ROMANIAN soldiers have uncovered thousands of rockets and more than a million rounds of ammunition in the largest weapons cache ever discovered by US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. During Operation Carpathian Lightning near Qalat, capital of southern Zabul province, the 812th Romanian infantry uncovered three caches and two caves full of weapons, US Colonel Roger King told reporters at the base 50km north of Kabul. The arms cache unearthed yesterday included 3000 107mm rockets, 250,000 rounds of 12.7mm machinegun ammunition, about one million rounds of small arms ammunition and other ammunition and mines, "making it the largest cache found to date by the coalition forces in Afghanistan", he said.
These goobers are reputed to have laws against idolatry, but they sure seem to worship explosives.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 06:42 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This sounds like enough to ruin somebody's day (or is Afghanistan so full of munitions that nobody will notice?). Be interesting to know who these belonged to.
Posted by: Old Grouch ||
04/18/2003 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
NNI: Afghan soldiers captured eight Taliban fighters, including two commanders, after a fierce battle left two soldiers dead in a mountainous southern region of the country, a senior government official said yesterday. The clash happened on Tuesday when the soldiers were sent to the area of Sur Ghar, or Red Mountain, to arrest Taliban fighters suspected of killing an Italian tourist last week, the provincial governor, Hamidullah Khan Tokhi, said. The Italian, Orfeo Bartolini, was shot in the Shahjoi district of Zabul province. He reportedly had been travelling by motorcycle from Europe to the eastern Indian city of Calcutta.
"Y'ain't from around these here parts, air ye, stranger?"
"Why, no. I'm a tourist, just passing through on my way to Calcutta on my motorcycle..."
"Mahmoud, kill him. And I get his shoes!"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 06:16 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hear the Hindu Kush and Pamir ranges are lovely this time of year. Afghanistan is such a tourist magnet--it must be all the mine fields and crtaters.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
04/18/2003 20:43 Comments ||
Top||
Afghan agents arrested former Taliban leader Moulawi [Maulvi] Qalamuddin several days ago in the Baraki Barak district of Logar province, east of Kabul, said a senior intelligence official. Qalamuddin served under the Taliban regime as deputy head of the Vice and Virtue Ministry and as deputy minister of mosques and Hajj. When the Taliban government fell in 2001, Qalamuddin was head of the National Olympic Committee. Best prospects: the Howling team was favored for at least a bronze, and the Teeth-gnashing team was a shoo-in for the gold...
Under the Taliban, the powerful Vice and Virtue Ministry deployed some 32,000 enforcers around the country who harassed women if their head-to-toe burqa veils did not cover all. They also harassed men if their beards did not meet the length required under the Taliban's version of Islam. Vice and Virtue squads also forced shopkeepers to close during prayer time, and raided shops looking for videotape movies. They enforced Taliban bans on girls' schools, television, card-playing, kite-flying and women's public baths. At times, they carted off offenders to their own ministry jails. ... where they sometimes whipped them with battery cables.
On Thursday, state TV called on all people who had serious complaints against Qalamuddin to report to the intelligence directorate in Kabul. "Hey, y'all! We're havin' a party, down to the cottonwood stand!"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 02:46 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A group of eight countries â including all six of Iraqâs neighbours â have been meeting in Saudi Arabia.
"What will we do? Oh, what will we do?"
"Don't worry. I've got some holy men on it..."
In Riyadh, Iraqâs neighbours and other Arab states concerned about the political ramifications of a long-term US occupation, are holding talks Friday and Saturday aimed at coming up with a united position on a national government that will hasten the withdrawal of US forces. The foreign ministers of Iraq's six neighbours â Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia â along with Egypt and current Arab League chairman Bahrain, asked that US troops leave Iraq âas soon as possibleâ even as they disagreed on other key points.
"Get out! Get out! Ooooh! Go away! Ucky! Cooties! Infidels!"
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Maher hinted at the differences among the participants. "There could be divergent analyses (of the situation)," he said without elaborating. The differences relate to the status of the Kurds in the north, Turkish demands on oil from the city of Kirkuk and the identity of certain figures tipped to become members of a future Iraqi government, a participating diplomat said.
"They... They... They ain't plannin' on a... uh... you know... a secular state, are they?"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 05:03 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
hahahahahhaha
how about: a secular, democratic state with EQUAL rights for WOMEN - with equal pay for work of equal value, and the right to own private property?
Bwaaaaha hahahahhahahahahahahaa
hahaha
and domestic violence laws to protect women from being beaten by their husbands?
ho ho haahahahahaa
or even.... minimum quotas for women's representation in the government and police forces?
hoahhahahahahahaha
no need to get hubby's written permission to leave the country... hee hee oh dear (wipes tear from eye)
OhMyGawwwd what ever would they do???? Their own women might run away to Iraq! Betta keep them breeding machines chained in the basement.
Tony Blair has claimed he was ready to quit Number 10 if the Commons vote on war with Iraq had gone against him. The prime minister said he had told his officials to be prepared in case he had to resign. He had even sat down to tell his children the vote would be "very difficult" and he feared he might be finished. In an interview with the Sun newspaper Mr Blair said he kept going despite "extraordinary" opposition to the war because he believed armed conflict was the only option. The prime minister said his wife Cherie and his three elder children had been an immense support as had the attitude of people in the armed forces. Mr Blair said: "There were so many people against something that seemed to me in principle so obviously right. "I found it very frustrating and... extraordinary." You weren't the only one, Tony. How's work on the contagious stupidity vaccine coming on?
Mr Blair added he had been "very upset" by the UN's failure to back a second resolution authorising military action. But he praised his Spanish counterpart, Jose Maria Aznar, for backing Britain and the US although just 4% of Spaniards supported the war. "That's even less than the number who think Elvis Presley is still alive," Mr Blair reportedly told him. The prime minister also said Labour MP George Galloway, who urged British soldiers not to fight, would be dealt with by the party's National Executive Committee. "His comments were disgraceful," said Mr Blair.
Hurrah! (If something actually happens. Usually, with committees, after the smokes settled they don't...)
Ten days after the war started, Mr Blair said, he had been "really worried" he had "miscalculated... the depth of resistance" and the war would be longer and bloodier than predicted. "It looked like we were getting bogged down," he said. He had felt terrible when he learnt of the first British war deaths — "a huge sense of sadness". And he admitted that the death of others in Sierra Leone and Kosovo remained with him. The prime minister added: "Once you have made that decision [to commit troops] you are going to carry it through." Mr Blair said that he had been particularly bolstered by the father of a member of the British forces based in the Gulf who wrote to him voicing strong support for military action at the outset. "Then he wrote to me after his son had been killed to say it was terrible — but he added: 'I still think it is the right thing to do'."
Blair's not the only Brit with backbone, obviously...
Mr Blair conceded that it had been a tragedy former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein could not have been deposed without bloodshed. But he said he had been "delighted and relieved" as he watched television pictures of a statue of the Iraqi leader being toppled in central Baghdad. The prime minister said that despite everything he had not suffered sleepless nights and that his two-year-old son Leo had proved a "healthy antidote" to the crisis.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
04/18/2003 10:28 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Now if he could only get over his EU and UN fetish.....
#2
That is the same thought that has been rolling around my head the last few days, B-A-R. The UK is at a crossroads, and as a Yank with my own preferences, I would not like to see the UK selling out its sovereignty to a socialist superstate with little accountability with its people. I hope that Blair really thinks this through before he commits his country to this one-way ride. Maybe Bulldog Will can shed some light on this situation...
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/18/2003 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I am baffled that the UK would want to put itself in the position of playing second fiddle to a corrupt, socialist Axis of Expediency led by France, Germany and- God help us all- Belgium.
Why? Why?? WHY????????
Great Britain is still great. Keep it that way.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/18/2003 13:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I am baffled that the UK would want to put itself in the position of playing second fiddle to a corrupt, socialist Axis of Expediency led by France, Germany and- God help us all- Belgium. Why? Why??
As Brit who has lived outside of the UK for a long time, maybe I can shed some light on this. And its an important question!
Back in the late fifties and early sixties the UK was getting rid of its empire and looking for its future role. At the time the USA/UK relationship was at a low point in the aftermath of the Suez debacle and general lack of concern by the USA. By the late sixties the EU was seen as the only game in town for the UK. All that was required was to overcome - guess what! - French obstructionism.
At the time the USA was pre-occupied by Vietnam and saw a united Western Europe as a bulwark against the Soviet Union. Also Kennedy and then Johnson didn't view the USA/UK alliance as particularly important.
Had Margaret Thatcher and George Bush senior come along 10 or 15 years earlier, it is easy to imagine a different outcome, and many at the time (myself included) felt Britain should have stayed out of the EU and cultivated closer ties with what is now being called the Anglosphere. The reality was that the USA wasn't interested.
Thirty years later the EU has grown to include the Scandinavians, Spain, Portugal and now the Eastern European states. The EU now has its own significant momentum and may well end up somewhere quite different from what the French/Germans want, but undoing the EU's history will be hard and take a long time.
I hope the Iraq war will be a watershed away from UN/EU multi-lateralism and towards a more Anglophone view of how the world should be run, i.e. cooperating sovereign states rather than supra-national authorities like the UN and the EU.
The USA as the most powerful single state in the world as well the most powerful anglophone country needs to take the lead. Offering the UK (and possibly a few others like Australia, Spain and Poland) membership of NAFTA (or NAFTA type deals) on the table would hugely increase the UK's leverage within the EU. Much of EU's, and therefore Franco-German, power stems from the view that a European super-state is inevitable. The solution is to make it just one of several options available to sovereign states.
The EU is not going to go away and, at least in the short term, the UK is not going to leave. What is needed is to break the Franco-German dominance. Step 1 is to throw France out of NATO. Step 2 is to remove France as a veto wielding member of the UNSC.
The Iraq war was just an extension of what has been ongoing since the fall of the Soviet Union. The fear of nuclear armagedon kept the world in stasis for 40 years. Now that is over, the world is starting to fix all the other problems that were previously seen as not important enough to disturb the over-riding concerns of the cold war. The USA is taking the lead and offering others the opportunity to come along, and by implication be left behind if they don't. Now the USA has shown it is prepared to act decively, I think we will be pleasantly suprised by those who are willing to follow the USA's lead.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/18/2003 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I thought I read in the blogosphere that the Senate passed TAFTA - Trans-Atlantic Free Trade Agreement.
As an aside....I have the Union Jack flying at my crib as well as the Stars & Stripes. Additionally, My fiance wants to dump me for Tony...if only Thatcher was still running the place...we'll I just don't think I could do that...
#7
Phil B, that is an excellent analysis of the situation. As someone who lives in Britain, I can tell you that the anti-Europe feeling here is on the rise. The EU was originally called the 'Common Market' and was about trade. We certainly didn't sign up to have our sovereignty leeched away by non-elected officials.
There is an excellent article in The Spectator about this issue. http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-04-19&id=3005
Here in Blighty, we have a few serious decisions to make. Whether to give away the last of our sovereignty, our currency and, perhaps even decisions over the defence of the realm to a Franco-German vision of a super European state that is in essence a chimera.
My worry is that Blair (he is an internationalist and Europhile) may use his own increased popularity from the war to force an early vote on the Euro, and will try to reform the EU 'from the inside'.
Posted by: Tony ||
04/18/2003 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#8
the EU's trade rules are unfairly harsh IMHO. I mean: they only allow straight cucumbers of standard dimensions and they all come wrapped in plastic.
Too many regulations, no freedom.
Yet, understandably, Britain does not want to fall between two stools.
Romania's Orthodox Church suspended 10 Bucharest priests who were filmed blessing brothels, porn shops and a weapons store in exchange for money and goods. It is traditional for Orthodox priests to bless homes, offices, cars and gardens to ward off the devil, but priests are not allowed to bless places deemed unholy, such as brothels and abortion clinics. Holy 'Ho's, Batman!
Posted by: Dar ||
04/18/2003 02:36 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "Bless you my child..." (insert evil leer)
Edited for brevity.
Poland on Friday signed a deal to buy 48 U.S.-made F-16 jet fighters for $3.5 billion, the biggest defense contract by a former Soviet bloc country since the end of the Cold War. The Polish government announced last December that it had chosen the U.S. government-backed offer over two rival European offers — the Swedish-British Gripen jet and the French-made Mirage 2000. But negotiating the investment in the so-called offset deals took several more months.
Along with the purchase of planes from Lockheed Martin Corp., Polish and U.S. officials concluded an agreement setting out U.S. transfer of technology, investment in Poland and business deals with Polish manufacturers that the government valued at between $7.5 billion and $12 billion. Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Md., will be replacing Poland's Soviet-made MiG fighters as the country modernizes its military to NATO standards. The purchase contract specifies items of delivery including the Lockheed Martin aircraft, spare engines, missiles and bombs as well as technical details and the terms of training for Polish pilots. The aircraft will be built in Fort Worth, Texas, and deliveries will start in 2006.
The offset program is to run over 10 years. Major projects include plans by General Motors to expand a plant in Gliwice, Poland, and a pledge by Motorola to invest in a state-of-the-art communication system for Polish public services. Polish plants are to make engines and engine parts for Lockheed Martin and for Pratt & Whitney. U.S. companies, including a subsidiary of the Houston-based Halliburton Co., are to modernize a major refinery at Gdansk and cooperate with Polish pharmaceuticals makers. Polish leaders hope the deals will create jobs and boost the economy, which slowed to about 1 percent growth last year.
Posted by: Dar ||
04/18/2003 11:26 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wonder if we also gave them the same "Zero down, Zero Percent Financing, No payments until the 12th of never" deal we usually swing with the Isrealies?
#2
I heard in gratitude for accepting the french deal, the french were prepared to give them a 100ft monument of Chiraq holding a book with the inscription "never miss an opportunity to shut up". Apparently the American deal proved better.
#3
The Poles sent 200 commandos to Iraq, and they are very pro-American. Plus they really don't like the Germans and they wanted equipment that worked. This is a win-win for our side vs. the weasels.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
04/18/2003 17:07 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Just a slight qualification. Although the Polish Government is very pro-American, the people are less so. However, this has more to do with the disillusionment with capitalism and economic conditions, and there is no outright hatred of Americans. There is no outright hatred of anybody for that matter. Except maybe the Jews but that's a miniscule remnant of the past and is slowly disappearing.
Although the Poles don't love the Germans, it's a strange relationship because Germany in one sense is a key to Polish prosperity. Or atleast a source of jobs.
It has only recently come to my attention that the German Foreign Minister, Mr. Joschka Fischer, has claimed that, in a meeting with me a week after the attacks of September 11, I allegedly said that "the United States should liberate a whole row of countries from their governments, if necessary by the use of force." I have never held the view the Foreign Minister attributes to me and did not express such a view in our meeting of Sept. 19, 2001, as the official notes of that meeting make clear. According to those contemporaneous notes, I stated that we needed not just the military but the whole range of instruments — including diplomatic, intelligence, criminal justice, and others — to sucessfully fight terrorism. Additionally, I stated that our approach to different countries would have to be "tailored" to each individual case. I am disappointed that the German Foreign Minister would choose to discuss the contents of a private meeting, but even more disappointed that he should do so inaccurately.
That's a rather public slap to Mr Foreign Minister's face. Not only is he talking out of school, but he's also being publicly called a damned liar. Too bad about those meeting notes. Y'gotta watch them...
Posted by: Anonymous ||
04/18/2003 12:30 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I guess many things that were written ten years ago are re-read in a different light today. It's not necessarily the right reading now. I don't think that America and Europe have ever been closer together than the days after 9/11.
I'm still wondering how we could lose that so fast.
You can rest assured that I understand the US view much better than most people in Europe. And I share your view about being suspicious about the French. I just read a book from Emmanuel Todd: "Apres l'empire" (After the Empire). It's most interesting indeed because you'll find all your worries realized in there. Todd sees the "decline of the American Empire" due to a "parasite US economy depending on capital import" and leading "petty wars" to affirm itself. And he sees a strong Europe (with a Franco-German leadership backed up by Russia) that could seriously challenge the USA.
What the French (apart from the enlightening economical BS) don't understand: Most Europeans (and certainly not the Germans) DONT want to challenge the US (they see no point in this). The Germans still are very pro-American, Eastern Europe certainly still sees Russia as a threat that might come back. What most Europeans want is a prosperous continent. They will be happy with number two.
But "changing coalitions of the willing" will not be a fair substitute for 50 year old alliances. Schroeder certainly made capital mistakes but no one covered himself with diplomatic glory.
