U.S. officials say Saudi Arabia has eliminated al-Qaida leadership at home but continues to fund the terrorist network abroad, reports Geostrategy-Direct, the global intelligence news service. Officials said Saudi Arabia has captured or killed many al-Qaida leaders over the last three months. Saudi security forces, with support from U.S. intelligence and law enforcement, raided al-Qaida strongholds in Buraida, Mecca, Jeddah and Riyadh, they said. "Saudi Arabia is working hard to shut down the facilitators and financial supporters of terrorism, and they have captured or killed many first-tier leaders of the al-Qaida organization in Saudi Arabia," the White House said in a Sept. 11 statement. "Today, because Saudi Arabia has seen the danger and joined the war on terror, the American people are safer."
But U.S. officials said Saudi Arabia has failed to stop financing to al-Qaida. Despite U.S. appeals, Saudi charities continue to relay funds to al-Qaida abroad, particularly in financing Arab operatives in Africa and Chechnya. In September, the U.S. Treasury Department designated the U.S. and Comoros branches of the Al Haramain Foundation, a state-sponsored Saudi charity, as financiers of terrorism. The department also designated a director of Al Haramain in the United States, Suliman Al Buthe, as a financier and facilitator of terrorism. So far, more than a dozen branches of Al Haramain have been listed as facilitators of terrorism. These include the former director of the foundation, Aqeel Abdul Aziz Al Aqil. Al Haramain has dismissed the U.S. designations.
Officials said the latest designation came after more than two years of cooperation between U.S. and Saudi officials investigating Al Haramain's financial activities. The FBI and other federal agencies have also investigated Al Haramain branches in the United States. "The investigation shows direct links between the U.S. branch and Osama Bin Laden," the Treasury Department said. "In addition, the affidavit alleges the U.S. branch of AHF criminally violated tax laws and engaged in other money-laundering offenses." In June 2004, the Saudi government announced it was dissolving Al Haramain and other Saudi charities that operate abroad and would fold their assets into a new Saudi National Commission for Relief and Charity Work Abroad. U.S. officials said Al Haramain continues to operate abroad, despite Riyadh's action.
#1
While Iran is being 'altered' for the better, right after the election, the ruling oil barons of Saudi Wahhabist clan need to step down and leave town.
The fact those bastards funded the murder of over 3000 Americans and remain in power is beyond geostrategic comprehension.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"The Saudis have been jolted by the al-Qaida threat," said Dore Gold, a senior Israeli government consultant and president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. "At the same time, they are ideologically committed to supporting jihad externally."
And this should be the Saudi royals' death sentence. I still advocate divesting (per .com's idea) Saudi Arabia of its eastern oil fields in addition to physically holding hostage the shrines in Mecca and Medina.
Until Islam as a whole makes a genuine effort to clean their house of violent jihadists, there should be a palpable price paid by all Muslims worldwide. Only by inflicting serious limitations upon the proper pursuit of Islamic worship will Muslims begin to comprehend that terrorism carries some sort of serious price tag.
Until we have the courage to attach a significant across-the-board cost for Islam's support of terrorism, nothing will be done by them to correct their drift into militancy. Without such action all we can look forward to is an endless stream of more mass murdering Islamic psychopaths.
#3
I have an article about this over at my (new) blog. Check it out.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/25/2004 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Old Pat -- nice blog, I'll keep checking back.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/25/2004 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The Saudis have been talking out both sides of their mouths; they have pulled it off for a long time, but after 9-11 their song and dance got old. After Iran has been dealt with and neutralized, then the sights will be on the Saudis. Syria is a client state of Iran now, so to speak, so they will be taken care of when Iran gets wacked. So much to do, so little non-radioactive time.
Posted by: Alaska Paul in Fairbanks, AK ||
09/25/2004 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
The various comments are a hoot in a sad way. SPoD is right, too, you know who gets the blame. It ain't the Esquimaux.
Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom ||
09/25/2004 01:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I am just getting so fed up with all this. Sorry Howard, Bulldog I really like you guys.
This crap is beyond the pale and the statements made are just so blindly ignorant of the facts. This goes on every day. It's not something one should just say "well thats the way they are." and move on about. Most of it is pure falshood. These people are so freeking clueless and ignorant they publish. It's like the BBC thinks the truth is a matter of group consensus. What is worse is the BBC has an apperent policy of publishing this nonsense and suppressing any rational responses it gets. This amounts to state sponsored propaganda against my country.
If the US goverment funded news and opinion against the standing U.K. government and the people of the U.K. all hell would break lose. Just look at any WoT item or any topic that might remotely be related to the US on this web page called Have Your Say It's nothing but attacks on the US that are published. FOAD BBC and the sheep like citizens of the U.K. who allow this crap to be put out.
