A British bodyguard has killed two Afghan men in a shoot-out in Kabul. Police Chief Bashir Salangi said the Briton, who has not been named, was injured in the clash and is in hospital. He said the bodyguard worked for a British security firm and was protecting an American man and his Afghan wife. The shoot-out occurred at the Intercontinental Hotel, where mostly foreigners stay. Police, who refused to speculate on the motive behind the shooting, scrambled to the hotel, cordoned off the area and removed the bodies, said witnesses. The bodyguard's injuries were not believed to have been life threatening. Protected his charges, took a bullet, and dropped both gunnies. Good shooting, mate! Get well soon.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 02:15 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And they say good help is hard to find!
Hope the injuries, while not life-threatening, are also not disabling.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
02/25/2003 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
Afghan rebel commander Gulbuddin Hekmatyar said he is proud that the US has branded him a terrorist and echoed Osama bin Laden's call for suicide attacks against Americans, according to a statement released Sunday. "Yeah. A bunch of you guys, you kill yourselves so I can be in charge, okay?"
Calling the US the big Satan of the world, Hekmatyar, a former Afghan prime minister, also vowed jihad against US troops in Afghanistan for the 7,246th time, The Irish Examiner report said. "I ask the Muslims of the world to wage a Jihad (holy war) by using suicide attacks," the statement said. "Now is not the time for large group assaults, but for individual attacks," he said. "Let's get some meat flying, you guys!"
The Pashtu-language statement was provided by a security officer in Hekmatyar's Hezb-e-Islami group at an Afghan refugee camp in north-west Pakistan. Hekmatyar's signature was confirmed by a former member. The statement urged Iraq to respond with suicide bombings if the US attacks. But naturally, in Pakistan. Where else?
The former Hezb-e-Islami member, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Hekmatyar was seen in Afghanistan's eastern Kapisa province two weeks ago and has been shuttling between Kapisa and the nearby regions of Nangarhar, Laghman and Kunar. US special forces are stationed in Kunar, where Hekmatyar is believed to have a significant force. A Western diplomat in Kabul said Kunar was of particular concern because of its proximity to Pakistan and hills where fighters can hide. US troops there have come under regular attack, often the target of ambushes. It's the old safe haven trick. Eventually, our guys are going to have to don false noses and chin whiskers, go across the border, kill them all, and then look stoopid when somebody asks if it was them...
In the statement, Hekmatyar denies being affiliated with the Taliban and with al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Is the alliance off again? Hek is hard to work with, isn't he?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 10:45 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You first, Hek!
At least Admiral Ugaki, one of the developers of the kamikaze tactic, had the decency to carry out an attack himself.
Your website is full of Maududi bafflegab. That would make you a partner with the Maulana's 400 pound successor - Qazi Hussain Ahmad. Why don't you admit your connection to the JI/MMA, so that Congressman Pallone can pressure the Oval Office to re-sanction the Pakistan ratopolis? As soon as the brainwashed majority in your part of the world, realizes what your type of social idiocy does to countries and peoples, you might discover what happens when a bullet enters a jihadi's wretched forehead.
The chasm between Britain and France over Iraq widened last night when the two countries clashed bitterly on a second United Nations resolution, designed as the trigger for war. That chasm was already a mile wide. Now it's wider.
As Tony Blair prepared for a crucial Commons debate on Iraq tomorrow, France stepped up the pressure by circulating to the UN separate proposals aimed at averting military action by calling for the weapons inspections to continue. The timetable would be far more generous, stipulating a delay of four months before the inspectors provided a first important progress report compared with the two-week deadline for a Security Council vote being pushed by the Prime Minister and President George Bush in their draft, introduced yesterday afternoon. Of course, after that first report the inspectors would get another four months so as to make a second report to compare to the first report. And then another four months for a tie-breaker. Nobody, nobody out-gauls the French.
Hours earlier, Mr Bush indicated yet again that his patience with diplomacy had all but run out. He urged the UN to prove it was "a body that means what it says". The President had "very little hope left" that Saddam Hussein would respond to the diplomatic pressure, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said. Especially with the Frenchies running interference for Saddam.
In a boost for the White House and Mr Blair, their tough stance appeared to be vindicated by President Saddam himself, in remarks to CBS News last night. Dan Rather, the news weasel presenter who conducted the sham interview, said the Iraqi leader indicated he would not destroy his al-Samoud missiles, as the UN was demanding. Instead President Saddam challenged Mr Bush to a live international television interview, an offer dismissed by Mr Fleischer as "not a serious statement". Actually this could be fun, and I nominate Fred, Steve and Alaska Paul to do the closed-captioning for Saddam if it ever happens.
The quarrel over the way ahead on Iraq deepened when Britain, America and Spain co-sponsored the draft UN resolution that concluded that "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded it in resolution 1441". Oh, we got Spain on board the resolution? Good!
Dominique de Villepin, the French Foreign Minister, described the move as an "error" and "too hasty", leaving no doubt that France, the veto-holding leader of the anti-war camp of weasels, will maintain its campaign to break the momentum for war. Washington and London are far short of the required nine-vote council majority, with only Spain and Bulgaria certain to support them. Mexico and Chile had BETTER pay attention when we ask them for support.
M. de Villepin said: "There are some countries that think correctly today it's important to table a second resolution. We think it isn't necessary or useful." The latest row between European Union partners erupted as Jacques Chirac, the French President, and Gerhard Schröder, the German Chancellor, held a summit of weasels in Berlin. Where were the Belgians?
President Chirac said on his arrival in Berlin that France's plan, backed by Germany and Russia, would establish "a timetable for Iraq's disarmament, programme by programme, relating to weapons of mass destruction". He continued: "We see no reason to change our illogic, which is the illogic of peace, and turn toward a logic of war."
The French plans were dismissed by Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, as treating President Saddam "like a coddled child". Mr Straw said only the threat of force had persuaded Iraq to give limited co-operation to the inspectors and, without action President Saddam "will conclude this threat of force is not credible" and will delay "indefinitely". Mr. Straw, as usual, gets it right.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/25/2003 12:31 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We see no reason to change our illogic, which is the illogic of peace, and turn toward a logic of war - ever."
#2
There's a universal truth: in the toughest of times is when you find out who your friends truly are. Even if the British back out at the last minute, no one here will doubt that they are indeed our true friends. Even if you don't agree with a friend, you don't handle it by using a knife in the back.
#3
You might consider a back up photo of Saddam shaking hands with Rumsfeld in Baghdad 1983, along with a list of nasty US anthrax that was authorized and delivered to Iraq as late as 1989. Talking about splinters and beams...
I guess no Western nation covered itself with glory back then, right?
#4
True German Ally, Your general criticism of US policy at the time is legit -- although I don't regret using Iraq to derail Iranian fundamentalism any more than I regret using the Soviet Union to wreck Nazism in World War II.
However, the anthrax comment is a bit out of line. At the time, it wasn't difficult at all for a national government or even a research institute to get all the anthrax it wanted. Why? Because anti-anthrax research was considered a desirable thing. There was a (short sighted) tendency to view anthrax as primarily a cattle problem, not something you used against people. So in the context of a lot of medical / agricultural aid to Iraq, the Iraqis got anthrax that they could have simply purchased otherwise.
On the other hand, everyone with a shred of common sense knows there is a problem with nuclear reactors that produce material that can be used to create a nuclear weapon. Germ weapons and chemical weapons are properly classifed as weapons of mass destruction. But a nuclear weapon is an order of magnitude worse.
The civilized world has got to get it's head out of its collective ass a realize that you just don't sell a reactor to anybody who has the cash. I don't know what France's current posture is relative to that problem. But in the past, they definitely made some bad decisions.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
02/25/2003 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Well, to provide a nation with technology to produce nuclear energy isn't criminal per se. Every nation has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful uses. Frankly I don't know what kind of nation Iraq was in 1975. I suppose its aggressive stance against Israel was reason enough not to encourage nuclear energy in Iraq. So I think Israel took the right steps to get rid of the problem.
I just don't like the hypocrite stance. When we criticize France for exporting nuclear technology to a state run by a dictator I would like to know which states were provided with nuclear technology by the U.S. And I might be interested to know more about the business relations between Israel and apartheid South Africa. And... well I stop here.
My point is: Morale is a rather limited factor when it comes to exporting things and making money. For any country.
NOT exporting any weapons to any non democratic states would be a good start. Well, lets dream on...
"Well, to provide a nation with technology to produce nuclear energy isn't criminal per se. Every nation has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful uses."
Yep. And its perfectly possible to have a nuclear reactor that cannot produce weapons grade material. Oddly enough, Iraq wasn't interested in that kind of reactor. And nobody in France was interested in asking why.
When we criticize France for exporting nuclear technology to a state run by a dictator I would like to know which states were provided with nuclear technology by the U.S
Good point. But whichever nations the US has provided nuclear technology to don't seem to be ones that the US and the West in general are worrying about. I believe the news media would mention that fact if that was the case.
My point is: Morale is a rather limited factor when it comes to exporting things and making money. For any country. NOT exporting any weapons to any non democratic states would be a good start. Well, lets dream on...
An extremely good point. I think we both agree that more good judgement needs to be exercised in these situations. However, one problem is that many kinds of seemingly benign products could be misused by an ill-intentioned country. If you sell a country a hospital, they've got a potential biowarfare facility. A pharmaceutical facility could be the hard core of a chemical weapons production line. Heck, even giving a nation nothing more than food and medical aid frees up money that the country in question could use to purchase weapons.
Ultimately, it all comes down to the nature of the government running the country to which you're selling stuff. In an often short-sighted world, there's an obvious problem.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
02/25/2003 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I agree. It might help already if all these sales got more public attention.
And you are right: France didn't ask. Nor was the Florida flight school interested why some of its wannabe pilots wanted to skip the starting and landing part.
I guess that would not happen again. No more three monkeys.
We need to keep a much better track of what goes where. And not just our stuff. A centralized multinational database might help. Especially when France exports something harmless and Germany exports something harmless, but the combo isn't harmless anymore. Dubious countries would need to agree to strict supervision to make sure that they don't misuse legit stuff.
It's not easy. Children suffer a lot in Iraqi hospitals because a lot of drugs can't be imported. Fear of dual use. How to make the right decision?
Bloggers Joe Katzman and Trent Telenko pick up on a disturbing report from WABI-TV in Bangor, Maine (video is here), that children of Maine National Guardsmen who've been deployed to the Gulf have found themselves facing schoolyard taunts--not from fellow students but from "antiwar" teachers. Here's a quote from the WABI report:
Alan Grover, WABI-TV: "What the kids are facing is hearing that their mother or father is a bad person for taking part in the confrontation with Iraq; comments that are coming from teachers. That's according to officers with the Guard's Family Assistance Program who've been traveling throughout the state this week. The officers report that such incidents are relatively few in number but that they've occurred in practically every region of the state." . . .
Most of the children involved, WABI reports, are between seven and nine years old.
. . . I originally saw this article as an item over on the FreeRepublic.com web site. Then I called around and e-mailed and found that there are similar cases happening to military kids in Texas and Kansas as well.
This is what the Maine National Guard sent to the parents of one of the victimized children:
""Thank you for your interest on this most troubling matter. Our Family Assistance Centers have reported cases from Aroostook County to Southern Maine. We are reluctant to give out specific schools and the individuals involved in the interest of giving the education community a chance to address the problem itself. Also, parents wanted the opportunity to pursue the issue through their local school boards first.
In all, we have over thirty complaints that name schools and individual principals, teachers and guidance counselors. If one considers that these complaints come from just the parents who attended our briefings and only from children who told their parents, we are concerned that the problem may be more widespread than we know.
We are recording the complaints, and I will personally visit these educators to express our concern as a professional organization and ask for their cooperation.
Ultimately, our main concern and first responsibility is the safety of our children during these uncertain times. Maine has a core of dedicated and professional educators, [in the public schools?] but we will challenge any individual who places our children at risk due to their own political ideologies.""
Amazing the atrocities some people will commit in the name of "peace."
Posted by: Mike ||
02/25/2003 07:18 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I sent this to talk radio wls. I think I'll also pass on Taranto's link. Maine will not like the spotlight.
#5
Vouchers. Once parents who experience this can move their tax dollars elsewhere, this will change fast. And the blog isn't Trent's... it's a group effort. That minor point aside, thanks to all for helping us get the word out.
Posted by: Joe Katzman ||
02/26/2003 1:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Joe:
I meant the phrase "Trent's blog" to refer to "Trent's blog posting" rather than as an attribution of exclusive ownership, but I can see where that was imprecise and I apologize for the confusion.
Commendations to both of you for getting this story out and keeping on it.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/26/2003 5:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Assuming this isn't in the category of urban legend, I feel nothing but contempt for such sanctimonious losers
On the bright side, it's never too early to start learning contempt for authority. These are kids at the cusp of learning rational distrust of people who want nothing more than to lord it over you, and I'm pretty liberal!
#8
What the HELL,where do they thing they are teaching,a madrassa.These educaters(and I use the term with a great deal of hesitation)should be fired and thier teaching certificates pulled.They should be banned from teaching for life!
#9
This was written and posted by my son(impressed me).
I think that the teachers shouldn"t be allowed to teach or talk about any thing that does not have to do with there subject they teach unless it's about the news. But thats only when the teachers don't act out like they did with the children. I'm only 14 but I have conversation with my english class and teacher abut what the happening in the world like with North Korea and iraq.
Edward O. manues
KARACHI, Feb 24 (AFP) - A Pakistani anti-terrorism court on Monday formally declared as absconders five of the seven suspects in the killing of 11 French naval engineers last May, court officials said. A police officer told a hearing presided over by Judge Feroz Mohammad Bhatti that a search for five suspects still at large had been fruitless. "Two were not available at their addresses and three were untraceable," police process server Javed Ahmed said. Bhatti declared them absconders, and adjourned the hearing until March 5.