I think Powell could have handled the UN much better without the continuing interference from the Pentagon. Powell knew that he would only get the UN to agree if he played by UN rules. That meant sticking to the WMD issue. Had Bush not said that the US would go it alone, had the word "regime change" not jeopardized the WMD issue all the time the Security Council would have been more inclined to word 1441 in a clearer way.
But because everyone knew that the US would go for war and regime change anyway the UN tried the tactics of delay (which helped Saddam). So every destroyed cardboard missile was hailed as a success and Blix could go rambling about "significant progress".
"Saving face" is an Asian concept. But the UN had to save its face, too, after it became evident that the US would ignore it if it didn't vote the US way. Had Bush kept silent about what he would do in case the UN refused a mandate... I think he would have gotten it.
Because the fact that Iraq had not complied by March was obvious.
#2
I don't like to have these issues reduced to a judgement of personal credibility but, given the lack of witnesses, we have little choice in this case. Hmmm, lessee, Wolfowitz is a mean looking little brute, to be sure. Nevertheless, unlike Joshka Fischer, he never belonged to a totalitarian political party, he was not a fellow-traveler of the Baader-Meinhof gang, and he has never been arrested for beating people up or setting them on fire. My vote therefore has to go to Wolfy. As a violent authoritarian thug, Fischer is probably just jealous of all the firepower Wolfowitz can influence if not actually command.
#4
Joschka Fisher looks he could be the villian in a Batman movie.
Posted by: g wiz ||
04/18/2003 7:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Funny you should say that g wiz, every single time I see Fischer on the news, I am immediately reminded of the evil floating villain in Dune...it comes to mind every single time. Eewww.
#6
Ah ha! The third weasel! Very good guys! Putin and De Villepin actually LOOK like weasels. It puzzled me that Schroeder didn't. Joschka baby, you're gonna be the subject of a lot more cartoons.
Posted by: Scott ||
04/18/2003 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#7
They (Germans) need a better liar. How about that Ex-Info Minister from Iraq? He can really tell a whopper with a straight face. Or maybe Clinton? Now there was a liar!
#8
Cyber sarge---Clinton is already slated to be our new ambassador to France, hah hah....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/18/2003 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Not that I'm a big fan of Mr Fischer... but a few points.
First of all, how "private" is a meeting when you have "official notes"? A private meeting is not a confident one.
Then Mr Wolfowitz, in his letter to the editor, quotes Fischer incorrectly. The Spiegel interview published by the NYT reads as follows: "...when Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz in Washington roughly outlined for me what he thought the answer to international terrorism had to be.... His view was that the US had to liberate a whole string of countries from their terrorist rulers, if necessary by force. Ultimately a new world order would come out of this - more democracy, peace, stability, and security for people.
Frankly, Fischer's view is an interpretation of what Wolfowitz said (what exactly he said we don't know). That's not a lie, that maybe a misinterpretation. Fischer uses the "if necessary" (by military force), Wolfowitz uses "tailored to each individual case" (including military action). If Fischer "roughly outlines" what Wolfowitz meant, there is nothing like a blatant lie here. (And isn't that actually the policy of the United States? Why does Wolfowitz protest so much now?)
Wolfowitz (and the whole Pentagon) hold a deep grunt against Fischer since he very openly challenged Donald Rumsfeld over the war in Munich, February 2003 ("you did not convince me"). And of course Wolfowitz' retort doesn't come out of the blue: Fischer is in the discussion to become the first "foreign minister" of the newly expanded EU in 2004. His chances should not be underestimated.
A last thing: Wolfowitz is under very critical scrutiny in Germany (and Europe). Since the Iraq crisis broke people are rereading his old statements from his draft of the "Defense Planning Guidance" (1992). I quote the passage that has many Europeans thinking about what the USA is really up to.
"Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, and Southwest Asia.
There are three additional aspects to this objective: First the U.S must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests. Second, in the non-defense areas, we must account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established political and economic order. Finally, we must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."
I just invite US Rantburgers to imagine a bit what these lines mean to France or Germany. If you treat allies like rivals that have to be stopped dead (and that was 1992) then you shouldn't be that surprised if these allies view the United States with a new mistrust.
#10
"we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power. These regions include Western Europe,"
We endeavour to prevent a hostile power from dominating western europe - that was the grand strategic basis of what we did in WW1, WW2, and the cold war. In other words, except for the period of isolationism in the 20' and 30's it has been US policy since 1917. Its why we still have troops in Germany and a membership in NATO. It doesnt mean we plan to invade democracies, or even to discourage integration of the EU - although clearly EU expansion is more in the US interest than an smaller but more integrated EU superstate. Deterring potential competitors is clearly directed at China - we may not be thrilled about EU defense initiatives, and may even discourage them, but we're hardly "deterring" them.
I'll leave it to Wolfie to clarify both his statement and how it may have been distorted, and his expectations of confidentiality. The implication of what Fischer says - the US strategy is to invade a string of countries - is wrong - Iraq is sui generis - the strategies for further spread of democracy is peaceful with Iraq as a model, as wolfie has stated several times. Clearly however we cannot rule out use of force against a country that harbors AQ or similar terrorists as Afghanistan did, and clearly the imminent acquisition of nuclear weapons by a state that is hostile, totalitarian, and tied to terrorists will be a matter of concern for us.
#11
I would also point out that the US policy of preventing a hostile power from dominating western europe is the logical extension of the British policy of preventing any single power from dominating continental western europe - a policy that goes back from the triple alliance, to the Franco-Prussian war, to the balancing against Russia through the 19thc, to the Napoleonic wars and the opposition to Louis XIV, and before that to the opposition to the Hapsburg drive for mastery. Wolfie's statement is simply an extension of a geopolitical vision that goes back to Elizabeth the First. The US roots of this kind of geopolitical thinking go back to Admiral Mahan, and are found in both Kissinger, Brezinski etc. Obviously it needs fine-tuning in the post cold war world - which was still young in '92.
#13
TGA: It can also be said the such a guidline was right on the money in predicting such aspirations of potential rivals. Truth is there is nothing really new here...nations have always sought to take the best advantage to better ones positioin or to solidify positions of strength. Of course, since it was Wolfowitz ( and it could have been anyone high up in the current Bush administration) it is immediately seized on as something ominous and sinister. And if you look at the actions of a nation like France, I can say there's plenty of mistrust to go around.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
04/18/2003 15:05 Comments ||
Top||
#14
" would also point out that the US policy of preventing a hostile power from dominating western europe is the logical extension of the British policy of preventing any single power from dominating continental western europe "
and which arguably was the reason that De Gaulle was always adamant to keep the UK out of EEC/EU -his goal of a united European state (as the only way to preserve French power) was, though peaceful and democratic, the heir of the dreams of Louis XIV and Napoleon.
Arguably this was the German dilemna in the pre-1914 period. As Europe declined, a European power could maintain itself as a true great power
only by dominating all Europe - but that in turn would threaten the maritime powers. The maritime powers defeated European unity in 1918 and 1945. From 1945 to 1989 this fact was forgotten as Western Europe and the US faced the threat rom the Soviet Union.
The question now is whether Western Europe has declined enough relative to the US, or whether the US trusts the European polity enough, for the US to tolerate a European super state (as we once tolerated being weaker than the British empire) I would only note that the US faced a certain unenthusiam from France over Iraq in 1990 (though France did not openly side with Russia) and faced difficulties with France over the Balkans, Kosovo and Rwanda in the 1990's. So the anxiety with a French led super state did not all start with Wolfie, by any means.
#15
liberalhawk: Fischer never mentions the word "invasion", he says "liberate countries from their terrorist rulers" (which can be achieved by many means). Didn't Woolsey say that now Iraq is "free" all dictators in the region should tremble?
Does a democratic free Europe not have the right to peacefully unite and pursue a common policy? But this automatically makes Europe a rival in the eyes of the U.S. Did it never occur to the neoconservative thinktanks that the U.S. and a democratic "United States of Europe" acting together as the big stabilizing factor in the world would be the best that could happen? No, America sees European unification as a threat and therefore tries to keep Europe weak and split. The "Old and New Europe" only exists in Rumsfeld's strategy.
If I read Rantburg comment there is something that pops up over and over: This country is irrelevant, that country is irrelevant. Countries like Germany with 80 million inhabitants and the third biggest economy in the world are NOT irrelevant even if they don't march into another war every year. Rumsfeld does more to European unification than you may imagine. It's exactly what European think: We will only matter if we unite. We won't be pushed around like this anymore. But then the "mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" kick in.
Yet if our unification can't be done WITH the blessing of the United States it will be done AGAINST it. But most Europeans would rather have it with the United States. But if the U.S. intend to obstruct that process which is in the very legitimate interest of Europe, the idea of what an ally is and what you can expect from an ally will be redefined.
Kissinger once said jokingly: If I want to call Europe, which number do I call? The truth is that the U.S. prefers that this one number will never exist. But it might exist soon. And it could be the number of Mr Fischer. I'd prefer a different one. But harsh U.S. reactions to a election campaign it should have rather ignored pushed Schroeder over the limit. Better be careful, Mr Wolfowitz. The EU foreign minister the U.S. tries to prevent might be exactly the one Europeans might be tempted to agree upon.
#16
TGA "His view was that the US had to liberate a whole string of countries from their terrorist rulers, if necessary by force" maybe this is a language problem, but that sounds to me like the "if necessary" applies to the whole string of countries, and will be applied if other methods dont work, regardless of changes in those country's behavior - I think wolfie rightly considered that "rough outline" a distortion of what he said.
Should we accept a united democratic europe as a partner. A fully united EU would have a greater population and GNP than the US. I cant think of any situation in world history where a number one power enthusiastically agreed to become a number 2 power. that some in the US contemplate this with satisfaction is a sign of what a unique power the US is. After all, we have no guarantee that such a Europe will remain either democratic or benign into the indefinite future. I think we should watch and wait, and i dont think we under obligation to encourage it.
Rummy's statement about the "old europe" was made in response to claims that the US had no support for its policy on Iraq - when you hold yourself out as speaking authoritatively because you represent a group, you can expect people to point out members of the group you dont represent. I certainly dont think Germany is irrelevant - this place does generate a certain number of well, rants. However I dont think US resentment is only that Germany refrained from joining in this war, but from a pattern of behavior and coordination aimed at heading off US policy in this case.
I also note that we are seeing (at least over here) signs of just the opposite phenomenon of the reaction you talk about - we see nervousness among some French politicians that Chirac went too far, we see Germany eager to take a more cooperative approach independent of France, we see an assertive Britain, we see Spain, Italy, Denmark, Netherlands and the Eastern Europeans rushing to offer peace-keeping assistance in Iraq without waiting for France, Germany, or the UNSC.
#17
--But Europe wants the United States not being above international treaties and the United Nations.--
Europe will not get what it wants. We know what these are designed to do. No way, no how will we be ruled by france. At this point in time and for the near future, Americans will not vote to give up sovereignty to the UN. Only we can protect ourselves. Neither the UN nor Europe has our best interests at heart.
--That will guarantee that the French won't get any more free rides--
Somehow I don't see that. You guys can't even break france's ag subsidies. And what about the fishing subsidy? This was posted last Oct by freedomandwhisky:
" We are the masters now
It looks as though EU plans could result in the Scottish fishing industry being wiped out at a cost of 20,000 jobs. In an earlier report in Tuesday's Daily Mail, I read that EU proposals for deep-sea fishing off our North-West coast would give France 80% of the quota, another 18% split between Ireland and Spain leaving 2% for Scottish fishermen. And Scottish taxpayers would have to fund the policing of this arrangement which covers areas that are entirely within UK territorial waters. Will our politicians do anything about this? Of course not.
Mark my words. It's only a matter of time before the EU lays claim to North Sea oil."
france will always be up to its' old tricks. As far as I'm concerned, you don't need 1500 amendments to a constitution. And if you let france rule, you're going to go the way of the USSR. Every day france is in charge, you list more to the left. My greatest fear is that the US will, once again, have to settle Europe. You are being colonized because your elitist attitudes will not allow you to assimilate those you feel beneath you. Check out last week's election. Islamization of france and Denmark, slowly and surely. Western values are slowly disappearing. france has lost its' soul.
#18
TGA - of course all dictators should tremble - because the example of what the Iraqi people will build will serve as an example to the people of other countries. Or at least it can as easily be read that way as that they should tremble at the power of the 3rd infantry division.
In any case Woolsey holds no official position in the US govt. If we were to quote every out of power SD or even CDU politician who has said something "impolitic" Im sure we could come up with something much uglier.
"Mr Blair was visiting the Chancellorâs home town of Hanover, en route to the Athens European Union summit. Herr Schröder was extravagantly grateful: for him it might indicate the beginning of the end of diplomatic isolation.
Yet behind the bonhomie, Mr Blair had a unsentimental mission: to drive a wedge into the so-called anti-war axis of Germany, France and Russia, by setting out the natural areas of agreement between London and Berlin. Mr Blair found himself preaching to the converted: Herr Schröder made plain that he no longer wanted to be lumped in an anti-war or anti-American camp. The open question after the meeting was how far the Chancellor is willing to exchange London for Paris in any future realignment within Europe.
Before the visit German officials tried to give the impression that Berlin and Downing Street could form a joint bridge between America and France and Russia. "
#20
liberalhawk - you see that because Europe does not want that confrontation with the U.S. But Europe wants the United States not being above international treaties and the United Nations.
And it's the Germans who invented the "realpolitik" after all. And the Germans do not want to exchange Paris for London or viceversa, they rather have London in the EU boat. That will guarantee that the French won't get any more free rides and nobody is afraid of German superpower. It's the Germans who want a fine balance in Europe because they know what happens when one nation wants to dominate the continent.
again - theres the connection with 9/11 (which i know most in Europe dont take seriously in the context of Iraq) We may be number one, dominant in GNP, military etc - but we still feel vulnerable. Its one thing to be constrained by an international body when its a question of stopping genocide in Kosovo - its quite another when we see our security at risk. The UN was created by the World War 2 victors (largely at US instigation, IIUC) because they saw it as ADDING to their security. It is not reasonable to expect the number one power to see its security endangered, and strategies to assure its security blocked, by the actions of an international organization acting at the behest of powers that offer no real alternative, and appear to be acting in bad faith. Most Americans, and even many neo-cons, where willing to go to the UN in fall of 2002, and saw UNSC 1441 (as Powell interpretated it) as a reasonable expression of international law and the UN. What we saw in the months after was France, Germany, and Russia acting in complete disregard of UNSC 1441, and putting the US in the position of choosing between its security (which included concerns about WMD, terrorism, AND regional change)and compliance with the UNSC. That is why "unilateral" action was ultimately supported by internationalists like Powell and Blair. If the international law and the UNSC are to be used simply to balance US power, and if EU integration is to be pursued simply to balance US power, the US can hardly be blamed for taking a policy of hostility towards EU integration, and of taking a view towards the UN of whatever we can get away with.
The test will come in the next few months - on the part of both sides - what will the axis do wrt Iraq - will it cynically hold up the end of sanctions? will it insist on predominant UN control as a way of asserting Franco-Russian control over Iraq - will it unreasonably object to any Iraqi leadership that appears to "pro-US" on the other hand - will the US impose particular leaders on Iraq - will the US accept some political role for the UN - will the US be willing to "share" reconstruction and oil contracts with the axis, if the axis ceases obstruction, or will the US continue to punish the Axis - will the US attempt to punish the axis in other areas even if the axis becomes less obstructionist. Will the axis attempt to punish the "willing" especially the Eastern Europeans. Will the US show its respect for international law by holding the Iraqi case unique, and pursuing different strategies in respect to Iran, Syria, and elsewhere. Will the axis take seriously US concerns about WMD, terrorism and interference in Iraq from Syria and Iran, and propose effective actions. Will the French and Germans attempt to develop European institutions, especially in the area of defense policy, that weaken the Atlantic connection, and pressure the rest of Europe to accept them.
#22
This is assuming of course the EU stays whole in the future. I hate to break it to you TGA but not everyone in eastern Europe is enthusiastic about joining the EU. Should something go terribly wrong, and you're looking at another reason for a war in Europe. In addition, I can't see how this "one size fits all" mentality of the EU will suit the weaker economies.
#23
Congratulations Fred. It was better than TV.
The exchange between liberalhawk and TrueGermanAlly was as enlightening and entertaining as anything I read in 3 years following Slate. (without the incumbent whining) I don't know your reasons for starting the 'burg, (I'm sure it wasn't the money) but whatever they were, I have just seen them intellectually justified.
