Claims by a Pakistani politician that Al Qaida chief Osama bin Laden had been captured were immediately denied by Islamabad as "baseless." The U.S. government also denied the report. Washington said it had no information to substantiate the claim by Agha Murtaza Poya, vice-chairman of Pakistani Awami Tehreek political party, who told Iranian Radio, monitored by the BBC, that "reliable sources" had informed him bin Laden had been arrested by "those who have been chasing him." Poya did not identify the source nor indicate where bin Laden had been captured and by whom but said his sources "have never given me wrong information". I confess. I have him in my basement...
"According to my source the U.S. will announce Osama bin Laden's capture at a time coinciding with the planned attack on Iraq," the politician said. Should be any time now...
Pakistan's Interior Minister Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat dismissed the claim as unfounded. "It is absolutely baseless, this is absolutely unfounded" the minister told Gulf News. "Agha's a nut..."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 07:52 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Source: Pak Daily
Allied Forces has initiated massive operation for hunting Al-Qaida and Taliban network in Paktia. Details have revealed that Allied forces under the umbrella of Al-Qaida hunt have started searching houses and other places without any notice. Eyewitnesses have also disclosed that a complete restriction has also been imposed on display of weapons. Every car is also stopped during patrolling for checking Al-Qaida network. They have also revealed that more than one dozen people have also been arrested from Bagram and shifted to separate Jails. The said situation is tightened in the area of Loger near Paktia Province. Gotta use that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad data before it gets stale...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 07:27 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A U.S. special forces convoy was ambushed in eastern Afghanistan, and five of the assailants were killed in a subsequent gunfight and coalition air assault, an army spokesman said Thursday. No coalition forces were injured. About 20 attackers fired on the convoy with small arms and machine guns Wednesday from ridges overlooking a road between the towns of Gardez and Khost, Col. Roger King said. "Take that, Yankee scum! Ouch! Ouch!"
Two attackers were captured and taken into custody for questioning, he said. At least five others were confirmed killed, he said, and the fate of the others was not immediately clear. "Where'd they go, Sarge?"
"Don't know, you check the bottom of your boots?"
"Damm, that'll never come out."
The U.S. special forces, accompanied by a few Afghan militiamen, called in F-16 fighters and A-10 aircraft as support in a chase and firefight that lasted several hours, King said. He said the planes dropped two 500-pound bombs on suspected enemy positions. The special forces "were chasing these people as they tried to withdraw over an extended distance of rough terrain," King said. "It went on for about 2 1/2 to 3 hours." "Run away!"
"The road that goes through the pass is a traditional ambush site," King said. It was not immediately clear who carried out Wednesday's attack, but U.S. officials believe al-Qaida, remnants of the ousted Taliban regime and loyalists of renegade rebel leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar are active in the area. They sound like Hek's boys.
The groups are believed to have joined forces to attack coalition forces and the U.S. backed government of President Hamid Karzai. The group of attackers "was obviously hostile to the coalition because it was an easily recognizable convoy in that it had Humvees included," King said. Bet he said this with a straight face.
The size of the group was similar to a band of Taliban fighters that killed five Afghan soldiers and kidnapped two others in the southern Helmand province several weeks ago, King said. Picked on the wrong guys this time.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 10:35 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"The road that goes through the pass is a traditional ambush site,"
It's like those shrines you see along American highways, where someone died in an auto accident.
"Ah, yes, my son. This is where they got Uncle Otto, and before that, Grandpa's cousin Irv. And we got old, Ugly Leon here, and took his goats."
Talal Fadal emerged from his neighborhood mosque after evening prayers, tucked his white headgear behind his shoulders and professed his great admiration for the United States. "We wish we could be an American state," Fadal, a Kuwaiti businessman, said Thursday, adding without hesitation that he was "200 percent for the removal of Saddam Hussein." To hear Fadal and dozens of other Kuwaitis talk about a possible war in Iraq is to witness a rare sight in today's fractured world: Support for the United States and its plans in Iraq is so sanguine among most Kuwaitis it borders on the unequivocal. It's only coincidence that those countries that the U.S. helped liberate most recently are the ones who like us. Give them 50 years, and we'll be infidels again, but it's nice while it lasts...
As Kuwait prepares to serve as the staging ground for what is thought of in most of the world as a deeply controversial war, its citizens are rubbing their hands at the prospect of a post-Saddam Iraq and openly praising Washington's vision to turn Iraq into a model for democracy in the Middle East, a goal often described in Europe as quixotic at best. The lefties spent a lot of time in the first Gulf War hollering that the Kuwaitis were "just as bad as the Iraqis," which simply wasn't a true statement. They're anything but a democracy, but they're a benevolent monarchy, edging toward a participatory government. At the time of the Iraqi invasion they had the highest per-capita income in the world, with about half their income from overseas investments rather than from oil. Unlike the Soddies, they haven't pissed it all away on jihad.
Kuwaitis say there is no mainstream political debate over whether or not war against Saddam is just. "It's not an issue," said Shamlan Essa, a professor of political science at Kuwait University. "Kuwait is the only country in the world today that supports America regardless of what their interests may or may not be." Behind this unwavering support, analysts say, is a mixture of gratitude toward the United States for leading the liberation of Kuwait 12 years ago, a hatred for Saddam Hussein, and the fact that many Kuwaitis were educated in the United States and lived there for years. In addition, Kuwaiti companies are well placed to grab business opportunities in a post-Saddam Iraq. See what I mean? Friends are people with whom you have something in common...
"If it wasn't for the United States and Britain, we would still be occupied by Iraq today," said Fawzi Sultan, the head of a government committee on economic reform, expressing a frequently heard sentiment. Asked about a possible war in Iraq, Sultan said, "Without hesitation, I think Bush is right." To be sure, Kuwait is not free from anti-American feelings, especially among conservative Islamic groups. Islamic radicals are blamed for the January killing of one American citizen here and the wounding of at least two soldiers in shootings last year. If we have nutters living in Buffalo, we shouldn't be surprised that there are nutters living in Kuwait. Binny's spokesman, Sully, used to be a Kuwaiti until he was stripped of his citizenship. What's important is how they deal with them...
But anti-American gestures are so unpopular in the country these days that fundamentalist groups vying for support in upcoming elections have studiously avoided public criticism of the United States. Last week, Hakem Mutairi, a spokesman for one of Kuwait's leading fundamentalist groups, Al Salafiya, denied a report published in an Arabic-language newspaper that quoted him as saying, "If the public feels that we are living under an imperialistic America, it is given the right to resist imperialism." The comment might not have raised eyebrows if spoken in Paris or London. But Mutairi disavowed the words in a fax to the newspaper the next day, saying he had been "erroneously quoted." "Even the Islamic fundamentalists are trying to keep quiet as far as America is concerned," said Essa. It wouldn't have raised an eyebrow in Paris because the Wehrmacht has been gone for, oh, going on 60 years. Except for the kiddies, everyone in Kuwait can remember the joys of being Iraq's 19th province.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 08:44 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One never knows what to make of these professions of friendship. After 9/11, I heard that many Kuwaitis were naming their sons "Osama", because he had humbled the Great Satan. I also heard that the Kuwaitis were indignant on behalf of their Palestinian brethren, 300,000 of whom they tossed out of Kuwait after Gulf War v1.0.
It's not impossible for one or the other group to be a small but vocal minority, I suppose, but I was definitely given to understand that the pro-Americans were in the real minority.
#2
I know what you mean. But in the case of Kuwait it's undisputably disingenous if they are anti-American. It has to be. We didn't take their oil, we didn't annex them. We didn't kill them. We freed them and that was it. So whatever they feel for us they know personally is wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/13/2003 23:02 Comments ||
Top||
The British government declared open season on France yesterday in retaliation for its threat to veto the proposed UN resolution on Iraq. Sssh-h-h! Be vewy vewy quiet. I'm hunting weasels! Tony Blair, after weeks of restraint, openly criticised France in the Commons, as did other ministers. Officials have been told they have been freed by "the highest authority" to lay into the French. Relations have not been so bad since the Battle of Hastings De Gaulle vetoed Britain's entry to the common market in 1066 1963.
In Moscow, the US ambassador threatened the withdrawal of US support to Russia in just about everything several important areas. Russia has threatened to abstain or join France in using its security council veto.
At prime minister's question time, Mr Blair, whose aides have repeatedly ducked invitations to condemn French conduct, allowed himself a show of extreme irritation with the French president, Jacques Chirac, when he said he was working "flat out" to achieve a UN solution "on the basis of a compromise". That goal was "complicated when one nation is saying that, whatever the circumstances, it will veto a second resolution" — a clear dig at Mr Chirac's TV appearance on Monday night. The British government view is that France signed up to the previous Iraq resolution, 1441, last year, but every French action since has undercut attempts to save its own skin put pressure on Iraq. And to attack their mortal enemy — us.
Last night, Mr Blair was dining privately with Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, but Whitehall sees Germany's political plight and its virtual pacificism since 1945 in a very different light. "We'd prefer the Germans remain pacifists, thank you very much."
There was no official French reaction to Mr Blair's comments, but the size of his manhood difficulties did not escape the attention of the French press. "Bush's war destabilises Tony Blair" was Le Monde's front page headline, above a cartoon of a heavily armed GI telling a naked and vulnerable-looking Mr Blair: "You're a nice guy, Tony, but maybe I'll do the job without you." In Paris's view the real threat to the UN is not its veto but Washington and London's insistence on a necessary dangerous war they have failed to convince the world and the security council is necessary or justified. Of course, if your fingers are in your ears ...
A French foreign ministry spokesman said its position was "perfectly clear and consistent, and has been since the very start of all this. "Our hands are in the air. Of course that's our position, and we're sticking to it."
"First, the bumblers inspectors have failed miserably are progressing and must be allowed to do their job. Second, it must be they, and no one else reasonable, who decides when they have finished or been prevented from doing so. Lots of people get reviewed by others to see what kind of job they're doing. Happens all the time. Why not the inspectors, Dominique?
"That means, third, we cannot accept an ultimatum that would cut short their work and give the green light to war." The US ambassador to Paris, Howard Leach, has given no newspaper interviews and has made only one brief television appearance, in English, in which he contented himself with saying that Washington would consider a French veto a "very unfriendly gesture". "We're not saying that we'll nuke 'em tomorrow, but it'll be right unfriendly."
Analysts say it is difficult to see what direct economic sanctions the US could impose on France: consumer boycotts of wine, cheese and the like would have a limited but useful effect, and official trade sanctions are unlikely because they would have to embrace the EU and thus risk hurting such "loyal" partners as Britain and Spain. US corporate investment in France might tail off, as might American tourist dollars, and defence and aerospace companies dealing directly with the Bush administration would clearly suffer. But Washington cannot wave the carrot of development aid, debt write-offs or investment in infrastructure and industry, as it can in Russia.
The US ambassador in Moscow, Alexander Vershbow, urged Russia to "heavily weigh all the consequences" of using its veto. He said it could be cut out of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure and oilfields. US investment in energy and joint work on security, terrorism, the international space station, and building an anti-ballistic missile system would be at risk, and he pointed out that Russia's relationship with Nato was only just ending beginning.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/13/2003 10:44 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The WP is reporting that the documents we have on Iraq's nuke capability may be falsified.
But vodkapundit links to a Safire article "A shipment of 20 tons of HTPB [a binding agent for solid-fuel missile engines], whose sale to Iraq is forbidden by U.N. resolutions and the oil-for-food agreement, left China in August 2002 in a 40-foot container. It arrived in the Syrian port of Tartus (fortified by the Knights Templar in 1183, and the Mediterranean terminus for an Iraqi oil pipeline today) and was received there by a trading company that was an intermediary for the Iraqi missile industry, the end user. The HTPB was then trucked across Syria to Iraq."
#3
The French aren't good at much, but they are very good at pissing people off. Let's see how good they are at groveling when all this shit blows up in their face.
#5
[The U.S. ambassador in Moscow warns Russia that] "building an anti-ballistic missile system would be at risk".
Help me on this one. Have we previously proposed sharing ABM technology with the Russians? Say it ain't so!
