The CIA and Pakistani Army are electronically tracking the large caravan of people on foot and horseback through the rugged mountain area of Pakistan between the borders with Iran and Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden may be traveling with the caravan and may be on foot. Officials have cast a net around the caravan â using electronic U.S. surveillance and planes with cameras that can see through darkness to monitor its movement along a trail. U.S. officials say they are not 100 percent sure that bin Laden is in the caravan, but they have a high degree of probability that he is and have closed off the area to all other traffic. "Hey, boss! We ain't seen anybody in a long time!"
"Shut up, Sully. We ain't supposed to see anybody. We're hidin'!"
The area is so rugged that officials may not be able to move in with military vehicles, but instead could launch an operation with CIA paramilitary forces attacking the caravan from helicopters if it is determined that bin Laden is there. President Bush has also authorized the launch of a missile attack if bin Laden is positively identified. Just go with the bomb. A big bomb.
Bin Laden's son Saad was recently in the Iranian capital, Tehran, European anti-terrorism officials told ABCNEWS, and it was a cell phone call to him that turned authorities onto bin Laden's trail. "His son, apparently Saad, is in Iran and some of his wives also are in Iran and he has made apparently a big mistake," said ABCNEWS terrorism consultant Vince Cannistraro. Guess it wasn't Saad who was captured and/or wounded today, then. 'Course, Iran says Saad's not there, Binny's wimminfolk aren't there, and they don't know anything...
Though bin Laden's voice patterns were identified in the intercepted cell phone conversation, U.S. officials are aware that the call could have been a decoy to try to get bin Laden's pursuers off the trail. When it was believed that bin Laden was cornered in Tora Bora in Afghanistan, the al Qaeda kingpin gave a cell phone and a tape recording of his voice to a group that headed out of the region in one direction, while the terror chief snuck out in another.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 04:23 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Dad, can you send me some mon....oops, gotta go!"
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/07/2003 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Just go with the bomb. A big bomb."
Militery has developed a big brother for the Daisy Cutter.That bad boy is 22,000LBS,military say's they may not need to drop it on a target directly,but in an open,unpopulated area.Scare the enemy into surrender.
Just that headline and nothing else on the Washington Post website (0930, Central Time). Khalid is talking and the cockroaches are scurrying.
Here's most of a subsequent WaPo article...
Two sons of Osama bin Laden were wounded and possibly arrested in an operation by U.S. and Afghan troops in Afghanistan which killed at least nine suspected al Qaeda members. The operation took place on Thursday in the Ribat area, where the borders of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran meet, Sardar Sanaullah Zehri, home minister of the western province of Baluchistan, told Reuters. "We have information that two sons of Osama bin Laden were injured," he said. "The people killed belonged to al Qaeda. We have heard that they (the sons) may have been arrested. But our information may not be 100 percent true."
We should know if it's true or not by the end of the day, I'd guess...
The minister said he had no information that bin Laden had been in the area at the time of the raid. A U.S. official in Washington could not immediately confirm or deny the report of bin Laden's sons' capture. Officers of Pakistan's paramilitary Frontier Corps told Reuters that Pakistani forces had launched an operation on Thursday, also involving a few Americans, in pursuit of al Qaeda suspects in the Ribat region. It came after Pakistani officials said they had arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammed last weekend. Zehri said Pakistani forces did not take part in the raid on al Qaeda, which occurred on the Afghan side of the border. "It is an Afghan area," he said.
It's never stopped you before, has it?
I'm oiling up the old ululator, just in case this is good data...
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/07/2003 10:38 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fox News (0933, Central Time):
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan â Two sons of Usama bin Laden were arrested in southeastern Afghanistan in a joint operation involving Pakistani and U.S. forces, Pakistan's provincial home minister Sanaullah Zehri said.
"They were arrested from Rabat area in Afghanistan," he told The Associated Press in a telephone interview. He did not identify the sons, but said that seven other Al Qaeda men were killed in the operation.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/07/2003 9:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I guess the "Iraq distracts us from the War on Terror" thing is down the toilet now!
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw ||
03/07/2003 10:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yeah..but maybe they are dead. "In Washington, U.S. counterterrorism officials strongly disputed reports saying bin Laden's sons were captured. They said they had no information that would suggest any of the sons had been detained."
Yeah, so they weren't captured or detained. We can assume they didn't let them go. Sounds to me like they are dead
Oh, and now I just noticed this one.... ISLAMABAD, (Reuters) - "Two sons of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) were hurt in a raid in Afghanistan (news - web sites), a Pakistan official said Friday." Hmmmm...and just how bad are their injuries? Perhaps they are "grave".
#4
Confirmed via CNBC. President Bush to make a statement later today. ( there might be more to this that what we know so far)
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/07/2003 11:06 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Jeff - the "Iraq distracts us from the War on Terror" thing is down the toilet. But say hello to "the War on Terror distracts us from Iraq." I predict that it won't be long before we hear that...
Posted by: Patrick ||
03/07/2003 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
JAB mentioned this article in a comment, late last night...
The American and local agencies Thursday arrested 9 Al-Qaeda suspects who may include Osama Bin Laden or his son near Shamshi airport near the Pak- Afghan border areas. Sources maintained that at least one "very important" Al-Qaeda man (who may be Osama Bin Laden or his son) was also among the detainees. The sources suggested that the operation near Chaghi could well be the follow up of reports that arrested Al-Qaeda suspect Sheikh Khalid Mohammed had told investigators about the whereabouts of Osama. The detained suspect had reportedly told the investigators that Osama had met him in mountainous regions of frontier areas near Balochistan. Instead of in NWFP, or in Afghanistan as the Qaeda thugs always claimed...
Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed when contacted showed ignorance about the incident. "I don't have any information about this operation. I can't say anything", he told Online. "Nobody never tells me nuttin'!"
Presidential spokesman Maj. Gen. Rashid Qureshi also said that he had no knowledge about the incident. "No, nothing. I don't know", he told Online. "Osama who? He ain't in Pakland!"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 04:23 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fox reports (7:15AM PST)that sons of Bin Laden were arrested in SE Pakland (via the Associated Press) - no number yet, and he has several - but the AP was quoting a Pak minister
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Now they're saying SE Afghanistan and it's two sons....makes more sense
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Saad and Hamza Bin Laden arrested - 7 Al Qaeda dead in a raid in Afghanistan
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
According to Drudge, this article was reasonably prescient. I found the link from John Bono (via LGF), who's been all over this one.
Thanks to the internet, strangers gladly trudge through obscure Paki websites just so freeloaders like me can try to figure out what's going on in the world.
#5
FNC nows says the US is disputing the Pakistani account.
Beats me what's going on ...
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
03/07/2003 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Okay, NBC is now saying that Saad is in custody.
Anybody have a clue?
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
03/07/2003 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Obviously something happened. It sounds like somebody's trying not to get his hopes up...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/07/2003 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Its pretty clear somethings going on, but just what it is yet is a little hard to tell.
If we suddenly showed up with OBL, it would really impact our plans for iraq. so, its likely that we got him, but are trying to keep it under wraps. Its also likely that people involved in al-queda are trying to get out the word that weve got him and that some of what we are picking up is the 'signal to noise' ratio increasing.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/07/2003 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Mansour Ijaz (sp?) on Fox, who seems to have good intel and contacts in Pakland, Soddy and Kuwait, said it was an ambush of a convoy in which 7 Al Qaeda dies in the shootout. He noted that although it's not certain who was grabbed, the size of the convoy, the intel leading to the ambush, and the willingness of the guards to die to protect their charge led him to believe it was someone(s) big. Alaska Paul, Frank Martin and others note that if we do get OBL, it would not help Daschle and others find their pro-war principles...I doubt though that we could keep that big of a catch under wraps, although it would be beneficial. I'd say put your money in stocks as it'll zoom when we do catch him
Not an expert though, right Becky lol
....your mileage may vary
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I wonder if this "convoy" is the "caravan" ABCNews was reporting?
Posted by: Fred ||
03/07/2003 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
A Muslim cleric who urged followers to kill non-believers, Americans, Hindus and Jews has been jailed for nine years. Jamaican-born Sheik Abdullah el-Faisal, 39, was told he had "fanned the flames of hostility", as Old Bailey judge Peter Beaumont delivered the sentence. The judge recommended that el-Faisal, from Stratford in east London, should serve at least half of the sentence and then be deported.
How about if he serves the entire sentence, and then you boot him?
El-Faisal stretched out an arm to a group of around 12 shocked-looking supporters as he was led away. "How could they do this to such a gentle man?!"
Outside court, defence lawyer Jerome Lynch QC said there were plans to appeal, adding: "There is a realistic prospect that many Muslims will regard this sentence as harsh, even though they don't share his views." Well, duh, guess it wasn't them he wanted dead, was it?
El-Faisal received seven years for soliciting murder, 12 months to run concurrently for using threatening and insulting words and a further two years â to run consecutively â for using threatening and insulting recordings. During the trial el-Faisal argued that his words were taken from the Koran, the Muslim holy book, and that he had been misrepresented. But the judge said that while Britain prided itself on its freedom of speech, it could not accept it when other people's rights were breached. He told el-Faisal: "As the jury found, you not only preached hate, but the words you uttered in those meetings were recorded to reach a wider audience. You urged those who listened and watched to kill those who did not share your faith." Pax islamica
Defence lawyer Jerome Lynch QC, said it was unfair that people such as controversial cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri had been seen by police and not brought to court like el-Faisal. Abu Hamza â who was dropped as a defence witness hahaha
after a police raid on Finsbury Park mosque â told the judge in a pre-trial hearing that he had been seen seven times by Special Branch. Mr Lynch said of el-Faisal: "This was a man who, although misguided, was not malicious." He said el-Faisal had helped recruit young people, including drug addicts, in inner cities. But David Perry, prosecuting, said the el-Faisal was a "fanatic and extremist" who had tried to save himself by claiming the Koran was on trial. Deputy Assistant Commissioner Peter Clarke from Scotland Yard's Anti Terrorist Branch said: "El-Faisal's speeches were designed to do more than stir up racial hatred. He was actively urging young people to commit murder. "These are extremely serious offences, made even more appalling but not at all surprising by his attempt to justify them through the Islamic faith."
Police in Spain have arrested five men suspected of being involved in the attack on a synagogue on the Tunisian island of Djerba last year, in which 21 people died. Spanish officials say four of the men were arrested in the south-western city of Valencia, and the fifth in the northern town of Logrono in the Rioja region. Police searched the homes of the suspects and confiscated documents and other items, a Spanish interior ministry spokesman said.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
03/07/2003 10:43 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder if their names and addresses came from Pakistan...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/07/2003 22:41 Comments ||
Top||
BRITISH butterbrain peace campaigner and journalist Yvonne Ridley yesterday launched a stinging attack against the US government for its policy on Iraq, Afghanistan and the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Betcha Bush didn't feel a thing...
The canned former Daily Express reporter, who was captured by the Taliban in 2001, says she received better treatment in Afghanistan than the Camp X-Ray detainees. We haven't cut any Camp X-Ray detainees' heads off, but since the Talibs didn't lop off Yvonne's nut, either, I guess she's entitled to an opinion...