There are policymakers in the beltway (and probably Berlin) who would be edified reading the above.
Posted by: Scott ||
04/18/2003 18:05 Comments ||
Top||
#24
TGA, I just read your response, and didn't go further/farther, whatever. To me, all Wolfie was talking about in 1992 was stability. We know that's what *the world* wants, as it has proven the past couple of months. (As I type tongue-in-cheek.)
Then I read Scott's and I don't think I'll measure up to LH, oh, well!
#25
I guess many things that were written ten years ago are re-read in a different light today. It's not necessarily the right reading now. I don't think that America and Europe have ever been closer together than the days after 9/11.
I'm still wondering how we could lose that so fast.
You can rest assured that I understand the US view much better than most people in Europe. And I share your view about being suspicious about the French. I just read a book from Emmanuel Todd: "Apres l'empire" (After the Empire). It's most interesting indeed because you'll find all your worries realized in there. Todd sees the "decline of the American Empire" due to a "parasite US economy depending on capital import" and leading "petty wars" to affirm itself. And he sees a strong Europe (with a Franco-German leadership backed up by Russia) that could seriously challenge the USA.
What the French (apart from the enlightening economical BS) don't understand: Most Europeans (and certainly not the Germans) DONT want to challenge the US (they see no point in this). The Germans still are very pro-American, Eastern Europe certainly still sees Russia as a threat that might come back. What most Europeans want is a prosperous continent. They will be happy with number two.
But "changing coalitions of the willing" will not be a fair substitute for 50 year old alliances. Schroeder certainly made capital mistakes but no one covered himself with diplomatic glory.
I think Powell could have handled the UN much better without the continuing interference from the Pentagon. Powell knew that he would only get the UN to agree if he played by UN rules. That meant sticking to the WMD issue. Had Bush not said that the US would go it alone, had the word "regime change" not jeopardized the WMD issue all the time the Security Council would have been more inclined to word 1441 in a clearer way.
But because everyone knew that the US would go for war and regime change anyway the UN tried the tactics of delay (which helped Saddam). So every destroyed cardboard missile was hailed as a success and Blix could go rambling about "significant progress".
"Saving face" is an Asian concept. But the UN had to save its face, too, after it became evident that the US would ignore it if it didn't vote the US way. Had Bush kept silent about what he would do in case the UN refused a mandate... I think he would have gotten it.
Because the fact that Iraq had not complied by March was obvious.
#26
Anon 11:19 a.m.-
The evil floating villain in Dune was the Baron Harkonnen, a really fat dude. The Harkonnens were the arch rivals of the Atraides, though had some blood relations via the manipulations of the Bene Gesseret witches.
Phew! All the detailed commentary above needed some O.T. relief.
#27
"But Europe wants the United States not being above international treaties and the United Nations."
I'm English, and I initially thought the US was being obstructionist as regards the UN (and by extension, the ICC, Kyoto etc). (I was naive then, this is before 9/11)
Then I read a DenBeste article which explained it all very clearly to me.
The United States has a constitution. It is relatively clear, and has been adjusted over the years since its inception (it does not have 1500 amendments). This constitution is not up for discussion with foreign powers, and the idea that a morally bankrupt organisation such as the UN, (examples; Libya - heading up the human rights commission, Iraq - disarmament!, any number of African kleptocracies having the same voice as democratic nations) should be able to dictate conditions to the United States which are contrary to the constitution is ridiculous.
TGA said "What most Europeans want is a prosperous continent" - that's fine, but what the ruling elites want is something else. Anyone who thinks that the Eastern European countries want to get into the EU to have their new found freedoms given away to Brussels/Paris is missing the plot.
Posted by: Tony ||
04/19/2003 6:44 Comments ||
Top||
#28
What Wolfie said could have come from any Government official from any where in the world.
"the idea of what an ally is and what you can expect from an ally will be redefined"
I think France and to a degree Germany"redefined" the defintion of an ally already.I all for a NAFTA type aggrement,it would sure put the screws to France's power play.
EFL
Three members of the White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee have resigned to protest the looting of Baghdad's National Museum of Antiquities.
Martin E. Sullivan, Richard S. Lanier and Gary Vikan, each appointed by former President Clinton,
said they were disappointed by the U.S. military's failure to protect Iraq's historical artifacts. Why were these appointees still hanging around anyway? That earns this the "fifth column" classification.
"The tragedy was not prevented, due to our nation's inaction," Sullivan, the committee's chairman, wrote in his letter of resignation. Inaction? Well, a couple of divisions were out for a drive...
Noting that American scholars had told the State Department about the location of Iraqi museums and historic sites in Iraq, he said the president "is burdened by a compelling moral obligation to plan for and try to prevent indiscriminate looting and destruction." Lanier criticized "the administration's total lack of sensitivity and forethought regarding the Iraq invasion and the loss of cultural treasures." Vikan said in a separate interview that he saw "a failure on the part of the United States to interdict what is now an open floodgate." If Allah's treasures are stolen by Allah's followers, couldn't only Allah could have willed it?
Posted by: Mark IV ||
04/18/2003 07:11 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If the Islaofacist manage to take control of Iraq,then by Sharia Law,there are going to be one hell of a lot of one handed people running around Iraq.
#2
The treasures stolen were from the pre-Allah days. Uday's love shack and Sammy's palace art is more indicative of the Muslim era in Iraq.
It's becoming clear that this was a case of theft, not 'looting' and was probably an inside job.
These bozos were on TV last night saying that they were quitting because President Bush failed to detail a squad of soldiers and a few tanks to protect the museum. This is nothing more than a blatant stunt to attack the current administration. The soldiers were ordered not to return fire coming from the museum precisely because they had been ordered not to damage it. Besides, IMHO, these objects are not worth a single US casualty and I am glad our commanders on the ground made that judgement.
#5
"Three leftists gone in one event " Weren't these guys Bush appointees? Which doesnt mean they weren't idiots. You think Dubya is not capable of appointing idiots?
Uh...what part of "each appointed by former President Clinton" did you refuse to understand?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 8:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Jeebus -- talk about your fifteen seconds of fame ... I wonder how many people even know somebody who knows somebody who knew that there was a White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee?
Posted by: John Phares ||
04/18/2003 8:51 Comments ||
Top||
#7
sorry i just skimmed the posting, and mainly focused on the comments.
My bad.
Dubya may be capable of appointing idiots, but these guys were not his. They were Bill's. I stand corrected.
#8
"The treasures stolen were from the pre-Allah days"
Point taken, but if you're a True Believer (TM), there are no pre-Allah days. All treasures are Allah's (/casuistry).
The theft of these artifacts is indeed a great loss. Perhaps Allah will prod some consciences into returning some of them, as reportedly happened elsewhere, but as you've pointed out this was a very deliberate act.
Maybe we should Blixie on the trail... he's a professional Finder of Things, no?
Posted by: Mark IV ||
04/18/2003 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Not a single piece in that museum was worth the life of a single Marine or soldier. If they thought the stuff that was been buried for centuries was so important, why didn't they volunteer to be humanshields for it? Oh, that would require THEM to put their lives on the line. Bunch of self-important blood sucking parasites that in the end live off the product of others and return nothing.
Posted by: Don ||
04/18/2003 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Just for the record, the Russians [Soviets] still have the Schliemann Troy booty they looted from Berlin in '45. Where's all the big outrage over that? Bunch of Transnational hypocrites.
Posted by: Don ||
04/18/2003 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Note yesterday's post:
It appears to have been an inside job - if the Iraqi museum had nothing of value left when we entered Baghdad, how can anyone without an agenda say we were in any way responsible?
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#12
There's an article in today's Wash Post about this. Head of UNESCO says it was an inside job.
I know i'm stating the obvious, but the USA will be blamed for everything that goes wrong in Iraq and receive no credit for what goes right.
Posted by: DJ Joey ||
04/18/2003 10:46 Comments ||
Top||
#13
The glue holding Iraqi society together was fear of the Ba'athist Party machine. There was no self discipline to fall back on after the regime fell. Now look at all the honcho wannabes coming out of the woodwork post Sammy. It was their heritage to protect and they did not do it. I am sure that our military commanders did not want to create an incident where we would have to shoot a bunch of looters which would lead to the biggest riot Baghdad would have seen. Plus our troops were worried about real mean-type pockets of crazy resistance. We are not like the Ba'athists or the Soviets, where they would have stomped out opposition like so many bugs. In this case our humanity and caution is seen as a weakness. Iraqis have a lot of growing up to do. Afghanistan was the introductory offer. We have a big and challenging job ahead, trying to repair the Iraqi national melon.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/18/2003 10:49 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Three members of the White House Cultural Property Advisory Committee have resigned to protest the looting of Baghdad's National Museum of Antiquities.
So what's the insinuation here? That Bush is personally responsible for the looting?
Marines are NOT the police, and they shouldn't have to be. No one in their right mind would put our military personnel in additional danger just to protect artifacts. If the local population doesn't give a crap about the artifacts themselves, why should we?
#15
I might be restating others comments here, but I once debated with a Muslim about the merits of Islam, and he was quite insistant that the Koran was very clear about personal responcibility, which was his justification for some of the draconian punishments utilized in the middle east. The crime of theft is punishable by whacking off the hand with a sword, and we aren't talking about anestesia here either! Being such a "religious" region of the world, I guess the whole looting thing is a bit of a disconnect for me. Even when the 507th was ambushed, the very first thing that occurred was the stripping of the contents of the vehicles. Am I being politically incorrect by saying the looting was maybe a cultural thing?
For a country that doesn't get good cable TV, these people sure turned Bagdad into the largest "Trading Spaces" episode ever. Even the old women participated.
#16
Libhawk, you're real man. You must be an old time liberal. Back when liberal meant doing something for other people. MLK and JFK probably would not associate with the shrill, selfish, hate-filled posers who call themselves liberals today. I actually believe that consevatives are the current Progressives and modern liberalism is the new Reaction.
I could just hear MLK say, just like he told Jesse, "Whatever it is you're doing Hillary, leave me out of it".
Posted by: Scott ||
04/18/2003 13:26 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Derbyshire has a great article about this on NRO... take a peek
Not so much JFK, as Hubert Horatio Humphrey, Scoop Jackson, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan -
closest I can come to that today is unfortunately not eligible of US office - I mean Tony Blair, of course.
Clinton had much of the ideology right, but not the "moral compass" Gore appeared to have more moral compass than Clinton, but has had real problem defining himself - I fear he had too much success too soon, as well as privileged background (and, more than Bush, suffered from his own intelligence, which made it hard for him to keep it from going to his head)
My hopes now are Lieberman - who has plenty of moral compass (despite usual political compromises) but hes not quite as liberal as I would like on domestic issues, and Im VERY nervous (as a Jew) about a Jew in office during the WOT. That leaves Edwards - Im still not sure if he has the needed gravitas.
Not that i think the Dems can win in '04 - if we nominate anyone hawkish enough to have a chance with center, we'll lose the lefties to Nader. The math dont work for us, not now, anyway.
#19
Lhawk - I was going to say, but forgot, (now you know I'M old) your musings betray a struggle of heart that reminds me of Blair. (And he might just as well come out of the closet and run on the right next time, he won't win otherwise)
I thought it interesting you used the phrase 'moral compass', the very reason I can't vote Democratic anymore. (even tho I don't have enough money to vote Repub!)
But I respect people who take principled positions, even if I disagree and even if they can't articulate them as clearly as some of the more vocal can. (the reason I prefer Shrub to Dad)
If you think dems can't win in '04 and you still have some party clout, get them to run Hillary (wink).
Posted by: Scott ||
04/18/2003 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I certainly hope Blair doesnt run on the right - i agree with him (and with Hitchens, despite Hitch's obnoxiousness on some other issues) that this the liberation of Iraq is NOT in contradiction with Social Democratic principles - that a full, commited Social Democractic approach to social justice incorporates a concern for the spread of democracy - even as we acknowledge and struggle with the desirability of recognition of sovereignty and international organization as limits on the rule of force. Nor does a turning away from certain leftist vested interests imply that the market always generates a just or desirable solution, and one cannot simply turn away from those concerns.
To some extent the moral compass problem derives from the Dems electoral problem - the US, unlike the UK is split down the middle between the right and the center-left/left coalition. That means that for the Dems to win they must nominate someone who can paper over the split between third way,centerleft, liberalhawks, and the full "progressive" left. And it takes someone with the waffling ability of a Clinton to do that. Already there is talk that only Kerry is nimble enough (IE sleazy enough) to win in '04. The only ways out of this are either a decline of the Dem left, or a shift of the whole spectrum far enough to the left to create a situation like UK where the 3rd way can win and not be held hostage by the left. the latter seems unlikely - the GOP is not as brain dead as the UK Tories, and the political culture is different - and I cant see the left going away either.
#21
Quit worrying about the Lost Treasure Vaults of Baghdad. They will soon be popping up in the clandestine antiquities markets of the world. And then we can recover them, one way or another.
Now, Indy may be a getting a little long in the tooth but what of his grandchildren [can you visualize this movie?]. Of course there is always Laura Croft [Tomb Raider] or Sydney Fox [Relic Hunter], who despite being imaginary, posses the vital chracteristic of being very, very pleasant to watch.
#24
If the Islaofacist manage to take control of Iraq,then by Sharia Law,there are going to be one hell of a lot of one handed people running around Iraq.
State Bank of Pakistan is fighting an uphill battle to crack down on financing for Islamic militant groups, after moves to freeze bank accounts failed to cut off their financial lifeline, officials said today. The State Bank of Pakistan has frozen 24 accounts held by outlawed Islamic militant groups over the last year and a half, containing 591 million rupees ($10.2 million) in deposits, a senior SBP official told Reuters on the condition of anonymity.
"I just caen't doo it, captain! I don't have the powerrr!"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 06:36 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Increased pressure by Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal, the six-party religious alliance, to force General Pervez Musharraf to step down as army chief has got the government to launch efforts to split the MMA by exploiting the cracks between the Jamaâat-e Islami and Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Islam, the two largest component parties in the alliance. After failing to leash the JI and its vaulting Amir, Qazi Hussein Ahmed, the government has now turned its attention towards JUI of Maulana Fazlur Rehman, which, according to well-placed sources, has indicated to be more amenable on the issue of General Musharrafâs position as army chief. Fazlur Rehman is known as Mullah Diesel in Pakistan, because of the alleged money he made on smuggling petrol through Pakistan back in 1993 when he was in the government of Benazir Bhutto. As you can tell from his obese appearance, he is a man with a taste for the finer things in life, and is probably much easier to buy off than the more fanatical Qazi.
Qazi's nearly as porky, his purchase price is just higher. He wants to be khalif...
âThe JUI has agreed to give [General] Musharraf a timeframe, about two years, to step down as army chief; the JI has put his immediate resignation as a precondition for accepting the LFO,â says a top official. The LFO is the package of amendments General Musharraf made through various ordinances and executive orders in the run-up to the October elections and the transition to democracy through the polls. The alliance, which came into being on January 2, 2002, has not been without friction. But the parties â primarily JI and JUI â have stuck together because of the Allianceâs political impact and the need to keep the vote-bank intact. âIt would have been easy to split them if they hadnât done so well in the elections. That they have, makes it more difficult,â concedes an official. The ISI succesfully split both the Pakistan Muslim League and Pakistan People's Party, Pakistan's two mainstream partys, leaving the elections wide open for the Army's PML-Q puppets, and the MMA fanatics. And that result was no accident, at least until Qazi decided not to play ball.
Clearly, any component party would like to weigh the benefit of staying within the Alliance with any perceived advantage of opting out or taking a unilateral course. âThe split in MMA will remain a pipedream, though it is true they [the government] are trying to divide us,â Qari Mohammad Usman, a JUI leader, told TFT. Asked whether the JUI was ready to give a timeframe to General Musharraf to step down as army chief, Qari Usman said: âThe issue has come up in the meeting with the PML(Q) and we are still awaiting the governmentâs reply. We want to know how much time Musharraf wants and why,â he said. For its part, in one of the recent MMA meetings, the JI has shown itself to be relentless on the issue and wants the alliance to launch an anti-Musharraf campaign.
Perv's moves to enforce some standards of honesty and competence in members of the National Assembly are anathema to organizations that draw their power from ignorance and graft. Qazi's nightmare is a secular state run with even modest efficiency. Splitting Perv off from the Army â where he still has power â would leave him without any base. He could be quarantined and end his days a figurehead while the Mullahs actually ran things...