Posted by: Tom ||
03/13/2003 11:18 Comments ||
Top||
#6
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Secretary of State Colin Powell said on Thursday there may be no vote on a U.N. resolution authorizing war against Iraq in a clear sign that Washington fears it may not garner sufficient support.
"The options remain, go for a vote and see what members say or not go for a vote," he told a U.S. congressional committee. "All the options that you can imagine are before us and we will be examining them today, tomorrow and into the weekend."
President Bush is feverishly lobbying members of the U.N. Security Council, where Washington needs 9 votes and no dissent from the five veto-holding powers to pass a resolution that may pave the way to a war to disarm Iraq.
The resolution would give Iraq a few days to satisfy the sponsors that it was giving up all weapons of mass destruction and fully cooperating in their disposal.
The U.S. push to use military force against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has run into dramatic opposition from powers like Russia and France, which earlier this week said it would veto any such resolution.
In what may be a hint at some flexibility, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said France wanted to preserve Security Council unity and was open to all possibilities.
"except what the U.S. wants"
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/13/2003 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"de Villepin said France wanted to preserve Security Council unity and was open to all possibilities of keeping Saddam in power"
I don't think his place in history is going to be next to Joan of Arc. Probably somewhere between Louis XVII and Napoleon II...
The populist Le Parisien went with "Chirac to Bush - It's No", and described the president as appearing "astonishingly oblivious calm under the circumstances", while the rightist Le Figaro unblushingly called him "utterly sure of himself; a white knight for peace, herald of the world's oppressed, ardent defender of a multipolar world". Hand me the bag please. Quick!
Sorry. It's already full...
Even Le Monde, among the most hostile of Mr Chirac's critics, denounced American "neo-imperialism" and said Mr Chirac's "noble and pertinent" aim was to "affirm a conception of world order in which the use of force is the last recourse and multilateralism is the rule". The leaders of every major party, from the Communists to the far-right National Front, were equally effusive, reflecting opinion polls that consistently show more than 80 per cent of the French oppose war. The constant surrendering must just wear you down.
The Communist leader, Marie-Georges Buffet, praised a "just and dignified decision". The opposition Socialist party's François Hollande hailed the president's pronouncement as "principled and proper", Mr Chirac's own UMP party lauded his "authority, clarity and strength". Even his arch-enemy, Jean-Marie Le Pen, said that he "approved such firm resolution to act against war".
Yes! Yes! France stands alone, to thwart unilateralism...
But amid the trumpet-blowing, few questioned whether the French president had any coherent vision of exactly where France's "battle against US hegemony" may lead. Similarly, few speculated on the bilateral consequences for France. We are too busy patting ourselves on the back for showing up the big, bad Americains.
During a television interview on Monday, Mr Chirac played down the significance of a French security council veto, pointing out that the US had employed the tactic 76 times since the UN's foundation in 1946, Britain 32 times and France 18 times - the last in 1989 over Panama. He also insisted France was not anti-American. "To suggest so would be absurd," he said. Well, Jocko. A lot of Americans have become anti-French thanks to you. Add that to your resume.
But France has not vetoed a US initiative since the Suez crisis in 1956. The political commentator, Alain Duhamel, said a French veto would be "a form of divorce" between America and France. Guillaume Parmentier, of the French Centre on the United States, said the political cost could be high. Washington would very probably "freeze France out on any number of political and diplomatic questions". Any number? How about ALL?
French companies, which between them exported more than $28bn (£17.5bn) of goods and services to the US last year, fear a backlash. But companies, such as those in the defence and aerospace industries, that deal directly with the US administration will be hit, and France's tourism industry may suffer. Some analysts also say that France has little idea of the impact on the UN of the current crisis. Please don't bring this up while Jacques is basking in his hero worship.
"What's at stake for them here, the bottom line of all this, is the way the international community manages future problems — France's whole vision of the way the world should be run," one diplomat said. "But what is that vision?" That vision: Beacause we know best, France should run the world and everyone should just do as they are told. It's so simplisme!
One of the first words the French president uttered during his TV interview was "multipolar". The idea of four or five more or less balanced power blocs in the world had been "very much part of Chirac's thinking since the end of the cold war", said Mr Parmentier. The problem, said another commentator, Philippe Moreau Defarges of the French Institute for International Relations, is that no one — least of all Mr Chirac — seems to have worked out clearly how this new "multipolar" world might function. Well, so what. Excuse me while I bask.
The UN will probably survive the crisis, but only after radical reform, Mr Defarges said. What it will look like afterwards is anyone's guess, "but if Mr Chirac has a coherent strategic vision on that question, he certainly hasn't exposed it". His strategy: If you can't beat them on the battlefield, take them on in the League of Nations, errr, UN. He'll "bask" for maybe another week or 10 days. Then the war will start, he'll become irrelevant again, and all that shit they aren't worrying about now, they'll really start worrying about.
#2
My inlaws have given up Perrier and French wine and that's really something because they are both from France! If Chirac can tick them off then he is really in trouble.
Posted by: Sam W ||
03/13/2003 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"ardent defender of a multipolar world"
Welcome to another 50 years of war.
Thanks, jack.
#4
I'm french, and utterly disgusted by Chirac, but I won't give up Perrier and wine, mind you...
Jacquouille is a serial loser who'd love a nobel piss prize, Dominique is a poet with delusions about re-establishing French Grandeur, 2/3 of the politicians are anti-US by nature (communists, trotskysts, gaullists, neo-fascists,...), Saddam is the best buddy of three presidential candidates (Chevènement, Chirac, Le pen), big business is drooling about future markets in Algeria, SA, Lebanon,... And everybody is afraid of the reactions of the 5 millions muslims unrestful community, but nobody will admit it in public. Same as before : we don't know where we're headed to, we're experiencing a unprecedented moral crisis, and we're in denial, period.
#5
Remember, Neville Chamberlain had the same universal popularity as Chirac now has in 1938 after the Munich Agreement giving the Sudetenland to Germany. Indeed when Churchill gave his famous speech against this betrayal of Czechoslavakia, he was nearly deselected as a Conservative candidate.
In 1940, Chamberlain was ousted and Churchill became prime minister. So fortunes and popularity can change very quickly. France and Chirac are riding high on a bubble of unreality. When that bubble bursts ...
Posted by: A ||
03/13/2003 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I wish I could take comfort in the fact that after the war we will give them their due, but Chirac is giving Bush such a thorough pounding he might be too busy wiping the blood from his face.
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/13/2003 13:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Perhaps the UN should move to France where it might be appreciated. Few New Yorkers would miss the UN and it doesn't bother France to have dictators running about. It'd be a short trip from UN offices in Paris to exile in the French Riviera.
#8
Prior to World War 2 the artworld was centered in Paris. The artworld should move back to France (I wouldn't be hurt if half of hollywood uprooted as well). Let them show the Piss-Christ in the Louvre and discuss it's artistic merits.
#9
Here's a thought for the payback:
Multipolarism is the division of the world into opposing camps. France has been attempting to arm several of these camps with nuclear weapons.
In short, French Multipolarism is the antithesis of world peace.
European workers going on strike! Can you believe that!
A European trade union organization has called on the 60 million workers it represents to stop work on Friday to protest against possible war in Iraq. ...and next week we'll strike against...something else. Wim Bergans, spokesman for the European Trade Union Confederation, said he expected union members across Europe to stop work for a symbolic 10 or 15 minutes around 12:00 p.m. (6 a.m. EST). He said he did not know how many workers would take part. 10 or 15 minutes? Looks like this day's shot to hell. Time to go home.
"We will walk in the streets, make some noise and explain why we are in the streets," Bergans said of plans by staff at ETUC's headquarters in Brussels. Wim sounds like he's really enthused about it.
ETUC's executive committee passed a resolution last week calling for the peaceful disarmament of Iraq. Its Web site lists planned action in Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Denmark and Belgium. In a separate action, the European Transport Workers' Federation has called on railway workers to strike on Friday against possible reduction in job security by on-going liberalization of the European Union's rail network. The EU strikes again!
Posted by: tu3031 ||
03/13/2003 10:46 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hmm, and in the 90s how big were the demonstrations when Milosovik was slaughtering everyone who made the mistake of not being a Serb -- RIGHT BLOODY NEXT DOOR!!!
Hypocrites.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/13/2003 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Oh, sure. Let's make Europe even less productive than it already is.
France's ongoing obstruction of US lead efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from power has decimated the authority of the UN, has prevented global economies from improving and has consequently reinforced the will and power of international terrorists. Adopt a Frog allows you to mail a 'personalized' letter directly to influential French officials who are based in the United States. There are four local frogs to choose from.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/13/2003 08:01 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Two police constables were killed and two others severely injured in a bomb attack by unidentified assailants in southern Khulna district on Tuesday evening. The legs of one of the injured were blown away, police and doctors said. The attack came when the four constables were on patrol duty. At least six powerful bombs were hurled at them and Ramesh and Shariful died on the spot. The attackers managed to flee, witnesses said. Three loaded shotguns carried by the victims are reportedly missing, while a rifle was recovered from the scene. Senior police officers remained tight-lipped about the missing shotguns. Since the attack, police have detained at least 30 people of the locality for questioning.
Also on Tuesday, police in a pre-dawn raid unearthed a training camp of the militant group Jama'atul Mujahideen, Bangladesh, in the northern frontier town of Chapainawabganj, and arrested five suspected militants. Police seized bombs and explosives but failed to catch any of the leaders of the extremist outfit as they, reportedly numbering five, managed to flee before the raid, police said. Meanwhile, a 15-member army team of explosives experts defused seven grenades on a school ground in southern Jessore district. We don't get a lot of news coming out of Bangladesh. When we do, it tends to look familiar...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 07:56 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
At least 10 people were killed in a rush-hour blast that went off in a commuter train, according to a local member of parliament. Kirit Somaiya, speaking to CNN, said some of the dead were women as the blast went off in a compartment reserved for women — a fixture on some Mumbai trains. Nice - punishment for not being muslim AND no burkas
Local media reports said at least 50 people were injured in the explosion on Thursday. The train, carrying commuters home, was pulling out of Mumbai's Mulund station when the blast occurred. A lawmaker from the ruling party told local television there were at least 200 people in the damaged car. Other witnesses told the private Aaj Tak television channel that they saw injured people being taken away in taxis. Pratiksha Naik said she reached the site a few minutes after the blast. "I saw police helping people smeared in blood out of the train," Naik told the television station. No group has claimed responsibility. Police say Islamic hardline groups have carried out at least two crude bomb attacks in the past four months in Bombay. The religion of peace�? Say it ain't so!
Security has been tightened in the metropolis and surveillance increased in public places, The Associated Press reported.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/13/2003 01:08 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The deteriorating situation in Afghanistan combined with a possible United States-led attack on Iraq and growing anti-US sentiments in Pakistan are creating a groundswell of dissent from hawkish elements within the Pakistan army — dissent that President General Pervez Musharraf is attempting to quell through new plans to reshuffle the army leadership. Well-placed sources told this correspondent that the reshuffle, which could take place within weeks, is expected to involve all crucial positions — including the important army corps based in Rawalpindi, Mangla, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta. Changes are also expected in the first and second tiers of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), including the replacement of the present ISI director-general, Lieutenant-General Ehsan ul Haq, with the present Corps Commander of Mangla, Lieutenant-General Javed Alam Khan. At the same time, the heads of the ISI's internal and external wings are also likely to be changed. The last head of the ISI, General Mahmood Ahmad along with the previous corps commander, Lt General Aziz, were both Islamists who oversaw the running of the Taliban and the Kashmiri Jihadis. General Ahmed was the guy who was sent to see Mullah Omar with the message that he must hand over Bin Ladin, but instead told him the exact opposite. He apparently became a 'born again' Jihadi during Pakistan's undeclared Kargil war with India in 1999. His replacement, Ehsan El Haq, was somewhat loyal to Musharaff, but he was also a Pashtun who most likely turned a blind eye to the former members of the ISI's 'Afghanistan Desk' continued support of their old proxies the Taliban and Hekmatyr. General Aziz was formerly in overall command of the ISI's Joint Intelligence North, which oversaw the terrorist training camps in both Afghanistan and Pakistan which turned out Jihadis to be used against the Indian army in Kashmir.