#3
The Telegraph has a good opinion piece pointing out the stupidity confusion of those who strive to blame a Western politician for the hand-movements of a Jordanian murderer: The man with blood on his hands is not Blair but Zarqawi
"...The hard thing that needs saying is that this cry against the wrong people has been led by some members of Mr Bigley's family. On Wednesday, Philip Bigley said that Mr Blair "was posing yesterday with Richard Branson over a train that cuts 14 minutes off a journey to London. He should have been devoting that time to saving Ken's life... only he has the power to save Ken now." Paul Bigley, another brother, delivers fiercer condemnations: "The whole war was a sham," he has said, and, "If my brother dies, his blood is on Blair's hands." It is not true - the blood, if it is shed, will be on the hands of Zarqawi. Everyone recognises the intolerable stress that the family suffers at this time. But we should not allow our compassion for those that face these horrors to allow such falsities to be established. People should remember that when men like Mr Bigley go to places like Iraq they do so mindful of the dangers, because they consider the reward worthwhile or the work, for other reasons, worth doing. The British authorities cannot protect them from all adversity and would distort their country's interests if they tried to do so. When something as horrible as this happens, they should do everything possible "on the ground" to find out what is happening and seek solutions. This they have been doing. But they probably cannot do a deal to save Mr Bigley and, even if they could, they shouldn't. It is rather shocking that this obvious point needs to be stated.
...
Yet even now, one finds too few Muslim leaders who speak out without qualification. Yes, most do condemn, but in the same breath they attack the occupation of Iraq, the policy towards Palestine, the refusal of Cat Stevens's entry into the United States, or whatever other grievance occurs. It may be legitimate to make these points, but not in that context. Religion is invoked here, and it is religion that should find its true voice. When will we hear a fatwa emerging from the UK Council of Mosques or, better still, from the sheikh of Al Azhar university in Cairo, the intellectual centre of the Sunni Muslim world? When will it be stated on authority that men like Kenneth Bigley's kidnappers have no warrant for thinking that their deeds will bring them to paradise, but rather risk hell?"
#5
We have U.S. citizens attacking the people of the U.K., it's government and leaders on a daily basis funded by a compusory tax on an international news site here in the U.S.?
Please direct me to it. I want to see it.
#6
I'm a bit of a Beeb apologist but I have officially changed my mind.. Their views on Iraq have pissed me off for too long now. One of the other things to do it was their coverage of the Beslan siege. Enough is enough is enough. The Beeb have seemingly taken this extreme tack post Greg Dyke's sacking & the WOMD debate. They need to clear out their entire team of news editors immediately to restore any credibility. My apologies SPOD.
Posted by: Howard UK ||
09/25/2004 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Look, this is the reality of elitism, nothing more. Journalists, as writers, sincerely believe they are part of the arts community and as such were exposed in their education and peer associations to liberal leftist thought in other writers, philosophers, historians and essayists. Yes, there are some exceptions (i.e. Mark Steyn) but they are in the minority. Now given that background, you throw public funds at them and because they are state-sponsored, they believe they are tamper-proof since if there was discipline or control, they could cry PROPAGANDA or CENSORSHIP!
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/25/2004 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#8
The problem with the BBC isn't the fact that it has a disgraceful 'Liberal' left-leaning bias, it's simply that it's been allowed to foist it on viewers in a monopoly-holding situation for so long. You've only go to look at the newspaper circultion figures, and US TV (now that Fox is on the scene), to see how in a media ecosystem where different viewpoints and supposed biases play farily against each other, whose such as infect the BBC, lose. The BBC's world-view is akin to the Independent or the Guardian, the Express or the Mirror, none of which attract anything like the audiences of the Times or the Telegraph, the Mail or the Sun. The fact is the BBC can put out more news and current affairs BS than its one-hand-tied-behind-their-backs opponents.
The majority of Brits do want the BBC to stop being tax-funded. Ironically, it's the current Government (one of the BBC's main argets of vitriolic propaganda) which maintains the status quo.
Anyone who's seen how ridiculously arrogant and unprofessional the erstwhile DG Greg Dyke's allowing himself to be now that he's been kicked out of Broadcasting House will be aware just how infantile and irresponsible the BBC has become.
An all-Russia public committee of support of the Beslan hostage crisis victims has been set up in Moscow. The decision was made at a committee session taking place at the President Hotel in Moscow on Saturday, an Interfax correspondent reported from the scene. Opening the session, presidential envoy to the Southern Federal District Dmitry Kozak said the tragedy in Beslan "has demonstrated solidarity of all people of good will in the entire Russian Federation and throughout the world."