Ms Ridley also said the Iraqi people â not the US â should decide their own future and decried the war in Afghanistan as a "humanitarian disaster." You could say that some Iraqi people have decided their own futures...
"My treatment was in sharp comparison to the treatment of Camp X-Ray prisoners in Cuba," she said. "I had broken their laws and entered the country illegally. Well, damn you! They shoulda cut your head off!
"The men in Camp X-Ray have not been charged with anything. We don't know if they are guilty or not. Battlefield captures? We don't know if they're "guilty" or not?
"When I speak I often start out by saying that I was lucky to be captured by the Taliban. I could have been captured by the US." We're pretty lucky that way, too. Otherwise, we'd probably still be in the National Shower...
Ms Ridley arrived in Bahrain yesterday to deliver a series of talks at Beit Al Quran. She was invited by "Discover Islam" along with German Muslim activist Fatima Grimm. They couldn't find any speakers who were coherent...
Ms Ridley was captured by the Taliban as she was attempting to leave Afghanistan with two guides. She spent 10 days in a cell along with a group of fundamentalist Christians, who were accused of trying to convert Muslims. If you've never read The Telegraph's commentary on her commentary, titled "Friday. Fell off donkey. Captured by Taliban. V. scary", you should do so. If you have, and it's been awhile, you should do it again...
After her release, she began to study Islam and the Quran after a promise she made to her captors. She is now in the process of converting to Islam herself and criticised the war in Afghanistan. "The war in Afghanistan was a humanitarian disaster. It achieved nothing," she said. When was the last time they cut somebody's head off?
"President Hamid Karzai is now known as the Mayor of Kabul because he has now lost control outside the capital. War is still raging. What the US won't tell us is that they have lost nearly 60 servicemen in Afghanistan and 140 have been wounded. Body bags are still coming out but they don't tell that to the US people. Most of them think it is sorted." I have no idea what that last sentence meant, but Yvonne probably doesn't, either. Karzai started without control outside Kabul, and he's been in the process of establishing it, slowly and hopefully substantially...
The first of her talks, called "UN Sanctions: The Real Weapons of Mass Destruction", took place last night. "Weapons of mass destruction" are chemical, nuclear, or biological weapons. Which one of the three is sanctions?
Ms Ridley said UN sanctions are having a detrimental effect on the Iraqi people and should be lifted immediately. "The first thing we should do is remove UN sanctions," she said. "Yep. Stop it this instant!"
"They are the real weapons of mass destruction. Figures from international organisations, such as the World Health Organisation, show 5,000 babies die every month as a result. The food-for-oil programme is abused by the West and Iraqi people have so far received a quarter of the revenue. The other revenue has gone to pay for UN administration costs and victims of the Gulf War." And armaments. Not our fault â blame that on Sammy and the UN. Does Yvonne think the victims of the war should get nothing? Matter of fact, does Yvonne think?
Ms Ridley said current problems in Iraq would be compounded by another Gulf War. She also questioned whether the US is in any position to deal with the aftermath of a potential conflict. Only one way to find out...
"Afghanistan shows the US is not a nation-builder," she said. "They talk about liberating Iraqi people. I have seen what US liberation does. I know they are not being sincere. When the US and UK began the war in Afghanistan, I was still being held in a Kabul prison. I realised then those bombs could hit both civilian and military targets. It was an experience being bombed by my own country and the US. That made me realise the futility of war." Most of us realize the futility of trying to make sense of anything Yvonne says...
Ms Ridley is also taking part in a women-only seminar tomorrow, from 6pm, on "21st Century Women." This will be followed by another talk on Monday called "Who Runs the War on Terror?" As far as she is concerned, the answer is Al Qaeda or more accurately Osama bin Laden. "Al Qaeda is running the war on terror," she said. "They are deciding it. On September 11, 2001 thousands of people died. Hundreds more were killed in Bali. There were terror strikes in Kuwait and a tanker was attacked in Yemen. If we look at the figures we know who is winning the war. Osama bin Laden is releasing more tapes than a pop star." See what I mean?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 07:15 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A serious world-class state-of-the-art alpha-hotel nutbar! I will pray to the gods that she never gets into a policy-setting position.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/07/2003 20:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"but since the Talibs didn't lop off Yvonne's nut, either, I guess she's entitled to an opinion..."
that's priceless!
#3
"Ms Ridley is also taking part in a women-only seminar tomorrow, from 6pm, on "21st Century Women."
Ms. Ridley will host a fashion show titled, The 21st Century Burka. American women will be enlightened on the many benefits of having a status less than a dog. When asked if she favored American women subjecting themselves to Sharia, Ridley said, "personally, I dig getting stoned".
#4
jeez Becky - I was gonna add something, but it didn't quite measure up after that rant - I like it not an expert, but play one on TV
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 22:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Does Butterbrain Ms. Ridley work for KCNA?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/08/2003 0:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
becky,
when you're talking about woman rights in islam, i notice that you're talking without knowledge but rather what your desire is dictating you.
why you don't read your homework before you write an essay? you're ignorant and arrogant person and such people will never succeed !
Posted by: glas iz sjene ||
12/02/2003 10:43 Comments ||
Top||
Pakistan's four major airports have been connected with latest computer screening system to detect terrorists, criminals and economic migrants with defective travel documents. Uhhh... Isn't that 85 percent of the population of the country?
The new American computer system called PISCES (Personal Identification Computer Evaluation System), which has doubled the performance of the FIA Immigration staff deputed at the airports in Islamabad, Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar. The Immigration Airport (IAP) officials have also been trained to utilize the facility and are now in better position to detect terrorist suspects and criminals including passenger profiling and country wise geographical layout, in particular where Pakistanis and Afghans are in large number.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 11:23 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
85 percent, Fred. Why such a low number ?
Posted by: Peter ||
03/07/2003 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#2
There will be a lot of empty planes flying out of Pakistan
#4
Like refrigeration pressure gauges, the PICES system they send over to Pak better have a retard feature on the high end or the sensors will be destroyed, heh heh.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/07/2003 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
how do the Paks define "defective travel documents"? They have your actual name on them?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 13:40 Comments ||
Top||
The US meanwhile has also put the Jamaat-e-Islami in the watch list suspecting alleged links with Al-Qaeda. If they read Rantburg, they'd have put them on January a year ago, at the latest...
The religious parties in Pakistan, already furious over possibility of US attack on Iraq, have shown strong reaction to the arrest of Sheikh Khalid Mohammed and others. The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal led by Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorani vows to fight the "aggressor" US until the end. Noorani heads the Jamaat e-Ulema Pakistan (JUP). Its secretary general signed Binny's declaration of war on us. Noorani, JUP, and all of the MMA's component organizations should be on the watchlist.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 08:12 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Now Fred, do you actually expect the spooks to read the newspapers and websites? They are busy reading the National Inquirer and Star like was shown in "Men in Black".
Posted by: Tom Roberts ||
03/07/2003 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
Iraq's Shiite Muslim opposition at a closed-door meeting here Thursday rejected US plans to impose military rule if President Saddam Hussein is toppled, an official of the main Shiite group said. Mohsen al-Hakim of the Supreme Assembly of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI) told AFP that 250 delegates from the opposition exiled in Iran also opposed taking power in the name of Iraq's majority Shiite community. Hakim's father Abdel Aziz al-Hakim was named at an opposition meeting late February in Kurdistan as part of a six-member collective leadership also including Sunni Arabs and Kurds. "The Shiites insist that the future government be in the hands of the Iraqis, so as to establish peace and stability," said Mohsen al-Hakim. "Yeah, buddy! Once these eggs hatch, we're gonna have 2,987 chickens! Let's divide 'em up now!"
"A non-Iraqi military leader to head Iraq would be a source of instability, just like a non-American military leader at the head of the United States," the official said. With an Iraqi leader, they've had nothing but stagnation stability for the past 35 years, haven't they?
He said the Shiites were not seeking to set up their own government, but were rather "committed to the principles of political participation, diversity and legality". They had to go to Teheran to say that...
"All the ethnic and religious groups should take part in deciding the political future of Iraq," said Hakim. Apart from SAIRI, representatives of the Islamic Action Organisation and Al-Daawa party were invited to the Tehran conference organised by an Iranian strategic research centre, Neda. Then just think of the Merkins as another ethnic or religious group. A big one, without whom you could squat in Teheran plotting and planning for another 20 or 30 years, okay?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 08:59 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
This is the full text of the draft United Nations Security Council resolution on Iraqi disarmament tabled jointly by the UK, US and Spain.
The first 11 paragraphs are the official preamble; what follows - marked by numbers 1-4 - is the concrete wording of the resolution, including the new deadline announced by UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw on 7 March.
Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999 and 1441 (2002) of 8 November 2002, and all the relevant statements of its president,
Recalling that in its resolution 687 (1991) the council declared that a ceasefire would be based on acceptance by Iraq of the provisions of that resolution, including the obligations on Iraq contained therein,
Recalling that its resolution 1441 (2002), while deciding that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations, afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions,
Recalling that in its resolution 1441 (2002) the council decided that false statements or omissions in the declaration submitted by Iraq pursuant to that resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and to co-operate fully in the implementation, of that resolution, would constitute a further material breach,
Noting, in that context, that in its resolution 1441 (2002), the council recalled that it has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations,
Noting that Iraq has submitted a declaration pursuant to its resolution 1441 (2002) containing false statements and omissions and has failed to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of that resolution,
Reaffirming the commitment of all member states to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq, Kuwait and the neighbouring states,
Mindful of its primary responsibility under the charter of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security,
Recognising the threat of Iraq's non-compliance with council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,
Determined to secure full compliance with its decisions and to restore international peace and security in the area,
Acting under Chapter VII of the charter of the United Nations,
1 Reaffirms the need for full implementation of resolution 1441 (2002);
2 Calls on Iraq immediately to take the decisions necessary in the interests of its people and the region;
3 Decides that Iraq will have failed to take the final opportunity afforded by resolution 1441 (2002) unless, on or before 17 March 2003 the council concludes that Iraq has demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate and active cooperation in accordance with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441 (2002) and previous relevant resolutions, and is yielding possession to UNMOVIC and the IAEA of all weapons, weapon delivery and support systems and structures, prohibited by resolution 687 (1991) and all subsequent relevant resolutions, and all information regarding prior destruction of such items.
#1
...unless, on or before 17 March 2003 the council concludes...
Of course the council will never conclude such a thing even if Blix affirmed that Iraq was in full compliance. The U.S. would veto such a conclusion and invade anyway. It's ridiculous to believe that Iraq could comply with this in 10 days. The U.S. would just say that it had info that Iraq is still hiding something. Sheer hypocrisy given the fact the U.S. forces are already operating in Iraq. What a farce
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh." (Voltaire)
Really? 10 days is 10 days too long. The Bastid has had 12 years to disarm, so keep your sanctimony to yourself. Sammy is in absolute control. At any day, at any moment, he could OPEN UP HIS COUNTRY to full disarmamament - and he refuses to do so. Hence...shut your cake holes if you can't come up with an argument that is based in reality. You post a hypothetical situation and immediately apply to what is currently happening. Go back to whatever bridge you are currenlty living under.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/07/2003 18:37 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Rex Mundi: Time out! I'm on your side! My comment was directed at Danish Mermaid, not in support of her. I share your frustration at delay, but given the fact that we have decided to play the U.N. game, the proposed resolution (and perhaps I have misread it) seems to put the French, Germans, and Russians in a no-win position. If they veto it, we will go ahead anyway, and the U.N. will be history in the bargain. If they approve it, there is no way that the Security Council will be able to pass a resolution on March 17 that Saddam has "demonstrated full, unconditional, immediate, and active cooperation" with Resolution 1441: because, even if they tried to, we (and the U.K. as well) would veto any such resolution. Therefore, unless I am missing something (and I am quite willing to be corrected), I think that the French and their friends are up the creek without the proverbial paddle. I, like you, would prefer not to have further delays, but, as President Bush said last night, let's have the French and their friends "show their cards."
