it would be suicidal to scrap them
#16
I see the first debate as one that Bush could have won. Kerry did come across better composed, serious, focused, but he made points Bush failed to rip into.
Bush stuck far too much with his well known "easy to remember" talking points and didn't follow Kerry's arguments.
I give you a few reply lines that would have shredded Kerry.
Kerry: "Global test"
Bush: "Wonderful, but awfully "testing" when Libya chairs the Human Rights Commission and Iraq the Disarmament Comission.
Kerry: Iraq war a mistake
Bush: With my opponent in charge Saddam would still occupy Kuweit
Kerry: Things in Iraq going wrong
Bush: Giving a few positive examples about what U.S. troops really do in Iraq, quote Iraqis freed from torture chambers etc.
Kerry: Bush messed up NKor
Bush: Insist on the poor Clinton legacy that Bush is working hard to fix, emphasize China's pivotal role in the talks.
Kerry: Most important issue, nuclear proliferation
Bush: Has a disadvantage here because Kerry answered first. Don't parrot Kerry's line, put emphasis on all WMD (biological and chemical, which terrorists are more likely to get). Note that Kerry didn't mention WMD in the hands of terrorists. Quote a few succesful examples how you stopped proliferation in the last 4 years.
Kerry: Making the Allies point 4 times
Bush: Quote France and Germany saying that they wont do more with a Kerry administration, give positive examples of what the Poles, British and Australians are doing (more than just mentioning them). Quote Afghanistan as an example where a broad coalition of allies (including France and Germany) is present.
#17
Last night Bush was off his game, to say the least. He smirked and stuttered and, as TGA points out, let Kerry get away with one idiocy after another. Dick Morris puts it well:
The essential message for Bush is that he had better get his head back in the game and pay more attention to his performance if he doesn't want to get massacred in the second debate â which will focus on domestic policy, Kerry's strong suit.
Bush needs to undergo the same kind of transformation he went through in the 2000 primaries. He started smirking his way through those debates, obviously resting on his lead and feeling put upon to have to debate the pigmies vying for the nomination. But when he understood that he was facing a life-and-death challenge from John McCain, he got it together and showed energy and determination and won the subsequent debates.
He has to realize that he is in the fight of his life and bring passion, discipline, focus and commitment to the next debates or he will lose.
Mr. President, last night you looked like it was the end of the fourth quarter, and you were running out the clock. This is a tough race, and it's going to take your focused energy to win it. Last night you looked like you were just mailing it in.
#18
I back the President but thought Kerry did better overall. That was no surprise to me. Kerry's a polished debater whose been doing this sort of thing since he was in high school - this is his element and he has a lot of style for it. Kerry's a man of great words, eloquent articulation, and nuanced thinking, but a very small man in the way of action, decisiveness, and substance. The guy spent a lot of time in the senate where it seems he did a lot of talking but not much doing. W is the opposite I think. I'm fairly confident W will do better in the next debate & I'm fully confident Cheney beats Edwards cleanly in their debate.
Sometimes W comes off like a bumpkin but that's okay w/me because the guy's got some salt to him and is not afraid to dig his heels in - even when it's politically reckless to do so.
I was thinking in the car on the way to work today if either one of these men were my Commanding Officer, who would I rather follow up the hill, and for me, hands down the President is the guy I'd follow. W is a man of substance where Kerry is a man of style. Enough said.
#19
The GWBush that I saw and heard last night is not someone I would want leading me or anyone up a hill. He looked and sounded like he'd run out of gas before he got halfway up.
#20
I watched the debate in a very noisy bar. The audio was bad...it sounded like a debate between the teacher in "Charlie Brown" and the AFLAC duck. As I read the reviews, I like that version more and more...
#21
Some of the blame needs to go to his debate advisors.
I mean, Kerry didn't really say anything you couldn't have anticipated.
I remember when I was doing political debates, we spent days trying to anticipate what the opponent would say (and most of the time he would be very predictable). Then you'd fire off a witty snarky remark before going into some serious details.
Kerry's strong point yesterday was that he didn't blather, ramble or appeared pompous. (I guess Bush expected this and let down his guard.) But what Kerry said... I think it was kinda easy to have a good reply for everything he said.
Instead Bush came across as someone who's annoyed he has to talk and defend his record, relying far too much on his lead in the polls.
He must improve in the next debates. Tactics: If your opponent says something that could hurt you, think up a good line, then turn things into positive colors. People will always prefer the positive but whatever you quote MUST sound more convincing than the negative attack of your opponent.
I had countless debates about the "Nachrüstung" (Pershing/SS20 issue) and was often debating in front of a hostile public. As usual, you don't convince the convinced but those who are willing to listen.
It should be rather predictable what Kerry will say about the economy. Bush can't rely on ready made phrases to counter it.
#22
ex-lib: Sorry, ZF. But I still don't trust McCain AT ALL, and I do think he works behind the scenes against the President and the Republican party (and Rush agrees with me).
Behind the scenes doesn't make headlines and hurt the president. Press conferences and anti-Bush zingers from Republican senators do. They can say what they want behind closed doors. Hagel and Lugar slamming Bush before the cameras is just inexcusable.
#23
I took two passes at the debate last night. The first time through, I only listened-no visual. I was convinced that Bush hit it out of the park.
The second time I watched the debate as well as listened to it. I got a totally different impression. I think all this rapture over Kerry is rapture over appearance and style. It is President Bush's facial gestures, his posture, his body language that people are reacting to negatively, not the content of his ideas. We do live in shallow times, don't we?
Still I think all this fawning over Kerry is overdone. He made rather foolish and dull-witted comments a number of times during the debate. The first answer out of his mouth was launched with the same Kerry loftiness we've all been suffering through in this campaign.
President Bush, I don't know how you tell your body not to betray what's in your mind. You and I have similar reactions to the crazy things Kerry says. But if there were a way to let what he is say to roll off you like the confetti it is, I hope you find it. Don't lose spirit from this 1st debate.
The second debate will be hard; your approach was right in the first-reinforce it, temper it for the bombardment that will come in the second. The third will be your chance to shine.
#24
Has anyone considered that Bush is a tired President? This is a guy who didn't even stay up to the end of the Super Bowl, by his own admission. Why was the debate held so late?