The impending changes come against a background of Pakistan's failure over the past year to maintain influence over important factions currently vying for power in Afghanistan. After the Taliban retreated from Afghanistan in early 2002, Pakistan's strategic interests suffered due to its relations with its neighbor to the west, where the new president, Hamid Karzai, although a Pashtun, is perceived as a US puppet. After former Afghan prime minister Gulbuddin Hekmatyar was expelled from Iran last year, he took over command of the shattered network of Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan militants and emerged as a leading resistance leader in Afghanistan against US forces. Asia Times Online pointed out last year (The new Afghan jihad is born) that Pakistan, desperate to maintain influence in Afghanistan, had revived its former contacts with Afghan commanders affiliated with the Hezb-e-Islami Afghanistan. As part of these efforts, the ISI offered support to several commanders allied with the Hezb-e-Islami in areas near the Pakistani borders, including Gazni, Jalalabad, Kunhar and Kandahar. The purpose was not to support the US opposition in Afghanistan, but to safeguard Pakistani interests along the Pak-Afghan border.
They're still doing the "sphere of influence" thing...
However, these areas have since become hotbeds of resistance to US forces. According to sources in the South Waziristan Agency, rebels based in Gazni, about 110 miles from Wana (the district headquarters of the agency), fire mortar shells and missiles on US positions almost every night and then flee. When US forces chase them, they silently cross the border back into Pakistan.
If they couldn't do that, they wouldn't be firing the mortars and missiles, which also, I'd guess, come from Pakland. It doesn't appear we have an Afghan jihad, but a Pak jihad — just like in Kashmir...
The situation is very obvious to US authorities, who have silently conveyed complaints to the Pakistani foreign office. As a result, Foreign Secretary Riaz Khokhar forwarded the protest to Musharraf, adding his own insistence that Pakistan could not afford to play a double game. If it continued, it would simply mean that the country would lose whatever US goodwill it had gained after September 11, 2001. Sources said that after these reactions, Musharraf personally took on the concerned officials and asked them not to play around with the national interest and not to take decisions on their own. After these developments, another division of government was formed, headed by serving Lieutenant-General Khalid Qidwai, to coordinate matters between the foreign office and the ISI.
But the jihadis continue playing their games, with ISI backing...
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
03/13/2003 10:55 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And yesterday, Cmdr. Quereshi of the ISI exhonerated Jamaat-i-Islami, against well substantiated claims that it harbored al-Qaeda terrorists, including Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
On Nov. 17, 2000, the BBC reported that "60%" of Pakistanis who were polled, answered that they wanted to live abroad. Prior to 9-11, Pakistan had almost zero foreign currency reserves. Now they have over $6 billion. They are flush with cash, and it is getting into the hands of the terrorists, through the JI/MMA.
If the Bush administration - polluted with Grover Norquist's slavish regard for CAIR, ISNA, AMC (principals to his consultant group), MSA, etc - had not made alliance with Pakistan, the terror state would have liquidated Jamaat-i-Islami long ago, and the government would be begging the US to take the Arab jihadis off their hands. As I write, MMA killers are conducting a liquidation campaign against their MQM enemies in Sindh. They are doing it because the Bush administration is subsidizing jihad, in exchange for the occasional arrest of a redundant al-Qaeda member. Further, in America, the FBI is being steared away from scrutiny of the ISNA/ICNA, whose members deliver much of the $12 billion that overseas Pakistanis send to the terror state every year.
On a ten point pro-active/detractive, either-way scale, with zero being absolutely worthless, the alliance with Pak-terror, must rate at -8. Once the bombs start dropping in Iraq, MMA surrogates will start killing Americans in Afghanistan, and God knows what the state subsidized MSA jihadis in America, will do.
The senior American general who would command U.S. troops in any military action against Iraq is in Qatar, visiting his forward command center. The visit by General Tommy Franks is part of a tour he is making of several countries in the Middle East. Ohfergawdsake! Get out there with your troops and stay there, dammit!
A spokesman for the forward command at Qatar's As-Sayliyah base told VOA that General Franks spent his second day in the country meeting with staff and conferring with commanders in the field. The official declined to provide details of the visit or say what other countries the general might visit. General Franks has not met with the news media on this trip, with the exception of an interview with the American broadcast network, ABC. He told the network on Thursday that if President Bush decides to take military action against Iraq, his forces are ready. "We have sufficient - I use the word capacity, not levels of troops, not counts of bombs - we have the military capacity to do the job that America's military would be asked to do," he said. Stop talking like a lawyer and get on station. Or is all this going to be run at the subordinate command level? Franks really worries me. I keep thinking "Westmoreland." I hope I'm being ungenerous...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 09:18 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Australia's special forces in the Middle East have been given their mission should war break out against Iraq - to locate weapons of mass destruction threats to coalition forces and neutralise the impact on troops if the attacks occur. "The strategic imperative for the Australians is weapons of mass destruction," a source said. "The operational and tactical side of the deployment flows from that objective." According to the insider the Australian military and its US and British allies are concerned that Saddam Hussein, with his regime at stake, will use chemical or biological weapons to slow and demoralise the US-led ground advance to Baghdad.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 07:43 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Prime Minister John Howard today launched a blistering attack on France as he hit the airwaves to sell his case for war against Iraq, a day after his nationally televised address. The Bush administration backed down overnight from its demands that the latest UN resolution on Iraqi disarmament be voted on by tomorrow but Mr Howard supported the move and denied the US was treading water. Instead, he blamed France for destroying any hope of peacefully disarming Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, echoing the sentiments of British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "We won't achieve that peaceful disarmament if we continue to have spoiling tactics from say the French, who appear intent on saying no to everything irrespective of its merit," Mr Howard told the Nine Network. "I think it's regrettable that the spoiling role some countries have played have made that kind of outcome quite unlikely, next to impossible." There was an article posted today that said we don't have any friends. He wasn't thinking of Tony Blair and John Howard, nor of Aznar in Spain, nor of the Portuguese, nor of the Eastern Europeans. Friends are people with whom you have something in common.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 07:40 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
4:50PM PST -
Fox News - Bret Baer - just broke a story saying that U.S. Military spokesman revealed that Iraq has mobilized troops towards the Kuwaiti border in the south and has also mobilized scud launchers in the west desert capable of launching scuds into Israel - developing? Speculation is that saddam may jump the gun and start this on his own
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/13/2003 06:59 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A Saudi opposition group - MIRA - which is based in Britain, has been reporting large US troop movements in Saudi Arabia for the last week. It is possible that Gulf War2 will be fought on the ground like GW1. Only the pinschers won't be halting until they reach Baghdad. I suspect that the Scud forces will be the first to defect.
B-2 Stealth bombers were headed Thursday to bases closer to Iraq, and a high-ranking Democratic congressman called it a sign that war was at hand. An undisclosed number of the radar-evading planes left Wednesday evening from Whiteman Air Force Base, where all 21 are stationed, said base spokeswoman 2nd Lt. Kat Ohlmeyer. Not all the planes were deployed, she said. In Washington, Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri said the repositioning tells him that military action against Saddam Hussein will start soon. "I'm convinced it's going to happen," said Skelton, ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, whose Missouri district includes Whiteman.
The planes were flying to Fairford Royal Air Force Base in England and the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, a British protectorate. About 200 technicians and mechanics left Missouri last week for those destinations. Most likely, but unofficial. AF won't say until later.
Diego Garcia was a stopover point for B-2s returning from the initial wave of bombing in Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. Good hunting!
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 03:09 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
RAF Tornados were ready last night to strike a crucial blow to Saddam Hussein â by unleashing deadly new Storm Shadow missiles. The 15 GR4 bombers will spearhead the blitz on Iraqâs vital command bunkers alongside US and Australian counterparts. And they are banking on a delivery of the 1,300kg stealth cruise bombs in time for the opening bombardment.
The Storm Shadows are so new they have never been used in battle. But military top brass believe the weapon will help crush Saddamâs command structure within days. The missiles have a range of 180 miles and it will mean RAF pilots will be able to avoid the dangerous suicidal missions of the first Gulf War where they flew directly over enemy targets. The RAF squadron was expected to turn up in Kuwait or Turkey, but slipped unannounced into the Gulf state of Qatar a fortnight ago. The pilots are already carrying out round-the-clock training missions with their allied colleagues from the al Udeid air base outside Doha.
US military chiefs have given them the go-ahead to form a key part in the opening hours of military strikes.
Storm Shadow is the very latest âsmartâ weapon. It is accurate to within a few feet. Target co-ordinates are programmed into its computer before the mission and it is launched from the air. It hugs the groundâs contours so it remains invisible to radar screens â and will be used to attack Saddamâs control and communications bunkers. MoD officials ordered makers Matra BAe to speed up production of the weapon at the end of last year in the hope it would be ready to be used against Saddam.
RAF engineers are ready to work in sweltering temperatures of 60 degrees to keep their Tornados in the air. But the heat is so intense they can only do 15-minute shifts before spending 45 minutes in air-conditioned rooms. Even their tools have to be kept in buckets full of iced water because they become too hot to touch.
As the RAF made their final preparations, part of the Royal Navy task force in the Gulf began to sail north to Iraq. After five days at anchor, 14 vessels ordered their force protection teams to âclose upâ â which means manning on-deck machine guns day and night. The men of 40 Royal Marine Commando aboard the Navy Task Force ships have been at sea for eight weeks and are eager to go into action. The unit specialises in devastatingly fast coastline assaults and knows it is likely to form the spearhead of any coalition invasion. That means the next land the troops step on will almost certainly be Iraq. Marine Grant Slaney, 20, on board HMS Ocean, said: âIf you ask most of the lads, we would rather get on with it. We are definitely ready."
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/13/2003 06:57 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
60 degrees Celsius = 140 F
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/13/2003 14:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
140 seems high for this time of year. Of course, when you're there, it seems that the temperature claims get a little higher with every retelling of the story. "My DDU's were melting onto my skin as I fought off the swarm of camel spiders and scorpions...."
A United Nations weapons inspector in Iraq died on Thursday after a truck hit his car as he was returning from an inspection mission, an Iraqi source said. Must've found something good? Do they always travel alone?
He said the unnamed inspector was returning from Numaniyah, south of Baghdad, when the accident happened at 1:45 p.m. local time. The man's nationality was not immediately clear. He was taken by helicopter to hospital in the Iraqi capital but died one hour after arrival there, the source said. Like to see what he had in his car - notes, pics, samples? Wonder if it was all still there after he was removed....
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/13/2003 12:56 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They're supposed to be in radio communications.
I don't think even Blixie would be real tolerant of the murder of one of his people.
#2
He'd probably find "progress" in that only one was killed
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/13/2003 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They are reporting two inspectors involved in the accident, the other one has some injuries, no word on his condition. Hope, he does not die of his injuries.
#6
Looks like a real accident: An Iraqi source said the unnamed inspector, part of a chemical weapons team, was heading for the Iraqi capital in a convoy of four cars from Numaniyah after a visit to a tomato canning factory. The car overturned after the collision and fell into a swamp by the side of the road. Iraqi guides traveling with the team helped pull two inspectors out of their car. "Despite immediate medical assistance, including prompt help from the Iraqi side, one inspector died. Another was injured," the U.N. official in New York said. The Iraqi source, from the Iraqi National Monitoring Directorate, the body which liaises with the inspectors, said one inspector was rushed by helicopter to al-Rasheed military hospital in Baghdad. The other was taken by ambulance. "An inquiry is being launched into how the accident occurred," the U.N. official in New York said. "The names and nationalities of the two are being withheld until their families have been notified." The Iraqi source said the second inspector was in a stable condition. The source did not give the nationality of the inspectors.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I feel sorry for these guys, the inspectors. OTOH, it's open season on Blix. Safe & sound in New York. Bastard.