The JIâs view is that while they are ready to support Musharraf as president, they will not allow him to continue in the role of army chief. Sources say the partyâs stance is also owed to General Musharrafâs liberal policies. I have wondered just who backs who when it concerns the Mullahs, the JUI was always close to the army and worked with them on the Kashmir Jihad and the Taliban project, whereas the JI is more ideological, and although they have historically also worked with the army, they aren't as corrupt. I have a feeling that Hamid Gul might be siding with the later, and the two of them are trying to bring to power a more Islamist general.
I think that's a real accurate assessment. But keep in mind that Qazi and JI were Hekmatyar's patrons in the Soviet war and that they were soul-mates to the Talibs. They regarded the Talibs' Afghanistan as the prototype of the New Pakland...
But while the JUI apparently supports the JIâs stance, it has shown interest in the signals emanating from the presidency. Some observers are quite confident that were the government to play its cards right, the JUI could support the move to give General Musharraf at least another two years to continue as army chief. At least one analyst thinks that such a support from JUI might not end up splitting the MMA. âIf the JUI accepts a compromise formula, the JI will have to make a decision about the MMAâs future. I donât think they would like to damage the Alliance. There is too much political capital tied in with its perpetuation,â he says, adding: âIn fact, the two parties might well be playing the game together, one presenting the tough face, the other the softer side.â
The "softer side" of hard-line Islamism is an interesting concept...
Basically, some intelligence agencies want to exploit the âdifferencesâ within the MMA, which first emerged on the issue of seat allocations before the elections and later during the formation of governments in the NWFP and Balochistan and the nomination of Leader of the Opposition. Meanwhile, some ground has already been covered in the PML(Q)-MMA negotiations. The MMA, which initially would have none of the LFO, has now come round to accepting the amendments package if General Musharraf were to step down as army chief.
'Nother words, they'll take the LFO if Perv will agree to set up the conditions for ditching it later. That's subtle...
Some PML(Q) leaders think that is no mean achievement. The PML(Q) president, Ch. Shujaat Hussain, recently met with General Musharraf and indicated the MMA is ready to drop resistance to the LFO provided General Musharraf would leave the post of army chief. The General has apparently rejected the idea and asked the government to take on the Alliance even if it means giving concessions to the JUI.
Proving Perv's no fool. He can play the game just as well as Qazi and probably better than Fazl...
âIf some kind of understanding is reached between the JUI and [General] Musharraf, the party may be given a major share in the government, including some of those ministries presently with the Pakistan Peoples Party Parliamentarians Patriots, PPPPP. Interestingly, the stock of PPPPP-wallahs is likely to plummet if Shujaat Hussain could pull off this coup,â says an analyst. Sources say while the JI now wants the âmillion marchâ formula to now be used as a platform for an anti-Musharraf campaign, the JUI is opposed to it at this stage.
Qazi gets his jollies from firing up large crowds of shrieking turbans...
Some sources say General Musharraf may soon invite the JUI chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman for a meeting if he is told the JUI is prepared to bite. But there is one quarter which might oppose the partyâs decision to play ball with General Musharraf: the emotionally charged workers, most of whom have also fought in Afghanistan and are generally considered rabidly anti-US and anti-liberal. Many of them have also been traumatised by General Musharrafâs decision to suddenly change tack and drop the jihad and the jihadis like hot potatoes.
I think we can all rest assured that if it's happening at all, it's a temporary measure. They're throwing al-Qaeda bones our way, but they're leaving the indigenous jihadis alone.
However, some observers think that may not pose a major problem if the party can sell the line that it has ended up getting a good deal by going along with the General. It's hard to be "pragmatic" when the rubes who voted for you actually expect you to follow up on your promises.
Within the MMA, the JI has the support of the Barelvi Jamiat-e-Ulema-e-Pakistan of Maulana Shah Ahmed Noorani. Noorani has also spoken out against the General describing him as a âmudhoshâ (inebriated) army chief who must be replaced by a âhoshwalaâ (sober) chief. Never before has the MMA top brass used such language against the General. Interestingly, some sources say the JI might be taking its cue from some former army generals who are opposed to General Musharrafâs policies and want the MMA leadership to speed up their campaign against the General and continue with their million-march strategy.
Games within games... The general-wallahs want the fundo-wallahs to overthrow the current strongman, so they can step in and "restore order" and somebody else can get to be the strongman. At which point an entirely new set of alliances and counteralliances is in order. Do you get the impression these people have nothing better to do? The Pak army's never won a war, and the politicians have never actually governed...
Observers believe that if the government fails to reach an understanding with the MMA or, alternately, split it the political climate could become hot. âThe ruling PML will make another attempt to come to an agreement with the MMA over the LFO. If it fails, [General] Musharraf will be forced to take some âdecisive decisionsâ,â says an insider.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
04/18/2003 03:43 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"General Musharraf claims to be an all-powerful president on the basis of last yearâs âpresidential referendumâ and the Legal Framework Order (LFO) under which 29 constitutional amendments were unilaterally framed, general elections were held and current parliaments constituted. Not so, protests the strong opposition comprising the MMA, PPPP and PMLN. Their argument is that General Musharraf must be elected president by parliament; that he cannot remain the army chief; and that some of his powers (especially those related to the sacking of the cabinet and parliament) obtained via the National Security Council must be curtailed. The net result is that, six months after coming into being, parliament is still unable to function. Under the constitution, the president must address a joint session of parliament after the general elections and at the beginning of each year. But the opposition is bent upon physically obstructing General Musharraf from addressing parliament because it doesnât accept him as a legitimate president and it doesnât consider his LFO to be a legitimate umbrella for his absolutist powers."
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
04/18/2003 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I thought PML-Q + PPP breakaways (PPPPP?!) had majority - does Perv need more to pass his constitutional "reforms"? Or a break in MMA to gain greater control at province level? Qucik review of Pakland situation needed - but this article is good start.
#3
"General Musharraf claims to be an all-powerful president on the basis of last yearâs âpresidential referendumâ and the Legal Framework Order (LFO) under which 29 constitutional amendments were unilaterally framed, general elections were held and current parliaments constituted. Not so, protests the strong opposition comprising the MMA, PPPP and PMLN. Their argument is that General Musharraf must be elected president by parliament; that he cannot remain the army chief; and that some of his powers (especially those related to the sacking of the cabinet and parliament) obtained via the National Security Council must be curtailed. The net result is that, six months after coming into being, parliament is still unable to function. Under the constitution, the president must address a joint session of parliament after the general elections and at the beginning of each year. But the opposition is bent upon physically obstructing General Musharraf from addressing parliament because it doesnât accept him as a legitimate president and it doesnât consider his LFO to be a legitimate umbrella for his absolutist powers."
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
04/18/2003 9:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I will try to explain the current political situation in Pakistan as best as I can:
The major conservative political party in the country, the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), lead by former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (Overthrown by General Musharaf in 1999), was opposed to the Army after the coup, but the ISI were able to engineer a split in the party that lead to a majority of it's members defecting to the pro army PML-Q faction which now forms the Pakistani government. However the remnants of the PML that are still loyal to Nawaz Sharif also have some seats left. Sharif is currently in exile in Saudi Arabia and can not return because he is wanted for Hijacking and corruption charges.
The only left leaning, liberal party in the country, the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) lead by former PM Benazir Bhutto, has been against the military and the Mullahs for decades ever since her father was overthrown and exectured by General Zia ul Haq in the 70s. She is currently in exile in London, and the ISI were able to engineer a split in the party to create the PPPP faction to support the PML-Q government.
Another political party that used to be a major player in the Karachi area was the MQM, which was composed of Indian Muslims who moved to Pakistan at partitian. It was historically opposed to the Army and the establishment, but the ISI were able to engineer a split between Immigrants from different regions of India, and the ensuing conflict between the MQM and the ISI backed 'Real-MQM' lead to thousands of deaths and turned Karachi into a blood bath for much of the nineties. Since then, the MQM's entire energies have been devoted to freeing it's activits from gaol and reclaiming it's territory from the rival faction, and as a result, it's former supporters have become disenchanted with it and have left it in droves. It's leader is also in exile and the Army wants to try him for murder.
The end result of all this, is that the Pakistni Army/ISI has managed to decapitate and fracture every major political party in the country, with the exception of the radical Islamists, who were brought together into a single bloc and all the criminal cases against their leaders dropped, and the other limitations placed on the other major parties in the country were not applied to them. This has had the result that the government is made up of opportunists of various types with no ideology or support base, and the only credible opposition is the MMA, of Qazi, Fasl, Sami and the rest. This was then used by Musharaf and the other Generals to further pressure America do provide further support because they were "all that stands before the Mullahs getting hold of Pakistan's nukes".
This has been going relatvily well, however, of late it seems some of the less "pragmatic" Army officers and Islamists have begun to become angry and the toning down of the Jihad in Kashmir, and the cooperation with the FBI. Although, as suggested in the article, this split could also be exaggerated in order to make the "good cop, bad cop" game the Pakistan's are playing seem more credible, and I doubt anyone really knows for sure what is the truth.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
04/18/2003 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Paul Moloney,
Thanks for that very detailed explanation. The place is a bigger shithole than even I could have imagined.
Remember the big Hoo-Haa everyone made when Saddam had that farce of a Presidential Referendum. Yet nobody made a big fuss When Perv had an equally farcical referendum, nobody except the EU who claimed that it had been rigged. Perhaps you'll all understand why the US is loosing credibility with most Indians especially when it comes to Pakland.
#6
How do you engineer a split in an opposing political party? Is it as simple as funding a Ralph Nader (or Perot) candidate or is there something more involved?
#7
Anon; the political parties aren't like the ones in the West, the MQM has been lead by the same leader for a couple decades, the PPP has been led by the Bhuttos for 30 years, and since there is no internal democracy or any chance or removing leaders from "their" political parties, it can be very easy to offer some money to some senior politicians and give them a promise of being a major player in the next government, as opposed to haveing to spend their next however many years outside of government because the Army won't let your party form government, and your exiled leaders refuse to compromise because they have a personal vendetta with the generals.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
04/18/2003 18:23 Comments ||
Top||
THERE IS INCREASING EVIDENCE THAT some doctors in Pakistan may have close links to Osama bin Ladenâs Al Qaeda network. Recently, a team of intelligence officials raided a house in Karachi to arrest two doctors but could not find them. The house was meticulously searched and some documents, CDs and a laptop computer were confiscated. Sources say the raiding team grilled the residents for hours trying to find out the whereabouts of Dr Khan and Dr Saif. Insiders say the intelligence officials were led to these two doctors by Dr Ahmed Javed Khwaja and his brother Ahmed Naveed Khwaja. The brothers were picked up some months ago for being connected to Al Qaeda. They faced terrorism charges until a few days ago when a court exonerated them. Until the filing of this report, however, they remained in custody.
And the "exoneration" means nothing. The Pak Supreme Court helpfully pointed out that there was no law of the land declaring Qaeda to be a terrorist organization.
FBI agents and Pakistani intelligence operatives picked up the two brothers and their seven family members from their house in Lahoreâs Manawan area on December 19 last year. Later, the authorities released other family members and charged the two brothers for having links with bin Ladenâs terrorist outfit. Dr Javed Khwaja and his two sons are US nationals while one of his brothers and a nephew have Canadian passports.
I don't imagine they'll be travelling back to the States very soon...
After the search the investigators collected everything they found from the house, including notebooks, phone-index, cell phones, four computers, all floppy discs and CDs. Marghoob Ahmed Mir, a brother-in-law of the physician, denied the doctor or his family members had any links to Al Qaeda or any jihadi groups, but admitted that the physician had been visiting Afghanistan during Soviet occupation. He visited there several times to help the war victims, he had said. Later it was found that Dr Javed also visited Afghanistan once after 9/11 (in October 2001) and took a truckload of medicines with him for the war victims.
Which in itself is not something to prosecute him for...
Interestingly, after their arrest interior minister Faisal Saleh Hayat had said the government had concrete evidence of Dr Ahmed Javed Khwajaâs links with Al Qaeda. Syed Shabbar, advocate general for the Punjab government told the Lahore High Court recently that authorities had handed over evidence linking the doctor and his immediate relatives to Al Qaeda terrorists to the ISI. He said that 15 computer compact discs, 10 floppy disks, three Afghan and three Egyptian passports were recovered from the home of Ahmed Javed Khwaja and given to the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) agency on January 4. âWe have handed over these items to ISI lawfully,â Shabbar told the court.
They're probably only misplaced... "I'm sure we have them here somewhere... Aha! I'll be they were on the 16th floor!"
Links of some doctors to Al Qaeda began in October last year when the ISI and FBI officials picked up a top orthopaedic surgeon Dr Aamir Aziz from Lahore and detained him for a month until a court ordered for his release. Dr Aziz was suspected to have links with Qaeda operatives and the investigators grilled him during his detention on his visits to Afghanistan in the nineties. Dr Aziz initially got associated with the Kashmiri militants, whom he trained in establishing advanced surgery and dressing stations. During the same period, he became inclined towards religion and grew a beard. He reportedly helped some Arabs, Yemeni and Sudanese families to cross over into Pakistani Balochistan. âThe FBI and CIA officials alleged that I had contacts with Al Qaeda and I helped them making chemical, biological, and radiological and nuclear weapons. It was a ridiculous allegation and by the grace of God, I succeeded in proving my innocence,â he had said after his release in November 2002.
"I always make a point of confining my practice to conventional explosives," he sniffed.
On October 30, the FBI-ISI officials arrested Dr Ghairat Baheer, son-in-law of the Afghan fugitive and leader of Hizb-e-Islami Gulbuddin Hekmatyar from Islamabad and shifted him to an unknown destination for questioning. No further details about the whereabouts of Dr Baheer, who is considered to be the spokesman of Hekmatyarâs party in Pakistan, could be known. Hekmatyar has recently been included in the United Statesâ lists of terrorists for which his friends in Pakistani jihadi outfits have reportedly sent him congratulations.
"Hurrah! Hek made varsity!"
On January 9 this year, investigators raided the Karachi house of Dr Akmal Waheed, provincial vice-president of Pakistan Islamic Medical Association (PIMA) but couldnât find him. The doctorâs family said he was out amputating people's hands visiting interior Sindh. The PIMA promptly took up the issue and said Dr Waheed had been visiting Afghanistan in the past under a United Nationâs programme to provide medical assistance to the Afghan people. It's part of the Food for Explosives program...
Sources said that during interrogation Dr Ahmed Javed Khwaja and his brother had hinted at some of their professional colleagues who had also been visiting Afghanistan or treating Taliban and Kashmiri militants at their hospitals. So if you are an infidel and looking for a penis enlargement, it might be a good idea if you don't go see Dr Mohammad.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
04/18/2003 03:34 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Say it ain't so!
The United States is frustrated with Pakistan's failure to stop Islamic militants from crossing into Indian-controlled Kashmir, a senior State Department official said Friday. ``The United States has, for some time, urged the Pakistani government to stop all infiltration across the Line of Control,'' Richard Haass, director of policy planning for the State Department, told Indian television channels early Friday in a videoconference from Washington. ``To be honest, we have not succeeded and we are disappointed and frustrated with that reality,'' he said. "To be honest, we are disappointed and frustrated that certain parties in the region act like schizoid, crack-addled, growth-arrested 14 year olds. And then there are the Indians to consider."
The statement came after angry statements from Indian Foreign Minister Yashwant Sinha, who has said Pakistan is a ``eminently fit case'' for the Hindu version of Dire Revenge preemptive strikes, drawing a parallel with the U.S.-led war against Iraq.
I actually agree with that statement. No smartassery here...
It was an unusual admission from the United States, which last year succeeded in pulling the two countries from the brink of nuclear war after Pakistan promised with its fingers crossed an end to cross-border strikes by militants. A promise from Perv is worth ...
The statement coincided with the visit of Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee to Kashmir, where he was scheduled to address the first public meeting by an Indian head of government in 16 years. ``It's simply a fact of life for the Pakistanis that our relationship with them will never improve beyond a certain point unless they quit acting like rabid fuckwits this issue is adequately addressed,'' Haas said. ``It will continue to be a major diplomatic reality for the United States.'' Depends. Fail to work with us and it will be a major diplomatic reality for you. We really won't care a whole lot once the jihadis are smacked down.
Kashmir is the focus of a 13-year battle by Islamic murderers militants to merge the region with neighboring Pakistan or make it independent. More than 61,000 people, most of them civilians, have died during the fighting since 1989. So have a referendum, boys. But you might not like the results, now would you?