#5
If the United Nations Security Council has any guts it will vote this resolution down.
Your president already said it: The U.S. doesn't need "permission" from anyone.
Then stop asking for it. Stop bullying the small nations or buying them. Spare us this farce. Do what you need to do. But not in our name. I'd rather see the United Nations die in honour than in infamy.
#7
When the "Security" Council votes down the resolution, and they will, the US will be able to say that the UN has refused to extend the time limit to remedy the already existing material breach and begin the liberation of Iraq before the 17th. That'll show 'em.
The Iraqi people will remember who opposed the end to their brutalization.
Hey, that's a nice statue of you in the harbor. But I think you've got the UN picture all wrong. The resolution has nothing to do with before-the-war. It's all about after-the-war.
Bush is making people take sides, publicly. He knows what the Americans and British are going to find when they go into Iraq. He's going to make sure it gets world-wide coverage. What has been happening in Iraq, that the French and the Germans and the Russians wanted to cover up, will get lots of coverage after the war. And that (along with an unprecedented demonstration of American capability) will affect the balance of power in the post-war world.
The word is shame. The French and Germans are going to be hearing that word a lot when this is all over. And they'll have to be quiet for a while...
Posted by: Patrick ||
03/07/2003 21:54 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Yes yes, sides. Either with you or...
I wish the world was that simple.
I wonder what Chile or Mexico have to hide in Iraq though.
#10
Sorry, Danish Mermaid, but the world IS that simple. Live or die. Free or slave. Win or lose.
See, what you don't get is that what's coming next is the Battle of Iraq, not the War in Iraq. This is Phase 2 of the War on Terrorism, a war that, if we win, will save your ass. And if we lose, as the peaceniks and leftists and Islamists hope, you and your culture are doomed.
Only by winning in Iraq is there a chance to change the Middle East from a fetid dump that breeds terrorists to a place where people can live free, aspire to a better life, and pursue happiness as THEY, not some mullah or strongman, sees fit.
That's what this war is about. If you're with us, you have a chance to be on the side of the angels. If you're against us, you are consigning the people of the Middle East to an even worse fate and all of us to darkness and fear.
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
03/08/2003 2:28 Comments ||
Top||
#11
DM,
Let's see if I understand:It is the U.S.'s fault the U.N.doesn't have the cajones to enfoce 1441.
The UK has proposed Iraq should be given until 17 March to show its full cooperation with United Nations demands. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has put forward the new deadline in an amendment to the resolution on Iraqi disarmament tabled jointly with the United States and Spain.
It would give Iraq 10 days to demonstrate "full, unconditional, immediate and active co-operation with its disarmament obligations under resolution 1441". The deadline emerged on Friday as Mr Straw gave his response to a crucial weapons inspectors report to the UN Security Council. The foreign secretary was particularly critical of French calls for inspectors to be given months of more time. "French" is now a four letter word, official.
He argued the choice over war was in the hands of Saddam Hussein and that the threat of force was the only way of achieving Iraq's peaceful disarmament.
"There is only one sensible conclusion that we can draw: We have to increase the pressure on Saddam Hussein, we have to put this man to the test," Mr Straw told the Security Council. He said Iraq should have a "further period" to disarm, with the date of 17 March given in the text of his amendment. Mr Straw said he welcomed what progress inspections had made but it was "only the tip of a very large iceberg" of unfinished business.
Downing Street has said the chief weapons inspectors' reports showed Iraq was in material breach of resolution 1441. "The trigger for war has not been pulled because we are still going through the UN process," added the spokesman.
Earlier, the UK's most senior soldier, General Sir Mike Jackson, said UK troops were ready to move immediately against Iraq if they get the order for war.
Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said Iraq had accelerated its cooperation but its efforts could not be called "immediate compliance". Dr Blix said recent disarmament moves were active and "even pro-active", but could not be called immediate.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said the pressure on Iraq was paying off. He rejected the idea of going to war on the proposed 17 March deadline timetable. France wants the inspectors to set out a list of key tasks for Iraq to complete, with progress reports every three weeks and an accelerated timescale for inspections.
Despite that opposition, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he wanted the draft new resolution to go to a Security Council vote in the near future.
#1
Another deadline ? Sorry, that's nonsense. Saddam will give up two bottles of whatever on March 16, France will declare victory and Saddam will get another deadline. It should all have been over a few months ago.
Posted by: Peter ||
03/07/2003 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#2
If I understood Bush correctly last night and over the past few weeks this date of the 17th is the outside date of action. The US/UK/Spain resolution will put out this deadline. If France etc. accept the resolution then bombs start flying after the 17th when Saddam doesn't disarm. If France etc reject the resolution (as seems likely) the deadline doesn't apply and the US goes ahead anyway, probably by the 17th.
"Okay, this absolutely the last and final chance!"
Rinse, repeat...
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/07/2003 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Watched the whole process on CNN (no FNC here).
Was Jack Straw wound up? He certainly took deVileweasel on. Made my day. I sense the French may see all kinds of stories (military spare parts?) showing up over the next few days. Paybacks a bitch.
Posted by: john ||
03/07/2003 17:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Straw was on fire
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 22:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This is getting to be like the the Firesign Theatre skit about the highway signs talking to the guy driving down the road:
President Saddam Hussein has ordered Iraqi troops to go swimming as they wait for the long-threatened US attack, Iraqi newspapers said on Thursday. Regular swimming would improve their physical condition ready for the fight ahead, said Saddam, who is noted as a keen amateur swimmer himself. "Don't forget swimming," the president told a meeting of army officers and lower ranks, according to the reports. "When we were like you, we did not limit our time swimming to one, two or three hours, but we swam as often as we could."
"It develops the wind. Look at me — there aren't many people as windy as I am..."
Saddam said that the soldiers "should learn to swim and show endurance and perseverance so that the combatant can spend a whole day in the water". Saddam has been seen several times on television swimming across the Tigris River, which runs through Baghdad.
His bio says that when he participated in his first — failed — coup attempt, he escaped by swimming across the Tigris, disguising himself as a Bedouin, hiking to Syria, and then making his way to Egypt. Maybe he expects his army to do the same...
The Iraqi leader has stepped up meetings with military personnel in recent weeks, as the prospect of a US-led attack looms ever closer. At the meetings, he has repeatedly urged the armed forces to improve their physical fitness. A few weeks ago, he told them to work on their speed so they could hit targets in enemy territory, saying an estimate by officers that they could cover 75km in 17 hours, including a two-hour break, was not enough.
Saddam has also issued decrees that would cut in half the salaries of overweight government officials and army officers.
Kinda late for that sort of thing now...
Posted by: ISHMAIL ||
03/07/2003 08:17 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Swimming is the first splash to drowning.
Posted by: john ||
03/07/2003 6:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
be interesting how they adapt their trench warfare tactics in the river
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 8:03 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Overweight officials and officers? Mercy me, I thought food was in short supply.
Maybe this is so the'll fit in U.S. uniforms.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/07/2003 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
A French company has been selling spare parts to Iraq for its fighter jets and military helicopters during the past several months, according to U.S. intelligence officials. The unidentified company sold the parts to a trading company in the United Arab Emirates, which then shipped the parts through a third country into Iraq by truck. The spare parts included goods for Iraq's French-made Mirage F-1 jets and Gazelle attack helicopters. An intelligence official said the illegal spare-parts pipeline was discovered in the past two weeks and that sensitive intelligence about the transfers indicates that the parts were smuggled to Iraq as recently as January.
Other intelligence reports indicate that Iraq had succeeded in acquiring French weaponry illegally for years, the official said. The parts appear to be included in an effort by the Iraqi military to build up materiel for its air forces before any U.S. military action, which could occur before the end of the month. The officials identified the purchaser of the parts as the Al Tamoor Trading Co., based in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. A spokesman for the company could not be reached for comment. The French military parts were then sent by truck into Iraq from a neighboring country the officials declined to identify.
Iraq has more than 50 Mirage F-1 jets and an unknown number of Gazelle attack helicopters, according to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies. An administration official said the French parts transfers to Iraq may be one reason France has so vehemently opposed U.S. plans for military action against Iraq. "No wonder the French are opposing us," this official said. The official, however, said intelligence reports of the parts sale did not indicate that the activity was sanctioned by the French government or that Paris knows about the transfers. The intelligence reports did not identify the French company involved in selling the aircraft parts or whether the parts were new or used. The Mirage F-1 was made by France's Dassault Aviation. Gazelle helicopters were made by Aerospatiale, which later became part of a consortium of European defense companies.
The importation of military goods by Iraq is banned under U.N. Security Council resolutions passed since the 1991 Persian Gulf war. Nathalie Loiseau, press counselor at the French Embassy, said her government has no information about the spare-parts smuggling and has not been approached by the U.S. government about the matter. "We fully comply with the U.N. sanctions, and there is no sale of any kind of military material or weapons to Iraq," she said.
A senior administration official declined to discuss Iraq's purchase of French warplane and helicopter parts. "It is well known that the Iraqis use front companies to try to obtain a number of prohibited items," the official said. The disclosure comes amid heightened anti-French sentiment in the United States over Paris' opposition to U.S. plans for using force to disarm Iraq. A senior defense official said France undermined U.S. efforts to disarm Iraq last year by watering down language of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 that last fall required Iraq to disarm all its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs.
France, along with Russia, Germany and China, said yesterday that they would block a joint U.S.-British U.N. resolution on the use of force against Iraq. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin told reporters in Paris on Wednesday that France "will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force. Russia and France, as permanent members of the Security Council, will assume their full responsibilities on this point."
France has been Iraq's best friend in the West. French arms sales to Baghdad were boosted in the 1970s under Premier Jacques Chirac, the current president. Mr. Chirac once called Saddam Hussein a "personal friend." During the 1980s, when Paris backed Iraq in its war against Iran, France sold Mirage fighter bombers and Super Entendard aircraft to Baghdad, along with Exocet anti-ship missiles. French-Iraqi ties soured after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait that led to the 1991 Persian Gulf war. France now has an estimated $4 billion in debts owed to it by Iraq as a result of arms sales and infrastructure construction projects. The debt is another reason U.S. officials believe France is opposing military force to oust Saddam.
Henry Sokolski, director of the private Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, said French transfers of military equipment to Iraq would have "an immediate and relevant military consequence, if this was done."