Can anyone think of any reason not to consider Pakland an enemy country? If they were ever on our side, they've switched. It's probably time to start treating them like what they are, which is a terrorist state.
Two other suspects, Asif Zaheer and Mohammad Bashir who were captured in December and January respectively, are being held in custody and have been charged with murder, terrorism and illegal possession of explosives. They could face the death penalty.
Doubt if it'll come to that, though. Maybe a few months' house arrest, with no teevee...
Police say Zaheer and Bashir have confessed to their role in the May 8 attack, in which a suicide bomber ploughed an explosives-laden Volkswagen Beetle into a Pakistan navy bus carrying the French nationals. The blast occurred outside the Sheraton Hotel in downtown Karachi, the southern port city of 14 million people that suffered a chain of deadly attacks on Western and Christian targets last year. A month after the attack on the French, a suicide car bomb attack outside the US consulate killed 12 Pakistanis. Police have said that among the five absconders is a militant believed to be the mastermind of the anti-Western violence that has plagued Karachi since the US-led campaign in Afghanistan to crush the the Taliban leadership and al-Qaeda terrorists was launched 16 months ago.
Inspector Mahmoud ("Fatty") Arbuckle and the Keystone Karachi Koppers are no doubt hot on their tail...
Zaheer belonged to the militant group Harkat Jihad-ul Islami and Bashir, who had fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan, belonged to the banned Kashmiri militant outfit Harkatul Mujahedin. Bashir told reporters after his arrest that the man who had ploughed the car bomb into the French engineers' bus was a 26-year-old Pakistani named Rashid, also from Harkat Jihadul Islami.
Both are Kashmir-based terrorist groups...
Bashir said he met Rashid on the eve of the attack. The next day he drove in the explosives-filled car with Rashid towards the Sheraton hotel and stepped out of the car before it reached its target. He said Rashid wanted to avenge the killings of Muslims around the world. Zaheer and Bashir have both said they mistakenly thought their targets were Americans and regretted that the victims turned out to be French. "Drat."
The French engineers were assisting Pakistan's navy in developing its second Agosta 90-B class submarine.
#1
It may appear out of topic but readers would remember that Pakistan in 1973 was offered a plutonium-reprocessing technology by France but the controversial deal was finally scrapped under US pressure in 1979. The French as scavengers ended up selling Citroens and Airbuses.
For the Agosta submarines, French heavily bribed the former Prime Minister Benazirâs husband. It is one of the allegations the government of present potentate president is investigating against.
Similar 70-megawatt reactors (two of them) along with six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent -- in other words, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear French devices were also sold to Baghdad. In fact, the latter country also purchased another one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq's nuclear capability today.
The same Mr.Jacque Chirac then, the French Premier travelled to Iraq, in late 1974, and conducted deals on a broad range of issues, the most important of these were Iraq's purchase of nuclear reactors.
Later in 1975, Hussein travelled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, "Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactorsâ.
In June of 1981, Israeli warplanes struck the Osirak nuclear facility near Baghdad. This "unprovoked" action by Israel was a pre-emptive strike to deny Iraq the capability of producing nuclear weapons; weapons Israeli intelligence believed were in the works. Iraqi defences were taken by surprise and opened fire too late. The whole operation lasted one minute and twenty seconds, the reactor lay in ruins.
Israeli intelligence had followed the Iraqi military buildup in the late 1970s. Saddam Hussein had assembled an army of 190,000 men organized into 12 divisions, augmented by 2,200 tanks and 450 aircraft. Both the Isreali Labor government of 1974-77 and the Likud government of 1977-81 closely watched with apprehension what to do with the reactors. This was the same site at Osirak constructed with considerable French help.
The point to prove is that France has been a source of lot of troubles that the US has to go and clean up and why the French continues to obsessively harp on, âmore time to inspectorsâ and âpeaceful methodsâ. There is method in their madness.The concept of egalite,liberty, fraternity can be interpreted in more than one way.
Former chief weapons inspector for the United Nations, has predicted the crisis over Iraq could come to a head within days. Richard Butler says it appears Iraq intends to defy the inspectors' order to begin destroying its illicit al-Samoud missiles by this weekend. He has told Channel 7 that is likely to change the attitude of some members of the United Nations Security Council, who have been reluctant to confront Iraq. "If he insists on this and the deadline is Saturday, then I think it is fair to say in common parlance Iraq is toast really, you can rely on it, the United States will say, it's over, what more proof do you need that these people are refusing to be disarmed," he said.
To which the appeasers will reply that Sammy needs more time to come to his senses. But I think he'll agree at the last moment and save them the trouble. I think he's teasing them, not us...
Posted by: Bent Pyramid ||
02/25/2003 07:52 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Saddam will, at 1155pm on Feb 28, slowly begin dismantling one or two missiles. The work will need to be done very slowly to protect the population. This drivel will impress the French, Germans, etc. who will then say, "see, inspections are working, yadda, yadda.:
#2
Why do I get the feeling that we're being set up? Over the weekend, Saddam agrees to destroy the missiles, then Blix comes marching through the streets, waving his umbrella to the adoring crowds...
Posted by: Arnold Kling ||
02/25/2003 19:33 Comments ||
Top||
I hate to post from DEBKA, the National Enquirer of the War on Terror, but somebody's gotta bring their stuff into the light of scrutiny:
According to DEBKAfileâs intelligence and Russian sources, Russian President Vladimir Putin has stepped into the bipolar crisis over Iraq between the US-led and French-led world blocs with a dramatic proposition for averting war. In this approach, he sees eye to eye with the French, German and Chinese rulers and is eager to consult with the Schroeder on his new plan. Sounds like its still 'bi-polar' with Russia joining the 'status quo is fine with us' bloc.
DEBKAfileâs most exclusive sources accessed the Putin proposal for Iraq and reveals its high points:
1. Acceptance of the plan by Saddam and Washington â with UN endorsement â will result in the United States calling off its war offensive against Iraq.
2. Saddam will be required to immediately dismantle and destroy all his weapons of mass destruction, that arsenal being checked against Russiaâs lists and compared with American data. (DEBKAfile notes incidentally that Russian generals and intelligence chiefs have consistently claimed until now that Saddam does not possess a single WMD!)
3. Saddam stays on as president for approximately one year.
4. In the course of the disarmament process, a transitional government will be established in Baghdad with no affinity to the ruling Baath or Saddamâs ruling circle. It will officiate one year under international oversight, draft a new Iraqi constitution and arrange a general election.
5. The election over, Saddam will retire and make way for the newly-elected regime.
6. He and his family, together with his top political and military circle, will move out of Baghdad and take up residence at an internationally protected palace compound near Tharthar Lake north of Tikrit. He will be allowed to move in and out of this palace under certain restrictions. 7. Iraq pays LukOil and TotalFinaELF lots of money.
It sounds calibrated to provide the perception of a viable alternative to war during the latest UN debate. I take any Primakov/Putin initiative more seriously than the vaporware coming out of Berlin and Paris.
#1
Such a proposal is unacceptable for Saddam or any Arab despotic leader (there are no others). If it is obvious that the tyran is going to step down, the wolves will break loose and kill him immediately. Saddam cannot accept this.
If it is not obvious that Saddam will go and he manages to give the impression that the one-year period will be much longer, nobody will be prepared to serve on provisional government bodies that are supposed to take over power. Doing that would be suicidal.
Since the Russian plan is based on American withdrawal from the region (point 1), the second scenario will be inevitable. Saddam continues to play games and nobody will risk his head trying to replace him.
This plan is nonsensical and it amazes me that a bunch of former KGB hotshots wasn't able to come up with a more plausible idea.
Posted by: Peter ||
02/26/2003 3:47 Comments ||
Top||
Berlin, Feb 25, IRNA -- Some 350 British combat soldiers from the 7th Armoured Brigade--nicknamed the "Desert Rats"--departed their base in Germany for the Persian Gulf region, German television reported late Monday evening. The precise destination of the troops, the first German-based British troops to leave for the crisis region, was not disclosed. That would be Kuwait, most likely.
The total number of Persian Gulf-bound British soldiers from Germany is expected to swell from 6,000 to 12,000 over the next 10 days. Britain has already sent an unspecified number of German-based troops to the Persian Gulf area to assist only in logistical and supply work.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 02:58 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Berlin, Feb 25, IRNA -- The Iraqi Air Force has reportedly tested chemical gas attacks using unmanned remote-controlled fighter planes to spray "simulated material," the daily Bild said Tuesday. The paper points to the latest findings of Germany's foreign intelligence service BND, saying Iraq has rebuilt some of its Czech-made L-29 combat jets for chemical gas assaults. It added that the redesigned fuel tanks of the new remote-controlled planes were equipped with chemical and biological bombs. The report did not specify the number of the rebuilt combat planes or when and where these tests had taken place. We saw the video of Iraq testing spray tanks on a Mirage fighter. This is not news, what's interesting is that it is credited with coming from the German BND. Think somebody there has their own agenda?
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 02:51 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I do think that the Irainian do have their own agenda. It does not sound believable now with all the inspectors present.
A U.S. guided missile frigate and a destroyer have passed through the Suez Canal on their way to the Gulf region, where the United States is building up forces for a possible war on Iraq, canal sources said yesterday. Frigate USS Carr and destroyer USS Oscar Austin left the crucial waterway, linking the Mediterra-nean to the Red Sea, on Sunday evening. They were followed by three Italian warships and a Danish submarine, the sources said. Denmark and Italy are two of the few countries of the world so far supporting the U.S. war plans. Welcome to the party, boys!
The USS Carr is part of a battle group headed by the USS Theodore Roosevelt, which left for the Gulf earlier this month from Puerto Rico. It is currently in the Mediterranean. The destroyer USS Oscar Austin is part of a group accompanying the aircraft carrier USS Harry Truman, also in the Mediterranean. U.S. Defence Department officials have said the two aircraft carriers were part of a contingent of five being sent to the Gulf region. Two of them are currently in Gulf waters. The TR and Truman are in the Med. Constellation and Kitty Hawk are around the Gulf region.
Carriers typically deploy about 75 warplanes and are shepherded by a half-dozen or so cruisers, destroyers and submarines with long-range Toma-hawk cruise missiles. Putting the missile shooters in the Gulf. Too much risk to launch Tomahawks across Israel and Jordan. Lebanon and Syria might have heart failure if we shot across them. Heh.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 07:36 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
President Vicente Fox, whose country holds a key vote on the U.N. Security Council, appeared to take a slightly harder tone toward Iraq on Tuesday as he addressed U.S. and Mexican businessmen. ``The only path toward peace is the disarmament of Iraq,'' Fox said. The world wants peace, but only disarmament by the Iraqis can ensure peace.'' Mexico has not yet said whether it will support a U.S.-British-Spanish resolution in the Security Council that could be seen as authorizing a rapid strike against Iraq. Nor has it committed to a French-German-Russian measure to give U.N. weapons inspectors more time and resources to work. In recent weeks, Mexican officials have repeatedly suggested that the weapons inspectors should be given more time to hunt for arms of mass destruction in Iraq and they have insisted that any action be sanctioned by the Security Council. However, Mexico has also been wary of openly challenging the United States, which accounts for about 85 percent of its trade. Fox's comments Tuesday did not contradict earlier statements, but they sounded a less pacifistic tone. On Tuesday, Fox said Mexico supports ``the multilateral efforts to achieve the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and so that this nation complies fully'' with Security Council resolutions. ``It is urgent that Iraq complies with the demands of the inspectors to immediately dismantle prohibited missiles,'' Fox said.
U.S. Ambassador Tony Garza, seemed cheered by Fox's speech. ``I am very much in agreement with the president in his declarations against terrorism, with the threat that Saddam Hussein represents,'' Garza said. He denied widespread reports in the Mexican press that the United States was pressuring Mexico to support a resolution that could authorize a rapid attack on Iraq. ``It is not pressure,'' Garza said. ``It is part of the process of dialogue.'' Diplo-speak at it's finest.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 07:37 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Uh huh. The only reason Fox (El Gusano) is taking this "harder tone" is because he knows that if he goes against the US, the millions of his countrymen in the US illegally will have bullseyes painted on their heads.
Not that they shouldn't ALREADY be targets for deportation, of course....
President Vladimir Putin sent former Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov to meet with Saddam Hussein in Baghdad this weekend in what analysts said was a last ditch attempt to hold off a U.S.-led attack. Poor Yevgeny. He must feel like D.J. Wu is his very best friend...
The meeting came amid intense diplomatic maneuvering and a flurry of top-level telephone calls that ended with French President Jacques Chirac announcing Monday that France, Germany and Russia had submitted a joint proposal to the United Nations calling for the step-by-step disarmament of Iraq. His announcement came as the United States and Britain prepared to present a new UN Security Council resolution to authorize the use of force against Iraq. U.S. President George Bush said Monday the resolution would spell out how the Baghdad regime had failed to disarm weapons of mass destruction. In an attempt to bolster France, Germany and Russia's disarmament proposal, Russia's Foreign Ministry said Monday that Hussein had promised Primakov during the meeting that Baghdad would not hinder the work of UN weapons inspectors sent to make sure Iraq disarmed. It said the meeting was held to receive Hussein's assurance Iraq would comply completely and unconditionally with the inspectors. And if you can't believe Sammy, who can you believe?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 01:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
In response to Iraqi threats to coalition forces monitoring Iraqi compliance with United Nations Security Council resolutions, Operation Northern Watch aircraft used precision-guided weapons to target three surface-to-surface missile systems today from 5 to 6:30 p.m. EST. Coalition aircraft engaged the mobile missile launchers approximately 6 miles south of Mosul and then continued to enforce the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. All coalition aircraft departed the area safely. Target damage assessment is ongoing. The coalition carried out today's strike after Iraqi forces moved the mobile surface-to-surface missile systems above the 36th parallel-inside the northern no-fly zone-and in range to threaten coalition forces. Targeting the northern front.