The U.S. Navy may order about a dozen ships equipped with surface-to-surface missiles from the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea as part of preparations for a possible war with Iraq, U.S. military sources said Thursday. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could sign the order as soon as Thursday, sources said. Ummm. does he mean today, or next week?
The ships then would begin moving through the Suez Canal and into the Red Sea. Anyone got the time it takes to transit the suez canal?
The ships include cruisers, destroyers and submarines, all of which fire satellite-guided Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles â precision weapons with a range of about 1,000 miles. Pentagon officials declined to say how many ships might be involved, but it is understood that 10 to 15 Tomahawk-capable vessels may shift position. Once the ships are in the Red Sea, any missile launched would fly over Saudi Arabia on the way to targets in Iraq. My guess is the Persian gulf is so full of US Navy ships that you could walk from bahrain to iran without getting your feet wet. I would also think that they could park a couple in the gulf of aqaba to cut down on the overflight transit time, and allow overflight over Jordan.
The shift in position was required because of Turkey's refusal to grant overflight rights. I knew that they were letting us have land based troops, but I didnt know we were going to get overflight rights.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/13/2003 08:58 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Aren't there Subs attached to each of the CAGs? and don't they each carry SLCMs? I guess the difference is not having to fly missiles over Jordan, Israel, Lebanon or Syria? I would think Syria might get a message from a few buzzes over Damascus
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/13/2003 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This sort of thing is why I'm not getting too upset at all of the "delay" in attacking Iraq. We had to reset after Turkey bailed out on us. That's taking time.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/13/2003 13:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Yes, on the fast attack subs having SLCM capabilities, it would be safe to assume that they have full weapons load out including SLCMs.
#6
I heard from a buddy a Suez transit is about 9-11hrs.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/13/2003 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
For about a dozen reasons, the war will probably start on March 23, and not because 3-23 has a nice ring to it. Yesterday, CBS reported that the only mechanized Division with troops fully equipped with protections from friendly-fire, is trapped in Turkey, by the Islamist government. 3-23 will allow moonlight' advantages for co-ordination, and time for re-equipment. There will be zero-tolerance for front-line jumpers in this war. This isn't Anzio.
The Turkish parliament is being called to sit this weekend, as international attention focuses on a possible second vote on US troop deployment. The motion was narrowly rejected on 1 March, halting US preparations for a northern front in any war against Iraq. Newly-appointed Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has hinted that he may reintroduce the motion, although on Wednesday Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis made clear there was no guarantee of this. Turkey has negotiated a huge financial compensation package from the US if the deployment goes ahead, but public opinion is not in favour. Correspondents say Mr Erdogan, named as prime minister earlier this week after a by-election victory at the weekend, may not wish to be seen flouting public opinion or the will of parliament by pushing too hard for the deployment. The unusual weekend sitting of parliament may, however, raise US hopes that the government is moving towards a second vote. Parliament would sit from Friday to Monday, said an official from the ruling Justice and Development (AK) party.
Several parliamentary moves must still be taken before any vote. Mr Erdogan must first confirm his new cabinet team — currently expected by Friday. Its proposed programme would then have to be presented to parliament, where a formal confidence vote would take place. Only after that would the troops motion be sent back to parliament. Turkey's previous cabinet did approve the measures after weeks of hard-fought negotiations with the US. The motion also allowed for Turkish troops to cross into northern Iraq in the event of war, to secure Kurdish areas and help manage the expected wave of refugees. A northern front is considered key by US military planners, who believe it would shorten any war and minimise casualties. But the international furore over a second resolution could have an impact on the Turkish decision-making. Turkish President Necdet Sezer announced weeks ago that no deployment could take place without a second UN security council resolution, as it would lack legimitacy.
Under the Turkish constitution, foreign troops may only be accepted and Turkish troops deployed abroad if the action has international legitimacy. BBC Defence Correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the Turkish military is thought to be eager to help the US, but at the political level, the Turks seem now to be raising additional concerns about the use of their air space in any conflict — something that would have a significant impact on US war plans. Ankara, he says, is holding out for assurances about its long-term strategic interests in the region and about the fate of the Turkmen minority in post-war Iraq. If Erdogan wants a say in what happens after the war, he better move fast. The clock's ticking.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 07:00 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There still seems to be movement of equipment going on into Turkey, according to reports: Meanwhile, American ships anchored off Iskenderun continue to unload vehicles and other military hardware. Turkey's private NTV television channel reports daily on continued activity around the port, showing lines of civilian Turkish trucks heavily loaded with U.S. equipment streaming towards the Iraqi border. Kurdish media say part of this equipment, including missile batteries and other heavy weapons, has already reached Iraqi Kurdistan, which is beyond Baghdad's control. On 7 March, Istanbul's daily "Hurriyet" reported that most convoys leaving Iskenderun were heading for Mardin, a city located some 30 kilometers north of the Iraqi border. The paper speculated that should Turkey eventually ban massive U.S. deployment, all equipment stored there could easily be transferred to northern Iraq's Kurdish areas. Other Turkish media report that U.S. military hardware is reaching Mardin through the Mediterranean port of Mersin and Incirlik, the southern air base that American and British aircraft have been using for the past 12 years to enforce Iraq's northern no-fly zone.
The AP yesterday reported that the Pentagon had already set up two logistics bases in Turkey's southeast. The activities of the 4,000 U.S. soldiers believed to be deployed in the region are reportedly under strict Turkish military control. Turkey's Army General Staff, which backs the possible deployment of American troops, claims ongoing U.S. preparations cannot be considered illegal because they are covered by a bilateral memorandum of understanding signed after parliament gave its go-ahead to the upgrading of military facilities. Details of the memorandum have never been published.
I figured that there were loopholes in that agreement big enough to drive a tank through. Wonder how busy those Kurdish Air Force bases are?
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 14:09 Comments ||
Top||
Iraq reveled Thursday in the diplomatic turmoil surrounding U.S.-led war plans and rejected British Prime Minister Tony Blair's effort to find a compromise over an ultimatum for Saddam Hussein. Blair's compromise would abandon a proposed Monday deadline for Iraq to fully disarm or face war, instead giving Saddam a six-point to-do list of disarmament tasks to avoid "serious consequences." Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri said it amounted to the same thing. "It is an attempt to beautify a rejected aggressive project," he told journalists. "(Britain) is trying to polish this project, which has been rejected by the majority of Security Council members." Asked whether Iraq opposed the British list, he said: "Of course. We reject any project contrary to resolutions already adopted by the Security Council." "Which we reject as well."
"The United States, with its policy of aggression, wants international cover for this aggression," he added. "I don't think the United States will succeed."
France, which had threatened to veto the Monday deadline, also rejected the British compromise because the list of disarmament requirements presumably would come with a short deadline. Germany, a non-permanent Security Council member without veto power, said the plan was unlikely to yield a compromise because it still "basically gives an authorization for war."
They're going to get that, eventually, regardless of the amount of gas that passed. I think...
The Bush administration insisted it was optimistic that it could pass an ultimatum this week, but that appeared increasingly unlikely.
Iraqi newspapers gloated over the turmoil. "It is obvious that Bush and Blair have lost the round before it starts, while we, along with well-intentioned powers in the world, have won it," the popular daily Babil said in a front-page editorial. "Blair's future is at stake now, and his downfall will be a harsh lesson in Britain's political history," it said. All this bickering is making them confident that we won't attack. Remember, Sammy still thinks he won GW1.
Sabri said a high-level Arab peace mission that was scheduled to travel to Baghdad this week would not come, although he said Iraq had not rejected the visit. "We did not refuse to receive the Arab committee," Sabri said. "They are coming not for tourism. They are coming for work, and this requires measures. We are trying to agree on a time appropriate for both sides." The Arab delegation had been scheduled to meet in Bahrain on Thursday with the Bahraini king, Sheik Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, and then travel Friday to the Iraqi capital. The Arab League decided to send the delegation to ask Saddam to cooperate further with inspectors to prevent a war.
In a statement, the league called the postponement "negative" and "ill-timed," saying it "censored Arab efforts ... for finding a way to avert the war and destruction." Sammy thinks he's winning at the UN so he doesn't want to bother meeting with these guys right now.
The United States pushed forward with war preparations, moving troops into place just south of Iraq. The U.N. mission that patrols the Iraq-Kuwait border said it would withdraw some of its observers to its headquarters in Kuwait. They announced today all UN observers have left the Iraq side of the border. Guess they know what's coming.
Iraq prepared as well, lining the streets of Baghdad with fighting positions and foxholes. Iraqis are "fully ready ... to confront and bury the aggressors," Sabri told the Arab television network Al-Jazeera. "We will turn the land of Iraq into an American graveyard. We will chop off the heads of anyone who tries to violate Iraqi territory."
They were going to kick our tails with the Fourth Largest Army in the World™, too...
At a military compound east of Baghdad, several dozen men from other Arab nations trained alongside Iraqi special forces. The men claimed Wednesday that thousands of men were in such camps across Iraq. "We came to fight alongside our Iraqi brothers against the Americans and the Zionists (Israelis)," said a man from Syria who, like most others, refused to give his name. "Today they attack Iraq. Tomorrow it will be Syria and the rest of the Arab nation. God willing, the soil of Iraq will be their graveyards." The fighters lumbered through calisthenics and a simulated battle for the benefit of journalists. They demonstrated their weapons techniques after kneeling in prayer.
Sammy was signing them up for the last Gulf War, too. Never heard much about them after that...
In another development, Iraq's Foreign Ministry announced a prisoner exchange deal with Iran. The ministry said Iran has agreed to release all prisoners from the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war and Iraq will release all Iranians in its jails. Iraq does not acknowledge holding Iranian prisoners of war, but said it would release Iranian common criminals. Yup, they still had POWs after almost 20 years.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 11:07 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think Bush is getting whipped. Looks more and more like France and Saddam call the shots on the world stage, not Bush.
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/13/2003 10:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I agree...Bush is becoming as much all talk and no action as the UN. Saddam is definitely proving that he can play the game better than anyone and I agree with him that he did win the first Gulf War. Is he still in power or not?
Posted by: Jim ||
03/13/2003 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Only with the explicit support of the mass media and fellow anti-american marxists deliberately clouding the water. That said, I agree: Chriac and Saddam have expertly exploited the resources they have. Question is, is it enough?
My approval rating of Bush is sinking every day, NOT because of his push toward war, but for the delays in getting the damn thing started! How much of his "declining support" at home may be due to people like me?
#4
I'm in the same camp with you, Ptah. I'm damn sick of this waffling back and forth with the U.N. It's time to stop talking and start doing.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/13/2003 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I'm with you too, Ptah.
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/13/2003 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think Bush's delay is pragmatic. It allows US citizens to see how useless the UN has become (CBS poll notes that there has been an increase in US support for war without UN approval in the last 2 weeks). Also, let's not forget we need more time to get all of our troops and equipment in position. Once a war has started it will be harder to move our roro's through the Suez for political and security reasons.
#7
No way, I think Bush is doing everything right. Remember that he has a good team advising him. With Chiraq rejecting every damn proposal, at some point it's gonna make him (Chiraq) look like a fool, (even more so, that is). In fact, this paves the way for by-passing the UN altogether. If it seems they're not willing to negotiate, why bother?
The delay has additional benefits. 1) allowed US to re-arm with smart weapons (drained during Afghan Battles) and develop better weapons i.e. MOAB; 2) allows US military to deploy without Iraq able to respond (US military centers of gravity are the airports and seaports in the Gulf - not to mention the Suez Canal); and 3) smoked out the "weasels" - those countries not with the US.
#9
I am as frustrated as the rest of us on this UN delaydelaydelay tactic by France & Co. Every kind of BS proposal has been "floated" in the UNSC for weeks. Bush has said NO to the 45 day delay proposal, so he is backing everyone into a corner. The charade is being ridiculous now, totally. Bush has gone to bat for Blair. So this is the end of the line for the UNSC. This whole thing is reduced to vote buying, with France vowing to veto. I have to believe that we are at the end of the line on this and Bush knows it. I keep remembering that we have a quarter of a million troops, ships, planes, the whole infrastructure for war and we are not going to let it sit around. Waiting is the worst time.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/13/2003 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
This delay served the one purpose: The noise and clamour in NY and the air of frustration in Washington and London combined with the air of adulation in Paris got what Blair and Bush have been looking for: Chirac opened his big mouth and says he would veto all UN further resolutions, deadlines. Thank You Monsieur Chiraq for your support.All of a sudden, Blair is no longer in trouble! Let the troops roll.