Bush has done quite a bit in his presidency, and not all of it went according to plan. I can forgive him for having a tough time in a venue such as this. Hell, even Tony Blair is having heart problems.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/01/2004 14:39 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Rafael: Has anyone considered that Bush is a tired President?
He spent the day meeting with hurricane victims in Florida. Kerry got a manicure and a mysterious orange-looking tan (tanning booth?).
#26
Bush wore himself out before the debate meeting with hurricane victims. Not a smart move, but it's too late now.
As for getting beyond the Swiftee stuff, lex, I'm afraid the Swiftee stuff is what works best with a fairly uninformed electorate. Very few voters understand the Iran and North Korea issues the way Rantburgers do.
Posted by: Tom ||
10/01/2004 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#30
lex: The GWBush that I saw and heard last night is not someone I would want leading me or anyone up a hill. He looked and sounded like he'd run out of gas before he got halfway up.
What is it with liberals and their chest-thumping metaphors?
#31
If he doesn't start sucking it up and begin to show us a war-fighting face again...
There's an easy cure for that: remember Bush standing on the WTC ruins saying, "...and the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." (or something like that) Hell, that's enough for me to re-elect him, if I could vote in your elections.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/01/2004 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
#32
Sure, Zhang, all's just ducky for Bush--no self-criticism needed, is there?
The Chairman is in power and the situation is excellent.
When I posted this Kerry [had] 11 positions on the war taking place in Iraq ...the weekend is about to begin so if anyone spots #12, please post the latest version here :)
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/01/2004 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#35
Its pretty hard not to react to the insane suggestions and ramblings of Kerry given the real facts. I can relate to the facial responses since mine were probably simular although I was making hand jestures at Kerry at the same time and Bush shouldnt do that publicly. Bush has got the worlds attention and the world knows he is very serious about defending our country with all our capabilities. To project any weakness invites serious consequences for all of us. IMHO I think President Bush was playing on the ropes allowing Kerry's talking head to show his obvious flip-flops on serious issues. JOHN KERRY'S FLIP-FLOPShttp://media1.streamtoyou.com/rnc/100104v1.wmv
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/01/2004 16:43 Comments ||
Top||
#37
OK, this is what I got out of the 1st debate: Kerry thinks the war in Iraq is the wrong war at the wrong time. He also proclaims he is the guy to help the troops in Iraq. Unless he intends to pull them out of Iraq, Kerry has inconsistant beliefs. His argument is invalid. End of story. Bush won. Neeeext.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/01/2004 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#38
As for Bush looking "tired" last night, I didn't get that from any of the clips I saw this morning (I didn't watch last night). Nor have I had that impression-- not at all-- from ANY of his stump appearances.
In contrast, I remember Jimmy Carter looked absolutely exhausted at this point in his term; moreover, he looked exhausted almost all the time, esp. in the last year with the Iranian hostage crisis going on.
I recall thinking at times that Reagan seemed tired near the end of his first term. And Bush's father looked not only tired, but old and worn-out as well (I remember that as the main reason I voted for Clinton in '92).
In any case, I don't think it matters much.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/01/2004 17:47 Comments ||
Top||
#39
The Pres is my man and the man for the job, but it was frustrating to watch. I've had cops and good witnesses just seem to melt on the witness stand over the years and you just want to whisper to them. I was so frustrated I had nightmares last night. I dreamed it was 1969 again and I was back in Viet Nam, but I had my ex-wife and my mother in law living in the hootch with me. Just when I thought things couldn't get any scarier!
#42
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this, either on any of the news channels, websites, or other locations I read regularly. The closest is a comment from CrazyFool in this thread, and even that didn't follow through.
George Bush spent yesterday touring the damage multiple hurricanes did to Florida, and had to deal with news from Iraq. Both weigh heavy on a president who truly cares for the people. Then he had to waste two hours or more dealing with a foppish dandy who didn't have the common courtesy to even view the situation in Florida, but spent his time getting a manicure. I'd be pissed too, and it would have shown more in my closing remarks than what Bush did last night. I'd have sent a verbal shaft that would have fried Kerry down to his toenails.
Which person would you want as president - one that puts the needs of this nation first, or one who puts his own appearance first?
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
10/01/2004 19:45 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Aside from absolutely hating John F'ing Kerry's guts with an incandescent passion, part of the reason I didn't watch last night's debate is the same reason I don't watch Bush's press conferences: it's too painful. Literally.
The reason it's painful for me is that like Bush, I'm a lousy debater and a lousy extemporaneous speaker. I don't do well in arguments (especially when anything emotional is involved, as with politics), or when speaking off the cuff before a group. It's not that I can't "think on my feet," it's that my mind doesn't process information in the appropriate way in those circumstances: I can't reach into my mind and pull out facts on demand, whenever I want to.
I'm an engineer. Bush was, and is, an executive. And I sense that we'd both be absolute disasters as lawyers, and for the same reason: our minds don't work the right way for that.
As an engineer, I gather data; analyze it; form hypotheses and test them against the data; synthesize a solution to the problem at hand; and once I have the solution, I DISCARD EVERYTHING THAT WENT INTO IT. All the data and my calculations are still there, tucked away in folders in the filing cabinet in my office. But a couple of weeks after I've finished designing something, I won't have even the slightest idea of how I did it unless I go and open up those files again; I don't keep ANY of the original data laying around in my mind. It's clutter.
And it's not that I'm dumb, or incompetent. At what I do, I'm very, very good; and at some of the work I do, I'm among the best of the very best. But I can't debate.
Another example: when the Democrats started using their inane argument that the war in Iraq was unrelated to the War On Terror, my first reaction was "bullshit!"; my second reaction was to start a list of all the reasons I could think of why Iraq is in fact vital to the WoT. I've listed over three dozen of them so far, and they're online at:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/dilatush/iraq.html
But in an argument with someone about Iraq, I'd be damn lucky if I could remember more than two or three of them off the top of my head; I'd have to stop and think real hard, and under pressure they just wouldn't come. I'd stammer and splutter, and just get angry-- at myself, and at the person I was arguing with.