The last time Operation Northern Watch responded to Iraqi threats was Jan. 31, 2003 when coalition aircraft used precision-guided weapons in self-defense to strike Iraqi anti-aircraft-artillery approximately 10 miles east of Mosul.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 11:31 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just watch - Blix and the French will say: "See? Sammy has started destroying his Al-Samoud missiles - ahead of schedule"
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 11:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Don't know if these were Ababils or Al Samouds. Either way, placement would indicate a desire to strike the Turkish border or into Turkey itself. The Axis of Weasel voting block at NATO should be roasted on spit for their stance on defending Turkey. mmmmmmmmm, roasted weasel.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/25/2003 12:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
2 attacks were also made in the south no-fly against surface to surface sites around Al-Basrah
total of 5 attacks...thing're heating up. I bet Sammy does something stupid like try and launch a pre-emptive strike
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm beginning to see him becoming more and more over confident. Maybe he'll stay in one place long enough to become the former late President of Iraq.
#5
Sammy knows we're about ready to come and get him. He's trying to get his ducks all in a row. He keeps settin' 'em up, and we keep knockin' 'em down.
Fine. Less hardware to worry about when we go.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/25/2003 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
Four prominent Iraqi figures, including two former ministers, have appealed to the UN Secretary-General to initiate Security Council moves to establish an interim civil administration in Iraq, should the Iraqi regime collapse or be overthrown. The four Iraqis who issued the appeal are former Foreign Affairs Minister Adnan al-Babjaji, former Industry and Economy Minister Adib al-Jader, economist and former UN official Mahdi al-Hafez, and respected economist and publisher Walid Khaddouri. âWe call on the Security Council to adopt our legitimate request for the benefit of our people and to establish an interim Iraqi government by cooperating with a special UN mission in the framework of a timetable leading to a democratically elected government,â said the statement. The suggestion that the Arab states occupy Iraq after we knock it over was a non-starter, so this is Plan B: Let the U.S. spend the men and money, then have the UN step in and take over, so they can have something ineffectual, along the lines of KFOR. Since the UN as a body doesn't appear to be doing the work to get rid of Sammy, I can't see any reason for any UN involvement at all when the war's over.
Jader told the Daily Star in a telephone interview from Geneva on Monday that they issued the appeal due to the imminent threat of an invasion of Iraq. He said Iraqis would view a long-term American presence as an occupation that would be rejected, saying instead that the idea of a joint UN-Iraqi interim administration would be for the benefit of all, including Iraq, its neighbors, the USA, and the UN. âIraqis will be more willing to cooperate with the UN than with an American administration,â he said. I'm sure the Fritzies were trying to come up with some alternative to being occupied after WWII. Somehow, they managed...
The four said an interim administration and UN agencies should âprepare themselves to supply humanitarian aid to the citizens and help them overcome the forthcoming hardships.â Ewww. That camel's nose is all runny...
The four had previously issued an appeal on Feb. 13 calling on the Iraqi leadership to step down to avert the âdisastrous consequences of war.â Worked well, didn't it?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 09:57 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
the reason for UN involvement:
1. Free up US troops for elsewhere
2. Get additional sources of funding (assuming the oil rigs have been blown and so outside money is needed)
3. Most important - when something goes wrong during the occupation - and something certainly will at some point - a blown up wedding party or whatever - sahre the blame, give us cover - its the UN occupation, not US colonialism
and their not bad at the nitty gritty administrative stuff - theyve done at least as well in Cambodia, East Timor, etc as we did in Haiti.
OTOH - they WIIL have their own agenda on Iraqi politics - likely to me more pro Saudi, and thus pro-Sunni arab, and ex-baathist, than our agenda. And they may well get in the way of our regional agenda for democracy promotion.
So its a difficult decision, not at all clear to me we dont want at least some UN involvement in the post-war.
Interesting post. It makes me wonder if part of our dismal dance at the UN is to get them to veto the final resolution so that we can effectively cut them out of the picture in the post-Saddam world.
#3
Once Saddam and his bad-boy apparatus is eliminated, we need to get Iraq right in order to change the other bad neighbors. The UN will not be the ones to do it. I can think that those countries who signed their names to letters of support would be excellent candidates for the effort, along with the US.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/25/2003 16:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
All of the above:
1. have no power or authority.
2. are not representative of the peoples of Iraq.
3. are probably not electable, assuming that they believe in democracy.
4. probably are more interested in recovering booty, confiscated by the Saddamites, than in liberating Iraq.
5. are power rivals, rather than ideological enemies, of SH.
6. are chronic whiners who should move to France.
Saddam Hussein denounced the âlazinessâ of the Arab world in confronting a possible US-led attack against Iraq during talks with Lebanese Minister of State Talal Arslan over the weekend. Arslan, the president of the Lebanese Democratic Party, conveyed to the Iraqi president Lebanonâs âsolidarity with Iraq in standing up against the American-Israeli attack,â as well as regards from President Emile Lahoud, according to a statement from the party Sunday. Always nice to know who your friends are...
Hussein chastized the âlazinessâ of Arabs in defending Iraq, saying that if the âArab nation gives up its human role, it would have failed humanity.â
âAny true patriotic and nationalistic person would believe in the right of the nation, in sovereignty and independence, and would realize the dangers facing the nation,â Hussein said. âOtherwise, there would be something wrong with his patriotism and national belonging.â "If you guys don't watch out for me, there must be something wrong with you..."
Arslanâs visit to Baghdad followed an earlier one by Maan Bashour, the head of the Association of Leagues and Committees, who visited the Iraqi president for the first time since he and Minister of State Beshara Merhej broke away from the Iraqi Baath Party 30 years ago. Bashour told The Daily Star that Hussein thinks Israel is involving the US in a war that will end its influence in the world, as it did in the past with Great Britain and France. âIn the 1950s Israel led Britain and France against (former Egyptian President Gamal Abdel) Nasser, and that war proved to be the beginning of the end for the European powersâ influence,â Bashour quoted Hussein as saying. Saddam said that the 1956 war ended an era in the history of the world. âNow Israel is doing the same with the United States. This war against Iraq will end Americaâs influence in the world; therefore both the Iraqis and the Americans will be victims of a war planned by the Zionists,â Hussein said. That's what he's hoping. Possibly, he's right. Taking on the entire terror machine and its enablers is a damned dangerous game — more dangerous, I think, thank many people realize. But Sammy's not going to be around to see it, so he'll never know, will he?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 09:47 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wierd, man - I first read that headline as "ASlan meets..." and got a picture of this lion wearing a crown and chewing on Sammy's leg...
#2
First thing I thought about was Alp Arslan. I don't think this guy has much in common with him, though.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/25/2003 10:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Did he make the visit on his own, or was he pushed into it by his Syrian minders? I didn't hear much out of Syria since they pulled those units out of Lebanon to keep them close to Damascus.
#4
"Saddam Hussein ...talks with Lebanese Minister of State Talal Arslan over the weekend".
Good, I'm glad he did that so that at least we know where Sadaam is. I was beginning to wonder if he had bunkered down and only his doubles were making public appearances.
#5
so Britain and France have no influence anymore?
Well, the French have influence, just in a selfish-interest manner. I hope he gets the chance to explain the lack of British influence to some SAS paras firsthand
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
What if he already retired to some Caribbean resort and let his doubles do the dirty work?
Turkish and U.S. officials have failed to agree on the details of a deal to deploy tens of thousands of American troops during overnight talks, likely delaying a parliamentary vote authorizing the move.
U.S. soldiers stand next to vehicles in the Turkish port of Iskenderun on Monday as equipment is offloaded.
Stange, I thought agreements had been reached, it seems negotiation are still continueing, but in the meantime after the âTellusâ and âAntaresâ, three more ships docked in Iskenderun: cargo ship âCappellaâ and Ro-Ro ships âGuteâ and âRozanoâ
Posted by: Murat ||
02/25/2003 09:31 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Geraldo Rivera was on Fox this AM with background video showing the Cappella (a US military cargo ship) as well as the Roseanne docked and unloading, and said there was another coming in, so this is right on the money
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 8:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
It seems likely that the problem is no longer about having permission to unload the ships. The hitch is in allowing U.S. troops to mate up with the equipment and begin heading to the border. Actually, from the Turkish point of view, allowing the equipment to offload strenghtens their hand a bit. Reloading the equipment would take time, and I think time is getting short. So the presence of unloaded equipment actually increases pressure on us to make a better deal with the Turks so we can get going.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
02/25/2003 9:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I've got an even better one. Let all of the equipment get offloaded and moved, then refuse to let the US use it. I bet that would be worth an EU membership.
#4
Relax people. This is to keep Sammy guessing to forestall any decisions on an attack against Turkey. The action will begin when there are 250K troops ready (if not more). That will happen some time by the end of March.
#5
I suspected this would happen, otherwise we would have had an answer weeks ago. I hope, hope, hope this drama is planned. If we are kept guessing, so is Sadaam. Maybe we will, maybe we won't. I'm sure Sadaam hasn't forgotten our huge amphibious landing during GWI. heh, heh, heh. And that's the point, isn't it? Only time will tell.
#7
know what I think? I think these are there just in case we need them....It takes much longer to unload the equipment than it does troops. That way, Sadaam can't take it for granted - he has to prepare even if he thinks it's all for show. He's damned if does and damned if he doesn't.
#8
Did a little searching. MV Tellus is a Ro-Ro DoD contract ship. Capella and Antares are SL-7 Type Fast Sealift ships, homeported in Baltimore. No info on the Gute or Rozano yet. Most likely they are Ro-Ro ships under contract, possibly coming from european ports.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
Saddam Hussein has challenged President Bush to a debate on live television, according to interview excerpts being aired Tuesday, and indicated he won't heed U.N. orders to destroy his Al Samoud 2 missiles. In the three-hour interview in the Iraq capital, CBS television quoted Saddam as calling for the debate via satellite linkup. The White House said the debate offer wasn't serious.
Back in October, the Iraqis suggested a duel, presumably to the death. A year before, the Taliban challenged Bush and Blair to meet Mullah Omar with Kalashnikovs at 30 paces...
Also in the interview, Saddam belittled an order from chief weapons inspector Hans Blix to begin destroying the Al Samoud 2 system by the end of the week. "Iraq is allowed to prepare proper missiles and we are committed to that," the network quoted Saddam as saying. Asked whether the Al Samoud 2 missiles are "proper," Saddam was quoted as replying: "We do not have missiles that go beyond the proscribed range."
"Perhaps you'd like to inspect us to make sure?... Oh. You did that."
Other recent visitors, however, have said Saddam appeared eager to cooperate fully with the U.N. inspectors in a bid to avert a U.S.-led war. They include former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark and former Russian Prime Minister Yevgeny Primakov.
Ohfergawdsake.
Clark said Saddam sees little incentive to cooperate with the inspectors, however, because he believes Bush is set on war. "What he thinks is, no matter what Iraq's performance is, the president will attack," Clark said. Hmm, I think Saddam is right, Bush will attack no matter what.
Unless Sammy does something drastic, like actually disarming. He won't do that.
Bush won't be satisfied even if Saddam does destroy the missiles, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said. He said stockpiles of sarin and VX nerve agent were still missing. And if not, the CIA will figure out something else.
Sammy could always get out of town, though...
"This is not about public relations. This is about protecting the lives of the American people," Fleischer said. "If Saddam Hussein destroys the missiles that he said he never had ... you've got to wonder what other weapons does he have?" Why does Fleisher not sound so convincing to me, is it because he answers his own excuse?
Iraq did declare the missiles in its 12,000-page report to the United Nations in December.
But they have a range greater than that permitted...
In the CBS interview, conducted by anchor Dan Rather, Saddam challenged Bush to a televised debate via satellite linkup, along the lines of those in a U.S. presidential campaign, the network said. "I am ready to conduct a direct dialogue â a debate â with your president," CBS quoted Saddam as saying. "I will say what I want and he will say what he wants." Yes that would be nice, I love to see who of the two sound more convincing!
Fleischer said Saddam's comments on the missiles constituted "open defiance" of the United Nations and said Bush wasn't taking the debate offer seriously. "This is not a serious issue," Fleischer said. "There is no debating his need to disarm." Arghhh, don't crawl back, show some balls face him in front of the whole world
CBS said it planned to broadcast excerpts of the interview on Tuesday and the entire interview on Wednesday.
The Kurds of northern Iraq have warned that there will be clashes if troops from neighbouring Turkey cross the border. Ankara is demanding that Turkish forces should enter the north of the country to secure Turkey's interests if the US and Britain go ahead with an attack on Iraq. Kurdish spokesmen have said that their guerrillas who control the north will oppose any Turkish intervention.
I'd like to see that not happen. There aren't enough democracies in the world to have them fighting among themselves...
Regional tensions are rising in advance of expected military action by the US and its allies and the atmosphere between two of those allies - the Turks and the Iraqi Kurds - is becoming increasingly embittered.In the most blunt warning yet, senior officials of the two big Kurdish factions - the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and its rival, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) - have warned that if Turkish troops cross the border for any reason there will be trouble. The KDP and PUK have run affairs in an enclave in the north of Iraq since 1991.
The KDP's peshmerga guerrillas control the border regions seen as a possible route for Turkish forces. Kurdish guerrillas say they will protect their territory. KDP spokesman Hoshyar Zebari said: "We will oppose any Turkish military intervention. This is our decision. "Nobody should [think] we are bluffing on this issue. This is a very serious matter. Any intervention, under whatever pretext, will lead to clashes." Mr Zebari said it would be bad for the image of the Americans and British that two of their allies should be "at each other's throats" before the main battle against the Baghdad government had even started. He also warned that if the Turks intervened, other regional powers such as Iran would also feel free to step in.
As part of the price for their own troops to spring off from Turkey, the Americans are believed to have agreed in principle to the Turkish demand for forces to be involved. The Turkish foreign minister has said the intervention would be to:
Head off a potential wave of refugees
Stop the Iraqi Kurds setting up an independent state
Prevent Kurdish forces from entering the nearby Iraqi oil cities of Kirkuk and Mosul
The Kurds insist they have no intention of doing any of these things and they say that Turkish intervention would be an unnecessary violation of Iraqi sovereignty.