Posted by: john ||
03/13/2003 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I think the delay was GWB giving Blair every chance possible to make the case to his own people.
Posted by: Jon ||
03/13/2003 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Yes we were short of smart munitions after Afghanistan but I still think going after Saddam right then (Special Forces or CIA guiding a bomb in on Saddam to start) would have caused Iraq to fold and sent shivers through Iran and Syria and we wouldn't have had to build up the big stock we have to now because he wouldn't have been ready for it.
Once we'd dominated Iraq and sent the fear of Allah into Iran and Syria we could have started plucking other low hanging fruit using sanctions and diplomacy (a) Syria out of Lebenon! (b) Palestinians stop the bullshit!
It would also have ended this waiting game that is preventing our economy from breathing again.
#13
To spend so much time saving UN from itself seems to represent a dangerous disconnect from reality. In the meantime the danger to our troops increases. In the meantime people in Iraq are being murdered by a crazy dictator. George is rapidly becoming a French Toast.
#14
This entire episode with the UN has been a very interesting period. With 1441 in place, Bush and Blair are with regard to "strong measures" against Sammy. By drawing the process out, he's lent cover to Blair and he's given the rest of the world time to, as he put it, "show their cards." The alliance that's come together isn't the alliance I'd have predicted in October, for the most part. Kuwait, yes; they have reason to want Sammy disposed of. Britain, yes. But prior to October, I saw Australia as leaning toward a Canadian-flavored position. Howard's impressive in his support now.
Spain? Where did they come from? They've been cooperative in the war on terror, with lots of arrests, but I didn't expect Aznar to go so far as to climb on board with Bush and Blair. And yesterday Portugal seems to have joined him.
Eastern Europe - I expected sympathy, but I didn't expect whole-hearted support. Bush laid out the two sides of the question, Chirac pushed them, and they chose a side. It wasn't Jacques' side, but they're staying on it.
The Gulf States? Interesting. They've been there all along. Qatar was an active participant in Gulf War I. I think they're with us because they're throwing off Soddy hegemony. Jordan's with us because they weren't with us last time, and it hurt. The OIC and the Arab League are both continuing a tradition of being ineffectual.
Germany - no surprise. They burned their bridge. They'll live with the consequences until the CDU comes back into power. France is a surprise because they're so clumsy. I expected behind-the-scenes opposition, not public ranting. Turkey's a surprise; had they simply lined up and offered support, like Jordan, their position would have been enhanced, especially since the Greeks hold their noses when they look at us. Instead, they haggled and left us hanging at a critical moment, kind of like the French military sometimes does. Now, regardless of what happens in the next month, they're in the same category as Guinea or Angola. Bad move on their part.
While all this yapping and maneuvering has been going on, the American people have been coming to accept the necessity of the war. In October, they accepted it somewhat, of course, but by March people are demanding to know why it hasn't started yet. We've been building up to the blow-off and the tension's getting unbearable...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/13/2003 20:27 Comments ||
Top||
#15
There's a plus side to the uncertainty. Think what this is doing to the morale of the Iraqi military machine. Some already tried to surrender for pete's sake.
TONY BLAIR prepared his party and country for war without further approval from the United Nations yesterday. He served notice that he would defy scores of Labour MPs and millions of voters as he dismissed the idea that America could go it alone. He said for the first time that Britain and America already had legal authority for attacking Iraq. And he implied that if the UN could not bring itself to enforce its will, others would have to do so.
Within hours of Mr Blairâs remarks, there were strong indications that Britainâs struggle to win a majority in the Security Council for authorising war is close to failure â leaving war likely within days. Frantic attempts to persuade wavering countries were continuing last night and an American diplomat said that as many as seven Security Council members were backing the new resolution â two fewer than required. But it was clear that the battle could end with Britain, America and Spain walking away from the process rather than face humiliation if the resolution were put to a vote.
As the word from New York became gloomier, the government machine braced the nation for diplomatic failure â and blamed the French. Mr Blair told a private meeting of Labourâs parliamentary committee that he was working flat out to win a Security Council majority, but that the signs were not good. President Chiracâs promise to veto the second resolution whatever the circumstances had made the task of America and Britain at the UN hugely difficult. He said it was hard to persuade the âswingâ countries that they should come on board when the French had said they were going to veto the resolution in any case and he said that it was illogical for France, having backed the original UN Resolution 1441, to veto its implementation.
The arithmetic in New York appeared to be going against Mr Blair and President Bush. A senior British diplomat told The Times: âI fear that weâre not going to make it.â There were signs, however, that the mood in the Parliamentary Labour Party was beginning to shift in Mr Blairâs favour after an impassioned meeting at which the behaviour of hardline rebels calling for his removal was condemned. Mr Blair still faces the prospect of a rebellion even bigger than that of two weeks ago. In a Commons debate, probably on Monday, he will argue that he has worked as hard as humanly possible to secure a second resolution but was in the end thwarted by the âunreasonableâ behaviour of the French. Mr Blair is nevertheless determined that the UN process should be pursued to the end and yesterday Britain published a fresh set of tests for President Saddam Hussein that could be incorporated into a second resolution. Some diplomats said that although the outlook was bleak, it could be tomorrow or even Saturday before final failure was accepted. âSo long as there is any life flickering in this process he (Mr Blair) wants to carry on.â
The new strategy appears to be that in the event of the second resolution failing to materialise, the allies will rely on the authority given by the original Resolution 1441 to go to war. UN experts pointed out that Britain and America would be better advised to walk away from a vote that was certain to fail because they would still have 1441, which promised âserious consequencesâ. That demanded a further meeting of the council but not another vote. Mr Blair left MPs in no doubt about his intentions should the diplomatic route fail. Despite Donald Rumsfeldâs suggestion that the US could go it alone, Mr Blair said that was not his intention. âThe reason why I believe it is important that we hold firm to the course we have set out is because what is at stake here isnât whether the US goes alone or not; it is whether the international community is prepared to back up the clear instruction it gave to Saddam Hussein with the necessary action,â he said. âThat is why I am determined we hold firm to the course we have set out.â
A close associate of Mr Blair said: âSome people saw Rumsfeldâs words as an exit strategy for him. He was not looking for one.â In his most direct promise yet that he would go without the UN, he told a Tory MP: âIt would be a tragedy if the UN, when faced with this challenge, fails to meet it. We have to make sure that the unified will set out in 1441 is implemented.â
Jack Straw acknowledged that Britain may have to abandon hopes of securing a new resolution before going to war, although he repeatedly refused to say at a Foreign Office news conference whether the draft resolution would be put to a vote. âWhat I guarantee is that we are working as hard as we possibly can to secure a second resolution,â he said. But his Spanish counterpart, Ana Palacio, openly accepted that the resolution may be withdrawn, citing the threat by President Chirac to wield the French veto âwhatever the circumstancesâ.
Washington made clear that there was little time left for diplomacy. Delays at the Security Council had already cost vital time, senior Bush aides said. âWeâve lost ground in trying to find a diplomatic solution because the world has not spoken with one voice,â Condoleezza Rice, President Bushâs National Security Adviser, said. âThe Security Council needs to stand up, give him a very clear message that he needs to disarm, that he has days, not weeks, to disarm.â As Mr Bush maintained a breakneck diplomatic pace, his spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said: âItâs become a worldwide phone call. You are seeing the final moments of action, or inaction, at the UN Security Council.â
#2
Jolly good show! The UN Charter is a normative, and not a binding legal document. In the Kosovo intervention, UN authority was secondary to OSCE Euro-norms. Prosecutions of war criminals have been enabled by what is referred to as "Statutes of the Tribunal." That is, the prosecuting parties make national law, allowing participation in the Tribunal. Sovereign authority is devolved, in a sense, but it is revocable at will. If the outside world is not importing common sense, then the exporters should leave them out of the arena of sound judgement.
Don't equate the Russians with the French here. Russia has legitimate concerns about recovery of the 9 billion dollars that it is owed by Iraq. Those concerns will dissolve with a quick victory. As for the French, they are the scum-of-the-earth.
#3
"Don't equate the Russians with the French here."
I was willing to give Russia the benefit of the doubt, but not anymore. Since they know we're going in no matter what, there is no logical reason to use the veto, except to deliberately hurt us. I don't know why so many people want to give them an easy pass.
#4
No turning back? It looks like Bush and Bair are turning back every day. Every day we're told to wait longer while the US gets pissed on from all over the world. Bush is a bitch.
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/13/2003 10:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dangerous days ahead. Looks like Iraq wants to disclose documents about the "destruction" of VX gas and anthrax. That's a central UN demand.
Of course the inspectors will need time to "verify" the lies. Saddam gains time.
You have to give him credit. The bastard is good at his game. Forget the resolution.
Frankly I don't see how the U.S. can "win" the Security Council or world opinion right now.
We might better roll tomorrow and in a few days the evidence of Iraq's WMD program will fly right in our face.
Nothing we can do on the diplomatic front right now will win us friends. Lets get the job done and people will see why it was necessary to do it NOW.
Iraq on Wednesday displayed a drone aircraft that resembled a large model plane, disputing U.S. claims that it represents a grave danger. Part of Washington's rush is based on its fears that Iraq is developing weapons of mass destruction, and U.S. officials have cited as proof what they called an undeclared drone that Iraq was developing to spread chemical and biological weapons. Look at the picture at the link. We're being conned.
But Iraq showed journalists Wednesday what it said was the drone. Made mostly of balsa wood and held together with screws and duct tape, it had two small propellers attached to what looked like the engines of a weed whacker. This has to be a phony. Not even a Paleostinian would fly one of these.
In New York, Ewen Buchanan, spokesman for chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix, said after inspectors examined photographs of the drone: "Yes, it would appear to be the drone with the 7.45 meter (24.5 foot) wingspan that was discovered by inspectors recently." He's trying to fool us again.
Officials of the Ibn Firnas State Company, in the al-Taji area just north of Baghdad, said the drone is a prototype designed for reconnaissance, jamming and aerial photography. They said it couldn't possibly be used to spread weapons of mass destruction, and accused Secretary of State Colin Powell of misleading the world by saying it could. Powell told the U.N. Security Council that the drone "should be of concern to everybody." "He's making a big mistake," said Brig. Imad Abdul Latif, the project director for the drone. "He knows very well that this aircraft is not used for what he said." The aircraft is guided by a controller on the ground, who has to be able to see the plane to direct it, Latif said. He said the controls have a range of five miles a fraction of a U.N.-imposed limit of 93 miles. And this is why it's a phony. Even if you accept that it is to be used for aerial photogrpahy, there's no way you'd want one that has a range of only 5 miles: you'd be too close, and your opponent could swat you. If you're within five miles, get a good pair of binoculars.
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Negroponte, complained this weekend that Blix didn't mention the drone in his oral presentation to the Security Council on Friday. Blix mentioned the drone in a 173-page written list of outstanding questions about Iraq's weapons programs last week. While small, Blix said, drones can be used to spray biological warfare agents such as anthrax. He said the drone hadn't been declared by Iraq to inspectors. But Iraq insisted it declared the drone in a report in January, and Hiro Ueki, spokesman for the Baghdad inspectors, confirmed that. Ibn Firnas' general director, Gen. Ibrahim Hussein, said the confusion was the result of a typographical error: The declaration said the wingspan was 14.5 feet instead of 24.4 feet. "When we discovered the mistake we addressed an official letter correcting the wingspan," he said. Ueki confirmed that, saying Iraq declared a drone called the RPV-30A on Jan. 15 and pointed out what it called a typo on Feb. 18 a day after inspectors visited the airfield and saw the drone. This is way too pat.