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/18/2003 12:08 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yes, after 55 years of alliance with Pakistan, I think we should probably be getting a little miffed. We have spurned democratic India in favor of the Paks for almost that entire time. In return, the Paks have been a singularly treacherous, duplicitous, and unreliable ally. They had to be bribed and threatened into supporting the war against the Taliban, an operation so manifestly justified that even Germany, France, and the UN backed it. Yet we are offended that Indian opinion is not wholeheartedly supportive of our policies in other areas. Indian opinion was wrong about Iraq, but Indians are human beings, and 61,000 dead weigh pretty heavily in the balance of public opinion. India can solve this problem themselves if we send them the right signal. I don't think it would hurt to remind Musharraf of that.
#3
Atomic: "India can solve this problem themselves..."
You're referring to two very large smokin' holes in the ground where Pakistan and India used to be, I presume?
I have held the opinion for several years that the next use of nukes would be between the PakInd's - and, over that time, a varied range of thoughts on whether that would be good or bad.
I will be out of touch for a few days, but I'd like to see you be more specific regards your post. Your site doesn't reveal your precise position, unless it's buried out in the Message Board, or something. BTW, nice site - I'll be back to see what's up!
I definitely agree that we should, to the largest extent possible, be trying to get off this mudball and find another compatible with our delicate condition. You just know that, eventually, we will tip Mother Nature over onto her head and overtax her remarkable self-healing / self-regulating abilities - and ruin this one. I'm only semi-green and do not wish to go back to the trees - hat tip to Douglas Adams, may he RIP, a hero to thinking apes everywhere.
Based upon this, and the fervent wish that we might "cleanse" the Ark (A or B???) inhabitants of their superstitions and delusions (read: religion, etc.) during the trip, colonization of a new mudball seems rather important. As Dylan / Zimmerman said: "He not busy being born is busy dying."
Re: PakInd difficulties, they are all mired in the insoluble human condition: my superstitions are Truth - yours are mere superstitions or, worse, blasphemy... I must kill you...
My solution: take all of the children away from their parents by age 3. Send them all somewhere without adults - I guess this means we need some serious advances in AI. Unable to take these intellectually perfect little sponges and fill them full of stupidity and bias and hate and propagate the foolishness that passes for various societies, in approx 2.5 generations, all of the current idiocy would cease via simple attrition.
I think we should fill their heads with Douglas Adams and Buckminster Fuller and P.J. O'Rourke, but that's just another twisted man's opinion.
#4
PD,
I agree,if the human race is to have a future we need to start expanding off"Dear Old Mother Earth".
But you certaianly startled me.First we have "Rabid Jihadis"now"Rabid Athiests"who'da thunk it,(lol).
#5
raptor - rabid atheists are nothing new - didnt we deal with that for over 70 years (1917-1991) (not holding that against all atheists - only rabid ones) Not interested in going back to that sort of thing.
Pakland and India - we have to put pressure on Pakland over J&K or we lose all credibility with India - terrorism against US is reason to change regimes by force in Afghan and Iraq, and terrorism against Israelis is reason to at least put pressure for new leadership in PA, but Islamic terrorism against India and we look the other way? If I was Indian id sure as hell be pissed. Not that i think nuke war is good idea, and we have other things on the table with Pakland, but we have to make it clear we take this stuff very seriously.
#6
Liberalhawk - on the money re: J&K. We have to stop the Pak infiltrations into Afghanistan and Kashmir. My biggest worry is that if the fundo Paks get over on Perv (no choirboy himself, but the lesser evil there), they might force the Indians to take pre-emptive action. Nukes in the hands of two hostile groups, one believing in martyrdom, the other believing in reincarnation = no restraint. We need to isolate Pakland and support India
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 9:18 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I remember Kissinger's famous "Tilt toward Pakistan" bit years ago. That was a mistake. Reading the last couple of postings on Pakistan gave me the beginnings of a headache, trying to keep track of all the maneuverings of parties. People are not working toward a consensus and it will not change in the near future, seeing how the younger generations are being "educated." I hate to bring up the "follow the money" bit, but it seems that this land of nutcases is being financed by either/both Saudi and US money. I would imagine that the the private sector is hurting because foreign money other than Saudi or US is scared away. What would the implications for the US AND Afghanistan be if we started pulling the plug? This is all a very complicated situation, but in effect we have become enablers for these jihad and spittle generators?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/18/2003 11:08 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Pakistan is on the edge. Its in our best interests to guide them in the right direction. To do that we need to help the General get rid of some of the psychos and getting them to go into Afghanistan where we can kill them is probably the best way to do it I can think of.
#9
"rabid atheists are nothing new - didnt we deal with that for over 70 years (1917-1991) (not holding that against all atheists - only rabid ones) Not interested in going back to that sort of thing."
In my opinion this is off a little. Communism is more like a religious cult than a political philosphy. The worshipers believe everything on faith, requiring no proof to justify their world view and easily discounting all evidence that their world view is incorrect. As a religion the believers aren't really atheists.
#10
Yank - yeah, like the jihadis arent real muslims, Kahanists arent real Jews, etc, etc. They didnt (and dont) believe god exists ergo theyre atheists. Your evidence that theyre not is simply evidence that theyre "rabid". Atheists who want to be taken seriously when condeming abuses of one religion or another need to acknowledge that atheism is subject to abuse as well, rather than hide behind a CAIR-like distinction of what is "real atheism". Atheism -the philosophy of peace - POP(TM)?
#11
PD, the redoubtable J.N. Dixit has a very interesting discussion of the Indian pre-emption issue in today's Indian Express. He does not think the Iraq model is a valid precedent. Nevertheless, without minimizing the dangers, he does believe that it can be done without escalating to a nuclear exchange.
#12
My solution: take all of the children away from their parents by age 3. Send them all somewhere without adults - I guess this means we need some serious advances in AI. Unable to take these intellectually perfect little sponges and fill them full of stupidity and bias and hate and propagate the foolishness that passes for various societies, in approx 2.5 generations, all of the current idiocy would cease via simple attrition.
PD- have you ever read "Lord of the flies"?
I suspect your little human engineering experiment may turn sour.
#14
We allied with Pakistan originally because in the early stages of the Cold War we asked India if we could set up air bases in their country, and they said no. So instead we turned to Pakistan which said yes. In response India became a big member of the pro-Soviet Non-Aligned Movement.
Of course, the old alliances are a legacy of the Cold War. India would make a better ally in many ways, but not all. Pakistan is a problem in terms of anti-American terror, but Musharraf has certainly worked aggressively with the US. He's being undermined by many people who remain anti-US, but Musharraf's help is big. If we turn our back on him now, we're basically telling everyone that helping the US is for suckers. If not for Musharraf we'd probably have let India take Pakistan down. It's a very tricky situation because our long term interests definitely conincide more with India than Pakistan. But hey, this is why we have diplomats.
Posted by: Chris Durnell ||
04/18/2003 15:52 Comments ||
Top||
#15
DoDo - No. Half of a thought is all the credit you get. AI = Parental Substitute sans the superstitious BS. Lord of the Flies was: a) only a BOOK, not the "TRUTH" and b) they HAD MEMORIES of a system - a flawed system created by their parents back thru the ages of the British Isle - and they executed it to perfection. Just EXACTLY my point, in fact, as this is what the AI would specifically LACK and PREVENT.
Raptor: You chose the word. I just observe, look for the flaws, rethink without the bad gears / algorithms. I have a simple enough theory for you: children start out perfect. They are TAUGHT what to fear and hate. Corrolary: Once taught, it's too late... so if it's all grown up and it's broken, you're probably going to have to kill it... Even though most studies are incredibly biased toward hope of rehabilitation (that's how they get funding, doncha know) check out the undeniably abysmal stats - and recidivism rates (especially for violent crimes) for my reasoning.
liberahawk: My oh my what a skeered little primate we have here! What is the difference between your spew, Geo43's Faith-Based spew, Falwell's spew, the Pope's spew, and Ayatollah Khomeini's spew? Nothing but the favored flavor. You like Vanilla and he likes Chocolate. You're all simply following well-worn paths because it's comfortable (you were raised to it) and you don't REALLY have to think (you were raised to it) and it promises you a great thumbsuck in the sky to assuage your fears of dying and being wormfood. Poor, poor skeered litle primate. Sorry, but you're fucked and fucked-up. If you ever free yourself from the amber of your accidental bloodline's foolishness, c'mon back and we'll talk. Otherwise, if you can't see what I'm saying and hear the clear ring of truth in it, then you are "already all grown up and broken..." Waste.
Frank: PakIndiLaysian problems. All solutions in this arena are extremely limited in duration / scope. I've become convinced that you really NEED two smoking holes and have both of these mountains of incredible foolisheness removed from the pool. Those that emigrate to the US, UK, Canada, etc, collectively, drag the same insanity and mindless crap along with them. They clump / cluster in their new homes and, when they reach critical mass, become cancerous tumors of their new host. Look around and tell me what you see - maybe I'm not working without data... If I am, it's not going to work. Just like the Iraq Experiment is not going to work, IMHO. Noble idea, but wasted if we don't impose it with an iron fist and seal it off to keep it from being infected in its youth. Sad. Pathetic.
All: This isn't Rocket Science. People in weblogs like this are the most likely people on the planet (progressive, tech savvy, abstract thinkers, communicators, opposable thumbs for driving mice and building tractor beams, etc) to be able to shake off what you were taught from birth and think it through, one issue at a time, to build your own universal view from these pieces. The people in this venue are likely Children of Aristotle - at least to the degree that they are willing to submit their view (and each of its components) to rigorous Scientific Method scrutiny, and discard the pieces that fail the test. This can be done in the privacy of their own minds. Jerry Springer guests are specifically excluded. In other words hunt your own herd for the sacred cows, then have BBQ - as often as you find them - but do it in private.
I guess that some are not capable of actual dialog - too dogmatic and blind and full of the crap Mommy 'n Daddy believed. Sad - more minds wasted. More "B" Ark reservations...
From Sydney Morning Herald
The Australian Defence Force says its special forces in Iraq have found more than 50 Soviet-made fighter jets, a chemical-proof bunker and a vast store of anti-aircraft guns and munitions at an Iraqi base west of Baghdad.
Guess Mr Amir will have to lower his inventory report. I'm not going to ask why they've got them hidden in bunkers when they're afraid to fly them...
The Australian commander in Iraq, Brigadier Maurie McNarn, said troops had also found a French-made Roland anti-aircraft missile system, although it was too early to say when it was acquired and how. He said secret dialogues with Iraqi air force commanders had played a large role in preventing those weapons being used against the coalition.
The coalition had bombed the base early in the war but the extent of the weapons cache was not revealed until SAS troops, commandos from the 4RAR battalion and specialists from the Incident Response Regiment searched the base last week. The troops, 200 in all, came up against some armed resistance during the raid but soon secured control of the base. "It was far more extensive than we first thought," Brigadier McNarn said. The planes included 51 fully operational Soviet-made MiGs, including three advanced Foxbat MiG-25s. Brigadier McNarn said the planes would have presented a serious threat to the coalition if they had been used. However, the Iraqi air force never got off the ground during the conflict, giving the coalition freedom to bomb Iraqi troops and command bases.
I don't think the Iraqi air force even woke up during the conflict...
"We established means of contacting some senior Iraqis and we also sent them some personal messages saying 'you really don't want to do this'," Brigadier McNarn said. "We got some indications back through a number of the channels we set up ... that they didn't want to fight." The commander said special forces had found an underground bunker that had been designed to withstand chemical and biological attacks and a training centre for handling weapons of mass destruction. Brigadier McNarn said troops were continuing to explore the base for any weapons of mass destruction. Hat tip to "Sgt Stryker"...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/18/2003 08:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
U.S. and British forces have released 887 Iraqi prisoners, but continue to hold 7,000 others as they sort through those captured in the monthlong war in Iraq, the Pentagon said today. "We are busy going through the process of determining their status. We have said all along that we don't want to hold anybody any longer than necessary," said Navy Cmdr. Chris Isleib, a Defense Department spokesman. He told Reuters the 887 released as of Friday had been determined to be noncombatants and were not part of any Iraqi military force. The remaining 7,000 prisoners, many members of regular Iraqi army units, were still being investigated to determine their status and whether they might be charged with any crimes.
I imagine most of the real bad guys are elsewhere...
Isleib said he did not know exactly where the Iraqis were released. A large number of prisoners are being detained in the southern port city of Umm Qasr, where a tent city is being built that could hold as many as 24,000 prisoners. The spokesman said some prisoners were being held elsewhere in Iraq, including with units of the U.S.-led military force that invaded the country to overthrow the government of missing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 06:48 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
I think we all knew this was coming, in one form or the other. This is excerpts only. The original is six miles long, and even windier...
Source: CDLR
My brothers, salutation from Allah I send to all of you.
Thanks. What's on your mind, chum?
I want to share this great information, great news from Iraq-ul-Islam. I need to ask you to listen to the message, read it and contemplate about it because it is going to be the last message from me that I am able to relay to you from Aman.
You mean, like in Jordan?
What has happened is that all the brothers in Baghdad have been here for the last 30 days. But last week when Sahaaf the Iraqi information minister last spoke and just after that the two US tanks entered on that day we sent our delegation the letter to Aman.
Hokay. I'm not real clear on what the hell you're talking about...
First of all I must carry the salutation of 8000 Mujahideen in Iraq. This Busharah is for those people whose eyes are full of tears because they see the people of the cross in the Muslim land in Dar-ul-Salaam, in Baghdad, in the cradle of the Abbassi Khilafah. I send this good news to all those people who have been misled by the magicians and the magic of the pharaoh of this time. Those tricks of the magicians of today, the Jews and the media, they deceived many Muslims of the world and defeated them even before the battle has started. The situation in Iraq is not the way the Jews tried to show or demonstrate by their own magic. We are going to tell you the truth.
Yes, by Gawd! Everything you see around you, that ain't happening. It's all smoke and mirrors. We're real and they're not, and you might not be either!
Iraqi forces retreated from Baghdad and from all other cities. This is not an issue of defending the soldiers of the Baath Party. This withdrawal was in accordance with our consultation between the leadership of the Mujahideen and the leadership of the Iraqi forces. A new type of bomb was released one that compares to small nuclear type bombs over Baghdad. They (US) used it because it was a new type of bomb that had not been banned internationally and they dare not use Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) because they themselves would not be able to defend themselves against such weapons. They are going to persist in bombing, killing and destroying without desiring to come and fight face to face.
He still hasn't quite grasped the concept of modern warfare...
When they faced resistance in Umm Qasr, which is only a small place, it took them 14 days to take control of 2 small roads. So they realised that they need to use very powerful bombs to inflict maximum damage on the Iraqi army and Iraqi people thus leading to an uprising. The Shia who have been trained by the US will fight against the Iraqi regular army and the Kurds from the North and there will be fighting on the streets whilst the Americans continue the bombing everywhere. After all this we decided to adopt the tactics as in Afghanistan.
Does that mean running away like the Talibs did? Collapse as a military tactic?
We cannot fight as a regular army with a cowardly enemy who doesn't want to clank swords with us engage in land warfare. They have superiority over us by their airpower therefore the only way we can fight their regular army is to engage them in a guerrilla war. But there is no Tora Bora and there are no mountains in Iraq like the mountains in Afghanistan.
Hmmm... Does present something of a problem, doesn't it?
The Mujahideen (Taliban) in Afghanistan retreated from all the cities to Pakistan and gave them up so the bombing could stop but the cowards never stopped the bombing and never came down to meet us. The Muslims have inflicted maximum damage on them and they can't even claim victory in Afghanistan.
Sure we can. We just haven't claimed victory in Pakistan. Yet.
We decided to use the same technique and the Iraqi leadership thank Allah accepted our Shura. This is the sole reason why we retreated especially after we found that there are enough places to be protected in, better than Tora Bora. These are the bunkers and tunnels of Iraq, they were constructed by the Iraqi forces in 1989.
Ahah! They're gonna become troglodytes, popping out of the ground...
The location of these places is guarded, nobody knows where they are except a few people in the Iraqi leadership. All the Mujahideen are going to stay in the streets. All the Iraqi regular army will go to the bunkers, 150,000 fighters who are extremely loyal to the regime and with them there is 150 Iraqi air jets MiG 27 and 2500 Iraqi tanks.