"The United States with its allies are going to suppress the Iraqi air force and air defense very early on in any conflict, and it's regrettable that the French have let a company complicate that mission," Mr. Sokolski said. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell last month released intelligence information showing videotape of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage that had been modified to spray anthrax spores. A CIA report to Congress made public in January stated that Iraq has aggressively sought advanced conventional arms. "A thriving gray-arms market and porous borders have allowed Baghdad to acquire smaller arms and components for larger arms, such as spare parts for aircraft, air defense systems, and armored vehicles," the CIA stated. Iraq also has obtained some military goods through the U.N.-sponsored oil-for-food program. A second CIA report in October on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stated: "Iraq imports goods using planes, trains, trucks, and ships without any type of international inspections â in violation of UN Security Council resolutions."
Posted by: ISHMAIL ||
03/07/2003 08:27 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I guess then the US Air Force will wind up being the world's largest distrubutor of Mirage parts.
During an emergency European Union meeting in Brussels, [Jacques Chirac] called the ex-Communist countries of "New Europe" (Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Croatia and Albania) "infantile" for siding with the United States.
Now they have a new pet name in Warsaw for the French president: Jacques Brezhnev. Mr. Chirac's berating of Poland and other central European countries for signing a pro-American letter in the midst of the Iraq crisis has notâto put it mildlyâgone down well.
Whatever, it is becoming clearer with time that France would not be France if its president did not occasionally try to puncture the grandiosity of America.
The French claim they are fighting for peace and taking the moral high ground by attempting to block support for Americaâs campaign to eliminate Saddam Hussein.
This all lies. The reality is that France has been in bed with the genocidal Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein for decades. Moreover, to understand the details of French behaviour, it is also important to understand a not unknown but oddly neglected aspect of French policy: the personal relationship between French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein.
The relationship dates back to late 1974, when then-French Premier Chirac travelled to Baghdad and met the No. 2 man in the Iraqi government, Vice President Saddam Hussein. During that visit, Chirac and Hussein conducted negotiations on a range of issues, the most important of these being Iraq's purchase of nuclear reactors.
In a return visit in September of 1975, Hussein went 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.
France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein's visit. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq's nuclear capability today.
During all this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac has unashamedly termed as close personal relationship. The New York Times described it in a 1986 report about Chirac's attempt to return to the premiership, the French official "has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein of Iraq." In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was "truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974."
That might be an entirely different matter that Mr Jacques Chirac has career beset with allegations of scandal. As a young man in post-war Paris, Jacque Chirac dreamed of visiting the US and in 1953, he spent a summer at Harvard University.
At weekends, he worked as a "soda jerk" at a Howard Johnson's restaurant, where he met and fell in love with 18-year-old Florence Herlihy from South Carolina. He has recalled how she called him "honey child", while Florence, tracked down by a French magazine, and remembers him as a wonderful kisser.
Coming back France has massive investments in Iraq (and made a fortune out of the U.N. oil-for-food program). They know that a successor regime will might not honor contracts made by Saddam.
For a long time, France has been taking blood money from one of the worst dictators on earth, and now they becoming guardians of morality.
Paris is in fact a charter member of the âAxis of Weaselâ and the French donât care that their efforts not only may cause American men and women to die needlessly but also put millions in the U.S. and throughout the world at risk of a new wave of terrorist attacks, as long as they can protect their blood money.
Franceâs long âhate Americaâ campaign whether it is supporting terrorist-abetting Cuban dictator Fidel Castro or nosily denouncing U.S. capital punishment, France seldom passes up an opportunity to oppose America in the United Nations and elsewhere.
The sad reality is that current French leaders envy and hate America for our power and wealth. While America has been prospering, France (along with much of Western Europe) remains deeply mired in economic stagnation created by a failed socialist economy and myopic leaders.
Franceâs new âhate Americaâ campaign is particularly despicable when considering the history of American aid to France:
- When Germany threatened France during World War I, American infantryman came to the rescue.
- Thirty years later, again when Nazi Germany conquered France and her people became subjugated, tens of thousands of Americans gave their lives to defeat their German conquerors and free France.
- After World War II, France was one of the largest recipients of the U.S. Marshall Plan, which saved the French from destitution and reconstructed their economy.
- Again, when the Soviet Union threatened Europe during the Cold War, for over more than forty years the American nuclear shield again protected France from Soviet conquest.
Again and again, America has saved France from political annihilation and slavery. Instead of appreciation, repeatedly the US has received depreciatory put-downs:
- When America went had to go against Castro during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the French refused to side with the US.
- When President Reagan bombed Ghaddafi and Libya for backing terrorism that killed American soldiers, the French rejected to allow US bombers to cross its airspace.
The Chairman of the Pentagonâs Policy Advisory Board Richard Perle comprehends: "France is no longer the ally it once was. I have long thought that there were forces in France intent on reducing the American role in the world."
If it were not for the heroic efforts of America's military, France, Germany and Belgium today would be Soviet socialist republics. The failure of these three states to honor their commitments is contemptible.
So fanatical is French President Jacques Chirac's jealousy and hatred of America that even his fellow Europeans are now expressing outrage at his implication that France would block now independent former Soviet satellites from joining the European Union because they are too "pro-American."
"They missed a good opportunity to keep quiet," Chirac huffed, and went on to claim that those who support America were "childish and irresponsible."
Whatever personal chemistry he might have with Saddam it obviously has remained in place a decade later and clearly not simply linked to the deals of 1974-75. Politicians and busi-nessmen move on; they do not linger the way Chirac has. In politics and business, you can be friendly, but never friends.
But then what do you call a Frenchman advancing on Baghdad? A salesmanâ¦
#4
Ishmail, we are no longer angry. We are just going to get even.
great post
Posted by: john ||
03/07/2003 6:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'm trying to figure out the big deal. The French are known for growing grapes, eating snails, losing wars, abandoning colonies and inventing the guillotine. Hopefully they will continue selling [Mirage] parts to Iraq as it will allow us to be more cost-effective in the utilization of ammunition. After this war is over, and the oil is pumping, we will remember those who stepped forward and those who hid under the nearest stone.
Posted by: HC ||
03/07/2003 8:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Your link is bouggered up.
Posted by: Tom Roberts ||
03/07/2003 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 8:29 Comments ||
Top||
#9
You mean (gasp!) France has an ulterior (profit) motive to their diplomacy? You mean (gasp!) they aren't doing what they do from a sense of moral and ethical behavior? Horrors! Mon Dieu!
Right now the only nice thing I can say about France (yes, Pierre, I HAVE been there)is that they appreciate the Three Stooges (Les Tres Imbeciles). After seeing their politicians and the way their government is run, I realize that maybe they have based their society on old Larry Moe and Curly Joe re-runs.
Posted by: John ||
03/07/2003 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Looks like the Iranian Air Force will be getting some upgraded planes and attack helicopters soon.
F**k the Frogs.
Belgian Foreign Minister Says France Has 'saved' Europe's Honor
France has "saved the honor of Europe" by taking the lead in seeking a peaceful solution to the Iraq crisis, Belgium's foreign minister said Friday, adding that U.S.-European ties must be reforged to reflect what has transpired.
"We have followed totally our French friends because we think that what thdey have done is, in a certain manner I think, to save the honor of Europe," Louis Michel said on France-Inter radio. He spoke hours before the chief U.N. weapons inspectors in Iraq present the U.N. Security Council with their latest progress report.
Europe, the Belgian minister said, "cannot always be a follower .... This abscess had to be pierced."...
----------
So says the Nato proxy.
Try and save your unelected technocrats, you pinstripe pinheads.
#12
Why am I not surprised, And what else, pray tell, have our amphibian friends been selling.......hmmmmmmmmm?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/07/2003 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Rex: they don't want war because they don't want anybody to find out. Those traitor bastards. Kick them out of NATO, let them forge their own alliances with the likes of Syria, Iran, & N.Korea. Perhaps Chiraq can find a new friend in Kim. I like what Bush said yesterday, to bring the 2nd res. to vote and let the member states "show" where they stand. F'em.
Talk about hypocrisy. Syria is complaining about Israel having WMD, but it was France who helped them develop their first reactor. Next came Iraq. What a bunch of hypocrites.
#14
Speak for yourself, John -- some of us ARE still angry with France. "tu3031" is right: F**k the Frogs. As far as I'm concerned, they can recall their ambassador to Washington back to Paris for good.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/07/2003 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#15
I don't get it. Why are the froggies so opposed to a deadline. Now DeVillepin is calling for a meeting of the heads of state of the UNSC. I don't like the way this is headed. We waited too long. Wouldn't be surprised if there was some military intervention on the part of the weasels. Bastards.
#16
The French are totally opposed to a deadline. Do they know something we don't know? Sounds to me like they already know that Saddam will not disarm. As open a defense of Iraq as could be achieved.
Angry may not be the right term. Rage?
Posted by: john ||
03/07/2003 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#17
...they don't want war because they don't want anybody to find out.
I have a hard time believing this. I don't think Chirac personally or the French generally would be greatly embarrassed to be found selling the Iraqis anything up to and including nukes.
Oh, yeah, it might cause a ruckus that would take a while to smooth over, but they wouldn't actually feel any shame for it.
#18
While they might not be embarassed about our finding "Made in France" stamped all over most of the Iraqi weapons...
They might be worse than embarassed if Saddam used one of those weapons inside the US as he has threatened to do.
We might think them unfriendly.
Depends on how much dirt there really is.
Chiraq's "personal friendship" would get far, far more attention than it already has.
President Saddam Hussein, cigar in hand, is addressing a small auditorium filled with commanders from the Republican Guard, belittling the deployment of American aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf. He reels off statistics about how each is nine stories high and serves 20,000 meals a day. "But in the end, does this aircraft carrier have wheels that enable it to come to Baghdad?" he says to the commanders, led by his son Qusay, a younger, stockier version of himself, seated in the front row. "The decisive factor in battle will be a soldier marching on his feet and tanks and mobile or fixed artillery," says Mr. Hussein, speaking from behind a long dais with an Iraqi flag off to his right. "All this talk about what America has is nonsense."
The man's obviously a military genius. Of course, he proved that last time, didn't he?
Such scenes have been unrolling almost nightly for the past week at 9 o'clock on Iraqi television. The first hour, at least, of the news is taken up by coverage of Mr. Hussein's latest meeting with successive groups of military commanders. The broadcasts serve several purposes. They are partly to reassure an increasingly edgy nation of 22 million that they will not be overrun in what would be their third major conflict under Mr. Hussein's rule.
The speeches are also meant to mobilize and rally the military, the president's most common theme being that the bristling array of high-tech American weaponry can be overcome by the determination of Iraqi soldiers defending their own homes.
Which statement shows he has no concept of warfare...
His themes vary widely. They include the mundane, like telling the officers to make sure the soldiers bathe often, are well tucked in at night and read books. They include myriad historical and religious references. Advice on military tactics is rife. "We should plan on the basis that the battlefields should be everywhere, the battlefields should be wherever there are people," he advised one group.
Makes it kinda hard to concentrate your forces that way, though...
The meetings have a certain ritualistic quality. Mr. Hussein enters the room to a standing, cheering ovation by the officers, who occasionally erupt into poems or songs of praise. He then calls on them one by one to brief him on the state of readiness of their troops. Almost all of the commanders exhibit a stiff, not to say nervous, reverence, saluting when they reach the podium and then rattling off what they have done. Most of the time Mr. Hussein discharges them with a gruff "Afiyah," meaning "Well done," and asking them to pass along his salutations to particular tribal leaders in their area. Sometimes he voices criticism.