I suspect it's much the same way with Bush, and it's what prevents him from being able to come up with instant refutations of Kerry's debating points. It's like when you can easily think of five good retorts an hour later-- but an hour later is an hour too late.
Sorry for the long-winded post; but I think it's an important point because it relates to Bush's difficulty in debates: he's got an executive's mind, not a lawyer's mind. And they work VERY differently.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/01/2004 20:38 Comments ||
Top||
#44
Dave, Bush makes me wince when he speaks to, but I know what his bottomline is and his actions are generally consistent. I'm not taking anything away from Kerry's debating skills, the guy's good. Also don't forget that Kerry has been a part of the great debate society (our U.S. Senate) for almost 20 years. He also has been doing the debating thing since high school, he can debate both sides of the same issue w/out a problem and from what I've seen has no problem w/taking both sides of the same issue. He's quick off the cuff. Sure, he'll win style points but most people know he lacks substance and character. For those that style matters, I don't really give a rat's ass about those types of folks. Heck, if anyone's still leaning toward Kerry and this point in the election or is "undecided" then your pretty much beyond help imho.
lex> your too smart to be making some of these comments. Relax partner, one debate should not make you re-think why you should vote for W. Cutting/running and whining is for the LLL, not those of us who see the big picture on the GWOT & what this election means to it.
#45
I hear ya, Jarhead, and I agree completely; my comment was mainly directed at lex's concerns, in that I don't think we should expect Bush to be terribly good in any of these debates; he just doesn't have the lawyerly, argumentative talents.
But no matter how he does on the debates, I'll crawl over broken glass through machine gun fire if I have to, to get to the polling booth to vote for him. Our survival very likely depends on it.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/01/2004 21:52 Comments ||
Top||
#46
Hey TGA: Thanks for fighting the good fight on the Pershings in the 80s.
#47
I have avoided commentary on the debates for the most part because I score them differently. It is my belief that the new media has changed the end result of a presidential debate. The content of what Kerry has said will now be processed overe several days. Bush has a known record while Kerry has a host of "secret" policies.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/02/2004 0:23 Comments ||
Top||
#48
Fair enough, jarhead. But I think the Bush camp was getting a bit compacent, as maybe I was, too. I'm an ABK voter, but the MSM will be giving kerry every possible chance to overcome the Swiftie rap on him. Bush and Rove need to elevate their game, 's all I'm saying.
Unfort'y I can't take a leave of absence but if I could I'd go back home to Michigan and start knocking on doors and gettig out the vote.
In a letter to the White House, a leading US Senate Democrat expressed "profound dismay" that the White House allegedly wrote a large portion of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's speech to Congress last week.
I'm dismayed that she's a senator.
"I want to express my profound dismay about reports that officials from your administration and your reelection campaign were 'heavily involved' in writing parts of Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's speech," California Senator Dianne Feinstein wrote in a letter to President George W. Bush. "You may be surprised by this, Mr. President, but I viewed Prime Minister Allawis speech as an independent view on conditions in Iraq," she wrote. "His speech gave me hope that reconstruction efforts were proceeding in most of the country and that elections could be held on schedule. To learn that this was not an independent view, but one that was massaged by your campaign operatives, jaundices the speech and reduces the credibility of his remarks."
This is just a re-statement of Joe Lockhart's "puppet" statement.
Her letter was a response to an article appearing in Thursday's Washington Post, which also alleged that Allawi was coached by US officials -- including Dan Senor, former spokesman for the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq-- in perfecting his delivery of the speech delivered before a joint session of Congress one week ago.
Something wrong in prepping before a major speech in a foreign country?
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/01/2004 11:57:51 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I express profound dismay every time Heine-Stein is brought to my attention.
Can you do something about that?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
10/01/2004 0:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Since I have to live in this state I pray for a brain anurisms for Boxer, Polsi and that old bag.
#4
SPOD, I can't pray for that, but I pray that at some point they realize just how wrong they are about Iraq. I hope that you support the ouster of LLL Senator Boxer this go around. Every time she talks, i just shake my head and wonder how she got elected (and re-elected!).
THE masterminds behind the Australian embassy bombing are building new extremist networks close to Jakarta to launch fresh attacks, Indonesia's top counter-terrorism official has warned. As elite police continue their hunt for the bombers, arresting a man named Uyok Saefuloh in the village of Kebon Pedes, counter-terror chief Ansyaad Mbai said there was evidence the blast may not have been the work of Jemaah Islamiah as such. Ansyaad, who heads the anti-terrorism office in Indonesia's security ministry, said Malaysian bombmaker Azahari Husin and suicide bomb recruiter Noordin Top were building a new terror network, because JI ranks had been decimated by arrests.
Incoming president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono says that "an all-out crackdown against extremists would be launched soon after his inauguration next month" and that Yudhoyono has "a mandate to ignore conservative Islamic opposition" . . . Ansyaad said. "I am sure he will be more tough and more decisive."
Syria has not pulled its forces out of Lebanon as called for by a U.N. Security Council resolution, Secretary-General Kofi Annan reported on Friday, adding he had asked Damascus for a timetable for its "full implementation."
Lebanon also failed to meet a council request to disband and disarm all Lebanese and non-Lebanese militias and was also asked for a similar timetable for its compliance, Annan said.
"It is time, 14 years after the end of hostilities and four years after the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, for all parties concerned to set aside the remaining vestiges of the past," Annan said in his report to the Security Council.
"The withdrawal of foreign forces and the disbandment and disarmament of militias would, with finality, end that sad chapter of Lebanese history."
On Sept. 2, the deeply divided council narrowly adopted a resolution introduced by the United States and France calling for the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Lebanon and the disbanding of militias. It asked Annan to report on compliance in 30 days.
The resolution was aimed at pressuring Lebanon to reject a constitutional amendment to allow a second term for President Emile Lahoud.
But the following day parliament voted 96-29 to allow Lahoud to remain in power until 2007. The move was largely believed to have been spearheaded by Syria, which has maintained troops in Lebanon since 1976, a year after civil war broke out there.
While the U.N. resolution sent a strong message to Syria to get out of Lebanon, the final draft dropped a threat "to consider additional measures" if it isn't implemented.