The Turks are also said to be demanding that Kurdish guerrillas should be disarmed. The Kurdish spokesmen said they had already agreed that their forces should be dissolved and merged with the Iraqi army and police forces, but not before a democratic federal government has been established in Baghdad.
And that seems reasonable, too...
The Kurds and Turks have been engaged in so far inconclusive talks over Ankara's demands and another meeting is scheduled for Tuesday.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
02/25/2003 04:51 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hello Bulldog,
There is no question that Turkish troops will stay for a while in Northern Iraq to disarm the Kurdish militias, something like 1991 they wonât let repeat again. Local forces like the KDP of Massoud Barzani wonât like that obviously since their power is established on a militia force, they like to keep those weapons.
I think there have been drawn already plans by the US also to disarm all the militia, how sooner they are disarmed, the less the chance of a civil war.
Posted by: Murat ||
02/25/2003 2:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I read in some media reports of Dan Rather (CBS) proposing a live discussion on tv by Bush and Saddam, Bush declined while Saddam was willing. Does anybody know more about this CBS stunt it would be very interesting, I would love to see these two on a live discussion.
Posted by: Murat ||
02/25/2003 3:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Murat, I like to see such a debate myself. We could hold it in the lovely town of Leavenworth, Kansas. I sure Mr. Hussein will love his stay there.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
02/25/2003 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I'm reasonably certain Sammy would rather avoid the weather in Kansas right now. He'd much prefer a warm Carribean resort.
I'll bet Saddam's busy making his peace with Allah, trying to negotiate upwards from 72 doe-eyed virgins. Maybe he's attempted to conceal his sins from the almighty too. Hang on, what constitutes a sin in export-strength islam again?
I'd rather see Bush/Blair vs Saddam/Chiraq, tag teams.
A station identifying itself as Radio Tikrit, which carried programming early in February referring to President Saddam Hussein in respectful terms, seems to have shifted to a line hostile to the Iraqi leader. "...and you're listening to RTFM. Now a special request for a Saddam Hussein, who lives in Baghdad: the Scorpions' 'Wind of Change...'"
Tikrit is the birthplace of Saddam Hussein, and the radio announces itself as "Radio Tikrit for the whole of Iraq and all the Iraqis", although it is unclear from where it is broadcast. The radio, which broadcasts for two hours in the evening on a medium-wave frequency, was heard on 7 and 8 February carrying news, songs and general-interest features. The initial programming did not air the Iraqi national anthem but did seem to support Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party and was critical of the US. One programme, called Open Dialogue, included items glorifying "Saddam Hussein's Iraq".
For readers new to the subject area, this is called "gray operations" â ostensibly sympathetic until the audience is built, then throwing in the message, usually just prior to being shut down. Days, rather than weeks?
But from 15-19 February, the content had changed noticeably, with reports highlighting poverty in Iraq. The same programme was sharply critical of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards and the Public Security Department. In a country where the domestic media is controlled by Saddam Hussein, such a deviation is noteworthy. Members of the Republican Guards were advised to leave their positions "before it is too late". Similarly, public-security officers were advised by the programme on 19 February to refuse the "orders of the tyrant" and "be brave before it is too late". The station can be heard from 1900-2100 GMT on 1584 kHz, but reception is patchy because of co-channel interference and fading. Features include recitations from the Koran, and the Arabic press review includes London-based Arabic-language papers. There is speculation that this may be a psychological operation - or "psyops" - designed to disrupt Saddam's monopoly on information and drum up opposition to his rule - but the identity of its sponsor is as yet unclear. Similar psyops radio broadcasts have been used in times of conflict. In recent months, particularly in Afghanistan, the US has delivered radio broadcasts from the air with its Commando Solo flights.
This is a re-run of an article Steve posted yesterday.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
02/25/2003 04:46 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I did not catch this article the first time. It does indeed sounds like a psy-op however your explanation of grey operations is a little wrong.
the only difference between the "color coding" (for lack of a better term) of psy-op is actually in relation to the attribution to the source.
white is when the product is attributed by the actual source. (such as having a little US army logo on the bottom of a leaflet or something else that would indicate who is putting it out).
Grey is when there is not indications either way.
and Black is when the source is misrepresented. Such as creating a memorandum or propaganda peice that is designed to look like it was created and legitimized by the opposing force.
though you are right, this is technically a grey operations it does kinda lean on the black side. it all depends on how you want to look at it.
and just like everything else, there are varying shades of grey to this.
I will like to say this as well, US army psyop (which uses commando solo)on that level usually sucks. this tikrit stations hits me as a bit more of a well put together idea than what we normally see from military psy-op. HOWEVER, they are not the only organization that does that kind of thing.
Edited for length.
The Iraqi authorities are reported to be trying to deter residents of the capital, Baghdad, from leaving the city ahead of possible war. The reports come mainly from Iraqi expatriates who recently visited Iraq. They say those who defy the ban will have their homes confiscated. People travelling out of Baghdad with a large amount of luggage are said to have been turned back. It has not been possible to confirm these reports - Iraqis inside the country do not speak openly for fear of reprisals. Although it is difficult to see how the authorities can enforce such a ban on a city the size of Baghdad, with nearly five million inhabitants,... Checkpoints on the roads. Doesn't look dificult to me.
...these reports, if true, would show the regime's determination to use its own people as human shields in the event of war. As expected.
The United States has accused Iraq of building hospitals and schools near military targets with the aim of using the civilian population as human shields. The whole country is one man's shield.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
02/25/2003 04:41 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
WE WILL FIGHT TO THE DEATH!!!
...well, maybe not.
#3
Anonymous. Of course. It's all about oil. Even if there's none there, some lefty loon will put some there. Or say we plan to put some there. Or might put some there. Maybe. But it's all about the oil. And Free Mumia while we're at it.
Edited for length from the Washington Post
As it launches an all-out lobbying campaign to gain United Nations approval, the Bush administration has begun to characterize the decision facing the Security Council not as whether there will be war against Iraq, but whether council members are willing to irrevocably destroy the world body's legitimacy by failing to follow the U.S. lead, senior U.S. and diplomatic sources said.
Bush set it up as that back in October...
In meetings yesterday with senior officials in Moscow, Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton told the Russian government that "we're going ahead," whether the council agrees or not, a senior administration official said. "The council's unity is at stake here." A senior diplomat from another council member said his government had heard a similar message and was told not to anguish over whether to vote for war. "You are not going to decide whether there is war in Iraq or not," the diplomat said U.S. officials told him. "That decision is ours, and we have already made it. It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not." Interesting strategy. Decision's been made, now you decide whether you're with us or against us. And in the process decide wheether the UNSC is dead or not. Why GWB's critics never get that he means exactly what he says, I don't know.
... the message being conveyed in high-level contacts with other council governments is that a military attack on Iraq is inevitable, these officials and diplomats said. What they must determine, U.S. officials are telling these governments, is if their insistence that U.N. weapons inspections be given more time is worth the destruction of council credibility at a time of serious world upheaval. Somone from the State Dept. said this? Who knew Rummy had a mole there?
Don't underestimate Powell. It's a tag team...
"We're going to try to convince people that their responsibilities as members of the Security Council necessitate a vote that will strengthen the role of the council in international politics," national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said yesterday. Rice mentioned North Korea and Iran as issues where "the international community has a lot of hard work to do. . . . And so we're going to try to convince people that the Security Council needs to be strong." Iraq should have been a slam-dunk for the UNSC. If it can't do right here, forget it doing anything worthwhile when the IAEA brings the NKors up to them.
The lobbying campaign went into full gear last weekend, as the administration prepared for yesterday's introduction by the United States, Britain and Spain of a new council resolution declaring Baghdad in violation of U.N. demands. ... The administration maintains such approval already exists in previous resolutions, but has bowed to the wishes of London and Madrid, its main council allies, who believe a new vote will quell massive antiwar feeling in their own countries. A number of other countries outside the council have said their support for war depends on a new resolution. Question is, what does a French veto mean to them?
The administration holds out scant hope of repeating last fall's unanimous council tally, when all 15 members agreed to demand Iraq submit to a tough new weapons inspections regimen. Three of the five permanent members with veto power â France, Russia and China â have called for a war decision to be postponed while inspections continue. Of the 10 non-permanent members, only Spain and Bulgaria currently support the U.S. position; Syria and Germany are considered definite no's, and Pakistan either a no or an abstention.
My guess is a Pak "no" vote. They've gone back to being a jihadi state, and they'll do what the fundos say. And the fundos say "no." They know they're on the list and refuse to get off, even though they were offered the chance.
All five of the others â three in Africa and two in Latin America â are crucial to obtaining the nine votes necessary for non-vetoed passage. Last weekend, Bush telephoned Mexican President Vicente Fox and Chilean President Ricardo Lagos to ask for their votes but received no firm commitment, officials said.
Bush telephoned Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos earlier this month, and Assistant Secretary of State Walter H. Kansteiner III last weekend began a tour of the capitals of Angola, Guinea and Cameroon.
But they didn't kiss anybody...
For some, particularly among the key five non-permanent members, there are additional pressure points beyond an appeal to council unity. "They want support for the resolution," said a diplomat from one of the five. "They are not offering anything," or threatening reprisals, he said. "They are anticipating trouble if there is not support . . . [and] quietly sending the message that the United States would consider it an unfriendly act." That it would be.
But another council diplomat said: "There is no mention of any sort of threat or pressure. None whatsoever." Do we have to threaten anyone?
Even France, which has led the current council majority asking for more inspections, has repeatedly spoken of unity as the primary council goal. As it sets out to reverse a potential 11 to 4 vote against the new resolution, the administration is hoping that Paris will ultimately decline to be the spoiler and will opt for abstention. They won't.
"The argument the Americans are giving us," this diplomat said, "is 'if you support us, that will put pressure on France and they'll dare not apply a veto.' " And if France can be persuaded to abstain, several administration officials said they believe Russia and China will do the same. But the French won't abstain, so this isn't a good strategy.
Although the administration appears willing to declare victory with a 9 to 2 vote, with four abstentions, other council members said it would be a false victory. "Abstention will mean opposition, it will not mean support," a non-permanent council diplomat said. "If the decision to go to war with Iraq is adopted, it has to be adopted . . . with an important majority, including at least Russia and China, even if France doesn't want to go along." Sounds like he's moving the goalposts.
"This idea of putting three members with veto power on the outside is not something that sounds much like unity," the diplomat said. "Are they going to declare the Security Council 'relevant' by virtue of submission by the smallest states?" If those small states have more spine than France, heck yes.
If a nine-vote, no-veto majority cannot be assured, the senior U.S. official said, the administration will make a "tactical decision" as to whether it is better to proceed to war with no vote at all. As the article said earlier, that decision has been made.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/25/2003 04:39 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
if we get nine votes, we'll call it a "moral majority" even if france does veto. I suspect we might do the same even if we get only eight votes. Remember, when push comes to shove the crucial reason for the second resolutuion is to provide cover to Tony Blair (sorry, Aznar) So the question is what can Tony spin to the fence sitters among the Labour MPs??? And he's very good at making his case, lets remember. And ultimately Labour knows that the likely result of tossing Tony is a Tory govt (am I not right, bulldog?). So they need just enough cover to protect themselves from the activists in their constituencies. Passage with france voting yes would be a "slam dunk". Passage with 9 votes and 4 abstentions would be more than adequate. A "moral victory" with nine votes and a French veto is probably enough. Even a "moral victory" with only 8 votes will swing some of the fence sitters - Tony will have to the rest, to delay any move to toss him till the war is underway.
#2
"Somone from the State Dept. said this? Who knew Rummy had a mole there?"
Like a lot of conservatives, I've always been a bit wary of the State Department. For example, I've always loved the comment, "The Defense Department exists to protect American interests and the State Department exists to sell them out."
However, I'm beginning to get the feeling that those elements in Foggy Bottom that always seemed more interested in preserving and advancing the European Socialist experiment than in serving the interests of the US got a bit of wake-up call the September before last. Also, watching France and Germany cripple the UN and indulge in a major powergrab in the EU (both big favorites with State) also may have had some impact. We'll just have to see how this develops.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
02/25/2003 9:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
--Somone from the State Dept. said this? Who knew Rummy had a mole there?
Don't underestimate Powell. It's a tag team...--
Amazing what happens when an "ally" stabs you full frontal on international TV.
--Bush telephoned Angolan President Jose Eduardo dos Santos earlier this month, and Assistant Secretary of State Walter H. Kansteiner III last weekend began a tour of the capitals of Angola, Guinea and Cameroon.
But they didn't kiss anybody...--
#4
Liberalhawk, Blair's the closest thing Labour have to a god - he's the only leader to have got the party re-elected, ever. So they wouldn't ditch him without good reason. Also, surprisingly, the sentiment in the commons towards the war is far more gung-ho than it is on the street. That's partly because Blair's party is now stuffed full of brainless New Labourites carefully selected by Tony to preach his political gospel and not answer back. The alternative leaders don't really bear thinking about. On the other hand, the Tory party seems to be slipping in and out of consciousness, barely keeping alive. True, they've seen an upsurge in recent polls but that's only because of public disenchantment with Blair. There really is no party perceived as fit to govern, other than Labour, and no leader fit to lead Labour other than Blair. As Tony's weathered the storm so far, I'm confident now he's safe for the time being. If the war doesn't go to plan though, and public opinion plummeted, it's conceivable he'd resign.
#5
Oh, good point! I'd rather have cash than kisses any time...
Posted by: Fred ||
02/25/2003 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Don't count Vincente Fox out of this one. He was in full control of US/ Mexican policy until 9/11. He's had no traction since then. This is where he can extract maximum advantage. Sure voting 'no' will fry W, but he's really got nothing to lose at this point.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/25/2003 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Base muleteers of France! Like peasant footboys do they keep the walls And dare not take up arms like gentlemen."