But Ueki said he couldn't confirm that the specifications Iraq declared matched what the inspectors saw, and said the drone issue was "under active investigation." The Iraqis are fairly sophisticated, and a decent drone that could fly out a ways wouldn't be that hard. Simple guidance/gyro, good engine, delivery system, radio system, all within reach of what they can do, especially since some of this stuff is small and easy to import.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/13/2003 07:11 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Odd. The photo on that page is not of the "drone." The caption for what's there now reads, "Iraqi Shi'ite Muslim women, clad in black, feel the door of the Imam Kazem Mosque in al Kazemiah, a suburb of Baghdad March 13, 2003 as Shi'ites mark Ashoura, the day some 1,400 years ago the grandson of Prophet Mohammad, Imam Hussein, was killed in a battle with rival Muslim faction in the town of Kerbala south of Baghdad. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic"
So I searched and searched, looking for a photo somewhere. Odd too is that with the extensive coverage of this, only one paper's site had a photo, and that phot showed only part of a wing and propellor. The soldiers next to the drone were more prominently featured.
#3
The pictures of the drone that I saw looked like something my kids came up with in our basement on a rainy Saturday afternoon. Where are the real ones hidden?
U.S. officials told CNN Wednesday that "secret surrender" negotiations have begun with key Iraqi military officials in hopes some military units will not fight U.S. and coalition forces should there be a war. Sounds like more old news.
Communications with these Iraqi military officials are not being handled by the Pentagon, but instead by other "elements" of the U.S. government, the officials said. One senior official said some elements of the Iraqi military may have already agreed not to fight. This underscores assessments by both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that the leadership around Saddam Hussein is "brittle." Officials have been making that assessment somewhat public as part of their effort to publicize Saddam's vulnerability. Officials, however, say specifics cannot be detailed out of concern Saddam could enact retribution. "However, the code name of our agent on the scene in Tikrit is 'Dominique.'"
To the dismay of the U.S. officials involved, the secret effort was first publicly hinted at Tuesday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. When asked at a press conference how the Iraqi military could signal support for the U.S. effort, Rumsfeld said, "They are being communicated with privately at the present time. They are being, will be communicated with in a more public way. And they will receive instructions so that they can behave in a way that will be seen and understood as being non-threatening." One official said Rumsfeld's public acknowledgment about the private communication was not expected, but now the basic facts are being acknowledged. Saddam already knows we're trying to do this, so acknowledge it and put more pressure on the waverers.
The United States already has a widely publicized public effort to encourage surrender by the Iraqi military that includes dropping hundreds of thousands of leaflets with specific instructions on how to position units so they are not hostile, radio broadcasts with similar messages, and e-mails encouraging commanders to defect.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/13/2003 11:09 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
They are known as the swinging six and it has nothing to do with wife-swapping. These are the member states holding America to ransom over war on Iraq. You can spot a swinger by the swagger in his gait and the crowd of hysterical journalists surrounding him. The Pakistanis, Chileans, Mexicans, Cameroonians, Angolans and Guineans are visibly basking in the attention, and the gossip is intense. "Am I enjoying being at the UN at this time? Of course. It's fantastic," the Pakistani ambassador, Munir Akram grins.
Fun it may be, but the swingers face monumental problems. For all six nations, support for America's war could mean political suicide at home (Pakistan and Guinea have large Muslim populations, Mexico and Chile cannot be seen to be slaves to the US, and Angola, Cameroon and Guinea are supposed to be part of the African French "NO" alliance). Not only that, but Guinea's president Lansana Konte, is dying back home, and Mexico's president, Vicente Fox, went into hospital yesterday and handed over to a deputy. Downstairs in the delegates lounge, the German ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, (strongly anti-war) is smilingly convinced that America will never get the nine votes it needs to make any military action it takes look so much as mildly justified. "I don't see the six as swingers," he smirks. "They are all anti." Enjoy Gunter, especially when Colin brings those contracts German companies signed with Saddam into the Security Council.
As he moves across to the enormous bank of television cameras, he stops for a brief chat with a journalist who suggests that their opposition might leave Germany and France isolated in Europe. The notoriously placid Pleuger explodes. "Isolated! Isolated! Who can try and isolate France and Germany in Europe! We'll show them who's isolated!" Yes, we will, won't we?
The trouble is, of course, America is using all the diplomatic means at its disposal to put pressure on and isolate the swingers (or as someone "upstairs" called them, "the bidders" - some cynics think they are out for as much money as they can get in return for support). Up on the secretary general's 38th floor it is understood that Colin Powell has only bothered with the UN to help Tony Blair. And depending on who you believe, Powell's effort is not going particularly well. "I can't see Pakistan voting for war," muttered one nervous-looking official. "They'll get the votes," said another blithely. "Everyone's in the bag." One thing is for certain, and that is that nobody is very impressed by the Americans' strong-arm tactics. "Say $100 million to these Africans and they see the stars," says a senior official. Russian ambassador, Sergei Lavrov, says the Americans suffer chronically from "Tsar of the hill syndrome". "They tell you this has been decided in Washington and here are the reasons why you must agree." "Okay, then $200 million."
Charm, it is widely agreed, is not Washington's forte. The Pakistani ambassador smiles. "Do they actually threaten us? They don't have to. Pressure? We get a lot of, shall we say, delicate phone calls." The general perception is that the three African swingers have been bought by American promises of aid, though accusations are flying about the possibility of aid being used as a political weapon. "Contrary to Clare Short's instructions, aid has been withdrawn from Cameroon unless they comply," a Frenchman says. "Hardly likely," says an Englishman. "Using aid in that way sounds more like something the French would do." Game, set and match to the Englishman, and would you please wipe up the blood you spilled on your way out?
America, though, likes to leave the bickering to the non-hyper powers. Bush tends to go for veiled, or completely open threats. He has publicly promised to "discipline" Mexico for lack of compliance, a statement that brings Mexico's dashing UN ambassador, Adolfo Aguilar Zinser, to a state of ironic twitching. The feeling in the Mexican mission is that the US couldn't do much to hurt them that it isn't doing already.
Everybody is disappointed by Bush's unfulfilled promises to them and America is hardly likely to shoot itself in the foot by going back on trade agreements already in place. There are, apparently, "wimpy fear-ridden intellectuals" who believe Mexico should just get in line behind Big Brother, but the government refuses to play its cards too early. They don't want to "pay the cost of any decision in advance" but they do admit that the pressure from America is "intense".
That's for sure. A highly reliable Pakistani source tells me that Bush put in a call to Pakistan's General Musharaf last week, ostensibly to congratulate him on capturing the al-Qaida number three. He makes clear, though, that the "line of control" in Kashmir is worrying him. Word at the UN is that Musharaf's position is near-impossible. He faces total opposition to war against another Islamic country at home, but he relies for his own personal and political survival on American support. "America is very helpful to Pakistan," says Ambassador Akram. "It could also be very unhelpful." And we can turn on a dime.
And then there's Guinea, the small African nation that has suddenly found itself at the centre of the universe. Not only is president Konte taking calls from Bush and Chirac on his death bed, but Guinea also finds itself president of the Security Council. The assumption is that Guinea is "more than happy to vote for America and to stiff France" for whom it has "a visceral dislike" since their big falling-out in 1958. The ambassador, Mamady Traore, is not as open as that on the issue. Swishing about the place in yellow taffeta gowns and his white hat, he smells strongly of expensive aftershave. "We know exactly what we're doing," he grins. Must ... not ... comment ... on ... wardrobe ...
"They have no idea what they're doing," says a senior UN official. People recall Boutros Boutros Ghali's famous joke. When asked how many people work at the United Nations he replied, "About half".
"It actually makes me laugh," says Edward Mortimer, aide to secretary general, Kofi Annan. "The non-permanent members usually complain that the P5 [the rich countries with the right to veto] take all the decisions between themselves and ignore everyone else. Now they're complaining that the P5 are incapable of sorting things out among themselves and are expecting us, of all people, to take the decisions."
"We are not undecided," says Traore, looking undecided. "As president of the Security Council we should not choose any camp. We are trying to create consensus. If I fail, my government will give me instructions on how to vote." Guinea, though, is in an appalling quandary. The African alliance has already come out as anti-war, but Guinea does not want to be seen backing France, nor does it want to appear to have been bought by America. I get the sense that Guinea has decided, and they'll vote for us.
"There has been abysmal diplomacy on both sides," a 38th floorer says. "America is making everyone dig their heels in with its strong-arming and France was stupid to get so antagonistic so early. It's not about Iraq any more, if it ever was. This is a diplomatic game of chicken."
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/13/2003 07:19 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This back-forth is getting me very, very nauseous. One of my few consolations in all this mess is to know that these leeches are finally having to work for my money. And getting much indigestion.
We should not have to strong-arm. On the bright side, a lot of that money we do give them will go right back out to NY to fund th UN, if we walk.
#2
You know what? Wobbly George is nothing but a French Toast. I am disusted with this clown. And I trusted him to do the right thing.
Like Poppy, like Son.
#3
The feeling in the Mexican mission is that the US couldn't do much to hurt them that it isn't doing already.
Perhaps the Mexican mission can find the DPRK Ambassadors and ask what the DMZ is like...
Posted by: Brian ||
03/13/2003 7:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What al-guardian doesnt mention is that Japan is also lobbying the undecideds, especially "pacific rim" Chile and Mexico, to support the US-UK-Spain. Good for Japan.
#5
Another deadline...another deadline...Its one thing to help out a friend like Tony Blair, but its entirely another to become just like the UN. American troops are injured and dying in training exercises while fat cat ambassadors talk about how rough negotiations are over formal dinners.
Posted by: bob ||
03/13/2003 10:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Fret not kiddies. We're going to war no matter what happens in the U.N.
#7
Parabellum - I keep telling myself that but since I've being doing it since January it's starting to ring hollow. If the UN vote get pushed back again after Bush flatly stated at his press conference it would happen this week he (and the US) look ridiculous.
#8
I agree AWW
Bush now seems no different than the UN and I too am waning in my support. The problem is what else is there to support? France?
Posted by: Sam W ||
03/13/2003 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The ambassador, Mamady Traore, is not as open as that on the issue. Swishing about the place in yellow taffeta gowns and his white hat, he smells strongly of expensive aftershave. "We know exactly what we're doing," he grins.
Am I reading this right?
Oh, I'll bet. We gotta kiss this guy's (?) ass to get a vote? Screw it, start the war!
#10
Relax folks. "Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done"
It must be clear that Bush absolutely exhausted all the options before it is shown how irrelevant the UNSC is.
Oh, and... F*%k Chiraq.
Cambodia cannot afford to pay Thailand the $50 million it wants in damages for riots that destroyed the Thai embassy and plunged relations to their lowest level in decades, parliament chief Prince Norodom Ranariddh said on Thursday. If you can't afford it, maybe you shouldn't do it...
The comment by the National Assembly president and head of the royalist FUNCINPEC party, a junior partner in Cambodiaâs ruling coalition, came as Thailand prepared to submit its final bill for the January 29 night of violence to Phnom Penh. About a dozen Thai-owned businesses were also destroyed in the chaos. âI do not see any possibilities for the Royal Government of Cambodia to pay for it,â Ranariddh told Reuters in a interview on Thursday, speaking of the estimated $50 million bill. âI hope the government will not simply go out and get loans.â His comments are likely to further sour relations between the two Southeast Asian nations who are struggling to patch up ties. Their border remains closed after the riots and diplomatic relations have been downgraded. Phnom Penh blames âextremistsâ for inflaming nationalist passions on the night with false rumours about an attack on the Cambodian embassy in Bangkok. "Boy, it sure is boring here in Phnom Penh. Whaddya say we act like Pakistanis for a day or two?"