Nonetheless, Annan's request for timetables from Damascus and Beirut indicated the United Nations is not about to abandon the issue.
In his report, Annan said the Syrian government reported it had redeployed 3,000 troops and still had about 14,000 troops in its smaller neighbor, stationed near the Syrian border.
He said Lebanese officials assured him they intended to disarm all militias. But the report said: "The fragile security situation in the region, the risk to Lebanon's stability and the lack of a comprehensive regional peace process would make it difficult to implement the resolution immediately and fully."
It appeared unlikely that the Lebanese disarmament would extend to Hezbollah - a Shiite group that Lebanon and other Arab countries view as a legitimate national resistance movement but the United States considers a terrorist group.
Annan said the Lebanese government told him Hezbollah's role was in securing Lebanese land, namely the Chebaa Farms, a region currently occupied by Israel. But the United Nations has already determined that the Chebaa Farms is Syrian territory and, as a result, Israel has complied with its withdrawal from Lebanon.
The secretary-general said both governments told him the timing "of further withdrawals would be determined by the security situation in Lebanon and the region" and through a joint military committee established under the framework of an 1989 agreement.
Annan told the Security Council Syria and Lebanon had assured him that while they object to the resolution, they respect the council "and that consequently they will not contest it."
"I note these assurances and await their fulfillment," he said. "I have requested from the parties a timetable for their full implementation."
#6
Article: Annan said the Lebanese government told him Hezbollahâs role was in securing Lebanese land, namely the Chebaa Farms, a region currently occupied by Israel. But the United Nations has already determined that the Chebaa Farms is Syrian territory and, as a result, Israel has complied with its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Funny how Kofi keeps on trying to stick it to Israel no matter what other UN resolutions say. It's not clear whether Kofi has a problem with Jews or whether this is just his way of sticking it to whitey.
BISHKEK (Kyrgyzstan) - Iran will begin buying electricity this year from Kyrgyzstan as part of a move to build ties in former Soviet Central Asia, now largely under Russian control, a top Iranian official said yesterday.
Delivery of a first consignment of 1,000 megawatts via Tajikistan and Afghanistan could begin by the end of this year, Iranian Vice-President Mohammad Reza Aref said.
'The countries through which we plan to organise the electricity transit are providing maximum cooperation,' he told reporters.
The deal would be part of a recent increase in energy-sector cooperation between Iran and its Central Asian neighbours to the north aimed at overcoming energy shortfalls in north-eastern Iran.
Teheran has sought to expand its influence in its former Soviet neighbours in recent years, boosting trade ties and providing soft loans for school and road building projects in Kyrgyzstan, among other projects.
In addition to buying electricity, Teheran is ready to invest in restoring this mountainous country's dilapidated hydroelectricity system, Mr Reza Aref said.
'In principle we are ready (to invest) and I hope the two sides will reach agreement,' he said.
With its own oil resources mostly located in the less populated south, Iran has been increasing oil imports under a swap arrangement with Kazakhstan.
It has also been importing electricity from Turkmenistan.
Kyrgyzstan is currently seeking finance for several dam-building projects aimed at boosting hydro-power production, which currently stands only at 10 per cent of its estimated potential of 163 billion kilowatt-hours per year, according to official estimates. -- AFP
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/01/2004 7:38:05 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
The family of Ismail al-Khatib have rejected claims that he plotted to blow up Italy's Beirut embassy and claimed that he was tortured before dying in official custody.
"Ow! Ooch! Owwwww! Aaaaiiiieeeeee! Rosebud!"
Thousands of mourners carried Khatib's white-shrouded body through the town before burying him on Wednesday, relatives angrily dismissed any al-Qaida link, and pointed to abrasions and bruises on the corpse that they said were signs of torture. "He died under torture. He was given electric shocks, beaten with sticks and they put cigarettes out on his body," said al-Khatib's father Muhammad. Lebanon's Interior Ministry said al-Khatib died of a heart attack on Monday, sparking a riot among residents of his hometown of Majdal Anjar that paralysed a nearby border crossing with Syria for several hours as they protested. There was no immediate official reaction to those claims and virtually no official or state security presence at Khatib's funeral, where mourners carried banners blaming Interior Minister Ilias al-Murr for the death and demanding he resign.
Anybody got any batteries?
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2004 1:38:13 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He died under torture...they put cigarettes out on his body...
Well, he isn't going to be around long enough to die of cancer...
That graphic that you have in this story, is that real and did they use that on people hundreds of years ago? What is the history behind it? Damn, that has got to hurt.
The United States has plans ready to invade northwest Pakistan which it believes hosts the command centre of al Qaeda, according to a sensational soon-to-be- published book. The book is called America's Secret War: inside the hidden worldwide struggle between America and its enemies, and its author is George Friedman, founder and chairman of the generally well-regarded news and analysis service, Stratfor. According to him, "The United States will threaten Iran with war if it aids al Qaeda. The United States will have to invade northwest Pakistan. There are plans for this already. In addition, if Pakistan collapses due to an invasion, the United States and India will have to jointly occupy Pakistan. The end game is Pakistan." Dr Friendman, in answer to a question, said, "Stratfor said in December 2003 the campaign is being planned (to invade northwest Pakistan). In February 2004, a spokesman for the Pentagon said they are going into Pakistan. Since then we have been carrying out small-scale incursions for months. The war can't end until the command cell of al Qaeda is destroyed that is located in northwest Pakistan but it (the invasion) has been delayed by manpower shortages." khalid hasan
Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!
An Italian aid worker in Iraq held captive and subsequently freed has said guerrillas there were right to fight US-led forces and their Iraqi "puppet government". In comments that were bound to annoy Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government, Simona Torretta also called on Rome to withdraw the troops it sent to Iraq to support its US ally. Anybody still wondering about that "kidnapping"?
"I said it before the kidnapping and I repeat it today," she told Corriere della Sera newspaper in an interview published on Friday. "You have to distinguish between terrorism and resistance. The guerrilla war is justified, but I am against the kidnapping of civilians." How about blowing up 50 or 60 kids? Is that Guerrilla War? Terrorism? Murder? Freedom fighting?