And 150,000 fighters loyal to the regime will bring with enough groceries to feed 150,000 indefinitely, and sanitary facilities, and clothing and equipment. The 150 jets will take off from rolled up runways that're kept stored in the bunkers. Skilled mujaheddin mechanics will maintain the 2500 tanks, keeping them in tip-top shape...
The agreement was that all the forces of Iraq, artillery, army, intelligence, informers, Republican Guard, Fidaaee Saddam and all other troops will retreat from their places and come to the bunkers leaving the cities for the kuffaar to enter. They informed Al Jazeera to declare that the whole city of Baghdad is empty. We kept with us the young Mujahideen who used to be called Fidaaee Saddam. They converted them to become Fidaaee Islam; they declared to die for the sake of Allah.
"Sammy, Allah... What the heck, it's all the same, ain't it?"
Oh Muslims when the order to vacate all the cities came to the Iraqi forces, they were deserted when the American entered and they found no resistance. They claimed victory and invited all the cameras of the world to show what was happening to demoralise the army but they forget that there was no army there to be demoralised.
Stunning oversight on the part of the infidels...
However this (propaganda) would have affected some of the people in Iraq so we decided to cut the power supply completely, no communication and there will be no television that can be seen by the Iraqis.
Brilliant! Brilliant! And it'll never come back! More! More!
You saw how they demonstrated their hatred and started to motivate the people to loot, to cause anarchy and to uprise. Oh Muslim Ummah, Iraq is strong, strong by the Mujahideen whom are collecting all the weapons they want, they have the enemy they wish to meet and will continue to fight until either they are victorious or attain martyrdom.
Until they attain martyrdom, anyway...
What you see in Iraq is a military tactic, nothing more than that and what the media shows is not the truth. All of this was manufactured by the American forces, to prove that there is no system left. Oh Brothers, whosoever wants to come to us there is no way because our trip is to be the last trip and if you do so you will be putting your life at risk.
"Once you're in, you can't get out..."
Be patient and prepare yourselves wherever you are. Until the appropriate time you will join the Mujahideen, with full details of how to reach us. In the end we say to you the crusaders did not achieve what they came for, they came for the oil and whenever they start it by Allah we will destroy it. The crusaders understand there is a trap and there is no way for them to go out. We are always able to capture from them, able to kill from them soldiers. By Allah we can see them but they cannot see us and we are around them but they are not able to recognise us.
Sure we can. They're the ones in the bunkers and tunnels. The troglodytes...
We call upon all the Muslims, in particular the ones in the Arabian Peninsula to be ready, the confrontation is going to start in the Arabian Peninsula. By Allah we have discovered very rich land and very cultivated land full of weapons, good for training and an enemy we can see.
Sounds like Yemen to me...
Inshallah Victory will be soon for the Muslims
Abu Iyad Amir of Mujahideen in Baghdad
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 06:13 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And if victory will not be soon for you how will you interpret that message from Allah? That Allah despises you?
I think these guys are right, we definately do not worship the same God.
#2
Wow! At first I thought this was a spoof, but the site is a pro-jihadi and the report seems to be real. Whatever 'real' means in the Islamo-phantasy world.
One point out of many I could make - But there is no Tora Bora (mountains in Afghanistan) and there are no mountains in Iraq like the mountains in Afghanistan. - Er, buy a map! There are plenty of mountains in Iraq. Unfortunately from the Jihadis perspective they are full of distinctively unfriendly Kurdish Pergamesh.
Just out of curiosity does any one know what this refers to? Oh Brothers beware victory doesn't come until after hardship. In the Battle of the Trench (Ahzaab) remember the example of the Trench the Muslims worked hard to build the trench and the trench was 9km long. They built it in extremely cold weather conditions in a few days and that hardship brought victory in the end.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/18/2003 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Update: Battle of the Trench (Ahzaab) was a battle between Muslims and local tribes at Medina around 700 AD.
The Muslims won and celebrated by massacring 700 Jews. Figures!
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/18/2003 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Man it is obvious that guy is smokin' and drinkin' everything he can get his hands on...including anit-freeze. You think maybe he's buckin' to be the new InfoMan?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
04/18/2003 19:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I, too, had to visit this site before I could believe it. There's an interesting piece supposedly from one of the embeds, Green? Seems he's smoking the same stuff. All anti-military, anti-US. If this guy really did spend four weeks with the Marines and spews this kind of garbage, he's going to do it in the presence of a couple of Marine vets from the units he was in one day. They will explain to him, very politely, why that isn't a good idea. If he does it twice, they won't be polite any more, and he will live the rest of his life without any teeth.
I do believe there are a lot of Iraqis living in tunnels right now, and that probably does include a bunch of the high brass. However, I'm also sure there are a bunch of US tunnel rats looking for them, and pretty soon, there won't be as many. Each day, their number will become less, until it finally reaches zero. THAT will be the day Baghdad will finally be free.
As for the Amir/Emir/high muckraker is concerned, I may just have to lay an old Voodoo curse on him, one taught me by a very old lady in Louisiana, back when I was a kid. Problem with them is that they work, and they're nasty. Even nastier than Sadsack's jails. Yep, just may have to do that...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/18/2003 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
No, don't OP. Die clean. Just sic God on him. Allah has so far proven to be a weak sister.
Posted by: Scott ||
04/19/2003 1:33 Comments ||
Top||
Some Iraqis swear they saw their deposed leader this week in Baghdad, others say heâs taken refuge in an underground maze. Some say he's working in the Burger King, with Elvis. Saddam Hussein still haunts Iraqis, 10 days after US tanks rolled into the heart of their capital and seized control. One resident told a group of foreign journalists in the Al-Azamiyah neighbourhood that they âshouldnât believe the Americans, Saddam might still return.â An uneasy silence falls over the crowd.
I think we can safely discount that possibility now. Unless the "occupation" troops leave next week.
Baghdadis, who only this month have emerged from nearly a quarter of a century of living in fear, have yet to cast off Husseinâs lengthy shadow. The deposed Iraqi leaderâs whereabouts and state of decomposition are unknown. But on Friday Abu Dhabi TV aired on Friday what it said was footage of Hussein walking in a Baghdad neighbourhood and giving a speech on April 9, the day US tanks rolled into the heart of the capital. The TV station said it was his âlast speechâ which had yet to be broadcast. They said they had received the video from a âcredible sourceâ early Friday in Baghdad. It was the first time a television channel said it had footage of the ousted leader showing him to have survived a massive US bombing of a Baghdad building he was supposed to have been taking refuge in two days before the capitalâs fall.
Even if it's real, which it probably isn't, it doesn't matter, as long as we take the machinery apart. Sammy can't do squat without his posse and his foreign suppliers.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 05:16 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
An estimated 10-12,000 angry protestors, according to eyewitnesses, marched through central Baghdad chanting âWe will not sell our countryâ and condemning the US presence in Iraq with signs that read âNo to occupationâ. The demonstrations, unheard of during Saddamâs 24 years of repressive rule,
They were mandatory in Sammy's 24 years of repressive rule â just that you had to be in support of him. Where the hell was Jazeera?
came following the first full Friday prayers since the fall of his regime, with hundreds of thousands of worshippers flocking to mosques across Iraq. Leading Muslim clerics denounced the presence of US and British forces in the country, galavanising Iraqis frustrated at the slow restoration of basic services like water and power in the aftermath of the US-led invasion of Iraq.
The usual holy men whipping up the faithful. We all noticed what a fine job they did at whipping up the faithful to throw out a repressive dictatorship. They couldn't get rid of Sammy. We got rid of Sammy. How do they expect to get rid of us?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 04:57 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They'll be rid of us at about the same time as the Palestinians are rid of Israel -- the day that they become tolerant and peace-loving. I don't think it will happen -- they have neither the education or inclination to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps and do something fruitful. They'd rather live in the 10th century, blame everybody else for their woes, and champion suicide bombers as role models. Oil is their welfare program. And thus they are the cannon fodder for their dictators and clerics. This is not the stuff that America is made of.
Posted by: Tom ||
04/18/2003 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ya notice what the US forces did in response to this outbreak of protesting? Not one damn thing. No one was shot, tortured or raped because of this protest.
The fact they can do this at all now is a good sign
Posted by: Ben ||
04/19/2003 4:35 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
US troops have arrested one of Iraq's most wanted leaders after he was captured and handed over by Kurds. In one piece? Nice restraint by the kurds
The senior Ba'ath party official was taken into US custody near Mosul yesterday. "Please, Please, don't let them kill me"
US Brigadier General Vincent Brooks said Samir Abd al-Aziz al-Najim was arrested and has been positively identified. "He is now in Coalition control," he said, speaking from Central Command in Qatar. Al-Najim is the former Ba'ath party regional command chairman for east Baghdad and a member of Saddam Hussein's military branch.
The Waffen Baath Party...
He had served as Iraq's ambassador to Egypt, Turkey, Spain and Moscow and was one of Saddam's closest aides. "We think we have someone here - all those people on that list of 55 have information on the inner workings of the regime. That relates to weapons of mass destruction; that relates to terrorism," Brig Gen Brooks told reporters. US forces had conducted a raid on a house Wednesday looking for al-Najim, but found no one in the building after breaking down the door. He is listed as the four of clubs in the deck of cards detailing the most wanted members of Saddam regime.
Also: FoxNews - Wm. LaJeunesse interviewed a US army captain who said his troops at the baghdad palace of saddam stumbled on a cache of cash (USD $400 million - nonsequential used bills) hidden behind a false wall in an outbuilding while they were looking for a chainsaw to trim trees away from their tank antennas. Someone's gonna be REALLY disappointed
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 09:26 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This piece just ran in the Washington Post. They also included a section on how Shiites are protesting in Baghdad against US presence, telling the US to leave before they (the Shiites) force the troops out. This is troubling. What do you suppose is going to happen here? On a lighter note, the piece also mentions that monkeys at the local zoo were freed to roam the streets. How the heck are they going to find them? They'll fit right in with the local population. Some of them will probably be imams by next week.
Posted by: joe ||
04/18/2003 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The huge cash cache is really butch! Dozens and dozens of large metal boxes neatly packed with wads of genuine US greenbacks, not the toilet paper called Iraqi dinars. Imagine how many more stashes Saddam and his goons have around the country.
Again and again, how come the Iraqi children were starved and medically neglected when things like this were commonplace? Oh, that's right, the pressure we put on the Baathists forced them to put aside a few dollars for a rainy day! If the nasty old US wasn't so gungho about enforcing the UN sanctions Iraq would just be another Switzerland. And everyone would have peace and fluffy bunnies!
Bechtel Corp., the San Francisco construction giant known for its global reach and high-powered political connections, won a contract Thursday worth up to $680 million to rebuild Iraqi roads, schools, sewers and hospitals damaged in the war. The contract, sought by the nation's largest construction firms, places Bechtel squarely in the middle of U.S. efforts to reshape Iraq. Good idea. Big company, lots of experience, well run — oh, I just noticed they aren't French, either!
The company will repair Iraq's waterworks, its electrical grid and its sewage systems. Bechtel also may dredge the seaport of Umm Qasr — gateway for food and medical supplies flowing into the country — as well as repair Iraq's airports. The U.S. Agency for International Development, in charge of picking companies for Iraq's reconstruction, offered few details Thursday of why it chose Bechtel. The selection process, which was cloaked in secrecy because of national security concerns and which was open only to U.S. companies that were invited to bid by the government, angered critics in Congress and abroad. Bechtel, however, pointed to its 60-year history building pipelines, airports and oil sites in the Middle East as credentials for the job. The company has roughly 1,000 people stationed in the region.
Although the company offered few details of its plans, spokesman Michael Kidder said Bechtel was meeting with USAID to prioritize the work, determining which of the many tasks had to be handled first. The firm then will seek subcontractors to help, a process Kidder said would be open to companies from other nations. USAID raised the possibility that some of the work would go to Iraqis, saying in a press release that Bechtel would "engage the Iraqi population and work to build local capacity." An agency spokeswoman, however, said USAID had no authority to require that Bechtel hire subcontractors from any specific country. Smart move, though. Get idle hands to work.
The contract is the largest for Iraq's reconstruction so far awarded by USAID, which has also hired companies to piece back together the country's education system and run the Umm Qasr seaport. Although the government may spend $680 million on the contract during the next 18 months, the initial award to Bechtel Thursday was far smaller, totaling $34.6 million. Bechtel's decision to bid for the contract turned the company's Beale Street headquarters into a flash point for protests in recent weeks. Demonstrators repeatedly tried to block the building's entrance, saying Bechtel wanted to make money from war. "They use the word reconstruction," said Patrick Reinsborough, a loonie an organizer with Mendacious Anti-American Twits Direct Action to Stop the War. "To us, this appears much more a second invasion of Iraq, a carving up of the country by U.S. corporations." The government's process of picking companies to rebuild Iraq drew its own protests. Foreign firms resented being shut out. Well then, get your own countries to put up some dough. There's lots to be done.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/18/2003 12:42 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That $34 Million is mobilization money, a standard part of any construction contract. Listened to NPR's headlines this AM and they're already spinning:
"Bechtel is a large company - 59% of whose political donations went to Republicans. The company is similar to Halliburton, a company formerly associated with Dick Cheney"
Jeebus!
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Here's a real shocker for y'all - most big corps are run by...Republicans!
#3
It will be about 2 hours days or so before Dowd or Krugman make a 'direct' connection between Bechtel and someone high up in the Bush Administration (Cheney owning 100 shares in his 401(k)), thus allowing the Bush junta to rampage unchecked over Iraq (insert Dr. Evil laugh here).
#4
Bechtel is privately held.. Cheney doesn't own any stock.
I've worked with the company in the past. Its corporate culture is pretty decent. They'll do a good job. Based on what I know of the business, I'd say they're probably the best pick.
I'm guessing, but I'd say that there may have been an "evaluated bid" process without formal bids. Instead, the possible companies were evaluated based on their capabilities, and Bechtel won. This cuts at least a month off the process, and time is of the essence.
#5
I can only smile that Bechtel is HQed in the Financial District of that most Republican of cities... San Francisco!
If anybody was late for work because "useful Idiots" laid down in traffic a few weeks ago, it would have been the HQ employee's of this company.
Heh, I smell a conspiracy here. I bet this "sweetheart deal" was brokered by Bechtels very own person congress person... Let's see, that would be California's 8th Congressional District Congresswomen Nancy Pelosi... Geez Nancy, I would expect to see you morally outraged on CNN tonight that this went down in a multi national company HQed in YOUR district. We know you support the troops and all, but this outrage must be stopped, right Nancy? I will be listening...I am sure you will do what is right.
The New York Times John Burns who has done some fantastic reporting from Baghdad tells an incredible story on the PBS newhour with Jim Lehrer (see real audio link). John's courage is in stark contrast to Eason Jordan's of CNN.
They were trained in the art of war and came to Iraq to fight. But now that the regime has been toppled, Army Special Forces soldiers in Diwaniya have found themselves on an entirely different and, in many ways, more difficult mission. They are trying to rebuild the city. It is a battle against chaos instead of bullets. The Green Berets have had to wade into angry crowds. They have mediated between rival tribes locked in blood feuds. They have tried to hold together the city's thin threads of social order, not always with success. Today, a man was killed when the bodyguards of a sheik from another city fired into a crowd of 200 men who were protesting the sheik's presence at a community meeting. Soldiers arrested 16 of the bodyguards and detained the sheik, drawing loud applause from the crowd. But it was a setback for the team, which had worked closely with the sheik, a leader of the Jabour tribe. "Just when things looked like they were going good, we have a power struggle in town," said the Special Forces team leader, a 32-year-old captain. Rules imposed by the military bar identification of the leader, or any members of his team.
There is a crisis like this almost every day. The team has become the de facto center of Diwaniya's government, which has all but ceased to function. It is a role the Green Berets have played before, in villages and towns in Vietnam and elsewhere.
Posted by: Anonymous ||
04/18/2003 12:33 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From the BBC:
"For British forces controlling the streets of Basra, the last few days have been a vindication.
Colonel Chris Vernon of Britain's Seventh Armoured Brigade says you've only got to look out on the streets of the city to see that the doom merchants were wrong.
"Shops opening, taxis operating, markets operating, people out on the streets, cars moving in far greater quantities than they were for example when we came in here. All those signs are of normality."