Cambodia is dependent on aid for almost half of government spending and ranks amongst the poorest nations on earth. Speculation about alternatives to a cash payment among diplomats and analysts have ranged from tax concessions to giving away land in the capital to Thai businesses. With annual revenues of less than $1 billion, the estimated bill for the night of anti-Thai rioting represents around five percent of Cambodiaâs total government spending. Thailand is expected to announce its final assessment of the damage later on Thursday, and analysts expect the bill to be higher than initial estimates of $50 million made in the immediate aftermath of the riots. âI do hope it is not too heavy and hard for the poor budget of the Royal Government of Cambodia,â Ranariddh said. Really, you have to feel sorry for them. Except when they're rioting...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 09:16 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That was one hell of a block party!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/13/2003 22:10 Comments ||
Top||
MUSLIM rebels blamed for a deadly bomb attack in the southern Philippines last week have been buying arms using foreign funds, the military charged Thursday. It said documents recovered from a fallen enclave of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) last month revealed the rebels had made payments for machine guns, explosives, grenades and other battle hardware. The documents, declassified Thursday, comprised an arms purchase agreement in 1999 and invoices totaling nearly two million dollars for the weapons, military spokesman Colonel Essel Soriano said. The documents were signed by MILF political adviser Ghazali Jaafar and an alleged North Korean arms dealer named Rim Kyu Do with a Malaysian as witness, he said. Nice to have it in writing.
The MILF signed a ceasefire agreement with the authorities in 2001 but the pact was shattered last month when the military launched a major offensive that led to the capture of their stronghold, Buliok complex, in the country's south. Soriano said the documents were found in a two-storey building that had served as MILF leader Hashim Salamat's headquarters in the complex. If I was running a terror group, the first thing I'd buy was a good shredder. That and a program to wipe my hard drives.
It was not clear from where the MILF received money to acquire the weapons but Soriano said the discovery of the documents proved the MILF had long prepared for an "all-out war" with the government. He said the MILF had funneled several millions for their procurement of military hardware, "possibly through the discreet local and foreign funding," Soriano said without elaborating. Western intelligence agencies have in the past linked the MILF to the Jemaah Islamiyah. The MILF was also linked to a December bombing of a railway station in Manila that killed over a dozen people in 2000, a year after the rebels made the alleged arms purchase, officials said.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 01:00 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
War-torn Ivory Coastâs unity government was to be officially named on Thursday, but the main opposition leader said inadequate security in the country would prevent his partyâs members from attending the first cabinet session. The new cabinet under Prime Minister Seydou Diarra, who has been handed sweeping powers to end a six-month rebel war, will have 41 members from the political opposition, rebel movements and President Laurent Gbagboâs party, news reports said. The main opposition Rally of Republicans (RDR) party is to have seven members, including two ministers of state. But RDR leader Alassane Ouattara said in a letter to Diarra his members will not be able to attend the first cabinet meetingin the capital Yamoussoukro. âAs you know, several RDR officials, including those named to join the government of national reconciliation, are outside the country due to the numerous executions and killings of our militants and officials in recent months,â he said in the letter, a copy of which AFP obtained late Wednesday. That happens when you invite Liberians in, doesn't it?
He called on Diarra to take âmeasures to allow the ministers to take up their posts under satisfactory security conditions.â The formation of the power-sharing government was facilitated by a breakthrough during peace talks in Ghana at the weekend. Rebels behind the six-month war gave up their claims to the security ministries in the proposed unity government, thereby removing a major hurdle in the implementation of a French-brokered peace deal accepted by Gbagbo in late January. So they dumped what the Frenchies came up with, and came up with something that they think will work. Okay by me, I guess...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 09:03 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
An Israeli soldier and a Palestinian gunman were killed in a West Bank shootout yesterday, the latest deadly skirmish between troops scouring the territory and militants fighting Israeli reoccupation. The shootout erupted in the northern village of Saida, close to Tulkarem, as the army searched for wanted Palestinians, 15 of whom were netted in raids across the West Bank. The Palestinian gunman, Rami Said Al Ashakar, was identified as a wanted member of the group Islamic Jihad. He will be missed. By him Mom. Maybe.
In other clashes in the West Bank, a wanted member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades was shot and injured, then arrested in a raid on Qalqilya by an undercover Israeli army unit, Palestinian officials said. Five other people were injured in a shooting that erupted during the raid, officials said. "You'll never take me alive, coppers! Ow! Ow! Hey! That's my Mom, dammit!"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/13/2003 08:57 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
If not for a dramatic missile accident that killed five Israeli soldiers, Saddam Hussein might be dead today — assassinated in a top-secret commando operation 10 years ago. The soldiers died in a final run-through when the short-range missile they had been trained to fire at the Iraqi dictator was accidentally launched and blew them up — in front of top Israeli brass. Israel has never admitted that Saddam was the target of the elite Sayeret Matkal commandos who died that day, Nov. 5, 1992.
The closest that officials have come to confirming it was two weeks ago, when former prime minister Ehud Barak was confronted on Israeli TV. Barak, who was commander-in-chief of the Israeli military in 1992 and was a short distance from the missile explosion, pointedly refused to admit there was such a plot. But what has leaked out to the foreign press is this:
In 1992, Israel felt it had a score to settle with the man who sent 39 Scud missiles raining down on the Tel Aviv area during the Gulf War. Also, both U.S. and Israeli intelligence knew that they faced a long-term problem because Saddam had hidden weapons of mass destruction. Since Israel had complied with U.S. pleas to stay out of the Gulf War, relations with Washington were good. So when Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin's government warned the administration of George H.W. Bush of their intent to assassinate Saddam, there was no objection. A plan was devised and the assignment given to Sayeret Matkal. Barak and top aides watched in horror as the missile exploded and the entire unit died. Such a catastrophe couldn't be covered up entirely, so Israeli officials acknowledged that there had been five deaths in an undisclosed training accident. If this article is true, it's a great shame. Might have saved us a lot of lives, although who knows? Saddam's boys might be even worse.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/13/2003 03:30 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The Diplomatic Security Service has arrested a Brazilian living in Chicago on charges he posed as one of their officers while attempting to board a flight to Washington D.C., sources told ABCNEWS. The man, identified as Marcello Benati, flashed a fake DSS badge to a United Airlines supervisor in February, asking for his help to board an alternate American Airlines flight out of Miami. Benati claimed he was in a hurry to pick up a dignitary in D.C., federal officials told ABCNEWS. Benati was traveling with another, unidentified white male who showed the same fake security identification. Both men were armed, according to the United Airlines supervisor. Investigators discovered Benati's false cover when his wallet was discovered later in the month in a clothing store in Dallas, sparking an investigation involving the FBI's Joint Terrorist Task force. They didn't know he was a phoney until after the badge was found and it was turned over to the real DSS. Notice that they don't say that United most likely let these two armed imposters on the plane!
The wallet contained a metal badge bearing "DSS Special Agent" with the official United States seal in the center, and an adjoining identification displaying the agency name as "DSS-Dignitary Security Service." DSS actually stands for Diplomatic Security Service, and is an investigative arm of the U.S. Department of State. Also enclosed in the wallet, was the United Airline supervisor's business card. The DSS began their investigation when the badge was brought to a resident office. Benati is a Brazilian immigrant who has no previous criminal or FBI record. Investigators believe he did, however, violate the terms of his visa. You think!!!!! Well, we are talking about State now.
Sources said Benati has a $571,500 home in Chicago, and has a 1994 Camry, 1993 Lexus and 1974 Jaguar registered to his name, as well as a 1997 Mecedes Benz registered to a previous address. I see this list and I think "Drug smuggler". DSS would be a real nice cover for that.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 02:35 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The DEA is probably going to have some decent wheels and a crib in the very near future....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/13/2003 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Yet the Secret Service guy who was a Muslim had to fill out paperwork and had them call HQ and still he couldn't board with his gun. And all these guys had to do was flash a badge? And I can't carry nail clippers on a plane!
The FBI is requesting help from anyone who might be able to explain the significance of a particular tattoo identified by a witness from the attack on an Indonesian night-club that killed 190 people last October. The tattoo is described as a standard Christian cross with indents on the ends of each arm and with pink ovals at the ends of each arm. It was observed on the upper right arm of a man whom Australian police describe as, "an Anglo-Arab male" who was seen in the Sari Club in Bali, Indonesia. The club was subsequently bombed in a multiple-explosion attack, killing mostly Australian, European and American tourists.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 02:35 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Please give a primary source for your entry. Is there an FBI ref for this? Thank you. BTW, there is no such thing as a 'standard' Christian cross. This is a helluva way to solicit info. Tell them to look it up in a 'dictionary' or encyclopedia of crosses. A scholarly Jesuit or similar priest will have such a reference book which gives all sorts of variations and historical versions of crosses associated with different orders, groups, etc.
What do I look like-- the Answer Grape?
All right, the simplest thing to do is contact Fordham University and find the right Jesuit. You know, someone like the late Dr. Malachy Martin would have such reference books. Or Notre Dame might have a scholar like that. Sheeesh!
They're still mostly Mormans? If they were working with the NYPD, they would have known this. Try Fordham U.
I'm annoyed at their approach. Any Irish-American cop going to Fordham Law School could have told them this in a New York Minute. ;-)
#3
Sorry, Scooter! I meant an FBI source. There are a thousand of them. It could be a crois pattee or crois formee or crois fourchee or lots of others. You have to patiently look through the encyclopedia and match it up like a stamp. Although, they might be grouped according to their broader characteristics. You could probably look it up faster if you're a scholarly priest who is already familiar with many of them. I guess I just don't trust ABC news to relate things accurately from Primary Source.
Phil Brennan
The villains of the moment are 1) La Belle France and 2) Hollywood celebrities.
In the case of France, my e-mailbox is crammed with such anti-French jokes as the one about the French government banning fireworks displays at the Disneyland park outside Paris because the other night 5,000 French soldiers at a nearby army base threw down their arms and surrendered when they saw the Disney pyrotechnic display light up the skies. I haven't heard any jokes about that sad confederacy of fools who inhabit the sound stages in Hollywood when they aren't divorcing one another or demonstrating for some Marxist cause, but that's probably because there's nothing funny about them or their sick delusions.
Observing the wave of anti-Gallic sentiment now sweeping the nation leads me to think about certain delusions aided and abetted by the U.S. mainstream media and most American politicians who prate on and on about our "friends" abroad as if foreign nations are capable of the kind of friendship that exists between individuals. That kind of friendship implies a kind of thick-or-thin relationship â the "I'm with you all the way, no matter what it costs me" kind of friendship. Nations are not capable of that sort of relationship. Nation states exist to protect their national interests. That's rule No. 1, and the country that ignores it ceases to be a meaningful state. Nations can act out of selfless motives, but only when altruism costs them nothing. When one nation's interests conflict with those of a so-called friend and ally, friendship moves to the back of the bus, or goes out the window.
This is what George Washington was getting at when he warned his new nation about getting involved in entangling alliances. They inevitably cost something, and that something is often one's national interest. Thinking about world affairs in that sense should lead us never to be surprised when one of America's "friends" refuses to go along with us and make common cause with whatever our cause happens to be. If it costs them nothing, they'll probably go along with us, but if it conflicts with their national interests it's so long, pal, you're on your own.
Why, then, are we not only surprised but also enraged when the government of France decides that backing the U.S. in the case of Iraq is not in the national interest of France? They may be dead wrong, their national interest in this case may be based on totally corrupt reasoning, but they are only doing what comes naturally to any nation state: looking out for themselves.
America needs to learn a lesson from all of this: We have no friends. None. Not a one. No nation has friends â all they have are allies of convenience. Eliminate convenience and you're on your own, or at each other's throats.
A case in point: Turkey. When we started negotiating with them, there was a dispute about how much money it was going to cost us to get permission to launch an attack on Iraq from the north. The Turks seemed not to have much to say about the idea of hosting a U.S. invasion force one way or another. They appeared to be more concerned about doing what they really want to do â do to the Kurds in Northern Iraq what Kemal Ataturk did to the Armenians almost a century ago. (When a friend of mine asked the legendary head of the Young Turks why he was slaughtering the Armenians, Ataturk replied somewhat pragmatically, "Because if I didn't, who would?")
Turkey's national interest suddenly came into play after the legislature turned thumbs down on the U.S. request. With all those billions the U.S. was offering in return for Turkey's hospitality seemingly no longer in the offing, Turkey's economy got basted like a Thanksgiving gobbler, and the Turks suddenly recognized what was really in their best interest. In this case Turkey's national interest was in concert with America's national interest.