Torretta and her Italian colleague Simona Pari, both of them 29, were freed on Tuesday, three weeks after being snatched from their Baghdad office. Snatched you say?
Berlusconi has brushed aside widespread reports that his government paid a ransom of up to $1 million. Bet you'd like that money back, huh, Silvio?
Describing the administration of Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi as "a puppet government in the hands of the Americans", Torretta said elections planned for January would have no legitimacy: "During my days in detention, I came to the
conclusion it will take decades and boodles of ca$h to put Iraq back on its feet."
Torretta, who lived in Iraq before, during and after the US-led invasion, said she wanted to return despite her ordeal - but would not do so as long as US troops were there: "I've got to wait until the end of the US occupation," she said. She said she did not know whether Italy bought her freedom from the captors: "If a ransom was paid then I am very sorry. But I know nothing about it." Wink- wink....
"I believe that (the captors) were a very political, religious group and that in the end they were convinced that we were not worth the trouble to feed and hide enemies." Wonder what the split was? 50-50? 60-40?
#4
One has to wonder if this was not a set up job?
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/01/2004 15:54 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Ship her to Napoli. Let her visit with 'Guido'. Maybe he'll extend to her the Iraqi 'hospitality' extended to the two beheaded American captives this past week. What a skanky b*tch.
Is retardation in the water in Europe nowadays? Is the measurement of intelligence there a precise formula of saying whatever is most contrary to evidence? It seems so.
#8
lex: With a kickback to Berlusconi's slush fund, probably to their mamas as well-- Lugano numbered account #798701535189.
Sure - I bet Cheney and Bush also got a kickback as well. For all we know, the Mossad actually carried out the kidnapping. The CIA must also be involved somehow - we must ask ourselves - who benefits?
#10
aw, Zhang, still smarting over my diss of W's performance? I agree with you. The ragazzi are propaganda whores for the jihadists. The ransom deal stinks.
#11
Looks to me as it was staged, and the million dollar story was aired in an attempt to make it sound like it wasn't. This is like campaign financing. Terrorists run out of money, so they take a couple of collaborators and wait to get more financing through secret curriers in which everyone can deny afterwards. Italy is directly supporting terrorist groups. Heck they even got candy and copies of the Koran. Hey wait a minute..didnt I just see those girls in Burquas last month at the city square? 5 bucks says that more news on these "innocent girls" is forthcoming.
#12
Hmmmm, so they didn't make the beheading video. Did they make it into the porno one that follows it? "Iraqi Poles in Italian Holes" the new best seller in Bagdhad.
Posted by: remote man ||
10/01/2004 16:27 Comments ||
Top||
#13
lex: aw, Zhang, still smarting over my diss of W's performance?
Doesn't bother me none - from hallucogenic views about alliances with Russia and India to fixations on stupid aspects of Bush's demeanor to unsupported slurs on Berlusconi - lex is pretty consistent.
#18
...three weeks after being snatched from their Baghdad office.
Yeah, I'm sure they were "snatched". More than once I bet.
Posted by: Rafael ||
10/01/2004 17:15 Comments ||
Top||
#19
I bet these 'Bitches of Eastwick' support the beheading of civilians. Civilians that are there to do such horrible things as build schools, electricity plants, and repair bridges. I bet they were on a date and were not kidnapped. As a custom (for islamofacists) they asks for a bounty after they have tapped the booty. Ten bucks says one or both have a love child soon. P.S. Shades of St Pancake here!
#24
PriBitch again?
Darn, why can't these el cubos at least spell right. Not asking for a coherency, that would be beyond the scope of their abilities.
The edumacational system is really f00ked, I'll tell ya.
#26
Seems like the cowards are always calling on others to do their fighting. The coward above certainly did.
A not for you: You'd best learn to behave because one of these days your betters (the guys and girls who have the integrity to volunteer and put thier lives on the line for the nation and freedom) are going to get tired of defending the likes of you. And if that day ever comes, you will be one of the first ones the Islamists put up against the wall.
#27
so american ranters are so dumm idiot that do not like ear the truth, poor bastard that convince me to use your sistem make money,tanks becouse your mass of ineducated morons and go back home
Even us ineducated morons realize that spell checker is a wonderful thing.
So are you in the pre law or the pre med programs?
And, yes, I will have fries with that. Supersize it if you can figure out how, okay, Dickbreath?
#30
I'd hint that they were spies for the Italians, let their Islamofriends think they're snitching instead of snatching. Bet they would have a different view this time, like with real blindfolds and restraints
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/01/2004 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
#31
How long before one or both of these putanae convert to the pedophile's death cult, like that silly twat Yvonne Ridley?
#35
Hey bastard scum Fred. Why you are deleting my comments on the basis that are abusive but you are allowing trash thought continuously been posted.
you fag coksucker your pity site is just an ensemble for racist jus and Indus cow suckers
I will report you .
#36
so american ranters are so dumm idiot that do not like ear the truth, poor bastard that convince me to use your sistem
make money,tanks becouse your mass of ineducated morons and go back home
Posted by: f*_^_ you ||
10/01/2004 19:15 Comments ||
Top||
#37
all of you bastard ranters fags and jus, talk talk talk talk talkers get the hell out of your masturbation chairs and fight with your texan moron shitkicker in chief, go to bagadad ...
ps bring your doughters
Posted by: f*_^_ you ||
10/01/2004 19:11 Comments ||
Top||
The United States helped train and arm rebels from west Sudan who rose up against the Sudanese government last year, Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir said in remarks published in an Egyptian newspaper yesterday. "Who else than the United States is behind this ... They took rebels to Eritrea, and set up training camps for them, spent money on them, armed them and gave them Thuraya mobiles to speak between anywhere in the world," Bashir told the Al-Ahram daily when asked about foreign involvement in Darfur. A US State Department official in Washington, who asked not to be named, dismissed the charge. "The whole purpose of the US policy is to end the violence in Sudan. We are not funding, training, providing armaments to, supporting in any way, shape or form the rebels anymore than we are supporting the Janjaweed (militia)," the official said. The Sudanese government has in the past accused Eritrea of arming Darfur rebels who launched their revolt against Khartoum in February 2003 after years of low-level clashes between Arab nomads and non-Arab farmers over scarce resources.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/01/2004 1:56:11 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Quick, Achmed - to the Thuraya mobile!"