They must love taking guff from a guy who's spent most of his life in uniform and never been a soldier...
In January a special forces commander told him that his men could march 30 miles in 10 hours. "This should be improved," Mr. Hussein said. "When you want to march toward a certain area and hit and run in the same night, then you do not have enough time."
His feet don't hurt, so what the hell?
He tells the commanders that even divisions that take heavy losses should continue fighting and should remain vigilant about their vulnerability to American weapons launched over great distances.
Much of his rhetoric and imagery is drawn from his upbringing in a rural, tribal culture. "I don't need to say that Iraq is attached to your moustache, because after all it is your country," he told one group, using a local expression that means something has been entrusted to you.
"Curse your moustache, you monkey!"
The anticipated fight for Baghdad is a common topic. One officer in tonight's broadcast told the president that his soldiers had been concentrating on urban warfare, including ambushes and mopping-up operations. "Baghdad will never fall like it fell before," Mr. Hussein predicted, referring to the city's sacking in the 13th century by Mongol invaders.
"It'll fall in an entirely different manner..."
They say that the only place Mr. Hussein feels vaguely safe is Baghdad, where his security apparatus has ensured that the coups and the countercoups of the 1960's will not be repeated.
Diplomats report that Mr. Hussein is so scrupulous about his security that he is believed not to have used the telephone since the Gulf War lest the location of the calls be monitored, and visitors are never quite sure which palace he will use to greet them. During the Gulf War, Mr. Hussein was reported using a simple car with either himself or an officer as the driver, shifting safe houses daily. Diplomats here expect a repeat performance. Given that Baghdad is a city of some 4.5 million people, larger than all American metropolitan areas except New York and Los Angeles, he has plenty of places to hide.
But when you're hiding, you're not leading, are you?
No one can predict accurately to what extent Iraqis might take up arms against invaders, although most vow to.
In his speeches Mr. Hussein mocks the Americans for considering Iraq another Afghanistan and ridicules certain American tactics, like distributing leaflets in the southern half of the country telling people to not fight because the United States is only after the president. "Are they still harboring the illusion that they are capable of toppling Iraq with their leaflets?" he said, adding that his bond with the Iraqi people was much stronger than, say, the love of the Americans for their president. "This love has been going on for 35 years of my being in power," he said.
They loved Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, too...
Posted by: ISHMAIL ||
03/07/2003 10:58 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
MAIN REASON BEING......he thinks we live through our actors.........if he ever saw the heart land, he'd know he was in a world of shit.
#4
"This love has been going on for 35 years of my being in power,"
Let us aquaint you with the phrase "Term Limits"
Posted by: john ||
03/07/2003 6:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
One wonders what the Republican Guard commanders make of such nonsense. There are probably a few dozen (many hundred) IRG captains who are looking for a chance to defect. No doubt it will be difficult to do.
"Yes, this will be a much more spectacular and improved fall--with a fresh lemon scent for added appeal!"
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/07/2003 8:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
nice, Dar ;-) but that lemony scent is chemical warfare...don't inhale too deeply
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 9:22 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"We should not march into Baghdad. . . . To occupy Iraq would instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab world against us, and make a broken tyrant into a latter-day Arab hero . . . assigning young soldiers to a fruitless hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning them to fight in what would be an unwinnable urban guerrilla war. It could only plunge that part of the world into even greater instability."
#9
Very good anonymous. You've discovered how dramatically things can change over time.
The quote leads me to believe all the more that going to Baghdad is the right move. After all, if something changed Colin Powell's mind, then there must be something going on over there. Maybe even that the threat is real, hmm?
#11
And exactly what has changed? The threat to America is hypothetical. The threat to Iraqi people is real. 300000 troops ready to invade, maybe with the use of "nonlethal" chemical weapons, maybe with "mininukes". Attacks imminent on electricity plants and waterworks mean that the sick in hospitals will die, hundred thousands will suffer from polluted water, countless children will die.
How big is the threat for children in New York that Saddam will attack them with missiles that do not reach 200 km, filled with weapons that no one can find, in a country that could be annihilated every second, where people barely survive.
Tell me, who is threatened right now? The baby in Baghdad or the baby in New York?
#12
Anon, countless children have died already under Saddam. You want him to hang on in there in Iraq? Don't come out with sanctimonious s*** about caring for the Iraqis.
#13
No, i don't want him to hang around in there. Nobody does.
But you don't answer my question. As a matter of fact nobody does. How many babies will die in New York if the inspections continue? How many babies will die in Iraq if they don't?
If you think the threat to us is hypothetical, then you're wasting your breath. You're not going to convince anyone here, and we're obviously not going to convince you any different if you aren't going to bother looking at the evidence of how misguided and twisted Saddam is.
I feel sorry for that baby in Baghdad--his short term chances don't look good. He has a good chance of being killed by Saddam on a whim now, and a good chance of being killed by us later when we invade and Saddam uses him as a shield for his military assets or unleashes his "non-existent" WMDs on us.
But, long term, his chances are looking better and better with every day we get closer to removing that thug from absolute power over that baby's life.
Short term, that baby in New York is probably pretty safe. But if we sit by and do nothing, both that baby in Baghdad and that baby in New York are in trouble in the long term.
War is an ugly and brutal thing, but there are worse things than war. Leaving Saddam Hussein unchecked is one of them.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/07/2003 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
#15
"The threat to America is hypothetical."
Amazingly, a hypothetical threat can be as dangerous as a real threat. Hypothetical means that a a threat has probability....is it 90% probable, 50%, or 1% probable? Before 9/11, use of airliners as flying missiles was also hypothetical. The role of the President, NSC, and other organizations is to evaluate threat probabilty and take on that basis. War in Iraq is entirely about the hypothetical threat Saddam's WMD poses to the United States.
As far as your "hypothetical" babys are concerned, I would suggest we are faced with a conundrum. If we act, the baby in Baghdad is at probable risk (This baby already faces higher risk under Saddam's regime). If we do not act, the level of probable risk (from future terrorist activity) rises on the baby in NY. From a hypothetical standpoint using your worst case standards, no senario would save both.
Posted by: john ||
03/07/2003 13:22 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Anon: the threat that Saddam will sell his weapons to anyone bent on destroying the "great satan" is where we are headed down the road if he is not taken out right now. You are correct that Iraq by itself will not launch a missile at New York any time soon because Saddam is smarter than that. Like someone here said, if Saddam did that, then by noon Iraq would be a crater on the planet. What has changed is that there are people willing to kill thousands of Americans through clandestine means, and then run back to their caves and proclaim "it wasn't us". What has changed is that rogue nations use other "organizations" to do their dirty work for them. Unfortunately to deal with such threats requires a different strategy and methods than what has been employed before. The soviet union understood the concept of mutually assured destruction, and that was enough to keep the peace. There are some Americans that do not wish to wait and find out if Saddam and his buddies understand this very same concept. And thank God for that.
One question for you: if America was attacked by a biological or nuclear weapon, would you come to its defense or say "they deserved it"? If the latter, then you should also understand the American position of going it alone if the UN isn't serious about Iraq. Long live President Bush. Long live Blair. Long live Howard.
#17
Nobody said that we shouldn't do anything. We are doing something now. It may not be enough but there is progress. How much progress could be made in half a year? Without killing anyone?
Or will that baby in New York not be safe from Saddam in half a year?
A lot of things can happen in half a year. An Iraqi attack on the U.S. is not likely to be one of them.
I will not go into the "all for oil" argument. I just want to know: Is the threat real and imminent enough to go to war in a week?
#18
An Iraqi attack on the U.S. is not likely to be one of them
You again demonstrate that you don't get it. Iraq will never attack the US directly. But Saddam will cooperate with other "organizations" who share the same sentiment of destroying the US.
If left alone, it would definately be six months before Saddam develops the method to bring these weapons to American soil, for use by the likes of OBL and his cronies.
#19
Lets assume somebody breaks into a house, takes the family hostage. You know he has guns. Would you bomb the house killing all people inside to eliminate the potential threat this guy might pose to the neighbors? Or would Special Forces surround the house and talk, negotiating, trying to make him release hostages? Would they stop negotiating because the guy only releases one hostage at a time, not all immediately? Wouldn't police only storm the house when this guy is starting to kill his hostages? I said storm the house, not drop bombs on it.
Right now we are faced with millions of threats. How many Hobson's choices are we going to make?
If you think the inspections are working and that we are actually making "progress", then no answer I give you will satisfy you and no answer you give me will satisfy me, because the crux of the argument is:
Are the inspections working?
I believe they are not, and while the threat may not be imminent to that baby in New York, it is real enough and imminent enough to the US as each day:
o brings Saddam closer to developing nukes
o allows Saddam to develop more chemical and biological weapons
o allows Saddam's troops to improve their defenses
o allows Saddam to torture and kill more of his own people and internal enemies
o costs us millions to supply our troops--whose presence is the only reason Saddam allowed inspectors back in after booting them out four years ago
There is no way we can know how imminent the threat is because Saddam has NEVER cooperated with the UN and let them know how far along his weapons program is. We know he had chemical weapons and used them willfully in the past, and we know he's had 12 years to continue developing them. We also know that our own country supplied him with biological and chemical supplies to develop still more WMDs back we naively considered him a friend back in the 80's.
If you think Saddam willfully destroyed all his weapons and that inspections are working, then there is no way you and I can agree on any solution to the Iraqi problem. I, for one, think that a man who rules a country through fear and terror would never give up his most fearsome and terrible weapons except through force, and we must apply that force now--and, unfortunately, that means we'll be finding out firsthand just what fearsome and terrible weapons he's been hiding.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/07/2003 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#21
RW, do you have the shadow of anything like an evidence that Saddam WILL do that. Or just MIGHT. WHY should Saddam want to destroy the U.S.? He is a thug, not a jihadi. Destroying the U.S. means destroying the world economy means no more clients. And now inspectors are in the country, 300000 troops at his doors, the CIA in his country and you seriously want to make me believe that he would secretly dig out some anthrax or VX that OBL will scuttle off with on a donkey's back?
I think I read it here: If my granma had wheels she'd be a bus.
The most likely place terorists will get there weapons from is where they got them from in the first place: in the U.S. Avoids problems with customs.
#22
o brings Saddam closer to developing nukes
It took North Korea decades to develop 2 bombs and they have a reactor. The only Iraqi reactor was destroyed in 1981. The inspectors can't find anything that radiates (except all that depleted uranium the U.S. left there). Our satellites can't find anything. The CIA can't find anything. How REAL is that threat?? o allows Saddam to develop more chemical and biological weapons
Egypt, Pakistan and ex-Soviet states have these weapons, too (among others). Wouldn't it be so much easier for anyone to buy from there? Without 300000 guys watching? Or even better set up a lab in Texas and do it yourself? o allows Saddam's troops to improve their defenses
dig some more trenches? o allows Saddam to torture and kill more of his own people and internal enemies
That unfortunately is true. But certainly less people than an invasion would kill. But I admit that's the weakest point. Certainly doesn't help to state that the U.S. right now support dictators of other states which do the same. o costs us millions to supply our troops--whose presence is the only reason Saddam allowed inspectors back in after booting them out four years ago
what are millions compared to billions that a war would cost? Give the inspectors 6 months and I'm sure the Europeans would share the bill that keeping the troops in place would cost. Because it's good that the troops are in place.