It's a different story with France. Their national interest, they believe, conflicts with ours â and for the first time in many years, we finally have a president who acts on and protects what he sees as our national interest. Clash inevitably follows. Better to be friendless than to live under a delusion that we have any real friends in the world. They're with us as long as it suits their interests to be. When it doesn't ... well, take a look at France, Germany and Belgium for the answer.
As for those Hollywood dolts â well, let's just do to them what they seem to spend a lot of time doing to each other ⊠screw 'em.
* * * * * * Phil Brennan is a veteran journalist who writes for NewsMax.com. He is editor & publisher of Wednesday on the Web (http://www.pvbr.com) and was Washington columnist for National Review magazine in the 1960s. He also served as a staff aide for the House Republican Policy Committee and helped handle the Washington public relations operation for the Alaska Statehood Committee which won statehood for Alaska. He is also a trustee of the Lincoln Heritage Institute.He can be reached at phil@newsmax.com
#1
America needs to learn a lesson from all of this: We have no friends. None. Not a one
This is the kind of thinking that I hope that doesn't pervade Washington, now and in the future. From the other side, there's nothing worse than helping out a friend, only to be absolutely forgotten later on. The US does have friends (Eastern Europe is an example). Please never forget that.
#2
Even with Eastern Europe it is their best interest to align with US at this time but to depend on this is in the future is not a good idea. As somebody in the Financial Times pointed out that the US maybe positioning itself like the British did in earlier time as the maritime power and align ourselves with our nations which have the same interest to represent us on said continent with land forces. We would supply the naval and other firepower including land forces to help our allies.
Case in Point:"Why, then, are we not only surprised but also enraged when the government of France decides that backing the U.S. in the case of Iraq is not in the national interest of France? "
France did not step aside and say "sorry, boys, looks like I'm on the sidelines for this one...happy hunting!"
They have actively and strenuously sought to reverse our planned course of action. There's a difference between non-involvement and opposition...
#4
Even with Eastern Europe it is their best interest to align with US at this time but to depend on this is in the future is not a good idea. As somebody in the Financial Times pointed out that the US maybe positioning itself like the British did in earlier time as the maritime power and align ourselves with our nations which have the same interest to represent us on said continent with land forces. We would supply the naval and other firepower including land forces to help our allies.
#6
They appeared to be more concerned about doing what they really want to do â do to the Kurds in Northern Iraq what Kemal Ataturk did to the Armenians almost a century ago.
Fact Check - Ataturk came into power well after the Armenian genocide; he had nothing to do with that sickness. What he DID want to do, was forge a national "Turk" identity and bring the Kurds into that fold, thus setting up years of Kurdish conflict.
This guy lost all credibility for me with that sentence falsehood.
#7
As the guy who posted this article this morning I thought I'd chime in a bit.
While I disagree with Brennan's basic contention that the US has no real friends anywhere (Britain, Australia, Japan, and about 18 countries in eastern Europe by last count), I think his main point might be somewhat valid - that being that countries do what is best for them at the moment and not what is "altruistic".
With politics being a game and diplomacy being "the Great Game" the point has some validity it would seem to me.
Case in point - France is being obstructionist because, in the end, Chirac & Co. hate America's power and see it as a root cause for France's decline in the eyes of the West. In the long run this is certainly going to be harmful to France's position vis-a-vis the rest of the world - and Chirac & Co. must certainly see this. I can't believe they're that blind. However, in the short run, Chirac & Co. probably believe that it is in their best interests to block a display of American power - any display of American power because that would further diminish France and their perception of French power in the eyes of the rest of the world and in the EU even further.
That they're stupid cheese-eating surrender monkeys doesn;t enter into it as in Chirac & Co's world view they are the world and anything that gives them an edge over the USA is a good thing.
We see things differently, of course. And rightly so IMO.
Here is an account (http://www.armenian-genocide.org/encyclopedia/kemal.htm) of Ataturk's participation in ethnic cleansing of Armenians in the early 20's. Not exactly from an unbiased source, but when it comes to genocide such sources are scarce. All of this happened during the attempted French "mandate" of much of Turkey and the subsequent Greco-Turkish War. This was a bloody, confusing time which is barely documented. There is much we will never know. Nevertheless, the ethnic cleansing of Greeks and Armenians is well attested, including the eyewitness newspaper accounts of Ernest Hemingway.
#9
11A5S : I've read that account, which wasn't persuasive, as well as biographies of the man and what bits and pieces are available on the web. To be charitable, tieing Ataturk to the genocide with those facts will be a weak case at best.
One important fact IIRC is he was out of the country during the worst period of massacre, serving in Tunisia and Palestine while the CUP directed the killing before its collapse.
Edited for lengthFrench flags no longer are flying high and proud outside the Sofitel Hotel in midtown Manhattan. The French-owned hotel chain, part of the French hotel company Accor whose units include U.S. motel chains Red Roof Inn and Motel 6, replaced the flags with the Stars and Stripes as a peace offering to its American guests. They are used to flying the flags of other countries.
#3
I'm thinking if I owned a French company that did business in the US, I'd be getting real nervous about my bottom line. I'd also be thinking about making a contribution to whoever runs against Chirac next time.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 13:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I was just in World Market, buying a (French-made) bar of lavender soap (I'll give up Chanel #5, OK?) and I remarked to the cashier, "I'd hate to have to give this up," and the cashier said "Gosh, is it made in France?"
The awareness in retail business is already there.
#5
French-made soap! LOL stoppit, you're killing me
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/13/2003 14:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Export product, no market for it at home.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/13/2003 14:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"as a peace offering to its American guests"
Yeah, right. How about "as an attempt to avoid economic loss inflicted by patriotic Americans."
Posted by: Tom ||
03/13/2003 14:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
France sells nothing worth mentioning except wine. What I'm not gonna buy a leCar because it's made in France? I'm not gonna buy it because it's crap.The Germans face a far worse economic hit, they actually make stuff people want.
#9
The French cars of today are much better than the crap they exported to the US in the seventies and early eighties (before the very crapiness of the cars forced them out of the market). I know, because I drive an excellent French car (which I bought before their president wanted to be Napoleon, I will never do so again).
Posted by: Peter ||
03/13/2003 15:06 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Yank, how can you say they sell nothing worth mentioning except wine?
First off, their wine can no longer stand up to California wine, and some Australian wine.
Second, they sell lots of stuff worth buying, from Bic pens and lighters, to Zig-Zag rolling papers, to any clothing made for the Donna Karan label, to Goodrich tires (owned by Michelin), to a chain of steakhouses. And more
Iran insisted Wednesday it was pursuing a transparent, albeit ambitious, nuclear program and rejected U.S. accusations that it had secret plans to produce nuclear weapons.
Posted by: Bernardz ||
03/13/2003 10:42 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A transparent nuclear program in Iran just gets me all glowing inside. It seems that they are probably right on in what they say and do. And that is scary.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/13/2003 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Glad to see that Iran is addressing its energy shortage with imported fuel (uranium).
The U.S. reportedly announced that it would soon dispatch its carrier Carl Vinson, now operating in the west pacific, to a South Korean port. The U.S. plan to send this super-class carrier dubbed "Golden Eagle" to South Korea to let it play a major role in the Foal Eagle joint military exercise betrays its operational intention to carry out the biggest-ever joint military exercise targeted against the DPRK. Yes, Kimmie. The big toys aren't all in the Persian Gulf. We have some for you to deal with too.
The U.S. and South Korean warhawks have ceaselessly staged north-targeted saber-rattling.But it is the first time for them to mobilize troops and operational means huge enough to wage a war and use all parts of South Korea as theatres for month-long war exercises to be staged in the sky and seas and on land. There is the growing danger of the U.S.-led exercises as the "Foal Eagle" joint military exercise, an annual event since 1961, is combined with Rsoi which has been staged since 1994. The U.S. claims that the exercises are annual events which have nothing to do with the "nuclear issue" of the DPRK. But this is nothing but a broad hoax to mislead the public opinion and cover up its sinister military purpose. So they admit that these are annual events, then deny these are annual events. All in one paragraph. It's that inimitable KCNA logic.
As the U.S. campaign to internationalize the DPRK's "nuclear issue" and force it to scrap its "nuclear weapons program before dialogue" proved futile, the U.S. launched the large-scale war exercises in a bid to attain its strategic goal of militarily pressurizing and threatening it, while watching for a chance to mount a preemptive attack on the nuclear facilities in the DPRK. This is clearly evidenced by recent war outbursts made by U.S. President Bush that it would take a "military option" in case its diplomatic efforts to settle the DPRK's "nuclear issue" fail. The "Foal Eagle" joint military exercise is at its height with the carrier, to be involved in it, rendering the situation on the Korean Peninsula so tense that a nuclear war may break out any moment. The DPRK has consistently urged the U.S. to conclude a non-aggression treaty with it to cope with such disturbing development. But the U.S. turned down it and openly disclosed its intention to launch a war against the DPRK. This compels the people and the army of the DPRK to keep themselves fully ready to go into action. When was this intention to go to war against the peace loving DPRK announced? I missed that. If we take it before the UN, it could be years before it happens.
The U.S. should not boast its military muscle. The DPRK has self-defensive national defence capacity powerful enough to beat back any formidable enemy at a single stroke. The U.S. is well advised not to run amuck, clearly understanding the DPRK's self-defensive power and single-hearted unity of its people. Oh-oh. We're running amuck again...
#1
Heh. Wait'll Nimitz just sorta stops in for a port call while ostensibly on its way to the Middle East. We'll see what Kimmie's "self-defensive national defence capability" makes of that.
#3
Now that the UN is wrapping up Iraq after 6 months, we can get Korea on the agenda an jaw it to death while we work on Iraq.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/13/2003 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Korea will NOT be on any UN agendas!! There is no way in hell the Bush administration gets all fucked up in their bullshit again!
France will have to complain from the sidelines.
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/13/2003 10:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Good ol' KCNA. The US runs amok, and the single hearted unity of the NKors. LIfe is good.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/13/2003 11:05 Comments ||
Top||
#6
g wiz---Don't worry about Korea coming to the UN. I was only being facetious. I am as frustrated as you over this UN circus we have seen for 6 months. I wonder how many millions of $$ have been spent for nothing. We have proven that they are useless. I, in a, well, facetious way, was looking at a strategy of tying up NKor for 6 months while Iraq was being dealt with. I like how Bush gives the NKors a little bone to chew on while he moves the big sticks quietly about. No use inflaming the nutcases of the north while one gets ones ducks in line.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/13/2003 12:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Alaska Paul sez:
I wonder how many millions of $$ have been spent for nothing. We have proven that they [the UN] are useless.
Proving to the American people -- or at least a substantial percentage of them -- that the UN is useless is far from "nothing". It's something that very much needed doing. Now to hope that Bush follows this to its logical conclusion.
#8
jrosevear---I concede your point. I guess the $$ of hard earned taxpayer blood sweat and tears that have been spent have done something---shown that the UN does nothing. That may be a good investment in the end. It just is so weird when one tries to think about, ya know.....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/13/2003 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
Fox News' Headline for this article is: âJapan Deploys Battleship in Anticipation of North Korean Missile Testâ, to say the least, I was a bit surprised to find out that the Japanese had a battleship. How'd they keep that a secret for this long?
Yamato is back?
Japan has sent a battleshipAegis destroyer to the Sea of Japan, the Defense Agency said Thursday, amid media reports that North Korea could be preparing another missile test. Defense Agency spokesman Yoshiyuki Ueno said that the Aegis-missile equipped destroyer has top-of-the-line surveillance capabilities.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/13/2003 12:52 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
A competent-looking force indeed. There used to hear a lot of commentary that the Japanese only spend about 1% of their GDP on military forces. To which I have always said, "Yeah, but remember that's one percent of the Japanese GDP -- and all of their forces are concentrated in one place."
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/13/2003 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Some people are ignorant to the difference between a warship and a battleship.
#6
Wasn't it the Japanese that built a space battleship inside the rust of the old Yamoto and flew it to Inscandar to get the cosmo DNA which saved us all! Our Star Blazers!
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.