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
10/01/2004 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
Three of Iraq's oil-rich southern provinces have discussed breaking away to set up an autonomous region similar to that demanded by Iraqi Kurds in the north, the Financial Times said on Thursday. The newspaper, quoting diplomats familiar with the plans, said officials from Iraq's second largest city of Basra had been holding talks with officials from councils in two neighbouring provinces — Missan and Dhiqar. The paper said the move reflected the three provinces' growing frustrations with Baghdad rule and a feeling they were being marginalised in new government institutions. There was no independent verification of the report. The newspaper said people close to the Iraqi government suspected hardline elements in Iran were encouraging the southern provinces to demand self-rule. "The south has been desperately disappointed and they see Baghdad as continuing to leave them without representation," a western diplomat told the paper. "So they are working on ways to organise themselves to have more clout with the centre." Any attempt to form a breakaway autonomous zone would meet fierce resistance from many Iraqis and could spark civil war. reuters
Posted by: tipper ||
10/01/2004 11:36:01 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And then be co-opted or annexed by Iran? I don't think so. This is what the Sunnis need to understand, but they are dense thugs.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/01/2004 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Maybe the time has come to revisit The Articles of Confederation. Seems like it might work there. They are people who have fought each other for centuries, might work for them. Give them more than thier individual power, with a lot of autonomy.
#7
agree that articles of confederation makes more sense. Would probably work better for Kurds too. I don't see these guys being able to form a state..but do see them being able to operate together in a self-interested manner for trade, etc.
#8
Kurds want a state. Shia want a state. Sounds like most Iraqi's are sick of the Sunnis. Perhaps that means they'll support the flattening of the Sunni triangle.
Anyway, partitian works for me. We promised the Turks we wouldn't but the Iraqi's never promised the Turks. Besides, the Turk screwed us and a free Kurdistan could be used against Iran and Syria very effectively. And a free shiastan could be used as a draw on the Arab Shia corner of Iran as well.
#9
Lex, I agree, but I think the train has already left the station without this one. CPA should have done it as part of a national ID card/voter registration/DNA sample project.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/01/2004 16:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Ditch the national election scheme. Substitute rolling elections by districts as they become peaceful. Huge disincentive to the bad boyz and a big bonus to peaceful Iraqis, mainly shi'a and Kurds.
Not kosher with the agreed framework but these are not normal times.
#12
I think that in so far as oil goes, dealing with three countries instead of one would be a headache. It is a big headache with one country. I thought there was a single pipeline going up the country. Almost true. The pipeline goes from Kuwait to Syria and another branch up to Turkey. If the Sunnis control the pipeline in central Iraq it looks like they would control the entire pipeline. Don't think we have any way to go but to continue on trying for one country that is stabilized. A good link on the pipeline is:
Iraq Pipeline Watch
http://www.iags.org/iraqpipelinewatch.htm
Hope the link works. Couldn't figure out hope to create a link any other way.
Posted by: John ||
10/01/2004 17:42 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The last sentence in the last post should read " Couldn't figure out how to create a link any other way." I'll figure out the linking mechanism in time.
Posted by: John ||
10/01/2004 17:47 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Actually the southern oil principally goes south to the oil terminal on the Persian Gulf.
The oil from Kirkuk/Mosul goes through the Turkish pipeline.
The center of the country obtains some oil for domestic uses like refining and power generation through the central pipelines, but as a matter of exports and revenues, Iraq could easily be demarcated as a Kurdish oil-exporter, a Shiite oil exporter, and a Sunni income-less "failed state".
The People's War Group is the largest communist insurgent group in India, in the last decade it has expanded throughout eastern India and has strong links to the Nepalese Maoists. At the last general elections in India, the Communist political parties got their best ever result, which seems to be leading to a softer line towards the Maoists by the government.
Tens of thousands of people have turned out for a rally called by a left-wing rebel group in the southern Indian state of Andhra Pradesh. It is the first public rally by the rebel People's War Group (PWG) in the city of Hyderabad in nearly 15 years. Just a year ago the PWG tried to assassinate the then chief minister of the state, Chandrababu Naidu. The rally, seen as a rebel show of strength, comes ahead of peace talks with the government next month. The turnout at the rally is so large the authorities opened the gates of a nearby football stadium to accommodate the people.
Supporters of the PWG and another left-wing rebel group, Janashakti, painted the city red. The two Maoist groups said they would be prepared to hold direct talks with the state government in the second week of October. Supporters marched to the site, which was festooned with red banners and flags, singing revolutionary songs and carrying pictures of people allegedly killed by the police. "Peace, self-reliance and land to tillers is the theme of the rally," said Ghaddar, a poet and folk singer and supporter of the PWG. "The PWG has been fighting for people like us," Veer Babu, a landless farm worker attending the rally, was quoted by the Associated Press. The BBC's Omer Farooq, who is at the rally, said it marked a sharp change in the situation in the state since the PWG tried to kill Chandrababu Naidu. Mr Naidu has since been voted out of office and his successors, the Congress Party, have lifted a ban on the rebels and offered to hold peace talks with them.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
10/01/2004 3:09:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Recent events have further complicated Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to leave Gaza. It is impossible to implement Sharon's plan under the present security circumstances, and this can only be changed by occupying the Gaza Strip in order to withdraw from it.
Before the IDF can evacuate Gaza, it will have to reoccupy it, in an effort to eliminate - or minimize - the ability to launch rockets and suicide bombers from it.
The Egyptians are not in control of Gaza. Nobody is, although Yasser Arafat has influence over it, as does Hamas' overseas leadership. About a month ago this leadership acted to moderate the rocket firing in exchange for the IDF's refraining from destructive invasions into Beit Hanun. However, in recent weeks the deal crumbled. One of the current IDF operation's goals is to make Hamas resume those understandings. Sources in the southern command believe the chances for this are slim, in the absence of a chain of command that could make such a decision and enforce it on the firing groups.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/01/2004 3:36:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting analysis !