#24
Anon: you're naive if you believe that Saddam would not help those that wish to destroy the US. It's a can't-lose proposition for him: use someone else to do your dirty work. Plus, if Saddam feels no ill will for the US, then why the attempt to assassinate Bush Sr.?
2nd anonymous: how do you know the CIA hasn't found anything?
If al-qaeda isn't interested in WMD, then what of all that evidence discovered in Afghanistan? What about that video of the tests they did on the dogs? What would prevent Saddam from sharing his know-how about such weapons? What about the fact that he actually used these weapons before? All the precedents are there... should you choose to ignore them.
#25
Danish, what makes you think Iraq hasn't attacked the US already?
There's some very interesting circumstantial evidence out there regarding WTC 1 and Oklahoma City.
For example, how can a Kuwaiti man, who disappeared when Saddam attacked Kuwait (along w/his personnel file, one of thousands that also was taken back to Iraq) turn up in OK and physically change, not only face, but height? And why did Atta try and stay at the same motel as McVeigh/McNichols and John Does of ME ethnicity?
#26
Well Bush called for Saddam's assasination: I think the two are quits (I'm not morally comparing the 2)
I can't read Saddam's mind like you obviously can. All I know is that you can't kill thousands or even hundred thousands of innocent people on the assumption that some thug might do something that might endanger your safety. If we let that logic prevail in this century we will face chaos and rule of force. International law will only apply for countries without WMD.
Thats pretty much a blank cheque for attacking any country.
Al Quaeda in Afghanistan is a different story. The Taliban are stone age religious fanatics. That Al Quaeda would seek WMD I can believe but you probably chose the only country they wouldn't get them from.
#27
You confuse questions with evidence, Anon. You'll find the most stupid conspiracy theories about the WTC attack. And if staying in a hotel associates you with other guests staying there I better ask for a guest list checked by the FBI next time I check into the Hilton.
But frankly, given Patriot Act I, I would be rather scared to travel to the USA. I have been in Hamburg, the terrorists have been in Hamburg, too. I don't want to disappear in Guantanamo because the FBI connects dots.
Numbering the previous items consecutively for clarity:
1. Nukes
Nuclear weapons and technology proliferates, and every country does not need to reinvent the wheel, so it may not take decades for Iraq like it did for North Korea--especially if they get help in the form of smuggled-in material. Saddam has not cooperated, so we don't know what he has (or perhaps we do, but announcing it to the general public will compromise our sources--I'm not in position to know).
All Saddam needs is *one* nuclear weapon to hold the Middle East (again, 70% of the world's petroleum reserves are here) hostage.
2. Chem/bio weapons
Yes, other countries have them. However, they are not ruled by someone as demonstrably vicious and power mad as Saddam Hussein. The Kurds, Iranians, and Kuwaitis have witnessed this firsthand.
However, you miss the point that the UN--not the US, the UN--passed a unanimous resolution through the Security Council ordering Saddam to disarm and dismantle all WMDs. Regardless of who else has them, Saddam should not have ANY.
3. Saddam's defenses
Yes, dig trenches. And fill them with oil. And string barbed wire. And lay mines. And deploy his chemical and biological weapons. And build bunkers and pillboxes. And prepare all kinds of civilian areas--that we would not willingly bomb otherwise--to be fortresses. Each day allows Saddam to get closer to turning Baghdad into Stalingrad.
I don't know why you dismissed this point so lightly. For all of our aircraft, smart bombs, lasers spotters, satellites, and other advanced weaponry, occupying territory still requires a soldier with a rifle on the ground to kill the enemy and take that ground by force.
4. Torture and killing of civilians
Nothing new here that he hasn't been doing for ~35 years.
5. Deployment costs
Sustaining these troops is about more than just money. It's a hardship and strain on families, relationships, and careers for all of our servicemen and women. It's absurd that the US should shoulder this much of the burden indefinitely. It's also ridiculous to think that Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and other countries want such a huge presence of foreign troops on their soil indefinitely.
Saddam has demonstrated what he thinks of the UN. He has demonstrated his lust for power. He has demonstrated his willingness to use whatever terrible weapon necessary to secure his goals. He has demonstrated how he feels Iraq exists only to serve him. He MUST be removed from power.
Unfortunately, that means war. So, as terrible as it is, let's get it done as quickly as possible now, before the cost is millions of lives like it was in World War II.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/07/2003 15:10 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Anonymous, Take a good long look at what's happening in North Korea to see what happens when you let a murderous dictator this dangerous go too long. You haven't learned the lesson of WWII-Stop the bastards early, while its still easy to stop them. (And I suppose you study/studied the night before big exams...)
By the way, you should know that there are no objective standards or methods for measuring qualities like "real" and "imminent" threats: Otherwise, we would have been prepared on 9/11, not caught completely off guard. You're counting on that, in order to be able to plausibly deny any such assertions. You know your demand for certitude is, in itself, unreasonable and unmeetable. Time to leave fantasyland and live in the REAL, UNCERTAIN, and UNPREDICTABLE world in which we both live.
Also, spare me the bullshit about your concern for Iraqui civilian lives: MORE people are alive today in Afghanistan because we took the Taliban out than if they had been left in charge to run things their way. Yeah, the US regrettably killed some civilians in the process: When you have to pump out the septic tank, you're bound to catch shit. However, the Taliban didn't have the cessation of religious executions written into their "little black book of things we'll get around to doing" when the US booted them out of power.
If you are concerned when the US accidently kills civilians and attempt to stop the US from doing anything, BUT you do not attempt to stop a dictator from deliberately killing EVEN MORE people, then your REAL concern isn't the killing of civilians, isn't it? When your focus and desire for action depends more on "who" (US vs. Saddam) than on "what" (dead civilians, in both cases), then your concern is based on a selectively applied morality, calculated to boost your ego, and not for actual, living and breathing human beings.
I say that the consistent and deliberate application of moral standards and principles in an unequal manner (no matter what thhose standards and principles are) is sufficient reason to disqualify the self-appointed "morality policeman".
The only thing we should take from the page of the 60's protesters is the use of the term "PIG!" when referring to THAT sort of "policeman".
#30
Anon: One other point. Three times the experts have been wrong about how close Saddam was to developing a nuke. 1981, 1992, and 1995 when the son-in-law defected. In each case our estimates were wrong by years.
#31
What a joke, Danish Mermaid. Why don't you go down to Brussels and have the EU start writing the US enormous checks to continue to pressure Saddam, the only way to--as de Villepin, Blix, etc have said--make him comply? $5 billion ought to cover it for a few weeks, don't you think? Why should the US taxpayer, as usual, be asked to bear the burden alone?
#32
There are, I think, too many "anonymouses" on this thread. If you're going to participate, at least make up a nickname or some other handle. Sheesh!
#33
The only justification I need for this war is the liberation of the Iraqi people. Freedom is an incredible thing and I'm in awe of it every time I reflect on it.
#34
I'm responsible for most of the "Anonymous" (starting from the Powell quote).
I'd like to thank you that you take the trouble to get into a real discussion with me and not just shout me down.
A few answers:
Re: Nukes
Ok I don't want Saddam to have nukes. Yet it is quite interesting how Americans always quote the Iraqi defector when it suits their purpose. Yes, he revealed the WMD program but he also stated that the weapons were destroyed in 1991. Which part to believe?
You say with one nuke Saddam would hold the region hostage. Would he really? Using the bomb would be immediate suicide because the US could retaliate with 1000s. The Soviets had so many more yet they didn't march into Western Europe. They knew they wouldn't survive it.
Non proliferation has failed. In a decade or 2 at least 20 states, rogue or not, will have nukes. We will have to learn to live with them, just like we learned to live with the Soviet bombs. Attacking Iraq sends just this message to others: "Get a nuke and be safe from the U.S." I think even the US will be a bit overwhelmed attacking every country developing WMD.
Ptah, you are right: We live in a uncertain, unpredictable world. Thats exactly why pre-emptive wars won't work. They will just make the world even unsafer.
Re Chem/Bio: The anthrax attack in 1991 came from where?
Dar Steckelberg: I remember the horror stories circulating about Iraqi defense measures in Kuwait 1991. Saddam was way more stronger then. Yet that didn't stop the US invasion much? But now I hear the U.S. want to use chemical weapons (banned under the Geneva Convention, "lethal" or "non-lethal") to "disarm" Iraq from the same weapons? Don't you see some irony in that?
And if you justify an attack now because the poor troops would be so emotionally stressed out waiting a few months, are you serious? Ask the wives of the U.S. soldiers about what they prefer.
#35
Well said Porps. Every dictator in the world should be put on notice.
And well said Ptah. When they're anti-american to begin with, nothing they say after can be objective.
"Using the bomb would be immediate suicide because the US could retaliate with 1000s"
The retaliation part is moot because by then it's already too late. "We will have to learn to live with them, just like we learned to live with the Soviet bombs"
What kind of answer is that??? If your house is constantly being robbed you have to learn to live with it??? That's why the precedent has to be set, and all the world's dictators put on notice. "Get a nuke and be safe from the U.S."
Wrong again. The message is "try getting a nuke and we'll pound your ass". "But now I hear the U.S. want to use chemical weapons"
Then you need a hearing aid because you're hearing incorrectly. Do you work for Saddam's propaganda ministry??? Or are you unintentionally twisting the facts because your anti-american stance won't allow anything good to be said about the US? "emotionally stressed out waiting a few months"
Ok you oughta stop listening to that anti-american crap, it's causing you to believe in nonsense. But then, it all makes sense right??
#36
Anti-American... right. Every time Americans run out of arguments they slap others with being anti-american. Or pro-Saddam.
It's so easy.
You have been so brain washed in the U.S., continually scared with fake alerts that you don't see whats going on anymore.
A nuke is rather useless if you can't use it. It only serves as a deterrent. It may save a country from being invaded by a much more powerful country because the risk for that powerful country would be too high. The small country would never use that arm first because it would be annihilated 5 minutes later.
The only notice for dictators (or other states) will be. Get your nukes but make sure you'll get it before all eyes are on you.
I'll tell you a joke: Two men run away from a lion. Says one friend: "Why are you running so fast? The lion is faster than you anyway." Says his friend: "I'm not trying to run faster than the lion. I'm trying to run faster than you!"
Re chemical weapons, the Independent says this:
"The US is preparing to use the toxic riot-control agents CS gas and pepper spray in Iraq in contravention of the Chemical Weapons Convention, provoking the first split in the Anglo-US alliance. "Calmative" gases, similar to the one that killed 120 hostages in the Moscow theatre siege last year, could also be employed.
The convention bans the use of these toxic agents in battle, not least because they risk causing an escalation to full chemical warfare. This applies even though they can be used in civil disturbances at home: both CS gas and pepper spray are available for use by UK police forces. The US Marine Corps confirmed last week that both had already been shipped to the Gulf."
#39
I am no more "anti-american" than the millions in your country who oppose the war.
I have a lot of respect and admiration for the true values America stands for. I see your constitution as one of the best texts ever written. I have known most Americans to be wonderful people. So don't call me anti-american.