It's hard to deny that things are improving fast in Basra. Local people no longer complain of the looting. Instead, it's clean water they are now demanding. "
#2
From yesterdays Centcom briefing (via Globalsecurity.org)
"Power was recently restored in the northern Iraq city of Kirkuk, and while this is a very important accomplishment for the over 750,000 people in Kirkuk, its impact is far more significant in areas beyond Kirkuk. In this case, the power in Kirkuk will restore function to a natural gas complex that's also located there. Once the gas complex is restored to 100 percent capability, the natural gas can then be pumped from Kirkuk to Mosul, where a gas-operated power plant is currently down. The gas-operated power station will then be able to provide stable electric power that's needed to run the Mosul hydroelectric station at the Mosul Dam to the northwest of Mosul -- formerly known as the Saddam Dam.
Once power is restored there, the water distribution system in Mosul can also be restored. And most significantly, the lines that run from Mosul south to Baiji can be activated. That, then, provides enough energy into the Baiji substation to push power straight into Baghdad and also Tikrit. So, as we have successes like the Kirkuk power plant being restored, it starts a sequence
that rapidly improves conditions throughout. Concurrently, the Baghdad South power plant is being prepared to run on a temporary supply of oil until an uninterrupted supply of both power and oil can be provided. And, we are confident that there will be many more good news stories like this in the coming days."
"There are still many challenges ahead. Power remains at the core of many issues confronting the coalition as well as the Iraqi people. Progress is being made daily, however. In Hadithah, near the Hadithah dam, through the efforts of coalition special operations forces and the local population, power has been restored to the surrounding community. In the northern towns of Irbil, Dohuk, Sulimaniyah, there is sufficient fuel on hand to run electric powerplants for over 40 days.
Returning full power to Baghdad will require more electrical managers and technicians to come back to work. ... As of today, in Baghdad, six diesel-operated plants are online and generating power, and the south Baghdad powerplant has resumed operations."
Further comments on moving medical supplies to hospitals in Baghdad and Nassiriya.
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - U.N. arms inspectors are ready to get back into Iraq to finish the job of looking for any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons but don't want to work under a new U.S.-led disarmament effort. ``We're not dogs on a leash,'' said chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix, who said it was key his teams remain independent. We didn't exactly consider you dogs on a leash, either, Blixie. For openers, you didn't need a leash!
He said U.N. teams would be willing to confirm any discoveries of banned weapons the Americans report, but repeatedly noted that U.S. troops haven't found any such weapons thus far. We're busy looking and cataloging. We'll let you know.
The Bush administration said one of the war's main missions was to rid Iraq of the weapons it believes Saddam was concealing. With U.S. troops controlling most of Iraq, Washington has all but replaced the U.N. inspections with its own search for banned Iraqi weapons. The U.S. teams have visited between three and four dozen sites, a Pentagon official said. So far they haven't found any evidence of weapons of mass destruction but some samples taken Thursday at the Tallil air base needed further testing, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Secretary of State Colin Powell, in a failed effort to win international support for the war, told the United Nations in February that U.S. intelligence proved Iraq had such weapons. But on Thursday Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld that U.S. troops would need to rely on the Iraqis to find the weaponry. ``I don't think we'll discover anything, myself,'' Rumsfeld said. ``I think what will happen is we'll discover people who will tell us where to go find it. It is not like a treasure hunt where you just run around looking everywhere, hoping you find something.''
No one knows that better than Blix, who came under heavy criticism at times from U.S. officials angered that he wasn't backing their position. ``We had zero credibility and we didn't lend it to their contentions, and I think that we were right and I think so far nothing has proved us wrong,'' Blix told The Associated Press in an interview Wednesday. Can anyone combine this special blend of obstinate prevarication and willful cluelessness better than Blixie? Rummie just gone telling you that we'll have to rely on the Iraqis to tell us where to look. You, Blixie, could never get the Iraqis to do that, so of course you didn't find anything.
But U.S. officials, deeply skeptical of the U.N. teams, have said privately that they wouldn't be welcome to return right now. Now the search is being conducted by U.S. disarmament teams, made up of military specialists, scientists and former U.N. inspectors searching for the weapons Iraq was banned from having after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Only in the past few days, Rumsfeld said, have enough weapons searchers arrived in parts of Iraq where U.S. intelligence indicates chemical or biological weapons could be found. ``The teams have been trained in chain of control, really like a crime scene,'' he said. ``That will not stop certain countries and certain types of people from claiming, inaccurately, that it was planted.'' Such fears have been privately voiced by Security Council members such as Russia and France, which remain unconvinced that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. "Heck, we figured we could once again insult the 'Merkin sense of honor by spreading rumors that it's all a lie. Look how will it worked last time!"
Both countries want inspectors back in the field as soon as possible as does Secretary-General Kofi Annan who has said only U.N. inspectors - and not the Americans - have the legal authority to oversee Iraqi disarmament. I apologize to Rantburg readers for earlier insinuating that only Blixie could be this clueless and obstinate. I was wrong.
While the 74-year-old Blix seems eager to postpone his retirement return his staff to Baghdad, he said he would wait for a nod from the Security Council. Blix's also displayed ambivalence about working with the Americans. ``When American and British inspectors have been all over the country I would imagine they would like to tell us what they have seen and perhaps show us what they have seen. But we're not going to be dogs on a leash. We have a mandate from the Security Council, and credibility requires that we have independent judgment,'' he said. As many as 1,000 people are believed to be involved in the U.S.-led effort compared to a little more than 100 U.N. inspectors who went to Iraq. Noting the sheer size of the American operation, Blix said he expected them to have a better chance at determining whether Iraq really was hiding weapons. Our 1,000 guys won't be mislead by Sammy's secret police, and our comm links will be secure, and we won't be telgraphing our intentions every day, and our guys actually have a work ethic. Other than that, why would you think we'd be better at this?
``They have so many more people, they are all over the place, they get tips from private individuals, they stumble upon ammunition storage so there is a good chance they will cover wide areas but they still have much to go to and haven't found anything yet.'' Ooooooo, the arrogance of this man. My blood is beginning to boil. Ethel, my other pills!
Blix said he hasn't been in contact with Washington since the beginning of the war and that the only information he gets regarding the disarmament process is through a tin-foil hat media reports. ``We get a fair amount of information that way and we then compare with what we found on our visits.'' He should have been reading Rantburg.
He also cast doubt on reports that some of Iraq's weapons may have been moved to neighboring Syria. ``I'd like to see solid evidence that things have gone to Syria as we would like to see solid evidence of weapons in Iraq.'' "And even then I wouldn't believe a thing. I work for the Security Council, you know!"
In the meantime, Blix is maintaining his team's readiness to return. He says they would need about two weeks notice and he plans to brief the Security Council next week on preparations he's making in case he's given the go-ahead. Sure Hans, you keep polishing your bayonet.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/18/2003 12:19 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Arrgh, munged a /span. Can you fix that, Fred? Sorry.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/18/2003 0:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Can anyone combine this special blend of obstinate prevarication and willful cluelessness better than Blixie?"
Janet Reno... but then again, I've never seen the two of them together, either...
#3
Typical Bush II administration SOP: Say nothing publicly and officially, work behind the scenes to pile up the support and evidence, let peripheral players make comments that are regarded by idiotarians as official statments to which they responde with inane ravings.
THEN come out with an official statment and evidence sufficient to blow their sorry asses out of the water...
#4
Both countries want inspectors back in the field as soon as possible as does Secretary-General Kofi Annan who has said only U.N. inspectors - and not the Americans - have the legal authority to oversee Iraqi disarmament.
I guess Kofi thinks the UN is the twenty-first century Judge Roy Bean -- "The Law West of, er, Anywhere."
Posted by: John Phares ||
04/18/2003 7:35 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Blix received his two week's notice March 19. Go home, Hans. Let men do the job.
#6
I don't accept this notion that we have to find WMD in Iraq to "prove" to the world that Saddam had them; and if we don't, our failure will "prove" that Operation Iraqi Freedom was undertaken on false pretenses.
It's beyond dispute that Saddam had chemical weapons, because he's used them against Iranian troops as well as against his own civilian population. The UN itself has said that not all of Saddam's chemical munitions were destroyed by earlier inspection regimes, and Blix himself had stated that Saddam's claims that he destroyed the remainder himself- while not documenting that destruction in any way- are simply not credible.
As far as I'm concerned the entire burden of proof is on those who claim that Saddam has no remaining WMD.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
04/18/2003 9:00 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Oops, sorry, no WMD's...Guess we'll just have to give the joint back to Sammy's boys..."
"Weapons of Mass Destruction. Remember them? Not a single one has yet been found" (Bill Neely, ITV, April 10th)
Actually, I almost wish this one were true. Anything that turns up now will be assumed to have been planted. If I were Washington, I'd consider burying anything I found. After all, an America that feels no need to bother faking justifications for invasion would be far more alarming to most Europeans. Instead, horrible things will turn up, but will never be "conclusive" enough for the French, who've got all the receipts anyway."
ouch heh heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 10:57 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Once more, Hans Blix and Kofi Annan make stupid statements that only "UN Action will be legal". I get so tired of these people trying to force UN sovereignty over the sovereignty of individual nations. The UN is nothing but a glorified debate society that has a hard time even determining if Robert's Rules of Order apply, and to what extent. The United Nations is acting more and more like a petulent child with poor manners and an overblown ego, rather than a society of adults. March 20th marked the end of reliance on United Nations activities in Iraq. It's about time someone told both Annan and Blix that they're totally irrelevant, and the pink slip's in the mail.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/18/2003 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#10
But we're not going to be dogs on a leash.
They didn't seem to mind a whole lot when it was Saddam's minders yanking their chains, arrogant hypocrites...
You give a complete INDEPENDENTLY audited financial report on your Oil for Palaces Food Program and we will seriously consider letting your dog Blixie into Iraq for a little sniff. RSVP.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/18/2003 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'm kind-of hoping WMDs aren't found because it will cause major issues in the UNSC, and accelerate the UNSC's irrelevance.
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/19/2003 1:24 Comments ||
Top||
IRNA -- Muslim countries should take the invasion on Iraq as a lesson and realise that unity and working together is the way to gain respect, said Minister in the Prime Minister's office, in charge of religious affairs Abdul Hamid Zainal Abidin. He said they should not harp on petty things because these would only cause division and allow Muslims to deviate from matters that were more beneficial. "We feel sad seeing children and elders becoming victims of war. It could have been avoided if only the leaders acted rationally," he told newsmen here.
There would have been no need, had Sammy acted rationally...
Abdul Hamid said some Islamic nations were weak in managing their economies and became tools for others even though they had more natural resources than these countries. On the other hand, he said, Malaysia had become a role model in implementing Islamic principles to run businesses. "Malaysia hopes to play a greater role in the OIC conference in October in view of the latest development in Iraq," Abdul Hamid.
"Just ignore all those Chinamen. They work for us."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 06:54 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just more Islamo-phantasy stuff!
Malaysia had become a role model in implementing Islamic principles to run businesses. This decodes to 'Malaysia has a succesful Chinese business class they can steal from.'
Posted by: Phil B ||
04/18/2003 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Abdul Hamid said some Islamic nations were weak in managing their economies...
The problem is that they believe that economies are to be managed...
IRNA -- Interim Friday Prayer Leader of Tehran, Ayatollah Mohammad Emami-Kashani said here today in his second sermon that the US threat is not over yet, and is on the other hand, still quite prominent. The senior Alim, who was speaking for hundreds of thousands of Tehrani worshipers at Tehran University campus, at the same quoted "those who have written books on philosophy of history" as reiterating, "those civilizations that resort to occupying foreign countries are on the verge of collapse."
Who the hell wrote that? It's patently nonsensical!
Ayatollah Kashani added, "Any civilization that resorts to its military power to secure its interests — such as the US civilization today — paves its path towards annihilation, and eventually a big power would rise against it."
Not any time soon, chum...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 06:58 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Rome was on the verge of collapse, too...
It only took.. what.. another 300 years?
Middle East countries, fearing their own political futures, are taking steps to ensure the United States does not perceive them as assisting Iraq. Syrian Arab Airlines, the countryâs national carrier, will turn away Iraqi passengers who do not carry valid visas on flights to Damascus, reported Egyptian airport authorities on Friday. Egyptair is also not allowing Iraqis on flights before receiving a green light from the country of their destination. Lebanese authorities have asked Cairo airport officials to apply such measures on Iraqi passengers bound for Beirut, said Egyptian authorities. The decisions came after the United States turned up the heat on Syria, accusing it of providing a safe have for members of the deposed Iraqi regime. Damascus has repeatedly denied the charges.
"It ain't us! They going, uh... someplace else!"
A source close to Beirutâs foreign ministry said that Washington has asked Lebanon to deny asylum to fleeing Iraqi leaders, warning a refusal would be tantamount to a hostile action.
"If y're gonna be occupied, it doesn't have to be by Syrian..."
US ambassador Vincent Battle put the request to Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri on Tuesday, a few hours before Hariri said his government was resigning, and advised the foreign ministry a short time later, said the source, who requested anonymity. On Thursday, Hariri formed a new government, the most pro-Syrian in more than a decade, amid US threats against Beirut's political master, Damascus.
"Yeah. Let's get some solidarity goin' here!"
A diplomatic source said aircraft from the US 6th Fleet would survey Lebanon's and Syria's Mediterranean coasts to check for suspect movements.
Would that be, maybe, Marine aircrat? Hmmmm?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
04/18/2003 05:09 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
That would be the 2 CAG's left in the Med off Syrian/Lebanon he he
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
(Via Command Post) Looks like good news
A SWATH of North Korea's military and scientific elite, among them key nuclear specialists, has defected to the US and its allies through a highly secret smuggling operation involving the tiny Pacific island of Nauru.
I'll bet Samoans were involved. They've got a talent for this sort of thing. They're sneaky little devils... well, big devils.
The defections have taken place since last October and have been made possible through the help of 11 countries that agreed to provide consular protection to smuggle the targets from neighbouring China, according to sources close to the operation, which has now been wound up. Got all we can, huh?
Some countries also agreed to act as transit points for up to 30 days once the defectors left China, the sources claim. Among those now believed to be in a safe house in the West is the father of North Korea's nuclear program, Kyong Won-ha, who left his homeland late last year with the help of Spanish officials. Debriefings of Mr Kyong are said to have given intelligence officials an unprecedented insight into North Korea's nuclear capabilities, particularly at the feared reactor number one in the southern city of Yongbyon. GPS coordinates? weak spots in the containment vessel?
The operation â dubbed Weasel â LOL
has been largely facilitated through non-government organisations and private citizens from South Korea, the US and its allies. It has deliberately been kept at arm's length from any government. It is understood to have led directly to the defection of up to 20 senior North Korean officials in the past six months. excellent - buy those boys a steak dinner!
Those countries involved were responsible for arranging and providing consular support and protection to the defectors once they were smuggled from North Korea into China. After a tense six-month standoff, North Korea will next week join talks with the US and China to discuss Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions. It will be the first direct high-level contact between Washington and Pyongyang since last October, when US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly said North Korean officials had admitted running a covert program to make nuclear weapons. The US today said the talks may be off now that NK says they started reprocessing rods
It was just 24 hours after the Bali bombing in October last year that Nauru was encouraged to join the network. The approach came from Washington lawyer Philip Gagner, who was asked to relay a message given to him by US officials. On October 12, Mr Gagner wrote to Nauru's then president, Rene Harris: "Some of the governments involved, including governments in the Pacific and the United States Government, would like to have the assistance of the Nauru Government in a diplomatic matter of very great sensitivity, (which) involves a country â not Iraq â which may have acquired weapons of primary concern to other governments and other countries in the region and the world.
Pretty much narrowed that one down, didn't they...
"This is a matter of sufficient concern that the government of the United States would likely recommend removing Nauru from the (Financial Action Task Force) list of non-co-operative countries." This was a reference to financial sanctions the multi-national body had threatened to impose on Nauru. Mr Harris and his successor Bernard Dowiyogo were told later that Nauruan missions would be opened in Washington and Beijing free of charge to Nauru â ostensibly to boost the near bankrupt atoll's trade ties with each superpower.
I think this might have something to do with Nauru's claims that it's eroding due to global warming or maybe space aliens stealing the bird poop that makes it up bit by bit. They were also laundering money, probably with some of that detergent the Iraqis were buying from Algeria and Libya... But don't take my word for it. I just think so.
But Mr Harris said the real reason for the Beijing embassy "was to expedite the movement of these very important refugees".
No Samoans?
A confidential cabinet report on a Nauruan delegation to Washington in October says Nauru was asked to "help normalise relationships between North Korea and the US" by "providing assistance with certain refugees". A member of the delegation, Nauru's former finance minister Kinza Clodumar, said the North Korean operation was detailed to him during that Washington visit. "We were going to get a (North Korean) nuclear scientist and his family from a farm in China and then take them in a Nauru consulate car to an embassy," Mr Clodumar said.