At a troubled time like this for Sharon
An attack on Iran's nuclear facilities seems
more and more attractive from his viewpoint
as the repercussions may draw attention from the stuipid trap he maneuvered himself into, as well as justify harsher measures against the Hamas in Gaza.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
10/01/2004 9:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well, one thing has been proven by the latest attacks from Gaza; they don't want Israel to leave.
Seriously, if the Palis truly wanted an end to the "occupation" in Gaza they would have gone along with Sharon.
#3
Deport the Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan. Arabs claim to be concerned for the Palestinians, so let the Arabs take care of them. Let the Palis experience love, warmth, and human rights the Arabs wish to shower upon them.
Posted by: ed ||
10/01/2004 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It is unprecedented for a virus to achieve any "level of awareness", cognition of the external.
The Paleo virus has now demonstrated this singular achievement: it has become aware of the fact that, if the host leaves, it will die. The Paleos now must be acknowledged as the most advanced virus on the planet. Pretty impressive. For bugs.
#5
The continuation of rocket attacks make it important that Israel occupy that Gaza Strip. Same is true of Golan Heights which was used by Syrians before its conquest to shell Israeli cities. There is no question about any claim to the Gaza Strip. Israel won it in a war. They get to Keep it. Arab bitches should stop crying. If they dont like it in Gaza why not move to Soddy, that would make them appreciate Israel.
Libya has told the United Nations General Assembly that it deserves a permanent seat on the Security Council.
Okay, Fred, we need a new image!
Foreign Minister Abdurrahman Mohamed Shalghem listed a series of Libya's achievements as reasons for inclusion, including abandoning its WMD programme. He also highlighted Libya's key role in Africa and the influence of Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi. "There can be no Mediterranean Sea without Libya," Mr Shalghem said.
I dunno, Reagan almost proved that wrong.
The Libyan minister also called for a transfer of key powers from the 15-member Security Council to the assembly. "Before we can talk about the lack of democracy in the world, we must first admit that it is lacking in the United Nations," he said. Mr Shalghem said that if powers were not transferred to the assembly, then the world should either "stop infusing money into this dead body" or enlarge the council's membership to include seats for the African Union, the Association of South-East Asian Nations and Latin America. The veto power held by the five permanent members would also need to be rethought, he said. A senior commission of experts is to deliver recommendations to Secretary-General Kofi Annan by the end of the year on United Nations reforms which will be agreed ahead of next September's 60th General Assembly ministerial meeting.
Posted by: tipper ||
10/01/2004 12:56:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Lol! Piled atop recent evidence of incorrigible corruption and moral putrefaction, the circle now seems to be complete. This article makes the case almost perfectly for dissolving the UN. It's not simply worthless, but a demented body of escaped lunatics -- and an absurdly grand stage from which morons strut their insanity like the Emperor's New Clothes and the world's press reports it as rational commentary and debate. I think the opinions Shalghem expresses break new ground and plumb levels of absurdity hitherto unknown. A seminal moment in the history of the UN.
#3
"There can be no Mediterranean Sea without Libya,"
WTF. Yeah, without Libya it would just slosh over into the Sahara Desert. LOL.
This is classic middle eastern haggling culture -- give 'em an inch and they want a mile. In a word: NO.
Posted by: Tom ||
10/01/2004 7:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I agree with the Libyans. It's hypocritical to try to impose standards and expectations on Security Council members when you don't make the same demands of general members of the UN. If Libya's considered as worthy of UN membership as is the US, France, Botswana and Columbia, say, why should others get to say who's worthy of membership of the Security Council? It's not democratically done, and the criteria are subjectively decided by the most powerful members. It's time to make the UN one animal or the other: either an amoral global talking shop with no claim to authority, or an exlusive club with basic entry standards and moral authority. Perhaps it's time to establish the latter, and allow the UN to remain as it already is: corrupt and immoral, living on borrowed time and coasting on burned-out reserves of credibility.
#5
Bulldog I am with you. France and Germany don't get a seat at the table. Only nations with the capsity to project power get to belong. Makes for a very small club.
#6
While we're at it, can we change each member country's share of the cost to 1/191 of the total?
Posted by: Tom ||
10/01/2004 8:38 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The CIA should stop putting those sugar pills in Gaddafi's bottle of bi-polar meds.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/01/2004 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Did the Beeb buy Scrappleface?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/01/2004 9:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Since membership in the UN puts all countries on equal footing of "sovereignty" why not indeed? Let's give NoKorea, Iran, Nigeria, Sudan, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela permanent seats in the Security Council. Why, let's give them veto power too! Maybe Mugabe can be the next Secretary General.
#10
The UN charter was a compromise. The GA recognizes the theoretical equality of sovereigns, while the UNSC is (or should) recognize the reality of power. Neither is or should be a substitute for formal and informal alliances. Is the UNSC structured optimally - almost certainly not - but no restructuring will make it terribly more useful than it is now, nor will it become a "moral" democratic league - thats NOT its purpose.
So should we toss Russia from the G8, since theyre not quite a market democracy?
Posted by: Frank G ||
10/01/2004 11:52 Comments ||
Top||
#14
The UN charter was a compromise.
Stop ya right there, LH. That's why it doesn't do anything very well. Better to develop something akin to a civilian NATO which demands minimum membership standards and doesn't end up with such ridiculous situations as Sudan (home of the world's latest genocide) chairing human rights bodies, and the oil-for-fraud scandal all but ignored. The UN's had its day. Don't you think the old compromise can be improved on? Don't you think it would do well for wavering states, to have something to aspire to?
No EU comparisons, please. I'm not talking about a world government.
#17
...nor will it become a "moral" democratic league - thats NOT its purpose.
The UN represents the triumph of the cargo cult mentality: We've built something that sort of looks like a democratic world government, ergo it is a democratic world government, and it must function as one. Which is to say, whatever the UN says is Law.
When the bamboo-and-banana-leaf world body was constructed, the chief witch doctors knew it wasn't real, but hoped that time would make something real from it. Those guys are gone now, and the current crop of witch doctors don't know it's not real. They think any kind of trash that falls from the rickety old thing must be the holy International Law it's supposed to produce.
Fine, take ours! We'll take our ball ($) and go home. Oh yeah, BTW, you're in our home, so get out!