The anti-americans are those who have betrayed the true values of your country. Those who think up laws in secrecy that will make your constitution look like a joke. Those who think the International Law applies to all nations except America.
If you look for anti-americans, look for them in Washington. Not in Copenhague.
#40
Danish, you haven't even begun to address my argument. The best reports from the "peace" demonstrations informs me that if anyone called upon Saddam Hussein to stop killing his Civilians NOW, they got drowned out by the massive chorus of voices against the United States and Bush enforcing the letter and the spirit of, what, 17 UN Security Council resolutions? And this is NOT ANTI-AMERICANISM? Your so-called "care" for civilians embracing those NOT YET KILLED by Americans, and NOT embracing THOSE BEING KILLED RIGHT NOW BY SADDAM? Again, the focus seems to me to be on "Who", not "What". Call it a cultural difference between Americans and the Europeans with their former colonies "educated" by them. We insist on judging people by what they do, not by who they are. A cultural quirk you should be able to accept, inasmuchas you sophisticated Europeans easily tolerate the anti-feminist, nonassimilative, antisemitic quirks of Muslim immigrants. the phrase "Straining at a gnat and swallowing a camel" comes strangely to mind...
By the way, if our "brainwashing" is so subtle that we don't notice it, then the techniques have to be so good enough that they could be USED ON YOU SO YOU WOULDN'T NOTICE IT EITHER, eh? Are you SURE you're ALSO not brainwashed by techniques too subtle for you to notice? How do you know? How would you prove it?
I don't know what you'd call shirking the responsibility of stopping the evil you see because of fears of evils that may happen as a possible result. You call it sophisticated and enlightened thinking.
#41
So gather up your armies get down to iraq and lets get rid of hitler bush you are all crying about,if we are so wrong get your world army get down there so we can hash it out right now.
#44
I can hear your president on CNN saying: "Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people".
You didn't care when he was a threat to the Iranians. You delivered the arms.
You didn't care when he was a threat to the Kurds. You still delivered anthrax to Iraq after Halabja.
Oh yes now it's different. Yes, now America will topple the tyrants and let the light of democracy and liberty shine over the Middle East.
"Serious and systematic human rights abuses," "extrajudicial killings," "torture," "looting of private homes" and not respecting the freedoms of the press, speech, religion, assembly, movement, the people electing its government, etc.
Says the State Department. Are we talking about Iraq?
No, the country is Equatorial-Guinea, the dictator is called Teodoro Obiang. Nobody in the U.S. calls for a regime change there. No, the most brutal dictator of Africa (sorry Mr Kabila) was received with all honors in the White House last year.
Why? Ask the guys who sponsored the trip: The Mobil Oil Company
#45
RW:
I am not so sure that the 1992 quote that you cite, does not represent Colin Powell's current views. Remember, he is part of the Bush/Norquist Rainbow Coalition. Anyone who believes that "islam is peace" is scary. America's greatness is a factor of its secularism. Early American Puritan forms were, like Islam, recipes for social idiocy.
#51
Well how are you suppose to start a rebel cause hiding behind the Danish red cross,come on man,we are the evil empire.you got to destroy us or we will rule the world.
#52
Danish Mermaid, Looking through this thread four things rankled me more than all of the others. You spoke of the only radiation in Iraq being "except all that depleted uranium the U.S. left there". Do you know what depleted uranium really is? I look forward to your explanation, which I will be glad to critique if you make one. Second, you say that "Give the inspectors 6 months and I'm sure the Europeans would share the bill that keeping the troops in place would cost.". With all due respect, the concept of the Europeans PAYING the United States anything is laughable. Even if they promised to do so, the weaseling of France, Germany, and Belgium both in NATO and the UN has destroyed any credibility you might have had. Your [Old European governments] word is worthless. Third, you state in reference to rogue states getting nuclear weapons, " We will have to learn to live with them, just like we learned to live with the Soviet bombs.". The only reason that you were able to feel safe enough to "live with" Soviet nuclear weapons was the fact that the United States was willing to risk Soviet nuclear attack and to retaliate if you were attacked by any means. We were your shield and guardian. Tell pray, since Europe no longer wants our protection [and given Europe's reaction we may no longer be willing to give it], how do you plan to learn to live with nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists? After watching what France did to Turkey, do you trust their protection? [COFFEE WARNING] Does Europe plan to spend sufficiently to defend itself? Finally, you failed to respond to the risk of Saddam giving weapons to terrorist groups. Osama Bin Laden [may his head be collected by a Navy SEAL soon!] himself enjoined his followers and all Muslims to defend Saddam. Al Queda has trained in, and received succor from, Iraq. So if an Iraqi weapon turned up in Washington, DC and millions of Americans died; who do we retaliate against? And if we said it was Iraqi, would you Europeans accept that, or lobby to have us do nothing. I certainly do not expect you to come " to bury the dead and care for the survivors", because you will believe that we deserved it and more. We are the target, by past experience and by open declaration of our enemies. We have a different perspective than you do in Copenhagen. NATO is dead. We accept that. The UN is about to be as dead as the League of Nations, for the same reasons that killed the League. So be it.
We will defend ourselves as we must. "With the world if we can. With our few, loyal friends if necessary. ALONE AGAINST THE ENTIRE WORLD IF WE MUST.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 22:34 Comments ||
Top||
#54
I'm not hiding behind the Danish Red Cross, I'm working for it. And right now I'm busy preparing shelter and aid for the refugees we're expecting in Jordan.
During the Gulf War, American and British forces introduced armor-piercing ammunition made of depleted uranium, a radioactive and toxic waste. By war's end, more than 290,000 kilograms (640,000 pounds) of depleted uranium contaminated equipment and the soil on the battlefields of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and southern Iraq. It contaminated drinking water. Kidney damage and cancer rates of Iraqi children, especially in Basra, have exploded. The line between conventional and unconventional warfare is irreversibly blurred.
Nuclear weapons in the hands of dictators is not a nice thought indeed. But that has happened already. Nuclear arms in the hands of terrorists would be a nightmare. Maybe it has happened already. Maybe the "suitcase bombs" are already in place. Maybe some underpaid Russian nuclear scientist is up for sale. I don't know. All I know is that a war against a country that has none wont stop this. All you will do is to spike a race for these arms.
What will you do if Iran has a nuke next year? On which ground will you attack Iran? Self defense again?
And aren't Osama and his buddies roaming Pakistan?
The only thing to stop terrorists is intelligence, infiltration, control. And eradicating the fertile ground for terrorism. A US general in destroyed Baghdad will not help.
#55
Sure we will take out iran,then syria the french the germans we are the evil empire you know,we are taking everything over.better hurry up with that rebellion
Wow--go try to have fun for a few hours and everything goes mad!
One thing I'd like you to remember is that those depleted uranium rounds you mention would not be there if it had not been for Saddam's totally unprovoked invasion of Kuwait! Before you go blaming us for sowing radioactive waste around the Middle East, understand that we had reason to do so. It was not an exercise we performed because we had nothing better to do.
I think trying to have a civil debate with you in this forum is pointless. Let's just agree to disagree.
Hopefully, in another year, everything will be much more peaceful in the world, and we can look back on all this and laugh. In the meantime, best of luck to you in Jordan and try to stay safe.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/07/2003 23:07 Comments ||
Top||
#57
Danish Mermaid, I quote you, "depleted uranium, a radioactive and toxic waste.". Let us speak of uranium. All elements, including uranium are made up of isotopes [variations in the number of neutrons in the nucleus of the atom]. 99.27% of uranium is U-238. U-238 is flat, dead inert. It lays there and does nothing. The fraction of 1% remaining is U-235. THAT is the radioactive, unstable isotope of uranium. To make an enriched uranium nuclear device you have to build a fairly large industrial base capable of separating the two. Iraq is trying to do that, incidentally, but is concentrating on buying already concentrated U-235 from any number of rogue states. What you have once you have removed the U-235 from a quantity of uranium is PURE U-238. It is referred to as uranium that has been depleted of its fissionable material; i.e. Depleted Uranium. It is not radioactive. It is inert. Its advantage in weaponry is that it is denser than lead, iron, or other metals. Without going into a long treatise into the theory and practice of killing tanks, let us simply say that in some means of defeating armor plating, you apply kinetic energy to the target. Kinetic Energy = 1/2(Mass) x Velocity squared. If you increase the mass, you punch through thicker armor. Thus, depleted uranium penetrators. But the penetrator is NON-radioactive and inert. There IS a health problem, including with our troops. It is called Gulf War Syndrome. One of the leading theories is that it is caused by exposure to minute amounts of nerve agents. Of course that cannot be, because only Saddam has quantities of these, and he either really doesn't have them, or is too principled to use them according to the Europeans.
You also ask,"What will you do if Iran has a nuke next year?". Ma'am, you may not have noticed this, but we are functionally already in a World War. We face on one side the transnational forces of Wahabi Islam [Jihadistan is a good enough shorthand for them] and on the other the death throes of the last Communist states. This is a fight for survival. Europe may believe that claiming neutrality will protect then. Assuming that America and its allies win, they will be safe. I suspect that if we lose, your neutrality will avail you naught. But the Old Europe is not really neutral. It seems to have chosen sides. At least it gives every indication of doing so, and by doing so given up the supposed protections of neutrality.
To Frank and Fred: I apologise if the length of my posts has offended anyone. I know I am a wordy bugger.
#58
Frank - I definitely think this set of comments has set some sort of record. I don't know if I'd call it comments or an argument, though...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/07/2003 23:32 Comments ||
Top||
#59
I am sorry too,it just when i saw the anti war protest all i saw was bush was hitler and we are the new nazi's i fiqured if we are the evil empire we should act like it :)
#60
The cost of keeping our boys over there is a lot higher than anyone has talked about. My understanding is that just having them in theatre runs on the order of several billion dollars a month in direct costs alone. To be able to keep them over the (hellish) summer would require bases that, even if the Kuwaitis were willing, would cost billions more.
A large portion of the $60Bn pricetag for war has already been paid just by deploying the troops. Another portion is going to be for bringing them home.
The incremental cost of active military operations is significantly less than the cost of keeping the troops there for another 6 months.
So, what would we actually GET for the extra $30Bn for sitting on our thumbs for 6 months? Do you have the slightest belief that Saddam would change his mind?
As far as I can see, another 6 months is just more time for things to go wrong. Saddam might get that U-235 he's been lookin' for. He might decide to give his buddies some Botulinum toxin. Dr. Taha might slip and annihilate the human race.
Me, I look at that last one and.. I can only hope that March 17th isn't too late.
#61
"depleted uranium, a radioactive and toxic waste."
*Throws up hands* That's it. Now I KNOW she's a twit.
Honey, when I was a physics major, we PLAYED with natural uranium rods in our student reactor. Not depleted uranium, since it wouldn't make the damn thing go. Toxic? Yeah, if ingested like lead. Radioactive? Just barely. It's an Alpha particle emitter, one of the forms of radiation easiest to shield from. Nobody's too sure about its half-life, because it is so damn long its the only fitting yardstick to use when measuring the age of the Universe!