--William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1
Posted by: Mike ||
02/25/2003 11:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
IIRC the Origins of the Second World War by A.J.P. Taylor placed a major portion of the blame for the Second WW on America because it refused to join and participate in the League of Nations. The contemporary behavior of the League's successor amply demonstrates that old piece of academic dogma to be flat wrong and just another piece of pure anti-ameicanism. Thanks for the vindication of the Republican Senate of 1919, France, Germany, etc.
Posted by: Don ||
02/25/2003 15:37 Comments ||
Top||
#9
i fail to see how current events tells us anything about the politics of the 1930's. The US WAS isolationist in the interwar period, and that WAS a big problem for the Brits, who in turn got wobbly and didnt support the French like they should have, who in turn betrayed the Czechs.
#10
It's quite amazing how you ignore what that statement really means:
"That decision is ours, and we have already made it. (When?) It is already final. The only question now is whether the council will go along with it or not."
Means: You matter only if you approve everything we do.
But if the Security Council approves everything the U.S. does, what do we need a Security Council for?
If the president said the same thing to Congress, wouldn't someone shout dictatorship?
How surprised can you be that most nations at the Security Council feel a bit... err pissed at the U.S.?
The Iraq war was decided more than a year ago. Saddam could have eaten every anthrax spore he has and it wouldn't have made a difference.
Either way, the Security Council faces irrelevance. Just looks like it prefers to go down with a bang, not with a whimper.
Why do Mexico or Chile oppose the U.S.? Do they have anything to lose in Iraq?
I don't believe that France and Germany killed the Security Council, the U.S. did. Nobody needs a body of 15 yes-sayers. Waste of money.
And of course, if the decision to go to war was final all the time, how can you expect Iraq to disarm? If I didn't despise Saddam that much I'd say: Doesn't Iraq have the right of self defense?
Get me right: I don't blame the U.S. trying to finish off the Saddam regime. I just don't like the hypocritical way it is done. A shoddy farce, sorry.
#11
Why won't our dear allies, France & Germany, commit to a definite date by which Saddam has to be disarmed, after which face serious consequences? Why has France & Germany shifted the responsibility onto the inspectors to prove that Iraq is weapons free??
Screw this. Our so-called friends have other motives, mainly their own economic interests. Fair enough. The US has its own interests and they concern its defence.
I would make this deal with Chiraq & Schroeder: Bush backs down on Iraq completely, lets the UN handle Saddam for as long as it wants, but if Saddam tests a nuclear bomb, uses biological or chem weapons, or sells them to anybody in the future, then France & Germany voluntarily withdraw from NATO, and France gives up its veto at the UNSC. Any takers?
#12
true german ally: I hate to say it but I agree with you 100%.
I hate Saddams Regime, and I'd like the bombs to start dropping as of yesterday
But how the US are playing this one is stumping me. Are they being brilliant, do they have an ace up their sleeve that I can't see, or what, because the way this is playing out it would have been better for them NOT to have gone to the UN in the first place, just started the war and produced the evidence and justification afterwards.
The longer they procrastinate, the more the opposition grows.
Now if they go to war without the UN, it's goodbye Howard in Australia and goodbye Blair in Britain.
This deeply threatens the alliance of english-speaking countries, at a point in history when we REALLY need to stick together. After all, we are currently in an unknown WW3 with fundy Islam.
Please either start dropping the bombs or produce the diplomatic coup to increase solidarity! I will support the US to the death but the more time goes by, the less my countrymen will do the same.
#14
Why GWB's critics never get that he means exactly what he says, I don't know.
Critics? How about supporters? I watched Joe Scarborough, former Pubbie Congressman from Florida as an MSNBC anchor seriously discussing the idea that Cameroon was going to have a major voice in whether, where and how US Forces will be positioned and used.
I start screaming, well speaking crossly at the tv set, saying that Bush and Blair have both said that they are going to disarm Saddam preferably with Security Council backing or without it. The UN is deciding its fate, no the US.
George Bush will be President for the next six years, if it survives that long, the UN will be a dead letter. I hope Bush, Blair and Howard of Australia launch a new Free World Forum organization, where you must be a civilized country to become a member. You then bring Canada, Japan, South Korea, Eastern Europe on board, even France and Germany can join, but American leadership will be paramount.
#15
You don't get it. The U.S. have been telling everyone for months that they made the war decision already. Period.
How about that one. The U.S. (or better an unanimous Security Council) tells Iraq the following. We expect Iraq to be free of any nuclear, biological and chemical weapons (including missiles of a range exceeding 100 miles) by [insert date]. If you comply, we will withdraw our troops and give you a guarantee that you won't be attacked as long as you keep Iraq WMD-free. But if after this date we find ANYTHING you are toast, period. No more tactics, no more little revelations.
At least thats would be a fair deal. We know that Saddam won't honor it of course. But thats his problem then.
But the situation right now is: Whatever you do we will attack you anyway. And Saddam knew that since last year. So the only tactics he can use is "delay delay" and hope for a split between the U.S. and Europe. Well it worked.
I don't want the U.S. to back down on Saddam. I want a knife at his throat. Thats the only language dictators understand. But if you believe what U.S. officials say (including Bush) Saddam never had a choice. The consequences? Desperate people will do desperate things.
Whats the point of that new resolution that says: "Saddam wasted his last chance...etc". Well if he did what do you need to talk about? If he did than the only resolution can be: "Saddam wasted his last chance, war now." Not that phony diplotalk about "serious consequences" and the like.
I never agreed with Schroeders policy. But what got Germany upset was the automatism of war. That was obvious a year ago already. The constant U.S. threat that they would ignore the Security Council (I call this blackmail tactics) was one reason for Schroeder to say that Germany would not vote for war.
Frankly, as long as the U.S. declares that they would ignore the decisions of the Security Council if they dont like them I don't see a point in Security Council meetings. Unless the Council makes its stand and excludes the U.S. Because if it tolerates a member that openly says it won't respect the Council, it serves no purpose.
If the U.S. continues its path towards unilateralism it may very well solve the Iraq problem singlehanded. But sooner or later it will lose its true friends and surround itself with lackeys and profiteers.
#16
yeah right. I think we've seen that our "true friends" decided to put their economic interests ahead of a friend's security.
What you say would make sense, except that the US did in fact go to the UNSC with the first resolution didn't they? What would be the point if they not only knew that war wasn't going to be an option, but also that this would create a rift between old friends? I think the US was caught off guard by the ferocity of the opposition.
You're forgetting one thing: there's no reason for such staunch opposition if your only arguments are of a moral nature. Far better and effective would be to wait until the US screws up and then say "we told you so".
BTW, can you point out a single time when Bush threatened to ignore the UNSC before the elections in Germany?? Didn't think so. Old Europe wasn't serious about Iraq from the very beginning. Along comes the US to cut the B.S. and that's when Old Europe started to show its true colors. With friends like these........
#17
1. Saddam has delayed for 12 years.
2. The UNSC does serve no purpose, it let him get away w/it all those years. All we did was give it the chance(s) to live up to its responsibilities with US paying the major portion of the freight (as usual).
3. Talk about toleration, how should we treat allies/friends who invoke Article 5 and then renege?
4. Lackey (Belgium) Profiteers (fill in the blank) and that includes the UN which oversees over $20+ bil in euros and $30+ bil in oil-for-food contracts.
#19
But what got Germany upset was the automatism of war.
What got Germany upset is that they didn't want to be dragged into an "American problem". Schroeder knew this, took advantage of it, and voila, here we are.
#20
Of course, selfish greedy Europeans leaving the US out in the cold to make deals with Saddam. Its so easy, right? Risking the U.S. friendship for some millions at stake in Iraq? Get real, ok?
Yes the U.S. did go to UN to get the ok. They didn't expect anything but an ok. Its better with an ok, because you dont foot the bill alone.
Caught off guard? What kind of diplomats do you have, dont they ASK?
Did you never wonder why the strongest ally you have on Continental Europe started to disagree with you?
The only thing Schroeder said before the elections was that Germany would not take part in a war against Iraq. Then the bullying started.
Damn I dont want to defend him but I was seriously worried about the way Germany was treated after it dared to disagree with something the US wanted.
It's very difficult to talk to a friend who won't listen.
I don't agree with Schroeder's attitude, not a bit, but I am worried about the "New Republican Thinktank" who believes that America was meant to rule a Hobbesian world with overwhelming military force.
Re Antiamericanism. I must say I have heard words far more uglier about Europeans from America than the other way round. And not only from the New York Post.
Maybe you should read Senator Byrds Senate Speech on Febr. 12th. Oh I forgot, all the "patriotic" major US papers "forgot" to carry it.
Do a Google search for: "Sleepwalking through History"
I hope you dont blame this man to be Anti-american.
#21
What kind of diplomats do you have, dont they ASK?
Sure. And the answer would have been: Saddam is not a threat, war is not an option.
Well, we respectfully disagree. So now what do we do? Go to the UN? Well, we did. The only thing Schroeder said before the elections was that Germany would not take part in a war against Iraq. Then the bullying started
That's because of the way it was said... you know, the hitler thing and all (yeah yeah I know he apologized) rule a Hobbesian world with overwhelming military force
There are those true colors again. "America is the problem." selfish greedy Europeans leaving the US out in the cold to make deals with Saddam
No, just Schroeder & Chiraq. Both benefiting from their new-found calling: standing up to the bully Americans. Just wish they would pick a different issue than Iraq. Oh well, whatever is more conveniant I guess. Risking the U.S. friendship
Oh please. There are ways to show your displeasure, and then there's the knife in the back method. Did you never wonder why the strongest ally you have on Continental Europe started to disagree with you?
yeah. economic interests plus not wanting to be dragged into an American war in fear of terrorist repraisals, or whatever else Germans fear. Coupled with a bit of "everybody hates you for a reason, you know"
But please tell us, why did the strongest ally we have disagree with us?
#22
Ok, if you knew the answers already (without asking) how could you be caught off guard? Or did the mindreader flunk his job?
The way it was said... "Germany won't participate in a war against Iraq." How insulting was that? Oh, the Hitler remark again. I have stated already: It was made by a minister, not by Schroeder. Schroeder sacked her and fully apologized. 95 pc of Germans thought the remark was totally inappropriate and stupid. But yet it was good enough to "poison" a 50 yo relationship. God, faery princesses you are indeed! In the future we'll extradite stupid ministers to the U.S. (we have a few if you want them).
The Hobbesian ideology of the Bush administration is discussed as much in America as outside. And I could quote lines from Kagan, Perle, Rumsfeld etc that indeed worry me.
How do Chirac and Schroeder benefit from standing up to bully America? Both know that the U.S. will do what they want to do anyway so the French rallying with the U.S. would certainly save more of the much quoted assets they have in Iraq than vetoing U.S. policy. Ok, my dislike for Chirac is too strong to defend him any further.
Then you say we didn't want to be dragged into an American war in fear of terorist reprisals. Oh, does Afghanistan ring a bell? Where was the fear then? Right now German troops are assuring peace in Kabul. Guess that doesn't make us OBL's best friends. Nobody here believes that "Old Europe's" stance will make it any safer from terrorist attacks. Terrorists won't make much of a difference. Actually Europe may even face a bigger threat because attacking America is a lot more difficult these days due to all the colorful alerts you have now. Attacking Berlin or Paris is easier to do than NY or Washington, and the results are the same: Fear in the godless Western World.
Germans do have a better memory of war than the U.S. And that includes me. As a boy I got a first hand experience of what WMD mean when they are dropped onto your city. I guess you don't want details.
Maybe thats why we don't rush to war that easily anymore.
#23
TGA,and Murat
If ,as you say,the U.S.should be excluded from the UNSC,if the U.S.goes after Sammy without UNSC approval.Then what should be done with all the despotic members of the U.N.who ignore the UNSC on a daily basis.ex.Lybia,Syria,N.Korea.
Please do not ingnore this like you do all those who counter your arguments.
Iraq could be planning a chemical or biological attack on American cities through the use of remote-controlled "drone" planes equipped with GPS tracking maps, according to U.S. intelligence. The information about Iraq's unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) program has caused a "real concern" among defense personnel, senior U.S. officials tell Fox News. They're worried that these vehicles have already been, or could be, transported inside the United States to be used in an attack, although there is no proof that this has happened. That's why it's a concern.
Secretary of State Colin Powell showed a picture of a small drone plane during his presentation to the U.N. Security Council earlier this month. "UAVs outfitted with spray tanks constitute an ideal method for launching a terrorist attack using biological weapons," Powell said during his speech. "Iraq could use these small UAVs, which have a wingspan of only a few meters, to deliver biological agents to its neighbors or, if transported, to other countries, including the United States." Wouldn't work well for blistering agents or even nerve agents. Anthrax? Could cause quite a scare but relatively few casualties. But for smallpox it would be dandy.
Powell said there is "ample evidence" that Iraq has dedicated much time and effort to developing and testing spray devices that could be adapted for UAVs. "And of the little that Saddam Hussein told us about UAVs, he has not told the truth," Powell said. Does he ever?
In the arms declaration Iraq submitted to the U.N. Security Council in December, the country said its UAVs have a range of only 50 miles. But Powell said U.S. intelligence sources found that one of Iraq's newest UAVs went 310 miles nonstop on autopilot in a test run. That distance is over the 155 miles that the United Nations permits, and the test was left out of Iraq's arms declaration. No! Such perfidy!
Officials tell Mr. Murdoch Fox that there is solid intelligence that Iraq has tested many different types of sprayers on these drones to disperse chemical and biological weapons. President Bush addressed the threat in October in Cincinnati, making his first big case outlining Iraq's defiance. "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas," Bush said in preparation for a congressional vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." The president noted, however, that sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack. "All that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it," he said. Right. If you have a splodydope handy, you don't need a UAV. Hence the Iraqi link to terror groups including al-Qaeda, for occasions when Saddam needs a splodydope.