Posted by: BA ||
10/01/2004 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#19
The UN is a cold-war creation, and it was intended to be a sort of geo-political shock-absorber. It's design mandate was to do nothing, and to take it's time doing it. Both these design goals are in evidence today.
It is an institution that has outlived whatever relevance it might have once had.
#20
BD - i remember when Daniel Patrick Moynihan said there should be a democratic bloc within the UNGA, to counter the communist and third world block. That began to happen, then the muslim countries broke with the reds on Afghanistan, and everything was hunky dory. After the reds fell, the UNGA got even better, repealing the Zionism is racism res for example.
Frankly as NATO has shown, the problem now is NOT the influence of non-democracies on world affairs, but the failure of the democracies to unite on pro democracy policy, and to see it as something of value to all of them, rather than to oppose it out of fear of the US hyperpower. Thats a lot of peoples fault - but i dont see changing the UN structure helping much.
AS - International law is made by treaties among nation states. The UN charter is one such treaty. That charter renders UNSC resolutions international law - NOT UNGA resolutions. As a power with the veto, the US has little reason to be concerned with resolutions we dont like. As for the failure to pass resolutions we do like, thats pretty silly - if there were no UN we wouldnt get them either. IF a group of democracies is interested in signing a treaty that say China, doesnt like, they are free to do so outside the UNSC.
The real problem is that some people claimed that outside of immediate self defense, you cant go to war without a UNSC resolution. This is not MY reading of the UN charter, and it isnt how most nations have conducted their affairs. The administration (divided against itself, i might add) chose to act as if that were true, only changing course when it became clear a second res after 1441 was impossible. IMHO that was clearly a mistake. We should have pointed out ALL ALONG that we had the right to go to war based on Saddams violations of the ceasefire that ended gulf war one, and that we had the right to make THAT ceasefire without authorization from the UN, as the right of Kuwait to self defense, and to help from others, was a preexisting right of states prior to and independent of the UN charter. But a certain Jim Baker suggested going to the UNSC instead, and Baker was close to George HWB. Some thought Baker could get a UNSC res with stuff in his briefcase. They were wrong. ANd the rest is history.
Mojo - the UN is useful in places that are NOT central to great power conflict, like Timor, Cambodia, etc. It may yet prove useful in Darfur. This was the case during the cold war as well.
The U.N. Security Council on Thursday approved new arrangements proposed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan to protect an expanded U.N. staff in Iraq. Annan is currently allowing just 35 international staffers in Iraq because of escalating violence and security concerns there. He pulled all U.N. international staff out of Iraq a year ago following two bombings at U.N. headquarters in Baghdad directly as a result of lousy security and a spate of attacks on humanitarian workers, and he allowed only a small staff to return in August. The Security Council authorized a separate U.N. protection force on June 8, but to date not a single country has pledged any troops. As a result, the U.S.-led multinational force has stepped in to provide security.
Not that we get any credit, of course.
In a letter to the council, Annan outlined security arrangements for the U.N. staff in addition to the protection provided by the multinational force. The secretary-general said U.N. security would consist of four elements - international security staff, protection coordination officers, personal security details and guard units. He said member states will be asked to provide three guard units, each comprising up to 160 armed civilian police, paramilitary or military personnel. Council diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Fiji has agreed to provide one of these units.
Wonder if the French will ante up. And dang it, I was hoping for Samoans -- no one messes with Samoans.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/01/2004 12:01:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
Do the trolls get relabeled by the moderators? (e.g. "JINSA TROLL") Or are they self-labeled?
No need to answer that one. I'll just carry on thinking that Rantburg trolls are obedient to the point where they come right out and pronounce themselves as TROLLs.
#6
Of more importance to me than who the UN pays off to stand outside in uniforms is where the building is located. I suspect the available square footage in Baghdad has fallen dramatically due to bombing. If it must be Baghdad, I fead the only available space will be in the Sadr City area. Perhaps the UN should be given space in Fallujah.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/01/2004 9:16 Comments ||
Top||
Ali Vikhayab, who's worked as chief of office of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for 13 years, knew everything about the Iraqi leader. He was with Saddam when Israelis bombed Iraqi nuclear reactor. He accompanied the tyrant on his way to the scud's launching place. He was also the one to bring Saddam women. One day, Vikhayab realized that Saddam intended to rid of him. Fleeing Iraq was not an easy task. Ali managed to escape nonetheless. After being hesitant for a long time and feeling quite unsafe on the British Isles, Ali decided to give exclusive interview to Smadar Perry, a correspondent of "Yediot Aharonot" in London.
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.
The family of Ismail al-Khatib have rejected claims that he plotted to blow up Italy's Beirut embassy and claimed that he was tortured before dying in official custody. 
The United States helped train and arm rebels from west Sudan who rose up against the Sudanese government last year, Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir said in remarks published in an Egyptian newspaper yesterday. "Who else than the United States is behind this ... They took rebels to Eritrea, and set up training camps for them, spent money on them, armed them and gave them Thuraya mobiles to speak between anywhere in the world," Bashir told the Al-Ahram daily when asked about foreign involvement in Darfur. A US State Department official in Washington, who asked not to be named, dismissed the charge. "The whole purpose of the US policy is to end the violence in Sudan. We are not funding, training, providing armaments to, supporting in any way, shape or form the rebels anymore than we are supporting the Janjaweed (militia)," the official said. The Sudanese government has in the past accused Eritrea of arming Darfur rebels who launched their revolt against Khartoum in February 2003 after years of low-level clashes between Arab nomads and non-Arab farmers over scarce resources.
The Libyan minister also called for a transfer of key powers from the 15-member Security Council to the assembly. "Before we can talk about the lack of democracy in the world, we must first admit that it is lacking in the United Nations," he said. Mr Shalghem said that if powers were not transferred to the assembly, then the world should either "stop infusing money into this dead body" or enlarge the council's membership to include seats for the African Union, the Association of South-East Asian Nations and Latin America. The veto power held by the five permanent members would also need to be rethought, he said. A senior commission of experts is to deliver recommendations to Secretary-General Kofi Annan by the end of the year on United Nations reforms which will be agreed ahead of next September's 60th General Assembly ministerial meeting.