A man believed to be on a suicide mission was killed yesterday afternoon when a bomb apparently intended for a Catholic-run school for girls went off prematurely in Tacurong City, Sultan Kudarat. Police and military authorities in Tacurong said the device exploded about 100 meters from the Notre Dame of Tacurong for Girls at around 3 p.m. Maj. Julieto Ando, spokesman for the 6th Infantry Division based in Cotabato City, said investigators suspect the bomber, who was riding a motorcycle, meant to plant the device inside the school, but it went off before he got there. They do seem to have a problem with timers, don't they? I think it's that a.m.-p.m. thing, myself...
Sultan Kudarat Gov. Pax Mangundatu identified the suspected bomber as Sammy Abubakar, a resident of Nuling, Sultan Kudarat. Mangundatu said shrapnel from the bomb injured a student and her relative. They were treated in a hospital and declared out of danger. Mangundatu said Abubakar placed the bomb under the motorcycleâs seat. Bet that hurt — briefly!
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 12:22 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
However, as a practical matter, there probably has been more than one young man who has gone off prematurely while trying to get to a Catholic school girl.
Indonesian police have handed over to prosecutors the first of the key Bali bomb suspects, starting the countdown to his trial. The suspect Amrozi was taken to the prosecutors' offices along with extensive physical evidence to be used in the case. The car that Amrozi drove to Bali, as well as the boxed wreckage of the van used to carry the bomb to the Sari club and remnants of chemicals used to make the charge have all been handed over to prosecutors. They now have two months to begin the case against him. He has been charged with providing the vehicles and chemicals used. He smiled and told reporters he was only guilty of shopping. Normally, we don't consider shopping to be a capital offense, but in his case we'll make an exception...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 11:23 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Central Asia-Caucasus Institute has a brief paper on al-Walid, the successor to Khattab in Chechnya. I've got it commented on WOTWeek, if anyone's following events in the Caucasus right now.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 11:20 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
I finally got around to fixing the bug in the Weekly page. It works for all dates from 9/11/01 to the present now. It's still not whippy quick, but then, it's pulling an entire week's postings and comments, and properly sort them, so I guess we can't expect it to burn...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 08:42 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Israeli troops seized a chunk of the northern Gaza Strip on Friday and set up key positions there in what an army commander said would be an open-ended stay to try to stop rocket attacks on nearby Israeli towns. About 100 tanks and other combat vehicles took control of four square miles, lined by two Palestinian towns and a refugee camp, carving out what Israeli media called a new "security zone." It was the first sizable reoccupation of a Gaza residential area in 29 months of fighting. In the past, troops have staged quick incursions. "This action is a little different than the actions we have carried out until now," said an army commander, Col. Yoel Strick. "If we decide it is necessary, we will hold on to this area for the foreseeable future." When asked by an Israel Radio reporter if that meant the army was reoccupying part of Gaza, Strick said, "Yes, indeed." So now, when the Paleos bitch about being occupied, we can remind them of how they got that way...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 04:43 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has asked senior Palestinian Liberation Organization official Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to be the PA prime minister. But Abu Mazen said he was still waiting to hear if he would be granted significant power as prime minister before deciding whether to accept the post. "The position is not as important as the powers of the prime minister...I will respond positively or negatively after I know what powers the prime minister will have," Abbas told Reuters. "I mean, the Paleostinian Authority is lacking in authority, even since the IDF pulled Yasser's pants down and knocked him over, and then gave him a dutch rub on international terriblevision. So I'm supposed to be the guy in charge of something that's in charge of nothing? I don't think so..."
While Abbas lacks Arafat's charisma and high-media profile and distinct bodily odor, he commands respect among Palestinian officials, Israel and the United States as the behind-the-scenes brains of the PLO always assuming there are any. He has often been mentioned as a potential successor to Arafat. Except for the fact that nobody pays any attention to him and he's a crook.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 06:38 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
I've grouped all the bin Laden stories from today under Afghanistan, even though some are taking place in Pakland. If they're not concerned about where the border is, neither am I. Makes it easier to follow...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 04:25 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Israeli troops shot dead two Palestinian gunmen trying to infiltrate a Jewish settlement near the West Bank city of Hebron on Friday shortly after militants killed three Israelis in a neighboring settlement, military sources said. They said troops spotted the two attackers trying to slip into the Negohot settlement and opened fire, killing them. The raid was foiled less than two hours after two gunmen infiltrated the Kiryat Arba settlement, killing three Israelis and wounding eight before they were shot dead.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 03:48 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Israeli forces have arrested the Palestinian man accused of being the top bomb maker in the hardline group, Hamas. Abdallah Jamal Barghuti, 31, has been accused of having prepared the bombs used in a string of attacks last year which killed around 50 Israelis and wounded hundreds. He was arrested near the West Bank city of Ramallah after a year-long investigation. Just lock him away and move on to the next one...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/07/2003 11:23 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It sure seems like IDF has arrested or killed all of the senior management of Hamas/Fatah...how come there's always more?
#2
Notice that this guy's actually pretty old for a Hamas "expert". A lot of the guys they get are 19-25 years old.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/07/2003 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Just lock him away and move on to the next one...
Better yet, chain the guy to a metal pole and place a bomb just out of his reach and set the timer for 30 minutes. That ought to be enough time for him to contemplate his sins before going to meet Allah.
Another slam of the spoon on the high chair
North Korea has warned ships to stay out of a portion of the Sea of Japan, a possible precursor to a missile test this weekend, Pentagon officials said Friday. North Korea's notice to mariners outlines an "exclusion zone" off its coast that's nearly identical to one announced before it tested an anti-ship missile Feb. 25. The North Korean missile test last month came on the eve of the inauguration of South Korean president Roh Moo-huyn and amid escalating tensions over Pyongyang's refusal to abandon its nuclear weapons programs. U.S. officials downplayed that missile test, saying it involved a small missile and not one of North Korea's stock of long-range ballistic missiles.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/07/2003 11:00 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Rumsfeld said Army Gen. Leon LaPorte, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, and others are considering ways to realign American forces on the Korea Peninsula, noting the location of U.S. forces in South Korea and in Europe is a leftover from the Cold War. "We still have a lot of forces in Korea arranged very far forward where it's intrusive in their lives and where they really aren't very flexible or usable for other things," Rumsfeld said. Now that we have to watch our backs, as well as our fronts, we're not really in such a good spot, now are we?
Rumsfeld said South Korea possesses an economy probably 25 to 35 times greater than North Korea's, adding that the South Koreans have "all the capability in the world of providing the kind of up-front deterrent that's needed." Pay for it yourself, you ungrateful brats. Now that you mention it, there's a big pile of money that could be better spent somewhere that we aren't right smack in the middle of a freaking mess. Hmmm...glad you pointed that out.
Rodong Sinmun is gonna hate it that Rumsfeld was impolite enough to point out that next to SKor, NKor ain't squat...
"And I suspect that what we'll do is we'll end up making some adjustments there," Rumsfeld said. "Whether the forces would come home ... move farther south on the peninsula or ... move to some neighboring ... are being sorted out. The same thing's true with our forces in Western Europe." You don't like us, fine, we don't like you much anymore either
Rumsfeld said U.S. officials are consulting with the South Korean government ahead of making a final decision. New South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has asked the United States to study the bilateral relationship. The presence of American troops has become increasingly controversial. And their withdrawl will become even more controversial for you, ya Mooh-hyun!
White House and defense officials last month said the United States was considering shifts in global military deployments, including the thousands of U.S. troops in Europe. About 70,000 of the nearly 110,000 U.S. troops in Europe are in Germany, a vocal foe of a possible U.S.-led war against Iraq. We have some NEW Europe friends that we'd rather play with now.
Having 110,000 troops in Europe is ridiculous, ten years after the end of the Cold War...
Rumsfeld did not state when a decision would be made, but said the Pentagon is "almost through the process of looking at our force structure" around the world. He added that whatever changes would not change that "we are engaged in the world (and) we care about assisting our friends and allies." That would be our real allies, not our pretend ones.
Posted by: Becky ||
03/07/2003 11:08 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He could be blowing smoke. Let's see if we get some attitude adjustment from the SK's if they really DO think we're thinking about leaving. And if we do leave Kimmie can shove his 2 nukes up his
ass. His main target just went off the board.
#2
Let's all remember that when Americans expanded westward, the military installations and forts followed. As each territory and state was absorbed into the fabric of contemporary civilization, the military was uprooted from old forts and moved along to where their attention was needed. There was just as much squawking when the government contracts and money went with them in the old west as you hear today. It's just that it is the world and not the continental US anymore. No need to have the military stationed among a horde of sod busters who have no appearent threat to them.
Posted by: Don ||
03/07/2003 11:47 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Do you think China would be happy if we pulled our troops from South Korea? Perhaps they would show a little more interest in what North Korea is doing if there was the possibility that the troops pulled from SK would going to Taiwan.
#6
Rumsfeld said South Korea possesses an economy probably 25 to 35 times greater than North Korea's, adding that the South Koreans have "all the capability in the world of providing the kind of up-front deterrent that's needed."
*snickers* What Rummie mean by "up front deterrent" is obviously "YOU take the brunt of the initial wave, and after you've worn it down a bit, we'll be along to mop up the mess."
Taiwan would LOVE to have our troops. Guaranteed. Let's move 1000 there RIGHT NOW, and see Mainland Red China's reaction...
#7
According to the times, it looks like the SKs are getting nervous and insisting that we move no troops. If he's bluffing, its gotten their attention.
Money quote from a key ingrate legislator:
"American troops are something like hostages to attack by North Korea," said Mr. Song. "Maybe this kind of action means some kind of signal for a pre-emptive strike against North Korea."
Ironic given that SK has spent the last few years insisting on having a policy on NK independent from us. Be careful what you ask for.
The unceasing GI crimes in South Korea clearly prove once again that the U.S. imperialist aggressors are shameless criminals who stoop to any murder, violence and plunder, says Rodong Sinmun today in a signed commentary.
It goes on: Yes, we knew it would...
A U.S. lance corporal drove a truck, hitting a civilian and injuring him in Popwon town, Phaju city, Kyonggi Province of South Korea a few days ago. Earlier, a U.S. oil truck slammed into a car running from an opposite direction, causing a serious accident. Two GIs were caught while running away after stealing a steel camera and other valuables at a bar in Tongduchon city, Kyonggi Province. So 2 traffic accidents, and a couple of drunks. C'mon, Rodung. You can do better then that. Make stuff up. No village massacres? No germ warfare experiments? U.S. imperialist aggressor troops in South Korea are killing civilians for no reason and committing all sorts of crimes. This is the reality of South Korea. What about the bellicose forces? What atrocities have they committed today?
The U.S. is keen to bring the disaster of a nuclear war to all the Koreans in the north and the south. The South Korean people can never be free from painful misfortune and sufferings nor can the disgraceful history of our nation come to an end as long as the U.S. imperialist occupation forces stay in South Korea. Little Freudian slip there Rodung?
The main cause of the misfortune should be rooted out. I really think Rodung is starting to lose his fastball. He could mail this one in.
Posted by: tu3031 ||
03/07/2003 11:10 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Twice in 1974-75,while in Korea,I was ordered to take the military driver's license test.Both times I failed(deliberately)bescause I did not want to pay for running over a chicken+paying for all the eggs that chicken would have laid+plus all the chickens that would have hatched from those eggs.
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.