"He was hungry, and Mrs Ambassador just busted out and asked if they could keep him..."
Through confidential documents and interviews with key players in Washington, the Pacific and North Asia, The Weekend Australian has pieced together the story of Operation Weasel.
I thought we just went over it? There's more?
The plan to use Nauru was managed by Americans and New Zealanders operating at arm's length from their governments. Australia was not involved. Amazing if true
The U.S. and South Canada New Zealand? That does come as a surprise...
Despite Nauru's inclusion in the plan, sources say Nauru's diplomatic cover was not ultimately used to deliver the defectors to safety.
Dang. No Samoans.
An earlier plan to use Nauru to move a senior defector from a northern Chinese town late last year was unsuccessful.
Not even a Korean that time...
Despite the Nauruan failures, the operation was successful and those involved claim to have gleaned from the defectors crucial information about North Korea's nuclear program.
That's it? Those are the details? 'Tis thin gruel y're tryin' to feed an old man. Can y' nae throw in a few turnips?
In recent months, powerful former members of previous US administrations have been sharp-shooting making pointed public pronouncements about North Korea. They include former Reagan adviser Michael Horowitz, from the Hudson Institute, and former CIA director James Woolsey, chairman of the US organisation Freedom House, who in January called for the US to discreetly, but actively, encourage senior defectors. Those countries believed to have taken part in Operation Weasel include the US, Nauru, New Zealand, Vanuatu, Thailand, The Philippines and Spain.
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 03:43 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sliiiiiick. Once again, Spain steps up to the plate.
#2
Yeah, notice the list of long-time US allies: Spain, Thailand, Philippines, New Zealand. Even though we've had our differences with each of those countries -- sometimes strident differences -- each one has, in the end, the same world view we have on the stuff that really matters.
A tip of the hat to all the people who made this work.
Posted by: Steve White ||
04/18/2003 16:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Steak dinner is right. Probably what we used to lure them out as well. Grass and tree bark just doesn't cut it.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
04/18/2003 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"I'll bet Samoans were involved. They've got a talent for this sort of thing. They're sneaky little devils... well, big devils."
Jeeze, Frank...don't say anything about their mothers, ok? ;)
#5
Mojo - the light yellow comments are by Master Fred. I have Samoan neighbors, ex-schoolmates and played football with 'em. I still remember the pain....
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 17:22 Comments ||
Top||
EFL
North Korea said Friday it was reprocessing more than 8,000 spent nuclear fuel rods, which U.S. experts have said will give the communist state enough plutonium to make several atomic bombs. The development raises the stakes in the North's upcoming talks with the United States over Pyongyang's suspected nuclear weapons programs. Those talks could begin in Beijing as soon as next week. "As we have already declared, we are successfully reprocessing more than 8,000 spent fuel rods at the final phase," an unnamed spokesman of Pyongyang's Foreign Ministry said, adding that "interim information" was sent to the United States and "other countries concerned" last month.
Posted by: Tom ||
04/18/2003 12:04 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Several years ago, when I first read PJ O'Rourke's argument that there wasn't anything wrong with a certain nation's problems that a tactical nuke couldn't fix, I was appalled.
#2
Several years ago, when I first read PJ O'Rourke's argument that there wasn't anything wrong with a certain nation's problems that a tactical nuke couldn't fix, I was appalled.
#3
Negotiations require good will and compromise on both sides. We do not have it here. Kimmie will use the upcoming talks as a means to wear down the parties on the other side of the table. That has been their M.O. during the end and the following years after the Korean war. NK announced the fact that they are reprocessing fuel rods is a threat. If China is serious about lowering regional tensions, they better start playing with the oil pipeline valves right away. Kimmie is tickling the dragon's tail, but this time the dragon is not china.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
04/18/2003 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#4
The NKORs weren't watching what happened to Saddam. I guess they must think we are bluffing about the two CVBGs and the 24 heavy bombers in Guam. I continue to believe that NKOR is only amenable to a military solution.
Posted by: Douglas De Bono ||
04/18/2003 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Fox quotes State Dept staff as saying they aren't sure this is true. The NK's might not be doing it for real, just escalating the spoon-banging on the high-chair. Apparently no hard (sat photos, etc.) intel backs it up yet
Posted by: Frank G ||
04/18/2003 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The more I watch the North Koreans, the more I compare them to children with Attachment Disorders. Here they are, banging their spoons, overtipping their plate on the floor, and screaming at the top of their lungs, "Don't you DARE be nice to me!" For some reason known only to Kim, he wants the entire world to loathe and hate him. His venue to achieve this is to do things the world finds distasteful and even a tad dangerous. With each passing day, I believe more strongly that Kim doesn't need a nation, he needs a straight-jacket and a heavy dose of prozac.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/18/2003 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I *hope* that I'm not the only one who hopes that the next time we sit down with the North Koreans and they start slinging the crap, we sling it right back. Either that, or simply say that they've got 8 hours to evacuate everyone within a given radius of the complex and then walk out.
We've been talking with these crazy folk for 50 years -- it's time we stopped putting up with it.
Many questions need to be asked of the "oil for food program". I hope this scandal is pursued to the fullest.
The oil-for-food program is no ordinary relief effort. Not only does it involve astronomical amounts of money, it also operates with alarming secrecy. Intended to ease the human cost of economic sanctions by letting Iraq sell oil and use the profits for staples like milk and medicine, the program has morphed into big business. Since its inception, the program has overseen more than $100 billion in contracts for oil exports and relief imports combined... On Feb. 7, with war all but inevitable, Mr. Annan approved a request by the regime for TV broadcasting equipment from Russia. Was this material intended to shore up the propaganda machine Saddam Hussein had built in recent years? After all, the United Nations in 2000 and 2001 approved more than a dozen contracts with Jordan and France for Iraq to import equipment for "educational TV." It is impossible to find out for certain.
It also doesn't sound like "oil for food," unless they make some pretty succulent transmitters back in Mother Russia...
The quantities of goods involved in shipments are confidential, and almost all descriptions on the contract lists made public by the United Nations are so generic as to be meaningless. For example, a deal with Russia approved last Nov. 19 was described on the contract papers with the enigmatic notation: "goods for resumption of project."
That'd red-flag me right there, and I miss lots of things...
Who are the Russian suppliers? The United Nations won't say. What were they promised in payment? That's secret. I was at least able to confirm that the shipment of Russian TV equipment approved in February was not delivered before the war started. A press officer told me that batch didn't actually get to Iraq because United Nations processing is so slow that "it usually takes three to four months" before the purchases start to arrive.
Ah, the blessings of bureaucracy. One of those rare instances where confusing the efficiency of compartmentalization with effectiveness actually paid off...
Bureaucratic lags notwithstanding, putting a veil of secrecy over tens of billions of dollars in contracts is an invitation to kickbacks, political back-scratching and smuggling done under cover of relief operations. Of course, with so little paperwork made public, it is impossible to say whether there has been any malfeasance so far â but I found nothing that would seem to contradict Gen. Tommy Franks's comment that the system should have been named the "oil-for-palace program." Why, for example, are companies in Russia and Syria â hardly powerhouses in the automotive industry â listed as suppliers of Japanese vehicles? Why are desert countries like Libya, Syria and Saudi Arabia delivering powdered milk?
Camel milk?
And then there is this menacing list of countries that supplied "detergent": Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Algeria, Yemen and Sudan. Maybe all that multisourced soap was just a terrific bargain for doing the laundry. But there is no way for any independent parties â including the citizens of Iraq, whose money was actually spent on the goods â to know. Mr. Annan's office does share more detailed records with the Security Council members, but none of those countries makes them public. There is no independent, external audit of the program; financial oversight goes to officials from a revolving trio of member states â currently South Africa, the Philippines and, yes, France.
And notice they're "officials," not "auditors."
As for the program's vast bank accounts, the public is told only that letters of credit are issued by a French bank, BNP Paribas. Kurdish leaders in northern Iraq, entitled to goods funded by 13 percent of the program's revenues, have been trying for some time to find out how much interest they are going to receive on $4 billion in relief they are still owed. The United Nations treasurer told me that that no outside party, not even the Kurds, gets access to those figures.
Posted by: Anonymous ||
04/18/2003 11:29 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sounds like a good opportunity for investigative journalism.
Heh.
.. and journalists were happy when they brought down one American President..
#4
Why are the books kept secret?
Who is trying to hide what?
How come the Kurds can not demand an accounting of what is happening with thier money?
How come no-one has questioned the reasoning behind contracts for goods going to countrys/companys who do not produce those goods?
How come there has not been a general out cry of indignation about these backdoor deals?
Why have U.S./Brit U.N. diplomats not demanded an accounting?
Link is to a blog, which reports that one paper is talking about a report in another, but you get the idea.
Based on reports by Austrian news magazine "profil", the German daily Die Welt is reporting that Algerian officials are in contact with kidnappers of at least some of the tourists who have gone missing in the Sahara over the past month:
The goal is apparently to force the release of four Algerian extremists recently sentenced in Frankfurt for planning an attack on the Strassburg Christmas Market. The German foreign ministry did not want to comment. âNothing is being ruled outâ in the investigation and all leads are being persued, a spokesman said. Officially, all countries involved are still viewing kidnapping only as a possible scenario about the touristsâ whereabouts.
The missing tourists include fifteen Germans — who are reportedly separated from the other tourists. Die Welt speculates that this indicates the action is specifically directed against Germany. The remaining missing persons include ten Austrians, four Swiss, one Dutch person, and one Swede. Die Welt also reports that the elite GSG-9 anti-terror unit is already in Algeria to assist with the investigation. The four Islamic extremists were convicted on March 10 to ten to twelve year sentences for the planned bombing, which was to have taken place in December 2000. There was no proof of a connection to Al Qaeda. Now this makes perfect sense, the terrorists were grabbing every tourist who drove by looking for enough Germans to force Berlin to make a deal. I don't think I would like GSG-9 looking for me, they are supposed to be very good.
Posted by: Steve ||
04/18/2003 10:11 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
GSG-9 in Algeria without the U.N. permission? How Dares Germany to act unilaterally ? Send Blix to see if really there are tourists.
The whole story has been invented by the CowBoy Schroeder. Truth is , he wants the Algerian oil.
#2
Worked with the BGS/GSG back in the mid-late 1980's - those Grenze SchutzGreandiers were damn good troops. Don't underestimate what GSG Detachment 9 is capable of. They trained and interoperated with US 10 Group Special Forces, and I heard rumors they trained regularly with US Delta Force.
On the eve of Saddam's fall on April 9, hundreds turned out in Bethlehem to offer their condolences to the relatives of Imad Humabi, a Palestinian who had volunteered to fight in Iraq and had been killed in battle. Humabi, who had grown up in Amman and was virtually unknown in the town, was rumored to have been an attempted suicide bomber. But as the villagers poured in, most simply expressed their regret that the young man had given his life for nothing.
For some in the Middle East, the war in Iraq was the last stand for Arab nationalism. For others it was only the latest tragedy to beset the region. But no matter their take, most Arabs expected the invasion to be a long, bloody fight. If nothing else, the thinking went, the Iraqi regime would teach the United States a lesson, even as it collapsed. So when Baghdad fell in a matter of days, it left the Arab world stunned. Every assumption, every calculation, and every article of faith had suddenly been undercut. And nowhere was that reaction more pronounced than in the Palestinian circles that had looked to Saddam as their only champion, a heavyweight who had stood the test of time. Many had seen Iraq's fight against the United States as analogous to the Palestinian intifada. They had expected Saddam and his crew to stand just as firmly as the Palestinians had. But he had failed them.
I have no sympathy for these morons. They've had every chance for independance (e.g. Taba) and a better way of life. As long as Palestinian's allow their cause to be a pawn for Arab Nationalism, screw'em.
Posted by: Anonymous ||
04/18/2003 01:55 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You are probably far far too complimentary to suggest that any actual "reflection" will occur. From my unhappy time in the M.E. I have found that the "blame" society of Arabs does not EVER examine itself - all failures are due to external forces, beyond their control. Allah, amazingly, seems rather unconcerned.
Makes one wonder at the resiliency of religion(s) when their designated deity fails so often to keep promises, proffer serendipity or aid, and generally seems to be out to fucking lunch, permanently. This is, from my 50+ years of observation, true of them all. The only thing I've EVER heard from any of them that holds any water whatsoever, is the obvious observation that " helps those who help themselves..." (Doh!) leaving me to wonder just WHERE the diety actually comes into play and why all the fervent gyrations of the adherents...
But these homo sapiens are nothing, if not a persistent lot - with very very selective memories.
The Pals are doomed to keep putting forward the utterly absurd idea that a murderous (and ugly, too... Gawd is he ugly!) terrorist can lead a nation, that just declaring the existence of a Pal state will make it so (magic!), that the billions in aid that come from the Saudi's and others isn't simply stolen / diverted to Swiss accounts as it comes in - and none of THEIRS need be held to account for the incredible Pal poverty, and the notion that their culture nutures people who could actually RUN a country - when the obvious conclusion, based upon the facts, is that they couldn't run a lemonade stand in Ciudad Juarez in the middle of August and show a profit 2 days out of 3... without a powerful Secret Police or Grand Distraction - the 2 crucial components to keep the Status Quo in Arabia.
#7
I cannot recommend Leon Uris' book, "The Haj" highly enough. He has done a large amount of research on the Middle East, both for this novel and "Exodus", as well as several others. "The Haj" goes into great detail how the leaders of the "Palestinians" want to keep the status quo, so they can continue to skim off millions from UN agencies for themselves and their families. It also highlights, better than I have ever been able to find anywhere else, the inherent instability of Islamic thought among the people who actually take it seriously. Distilled, Uris says that Islam instills in its worshipers a sense of ideological schizophrenia.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
04/18/2003 16:37 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I am embarrassed, but "tanx!"
I have JUST left the WLL (World's Largest Litterbox)- Saudi Arabia - permanently. I don't know where I'll be 30 days from now, but I can finally write anything that I want without wondering if those probes that were coming from the "Science City" site in S.A. (they provide the I'net connection for 90+% of S.A.) meant thay had found my dumb ass and I was headed for the Saudi Gulag.
I'm now on the opposite end of the spectrum - landed in Chiang Mai, Thailand 5 hrs ago, showered, napped, and sitting in my fav i'net cafe.
The Pal's are, like all of the Arabs, screwed. It is remarkable that, one on one in private, you can think you've made a friend and reached common intellectual ground with an Arab. I've been thus fooled 6 or 7 times in my 4+ yrs in S.A. Later, in every instance but one, I've discovered that my trust and confidence in each guy's intellect triumphing over his social / religious training was ill-founded. And, the one exception doesn't prove the rule, I was never in circumstances that allowed me to see him "tested" so I don't know what the result would be in his case. Now that I'm gone, I never will, I guess.
As Lee Harris (TechCentralStation.com) has observed in some GREAT articles (read 'em, he's nailed it), we could TAKE what they have anytime we choose - does anyone seriously disagree with that? The fact that we don't now, and haven't in the past, is utterly missed by the lot of them. Only the Saudi Royals (a very mixed bag of Western Intellectualism and Wahabi Fundamentalism - I'd LOVE to be a shrink getting $200/hr from one of them - what a laugh riot THAT would be) even have an inkling that this means we are what we say we are and have done this for the reasons stated: to help secure our world from a perceived threat and free the Iraqis cuz we believe people should be free from tyranny.
The devil on my should whispers that, if we're gonna get blamed for being imperialists ANYWAY, well...
I will go look for the Uris book. Islam is for fantasists - people open to believing in a fantasy in spite of the reality staring them in the face. We can look at the airtime given Baghdad Bob (Iraqi Info Minister), and Arafat's being "Shocked! Shocked!" widely quoted 9/11 reaction and his disingenuity regards the shipload of weaponry that HE paid for but DENIED any knowledge of, and that Al Jazeera actually had millions and millions of Arabs believeing that Iraq was killing Americans - their fervent dream of dreams. They definitely live in a zero-sum world where pulling themselves up means bringing someone else low - and we are the favorite target, of course. Sounds like "journalists" doesn't it? Hmmmm.
Anyway, go to www.techcentralstation.com and check out Lee Harris' articles - and I'll hobble down to Asia Books tomorrow to see if I can find the Leon Uris book. Thx for the tip!
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.