Even though it has been mentioned a few times by administration officials, the issue of UAVs and their capabilities has been largely overlooked. But some experts say that even if the UAVs do get assembled for use in the United States, the chances that they could cause widespread damage are low. "These technologies are not terribly well proven," F. Whitten Peters, a former Air Force Secretary, told Fox News, referring to vehicles that can be used to disperse harmful agents. Peters said in order to go undetected in the air, the UAVs would have to be small — and therefore would not be able to carry too much of a harmful substance, and they would have to fly over densely populated areas if they want to achieve maximum casualties. Which is why smallpox would be the big worry, since it would only take a little.
But because many large metropolitan areas such as Washington have air traffic watchers keeping an eye out for any nearby planes that have not filed a flight plan, the UAVs likely would not succeed in a large-city attack. It's the smaller cities and towns that would be more vulnerable. "It's not clear air traffic would actually see this aircraft," Peters said, adding that if the vehicles flew low enough to evade radar detection, "they would be basically invisible." "Hey Ma!"
"Yes, Pa?"
"What's the buzzing sound I hear out back?"
"Is it Junior with his toy pickup truck?"
"Nope, sounds diff'rent than that."
"Maybe it's Peggy-Sue mowing the lawn."
"She's downstairs with her friends lissening to them Dixie Chicks."
"Well maybe it's an Iraqi UAV sprayin' us with summing."
"Pshaw, woman, be serious!"
As to what the government could do to protect Americans from any threat UAVs may pose, Peters said: "I don't think there's much to be done besides the steps we're already taking to deal with chemical and biological threats." But some experts say the threat is very real and should be taken seriously. "This isn't brain surgery," Air National Guard Chief Paul Weaver told Fox News in reference to how easy it would be to assemble a UAV. "The key is getting it into the country." What an outstanding observation.
Not too long after Sept. 11, there was a report made public about Usama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network being trained to conduct air raids through air vehicles outfitted with spray tanks. Some terror network members had looked into the possibility of training on the aerial UAVs. This was the catalyst for investigations into U.S. flight schools. "If they could organize something like Sept. 11," Weaver said, "this would be very doable." My father used to fly "combat" with his RC planes. I think I might ask him for a few lessons.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/25/2003 04:27 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think Japan might have been the last country to try anything like this. If I remember correctly, we won that war with nuclear weapons. It's the "low-tech weapons for nukes" exchange program we offer our stated enemies. For North Korea, we offer the "1 for 1000" ICBM exchange program.
#2
You don't need drones to deliver smallpox. One infected suicide traveller flying into NY would do the trick. You don't even need a container. If you find guys crazy enough flying planes into buildings such a wacko shouldn't be too hard to find. You could even tell him that he got an antidote and won't die himself.
But the smallpox issue smells like creating terror hysteria to me. The only guys who ever talked about smallpox were government people.
There is not the shadow of a proof that Saddam has that stuff.
Not that he would object to, of course.
But if he did we should rethink our strategy because chances that he'd unleash the stuff are far higher when we force him to a last stand in his Baghdad bunker.
Because if he really has it its more than likely that the stuff is in the U.S. already.
#3
Is it really? Well why don't we go into Minority Report Mode and attack countries that might think about getting something and might think about threatening us with it in the future and might...
#4
The alternative is you could stick your head in the sand and pretend the world is a peachy place. Easy to do when it's not your neck you are worrying about.
#5
It is not a peachy place. It never was, never will be. But of course smallpox would strictly stick to U.S. territory when released there, right? Talking about your neck my neck...
#6
OK TGA,
Lets try it this way,is there any doubt in your mind that,given Sadam's dreams of empire and glory,that he would hesitate to use small pox if any country thwarted his expainsionist dream?
For example:Say he invaded Jordan,and was stopped by outside forces,isn't well within the realm of possibility that he would lash out in a rage.
Don't try the"He didn't use them last time" argument.The guy is insane,and untreated insainity just gets worse.There is no telling what this guy will do.
A prime suspect in the Bali bombing will recant in court his confession implicating Indonesian cleric Abu Bakar Bashir in the blasts because it was made under police torture, the suspect's lawyer said yesterday. Lawyer Qadhar Faisal said Imam Samudra involuntarily implicated Bashir after police stripped him, showered him with water all night while he was blindfolded and slapped him in the face. Police also inserted iron objects between Samudra's toes and twisted the toes together, the lawyer alleged. Tap, tap, tap..still broken.
Mr Faisal said investigators had asked Samudra if Bashir is the leader of the Jemaah Islamiah regional terror network, which is blamed for the Bali bombing, and if he had met Bashir before and after the attack on October 12. Samudra said "Yes" because he could not stand the torture, according to his lawyer.
"The fact that he has put another person's life in danger is excruciating for him," Mr Faisal said. "He will recant his forced confession in court." I expected this, sucks that there is all that physical evidence, Mr Faisal.
Bali police spokesman Yatim Suyatmo said he had not directly heard of such claims of torture. "The fact is there are no signs of torture on Imam's body and investigators have also said they have never used violent means," Mr Suyatmo said. "He was just really, really dirty, and needed a shower. And his toenails were a mess, so we had them trimmed."
Police have said they expect the first trial or trials to start next month in Bali, although the venue has yet to be decided. Police say Samudra, 35, was the "field commander" and the person most responsible for the bombings that ripped through two nightspots and killed 202 people, mostly foreigners. Police suspect a wider involvement by Jemaah Islamiah. Indonesian police and regional leaders say Bashir, who is detained in Jakarta, is Jemaah Islamiah's spiritual leader. Police say they expect to charge the 64-year-old cleric over the Bali bombings. Ok, class, repeat after me; "I was framed!" Thank you.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 07:51 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Smoking Gun has a photocopy of Binny's jihad manual. It sez in the manual (Chapter 17, if you're interested) that you're supposed to say you were tortured.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/25/2003 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
Officials say unidentified gunmen have killed one person and seriously injured two pregnant women in an attack on a minibus in East Timor. Deputy Defence and Security Minister Roque Rodrigues says the group fled back to their barracks in Indonesia after the attack yesterday near the village of Aidabaleten in Maliana district. Maliana is on the border with Indonesian West Timor, where many pro-Jakarta militiamen have sheltered since fleeing East Timor in September 1999. A security source says the 10-strong group first fired on a truck but the driver escaped. The attackers then stopped a minibus, boarded and started firing, killing one and injuring several others, at least three severely. United Nations peacekeeping troops deployed a quick reaction force to search for the attackers where the light was good. With UN peacekeepers on the job, we can be sure the Bad Guys will be found, ummm... someday.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 05:14 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Most of the UN guys are Aussies, aren't they? Reasonable chance of finding somebody, if so.
Threatening letters, one containing cyanide, have been sent to Australian, British and American diplomatic missions in New Zealand. The letters, apparently written by the same person, threatened unspecified action if Iraq was attacked, New Zealand police said today. The letters were intercepted at the Auckland mail centre on Friday and handed to police. The letter intercepted before it reached the Australian High Commission did not contain the poison, a Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) spokeswoman said. "There were mail items containing threatening letters and powdery substances recently sent to four addresses in Wellington including the (Australian) High Commission," the spokeswoman said. Shades of the anthrax attacks in the wake of 9-11...
"NZ police have confirmed that other destinations were The New Zealand Herald, the UK and US missions." NZ Assistant Police Commissioner for Counter-terrorism, John White, declined to release the full text, but said the letters also had references to the America's Cup sailing challenge between Swiss and New Zealand yachts being held off Auckland. "The letter makes reference to an escalation in Iraq might be a trigger in terms of terrorist acts and the reference is made to America's Cup which of course is of considerable concern to us," he said. Sammy, of course, has no involvement. And in this case, it's likely a sympathizer, rather than an Iraqi agent. I think. But Sammy's boyz have been pretty clumsy lately...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 05:10 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I read "Kiwi Nut Job" all over it. Only a fantasist would send letters to the UK/US/Aus diplomatic missions in Welllington expecting results. Desperate actions of someone out of touch with reality.
#3
I'm sure it's a angry white loner, just like the DC sniper.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 10:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
OK, on the news tonight they had a story on how the Kiwis are going nuts over the Americas Cup race. It seems that the former New Zealand cup winner, whose boat got bumped during the trials to see who defended the cup this year, signed with the Swiss to pilot their boat. Some Swiss billioner bought boat, crew, and captain and they are now poised to take the cup away from New Zeland. Seems sailing is the national sport of NZ and the fans are going crazy over this. Death threats, bomb threats, etc. The reporter made the comparision of Michael Jordon not making the US dream team, signing with the USSR and leading them to a gold medal. This may explain all the nuts.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 20:12 Comments ||
Top||
Phil Donahue, recruited as a liberal O'Reilly killer by MSNBC, has been dumped after six months of ratings only slightly higher than The Autopsy Channel. That's maybe a good thing. Now he'll be available for the Dems to recruit for their talk radio network, so he can be a Limbaugh Killer, too.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 03:32 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gonahue!
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/25/2003 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Dude, don't belittle the Autopsy Channel.
Posted by: David Hines ||
02/25/2003 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Autopsy Channel may soon be able to buy MSNBC.
Molly Ivins has a new column out. It's here... Sorry, Denny. I got there first, and she was just quiverin' and waitin' to be whupped...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 03:02 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
when she gets older I bet she shrivels up into Helen Thomas' texas twin
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Molly Ivins ( Code Name: Phobos)
Helen Thomas ( Code Name: Deimos)
and for the complete trifecta, who can beat Maureen Dowd!
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
02/25/2003 14:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Tally ho! Great bitch slap! I do her no more than once a month and I'm not due for another two weeks so I'm glad someone picked up on this column. Talk about begging for it. Great job! Bravo! Bravo!
Witness to centuries of bloodshed, the ancient walls of Jerusalemâs Old City saw only white Tuesday as Palestinians and Israelis traded snowballs instead of stones and bullets. The exchange â between Palestinian youths and Israeli passersby at the ancient Dung Gate â came in celebration of a rare heavy snowstorm that brought much of the Holy Land to a standstill, offering a respite from 29 months of fighting. âThis sort of thing gives everyone perspective. It makes people focus on what they have in common rather than politics,â veteran Israeli meteorologist Danny Roup told Reuters.
Across the West Bank, the strongest cold front in a least a decade brought snow as deep as 12 inches, almost unimaginable in a region better known for balmy winters. In Israel, snow blocked palm-lined highways and only a few vehicles dared to venture out as the Mediterranean countryâs tiny fleet of snowplows went to work. Most of neighboring Lebanon and Syria were also snowbound, with the main Beirut-to-Damascus road blocked and dozens of mountain villages isolated.
In West Bank cities that have been largely reoccupied by Israeli forces, the winter whiteness masked the scars of almost daily Israeli-Palestinian clashes. Palestinian youths who on other days might play deadly games of cat-and-mouse by throwing stones at Israeli patrols or putting up nationalist posters made do with tamer pastimes. Snowmen went up in Ramallahâs main square, indistinguishable from those made by Israeli children only a few miles away. In Bethlehem, the town revered by Christians as the birthplace of Jesus, snow dusted church steeples and mosque spires. âPeople are out and about. There is a sense of relaxation and joy that comes with snow â children and even young men throwing snowballs at one another,â said Sami Awad, a Christian activist who promotes non-violent resistance to occupation.
Having followed weather reports for days, schools and most businesses in Israel and the West Bank never opened their doors. The silence was interrupted only by the squeals of children, among them toddlers swaddled up by their parents for what was for some a first glimpse of snow. In the stillness of Jerusalemâs Old City, Jewish, Christian and Muslim faithful shuffled through sleet, past palm trees with frosted fronds, until finally reaching their places of worship. The golden Dome of the Rock and silver-capped al-Aqsa Mosque â holy to Muslims and occasional flashpoints for violence during the Palestinian revolt for independence âwere decked in downy white. At the Western Wall, revered by Jews as the last edifice of their ancient temples, one young man donned headphones to keep his ears warm as he swayed in prayer.
Winter storms also dumped a heavy blanket of snow on central Lebanon, cutting off the countryâs main international highway and knocking out electricity and phone lines. Up to five feet of snow blocked off the Dahr al-Baydar mountain road that connects Beirut to Damascus. Witnesses said dozens of villages in the eastern Bekaa Valley were snowed in after plows failed to make it through the blinding storm to clear remote roads. A thawing-out was expected to begin in the region on Wednesday. Hope General Arafish stocked up on baby wipes...
A Hamas activist and two other Palestinians were wounded when a grenade exploded early Tuesday afternoon in the el-Bureij refugee camp in the Gaza Strip. Palestinian sources said that Abu Ali Baghdadi, a former bodyguard of Hamas leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, was "playing" with the grenade at his home when it exploded. "Hey, guys! Watch this...oops..Bang!"
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 01:29 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Hey, y'all! Look what happens when I do this! Ow!"
Posted by: Fred ||
02/25/2003 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I can see the missus now..."Allahdammit, Abu! Must you take your job home with you?!"
This makes a lot of sense... Why won't China rein in North Korea in the current nuclear crisis? The answer lies in Beijing's secret goal of getting U.S. troops off the peninsula. The prevailing understanding on China is fundamentally flawed. The consensus is that China shares common interests with the U.S. and nations in the region in denuclearizing North Korea. Therefore, it ought to play an active and leading role in resolving the crisis, especially because Beijing seems to have the most leverage over North Korea. Much to the disappointment of the U.S., however, China has excused itself from the "relevant parties." Beijing insists that this is really a matter exclusively between the United States and North Korea. Furthermore, China does not believe that the U.S.-North Korean dialogue ought to include the United Nations; Beijing has vociferously opposed efforts to bring in the world body to bear on the issue. The question is, why?
The key to understanding China's behavior is realizing that exclusively bilateral talks could produce what China secretly craves: the removal of the U.S. military presence from the Korean peninsula. In a multilateral setting, the emphasis would be on North Korea's violation of the international Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and its threat to the region and the world. Thus, various multinational measures to disarm North Korea would be discussed. U.N. involvement would remove the onus on the U.S. to negotiate on its own. However, if the situation were framed solely as a dispute between the U.S. and North Korea, the focus would be shifted to what North Korea is demanding in exchange for nuclear disarmament. North Korea, with its far-reaching missile capability, would then be perceived as a direct threat to U.S. security. Combined with South Korea's strong resistance to taking military action against the North, the U.S. could well be cornered into conceding to North Korean demands, namely, a nonaggression treaty and a military withdrawal from South Korea. China would then have achieved its short-term goal of removing U.S. troops from the peninsula.
Ejection of the U.S. military presence is an essential first step toward China's ultimate long-term goals: reunification with Taiwan and reassertion as the dominant regional power. After a U.S. withdrawal, China would be likely to find two friendly Koreas on its southern border. Post-Cold War South Korea is no longer a hostile country but an important trading partner. And if a united Korea emerges, it would probably be amicable toward China. Further, if Japan rearms and goes nuclear in reaction to the new circumstances on the Korean peninsula, the rationale for the U.S. military presence there may be diminished as well.
In this best-case scenario for China, with American forces removed from Korea and Japan, Far East geopolitics would enter a new era. China could reassert its historical status as the dominant regional power and eventually reabsorb Taiwan. This crisis may well drive the U.S. off the Korean peninsula. With this in mind, why should China help the U.S. to maintain its military presence in South Korea by pressuring North Korea to give up nuclear weapons?
That China appears constrained by anxieties over the potential flood of starving refugees that would be created by North Korea's economic collapse only serves as a cover for China to prop up North Korea's bargaining position. China's sales of a key chemical ingredient for nuclear weapons development to North Korea, as recently as December, should be understood within this context. China wants North Korea to maintain its strong leverage in any bilateral talks with the U.S. Only when viewed from this perspective are China's inaction and stubborn insistence on direct talks between Pyongyang and Washington comprehensible; indeed, it is a profound and brilliant strategy. The chances of North Korea attacking China are damn near zip. As far as the refugee issue, it's a non issue. If the problem gets too large, you send them back to the tender mercies of the DPRK. What does China care about refugees? I think it's a smart move for them to sit back, do nothing, and see if they can pull this off.
#1
i dont see why the US would withdraw forces from a nuclear Japan. And i have difficulty with China wanting a nuclear Japan in preference to US forces in the region.
The problem with any expansionist China scenarios is that the alliance to contain China is so natural - US-Japan-India-Russia-Viet Nam- ASEAN, as well as Taiwan.
#2
Liberalhawk. Granted, it's a theory. But they've got a chance at getting what they want in Korea, seeing that a lot of their younger generation seem to think we're facist occupiers opposing unification and a lot of people over here seem to think the SK's are ungrateful bastards who don't deserve US protection.
Concerning Japan, we may not withdraw, but we might be asked to leave someday. I know they weren't too crazy about us in Okinawa.
As far as the natural alliance goes, do you really think these countries would put it on the line if China makes a move on Taiwan?
They may not get all they want, but they might get some of it. And without a lot of effort on their part.
#3
I don't want to diminish militant Islam as a threat to western civilization, but China is an 800 lb. gorilla in the background. All the more reason we need to solidify real friendship with our natural allies, Russia and India. Otherwise our children will all be studying Mandarin Chinese in less than 25 years.
#4
"As far as the natural alliance goes, do you really think these countries would put it on the line if China makes a move on Taiwan?"
You mean whould they all go to war - I doubt it. But they would either support the US, or make it clear to China that the consequences in diplomatic and economic isolation would exceed the benefits of retaking Taiwan. Depends on the circumstances, too.
#5
Remember the basic issue for the Party to control the population. No control, no party. It is currently threatened by the corruption within its own ranks. This is the historical base in which many of the prior Chinese dynasties started their fall. The provincial governors became more powerful through the economy as not to be dependent upon the central government. The corruption compounded the effectiveness of the central government and alienated enough of the people, so as to reduce the obedience of the masses. When someone would revolt, the monies and the bodies were not forthcoming to defend the center. Now with the Chinese economy in the still early stages of development a large portion of the population has moved to the cities and are less and less under party control. One of the major engines driving the conversion of the economy is the huge trade deficit with the US. A total economic embargo would start the collapse of the current social structure. Remember the Chinese are not kept in the dark about the outside world like the North Koreans. They are now in the cycle of rising expectations which is a very volatile social state. If the trade collapes, very large numbers of people are suddenly out of work and have zero means for the basics of life - food, clothing, shelter. That historically breeds major instability in the governing ability of those in power. While the government could blame foreigners for their self-created problem, they can't sustain that as the basis for keeping the hungry in line. Self interests of both the people and regional authorities, those officals becoming wealthy upon the corruption, will once again threaten the current dynasty's hold on power. That is not a good strategy for Beijing.
The viable solution for the Chinese is to saleout the N.Koreans and agree to joint occupation of the North with the South and the reduction of the American forces to a Military Assistance Group level. That would create the fastest and safest transition which in the end accomplishes their overall goal in the penisula. However, that would be too simple.
Posted by: Don ||
02/25/2003 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I believe this commentary is deeply flawed because its basic assumption is that China is most concerned about American troops. This is inaccurate. The Chinese are fixated on Japan, and while Americans are more than willing to let World War 2 fade into the past, the Chinese suffered horribly at Japanese hands, and they are much less willing to forgive or forget.
They view us as the ones who can best keep the Japanese under wraps.
Of course, if the Japanese decide to undertake a major rearmament program or announce a shift away from a "self-defense" military policy, then look out!
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has admitted to the BBC he has occasionally sent troops into neighbouring Somalia to attack members of a militant Islamist group, al-Ittihad. Mr Meles said al-Ittihad was linked to al-Qaeda and they had tonnes of captured documents that proved the link to al-Qaeda. "They have engaged in terrorist activities in our country," he told the Focus on Africa programme. He also said that several Afghan Arabs had been killed during an Ethiopian attack on an al-Ittihad training camp. They seem to be everywhere.
Mr Meles insisted that he wanted to see a stable and united Somalia and said "in the end it is for Somalis to decide". But he said they had lists of members of al-Ittihad inside Somalia's parliament and the Transitional National Government (TNG). TNG President Abdulkassim Salat Hassan has consistently denied Ethiopian claims that his government has linked to Islamic extremist groups. "Extremist? Us? Never!"
"Yeah. After all, this is Somalia we're talkin' about..."
Posted by: Steve ||
02/25/2003 10:58 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
think how whacked-out you'd have to be to be considered "extremist" in Somalia....
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Zenawi should be commended for taking the initiative and tackling Islamists that he believed, and consequently proved, were involved with al-Qaeda. There's no indication that he was pressured by the US, but acted on his own intelligence services.
Expressing conviction that the world must be freed from the shackles of the age-old belief that killing people can solve problems of relations between nations, Datuk Seri Dr Mahathir Mohamad wants a revitalised Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) to struggle to ban war. "War must be outlawed. That will have to be our struggle for now. We must struggle for justice and freedom from oppression, from economic hegemony", said the great leader of Malaysia in his historical sppech at very critical phase of history, "in the first NAM meeting in the new century and in fact the millennium. But we must remove the threat of war first. With this Sword of Democles hanging over our heads, we can never succeed in advancing the interests of our countries." I think that's an absolutely ducky idea. As soon as we see swarms of jihadis singing "Ain't a-gonna study war no more," we'll get right on it. Okay?
Dr Mahathir, who takes over the chair of NAM from South African President Thabo Mbeki, said the movement must endeavour to outlaw nuclear weapons, stop the research and development of more and more lethal so-called conventional weapons and control arms trade. "We know we are weak. But we also know we have allies in the North. They too want the abolition of wars, the slaughter of people for whatever reason. They may not agree with us in everything, but in the opposition to war, very many will be with us. They are ready to oppose their warlike leaders. We must work with them." "At least until the jihadis blow up large numbers of their people and destroy a few national monuments. Then we'll have to work with somebody else."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 10:20 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
hang on guys. mahathir has been very solid in the fight against JI. Words like the above are cheap, and help him domestically. they dont cost us anything if we dont let them. especially as malaysia is not on the UNSC
#3
Trickster, phoney double-faced beguiler. It is easy to pontificate in front of a crowd composed of Mugabes, Mushraffs, and Mbekis of this world. Does Mahathir still have his bearings intact? Has he forgotten, that it was as recent as January 06, of the current year he was propounding theory of giving Singapore a, âa bloody noseâ in a war. In addition, he has been on and off threatening Singapore that he will turn off the water tap, as Malaysia supplies most of Singapore's water. Forgetting the fact, that Malaysia will suffer equally worse if Singapore pulls its investment out of that county.
Dr. Mahathir Mohamad sure suffers from selective amnesia, again as recent as end of last year when the Australian prime minister proposed "pre-emptive strikes" after Bali bombing,in the Howard doctrine that Australia might strike first at any potential target that could threaten Australian security (i.e. even if they have to do this in foreign soil). Dr. Mohamad behaved as if the doctrine was intended in particularity for his country and construed it as a threat. He snapped that Australia should limit the scope of its duties to peacekeeping in East Timor. "It only confirms our earlier stand that Australia is a stooge of the United States. What moral right do they have to claim the position as the policeman for Asia? They might have the military capability, but this does not give them any justification to think that they are superior to other countries."
No country in the area including Singapore, Indonesia, Taiwan, or Philippines â all having superior firepower than Malaysia responded in any form to the doctrine.
The Spratly Islands has been a continuing six-sided dispute over ownership of the tiny islets and rocks known in the South China Sea. The area is believed to be rich in undersea oil and gas deposits. China and Vietnam have been at the forefront of the dispute, having come to blows over the issue.
Lately the two countries have adopted a less confrontational stance, avoiding exploration in the area and sharply limiting activity in disputed blocks already tendered to foreign companies. China, Vietnam and Taiwan claim sovereignty over all the islands in the 800 km long chain, while the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei claim at least some. The Spratlys have long been a regional flash point, and some of the claimants occupy several of the islands and station troops there. It is a potential flashpoint as and least to say Malaysia, also has with others a military presence there.
It has all ways been foregrounded for Dr. Mahathir's grandiose schemes are at the root of Malaysia's massive debt, leading in turn to the currency crisis. Commentators,fear that his combative, anti-Western stance will worsen Malaysia's recession. They also question the links between politics and business that have created crony capitalists close to his political party and its leaders.
In addition, the manner he tailored the sacking of Anwar Ibrahim (on charges of an implicit leadership challenge.) The challenge was therefore aborted leaving Dr Mahathir unlikely to be opposed at party polls.
That all has left Malaysia in the hands in this 72-year-old man who undergone a quintuple heart bypass operation in 1989, has no successor, and has embarked on an economic regimen that flies in the face of free market principles. After 17 years in office and already South-east Asia's longest-serving leader Dr Mahathir Mohamad has habit of indulging in such ideal talk of banning wars particularly when his audiences has duplicitous, double faced, deceitful,Mugabes, Mushraffs,or Mbekis of this world.
A 40-year-old fruit merchant was found dead Monday in Ain al-Hilweh, just before a newly formed security strike force began patrols of the camp to look for suspects. The body of Abed Hourani was found inside the campâs fruit market, only hours before a formal meeting of the three major factions within the Sidon-area refugee camp was due to take place. The dead man was shot in the head once and several times in the body. No information was released on the cause of the killing. My guess is that somebody didn't like him...
The meeting was to give the campâs joint security force, called the Palestinian Armed Struggle, the authority to maintain calm in the camp. They named the cops the Palestinian Armed Struggle®? These guys have way too much sense of the dramatic...
But bullets were fired Monday as a Palestinian Armed Struggle® patrol approached Houraniâs home. Some reports said that the bullets were fired by the dead manâs family in anger. Other reports said they were fired by fugitive Abdullah Shridi. It being Ain el-Hilweh — I believe that's Arabic for "festering sore" — Shreidi probably bumped him off for putting the bruised peaches at the bottom of the basket...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 10:10 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Today's KCNA magic phrase: "revolutionary army song".
Pyongyang, February 24 (KCNA) -- The chorus suit "Long trip for army-based leadership" produced by the merited chorus of the Korean People's Army is a revolutionary army song in the era of the army-based policy as it grips the hearts of all the servicemen of the KPA and people, says Rodong Sinmun today in an editorial. It calls for advancing with redoubled courage, singing the song more loudly. It goes on: The louder you sing, the less you'll think about starvation.
The vitality of the revolutionary army song representing the idea and politics of Supreme Commander Kim Jong Il was fully demonstrated in the period of the "arduous march," the forced march. What in hell is the "arduous march"?
Remember Mao's "Long March"? Great Leader came up with an "arduous march" so the Chinese wouldn't be one up on him...
The revolutionary army song known to the world as a solemn echo in the era of the army-based policy served as life-giving water that helped significantly consolidate the single-hearted unity of the DPRK around the headquarters of the revolution and as a powerful weapon as it struck the imperialists and enemies with mortal terror. Yes, I would be mortally terrified by a song. I hope our boys are ready if they come down the road singing.
It is necessary to follow Kim Jong Il and share intention and will and feelings with him, loudly singing the revolutionary army song representing his idea and will, courage and pluck and confidence of sure victory and rich emotion. And if you don't, we have a nice camp for you to go to.
The Korean people should certainly emerge victorious in the life-and-death struggle against the imperialists. It is the revolutionary army song they should sing loudly in the confrontation. Once the imperialists come in attack to stifle the DPRK by force the ten million people and servicepersons should become human bombs to crush them and the further they escalate their economic blockade and pressure upon it, the more loudly the whole country will resound with the revolutionary army song replete with the firm faith of sure victory and optimism.We should carry on the staunch struggle along the road of the army-based revolution, sonorously singing this song. I think Rodung Sinmun might be overstating the power of this ditty just a little bit.
They're also stating that virtually half the population (22 million, est.) is in the Army. It's no wonder nothing of real substance gets done...
The servicemen and people of the DPRK will as always remain true to Kim Jong Il's idea and cause, loudly singing the revolutionary army song, a song of worship of the leader and devoted defence of him. Wow. I wonder how many NK's buy into this craziness?
Posted by: tu3031 ||
02/25/2003 09:38 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wasn't he on the Grammys, doing a salute to the BeeGees?
#2
ahhh the dreaded army-based chorale brinkmanship
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 11:36 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Well, if the NKors can't offer a B side song, they can use "It's a Long Way to Tipperary". It is a good song and gets the blood flowing, and if side A is a bust, side B could carry the day.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/25/2003 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
You want B side's? Here's a bunch from last week in KCNA:
"Thunder on Jong Il Peak", "Jong Il Peak is the Most Sublime", "Jong Il Peak in Morning," "Thick Forest around Jong Il Peak," 'Glow on Jong Il Peak" and other songs depict Kim Jong Il as the illustrious commander born of heaven endowed with the spirit of Mt. Paektu.
"Pledge made looking up to Jong Il Peak," "I will learn from you, Jong Il Peak," "Blizzard on Jong Il Peak," "Live with Jong Il Peak in mind" and other songs represent the Korean people's firm determination to make a long journey of revolution as comrades true to the army-based revolutionary leadership of the brilliant commander of Mt. Paektu.
#7
boiled? grass, mailbox?.... you're a cruel man, YankinParis. I think you and tu3031 should get together and compose the B side "Jong II Peak Medley"... you guys could make it an arduous "March" by writing it in triple meter. ;)
Posted by: Dick Saucer ||
02/25/2003 19:49 Comments ||
Top||
NNorth Korea said Tuesday that an American reconnaissance plane intruded into its air space on a spying mission. "This is a premeditated move to find an opportunity to mount a pre-emptive attack on the DPRK," said the North's official Korean Central News Agency. DPRK stands for Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Cheeze! Help hold them down! They're having a siezure!
North Korea regularly rolls its collective eyes, rattles sabres, and shieks they're being invaded makes such accusations, saying the United States is preparing for an invasion. The U.S. military had no comment on the latest claim, but has said in the past its maneuvers are defensive. That's what we do instead of saying, "Oh, shuddup."
The accusation came hours after South Korea said the North had test-fired a missile Monday that landed harmlessly in the sea between the Korean Peninsula and Japan. Tension are high over North Korea's nuclear development. Boy, that sure showed that Roh guy who's in charge, by gum.
KCNA said "U.S. imperialist warhawks" sent a RC-135 strategic reconnaissance plane into its territory on Monday. The agency said the plane had made similar intrusions in recent days. The RC-135 is a converted Boeing 707. Not only has it made similar intrusions in recent days, but it's been flying up and down the coast of the Sea of Japan (ooh, they hate that term!) since the 60's.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 05:28 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sea of Japan...heh..I noticed that on NKor-produced maps it's referred to as the East Sea.
"pay no attention to the large islands to the east"
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Powell said no biggie, the testing was announced prior to lift off.
Two powerful explosions damaged the Spanish embassy and the Colombian consulate minutes apart in the Venezuelan capital early Tuesday, injuring four people and raising tensions in a city still recovering from an anti-government strike. Leaflets supporting President Hugo Chavez's so-called "Bolivarian Revolution" were found outside the Spanish Embassy. "We believe these were very potent bombs judging by the damage done," said the mayor of Caracas' Chacao district, Leopoldo Lopez. The first blast was outside the Spanish embassy in eastern Caracas. The second explosion, 15 minutes later, rocked the Colombian consulate. The blasts lightly injured four people, including a night watchman, Lopez said. The explosions came a two days after Chavez warned Colombia and Spain, among other countries, not to meddle in Venezuela's domestic affairs. Both nations had expressed concern over the arrest of opposition leader Carlos Fernandez, who was arrested last week for his role in leading a two-month general strike against Chavez. Wotta coincidence, that they should get bombed. The Venezuelan pee-pul must deeply support Hugo, to want to issue warnings to other states to stay the hell out of his private business...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/25/2003 05:20 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Edited for length.
North Korea has fired a missile into the sea between Japan and the Korean peninsula just hours before South Korea's new president was sworn into office. In what correspondents called a provocative move, the missile hit international waters in the Sea of Japan on the eve of President Roh Moo-hyun's inauguration. Guests including US Secretary of State Colin Powell and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi are in Seoul to attend the ceremony. The incident prompted sharp stock market falls in both South Korea and Japan. It remains unclear what kind of missile was fired, although some reports said it was a Silkworm land-to-sea device, a short-range missile of Chinese design. Didn't they have anything more impressive? Thrown the spoon from the high chair, only got spittle left...
President Roh whistled in the wind used his inauguration speech to urge North Korea to renounce its nuclear ambitions, the source of much recent regional tension. "It is up to Pyongyang whether to go ahead and obtain nuclear weapons or to get guarantees for the security of its regime and international economic support," he said. The missile test is an immediate headache for the former human rights lawyer, who is a novice in global affairs. Is that surprising for a North korean? If I called that place home I'd be preoccupied with my immediate neighbours too.
Mr Roh does not agree with Washington's policy of isolating the North and has publicly said he opposes the use of force to resolve the nuclear crisis. "If we give them what they desperately want - regime security, normal treatment and economic assistance - they will be willing to give up their nuclear ambitions," Mr Roh told Newsweek magazine. Oh, now we see what "novice in global affairs" was referring to...
Mr Roh was swept to election victory on a wave of anti-US protests, and has called for a review of the status of the 37,000 American troops in the country, although he has stressed that he is not anti-American, just pro-Dear Leader.
North Korea has had a moratorium on testing long-range missiles since 1998. That was introduced following widespread international alarm when Pyongyang's military fired a multi-stage rocket over Japan and into the Pacific Ocean. Pyongyang's number two leader Kim Yong Nam, in Malaysia for the summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, said in a speech on Tuesday that "at this stage" North Korea's nuclear activities would be confined to peaceful purposes. That mean they're gonna use them on Kimmy?!
Posted by: Bulldog ||
02/25/2003 04:19 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
hmmm, wonder if they heard we have Carrier group in the region. Is NKor desperate enough to just start lobbing these things around hoping to hit something?
#4
Damn, they fixed their guidance system problems. They hit the ocean this time.
I suspect an accidental firing. Why test fire a Silkworm? Unless it had a warhead variation in weight or mass that they needed to test. Can the Silkworm mount a nuke?
#5
I can't agree it's an accidental firing. I think they're just stirring the pot and trying to up the ante. It's their version of a 21-gun salute to welcome Roh to power.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
02/25/2003 8:53 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Theoretically a Silkworm is more than capable of carrying a nuke given its warhead capacity of several hundred pounds. The smallest nuclear device known to have been produced is the USA's 51 pound W54 warhead with a yield of 0.01 kilotons. Of course yield increases on the order of exponentially as the mass of the fissile material increases from W54's barely critical mass. A Silkworm payload might look like our former W-19 warhead which weighed in the neighborhood of 500 pounds and yielded 15-20kt (somewhat larger than the Hiroshima detonation). Even if they missed by a couple of miles, the bomb's EMP pulse would likely fry the electronics in our carrier and the avionics of all the onboard aircraft. If I were the NKors I'd have at least one of these ready to go 24/7.
Posted by: B. ||
02/25/2003 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
B., the engineering for one of those baby nukes is much more complex than the big ones. Recal that the key is the implosion occurring on all sides at once. The bigger the bomb, the easier it is to pack in the explosive necessary to do that. When you start with the 8 kilos of nuke stuff, and the metal shell, the amount of explosive left at the smaller weights means that it has to be a lot more precise.
Not sure the NKors could do that, it took us quite a while and lots of testing. As far as we know, the NKors haven't ever tested their boom booms.
#8
Correct me if I'm wrong - I'd always assumed that since we knew the EMP effects, and there are ways to harden electronics from those effects, that we'd have implemented those in our forces likely to encounter EMP?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#9
EMP insulation seems pretty pricy, although I can't speak for the military, they could sure raise havoc with commercial satellites and affect communications.
A continuously sealed metal barrier has proven to be very effective in preventing EM/HPM energy from reaching susceptible electronic or explosive components. Exterior packaging fabricated from plastic, wood or other fibre materials provides almost no protection form EM/HPM threats. The metal enclosure can be very thin provided there are no openings (tears, pin holes, doors, incomplete seams) that would allow microwaves to enter. Sealed barrier bags that incorporate a thin layer of aluminium foil and are primarily used to provide water vapour proof protection to an item, can add a great deal of resistance to EM/HPM penetration.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
02/25/2003 13:18 Comments ||
Top||
#10
EMP. Since the early 80s, your Sandia National Laboratories have been fabing EMP proof electronics for the Ameican military to include a lot of avionic. My last check in showed in '85 they had a 256k EMP proof chip on line. God only knows what they're up to today.
Posted by: Don ||
02/25/2003 16:07 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Launched missile? hmmm, we must be close to approving the food aid.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
Posted by: Dick Saucer ||
02/25/2003 20:00 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Latest word via Foxnews was that, yes, we were Ok'ing food aid in dribs and drabs to make sure that it was actually getting to the starving population rather than the army and political elite (an entirely humanistic and realistic approach to the starving population...which is what the NKor's wouldn't Ok before) - if this is successful, then we said we'd look at more food aid. We are playing the delay game diplomatically, and offering to feed those that the NKors have starved for political and economic reasons. I see no other options that serve us politically or ethically at this point
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
#13
thks on the EMP info - my minor in college in the 80's was radiaton physics, and I couldn't believe that a Carrier or Nuc Boomer Sub would be put in harm's way without thinking about that...
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/25/2003 21:30 Comments ||
Top||
KUALA LUMPUR (Reuters) - President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe launched a blistering attack on the United States and Britain on Tuesday, accusing them of creating a world where powerful Big Brother states imposed their will on weaker ones. Bob clearly is bucking for membership in the Axis of Evil.
Speaking at a summit of the 116-member Poorly Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Mugabe said President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair were imperialists who wanted to impose a new form of liberty colonialism on developing countries. "Bush and Blair have apparently developed similar war-like dispositions deriving from similar ideologies of new imperialism," Mugabe told the summit. It's the ideology of human rights and democracy, Bob, though given your education in the Soviet Union and elsewhere, I think you missed this.
"The United States, awakened to the implications of being the sole superpower, joined by Britain as a born-again colonialist, and other Western countries have turned themselves into fierce hunting bull-dogs raring to go, as they sniff for more blood, Third World blood." Has Bob been taking lessons from KCNA?
Mugabe is under fire from the West over the alleged rigging of an election last year and the persecution of political foes as well as the seizure of white-owned farms for landless blacks. The United States and European Union except for France, encouraged by rights groups, have imposed travel, aid and economic sanctions on Zimbabwe. Blair has been particularly critical of Mugabe, spearheading opposition to the Zimbabwe government in the European Union under pressure from Britain's large expatriate Zimbabwean community. Mugabe said Blair's actions on Zimbabwe were "irrational." "He desires and is determined to undermine the sovereignty of my regime country and introduce democratic neo-colonialist rule. That we shall never allow him to achieve," he said. Well, if it's going to be over your dead body ...
Mugabe said his position in Zimbabwe was more legitimate than that of Bush in the United States. "And is it not ironical that Mr. Bush who was not really elected should deny my legitimacy, the illegitimacy of President Mugabe, established by many observer groups from Africa and the Third World. Who, in these circumstances, should the world impose sanctions on? Robert Mugabe or George Bush?" You.
Mugabe said that with the demise of the Cold War, colonialism had assumed a new form "under false economic pretences... Politically our sovereignty will not have the same weight as that of Big Brother and Big Brother has the right to determine the justice of our systems and not we his." He said the Western powers imposed different standards for themselves and others. Well the French have, you got us there.
"Iraq might have developed or desired to develop arms of mass destruction. But the United States has massive arms of that magnitude. Why can't the United States demonstrate what Iraq should (do) by destroying their own massive heaps first?" Defintely taking lessons from KCNA.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/25/2003 04:56 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Why can't the United States demonstrate what Iraq should (do) by destroying their own massive heaps first?"
Well, they're trying to destroy a massive heap even as we speak....
What about the French?? They have massive heaps too...Chiraq being one of them I might add.
#2
I think Bob's campaigning for next years Nobel Peace Prize. Ripping the US is a good start. Always impresses the commitee. Maybe him and Chiraq can share it.
#3
"Actually, we were actively engaged in arms reduction talks with the USSR when 9-11 occurred"
And, IIUC. we have an ongoing program to destroy our old chemical weapons pursuant to treaty. A costly program, with controversial cost vs environment arguments. Why hasnt this meme been spread about more??
Left-wing rebels in Colombia say three US citizens they are holding hostage are prisoners of war and will only be freed in return for the release of several fellow militants. In a statement released on Monday, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) demanded a demilitarised zone from the government. "The three gringo prisoners of war in the custody of our organisation will be liberated along with other Colombian prisoners of war once an exchange materialises in [sic, "...the form of..."] a large demilitarised zone," the statement said. The group also demanded the release of militants held in Colombian militants [sic, assume should read "...Columbian military cusody", or somesuch].
FARC accuses the three men of being CIA agents. Washington has denied the men were CIA agents, and said they were contractors for the defence department. However, the US has not identified the men nor stated what mission they were on. Fierce fighting has taken place as the Colombian army tries to close in on the guerrilla group. US President George Bush is sending 150 extra troops to Colombia to help the search operation. The FARC said in its statement the decision, saying it was an "invasion by the United States of our country." Hmmm, didn't hear you complain when the IRA "invaded your country".
There are several hundred US military personnel in Colombia, including some special forces, but they are not allowed to take part in combat. The US has spent $2bn in recent years to help Colombia tackle its illegal drugs trade, and recently lifted restrictions stopping the use of that aid against the guerrillas.
Posted by: Anonymous ||
02/25/2003 04:15 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