In addition to Kozak, the committee was joined by prominent Russian business, politics, science, and culture figures. In particular, it includes North Ossetian President Alexander Dzasokhov, Moscow Mayor Yury Luzhkov, Health and Social Development Minister Mikhail Zurabov, President of the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry Yevgeny Primakov, Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia, Alfa Bank President Pyotr Aven, Lukoil President Vagit Alekperov, Chairman of the Theatrical Union Alexander Kalyagin, President of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yury Osipov, Director of the Serbsky Psychiatric Center Tatyana Dmistriyeva, and others.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 2:36:07 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
SEOUL - North Korea imported 107 tons of a toxic chemical that can be used to make sarin nerve gas from South Korea via China last year, South Korean officials said on Friday. South Korea has expressed concern that some of its "strategic goods," materials that can be used for military and terrorist purposes, have recently ended up in the possession of countries like North Korea and Libya, and has said it is tightening control of exports of such items. In the latest case to be reported, a South Korean company was found to have sold 107 tons of sodium cyanide to a Chinese company from June to September last year. The cargo was then shipped from China to North Korea, the South Korean Ministry of Commerce, Industry and Energy said. All of these deadly games will continue until China is slapped down hard. The communist Chinese government pulls many of the strings in the terrorist web. Their proliferation of missile and nuclear technology costs the outside world BILLIONS of dollars in corrective military action. It's time for politicians to take stock of just how many domestic jobs could be created if we halted trade with China and thereby reduced our number of costly military deployments. We should starve them to such an extent that they can no longer afford to give away any weapons technology whose dispersal we effectively finance with our enormous trade deficits.
The chemical was shipped without a South Korean export permit. The head of the South Korean company was prosecuted and received a suspended prison sentence of one and a half years for violating trade law, according to a statement issued by the ministry. The ministry did not identify the names of the traders involved. Separately, South Korea is investigating a report that a Malaysian company exported 40 tons of sodium cyanide, including 15 tons originating in South Korea, to North Korea in August. Sodium cyanide is used to make fertilizers and in industrial plating. But it also can be treated with acids to manufacture sarin, a deadly nerve agent. Although it was unclear why North Korea wanted the chemical, the North does have a large stockpile of chemical and biological weapons, according to U.S. and South Korean officials. North Korea must be denied any dual-use raw materials like sodium cyanide. Give them the fertilizers for free, but halt all exports of WMD ingredients to their country.
But North Korea is striving to increase its fertilizer production to increase agricultural yields and allay chronic food shortages. Last week, Thai officials confirmed that North Korea attempted last year to import 70 tons of sodium cyanide that had originated in South Korea from Thailand. South Korea persuaded Thailand to stop the shipment. In line with a U.S.-led global campaign to limit international trading in materials that can be used to produce weapons of mass destruction, South Korea has been bolstering its watch on exports of strategic goods. In February, Seoul said prosecutors were investigating a company accused of selling nine balancing machines to Libya from February 1999 to June 2002 without proper clearance. The machines can used to balance centrifuges, a key tool in enriching uranium to make bombs. Lybia needs to cough up those balancing machines. Where are they?
Germany had harsh words for Libya after Tripoli failed to make good on a deal to pay millions of dollars in compensation to the victims of a Berlin nightclub bombing. Pay up or face the consequences, Berlin said. The German government is tired of waiting for Libya's Moammar Gadhafi to follow through with a pledge to pay compensation to the victims of the 1986 La Belle disco bombing. A government spokesman said on Saturday Chancellor Gerhard Schröder would cancel a visit to Tripoli next month if the first installment of the $35 (â¬28.5) million agreed to in August for the 160 victims of the Berlin bombing is not made. The one-day meeting between Schröder and Gadhafi was agreed to after Libya signed an agreement in late August stating that it would pay $15 million in compensation by Sept. 8. "Honoring the La Belle compensation agreement is the precondition for the resumption of German-Libyan relations," the government spokesman said, but added he was confident the money would be paid.
According to Der Spiegel newsmagazine, the German foreign ministry had summoned Libya's ambassador to Berlin twice during the previous week to ask for the payment as promised. Tripoli, however, blamed the delay on technical problems in transferring the funds. A German court ruled in 2001 that the Libyan secret service was behind the bombing of the disco in West Berlin, in which two Americans and a Turkish woman were killed and more than 200 people injured. It convicted four people of carrying out the bombing. As a result of the ruling, Libya was required to pay compensation. The payment agreed to Tripoli and Berlin covers non-US victims only. Payouts to US victims and their families are subject to separate legal action in the United States.
The deal has been billed as another significant step for Libya as it tries to end 30 yeas of international isolation, during which the West accused Gadhafi of sponsoring international terrorism. The first step came earlier in the year when the EU decided to begin considering negotiations with Libya over resuming trade relations as part of a cooperation partnership between Europe and North Africa. On Wednesday, Brussels agreed to lift all sanctions, including those on weapons, against Libya. Two days prior to that US President George W. Bush formally ended Washington's broad trade embargo on Libya to reward it for giving up weapons of mass destruction.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 6:59:29 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
(and a large bridge is for sale in Brooklyn)
NEW YORK - French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier promised U.S. Jewish leaders Thursday that his country would wage an intransigent battle against anti-Semitic violence and improve its relations with Israel. (The neo-Vichys are alive and spray painting Jewish tombstones)
Barnier met a group of U.S. Jewish community leaders to explain government measures to counter a surge of attacks on Jewish targets in the Paris region and the provinces. "I told them of the total determination of the president [Jacques Chirac] and the government to fight all forms of anti-Semitism, racism and xenophobia," Barnier told reporters. He acknowledged an increase in violence against Jews and said France was reacting with tougher legislation, more severe sentences, political action and education. The number of anti-Semitic incidents has more than doubled in the last year, according to official figures, partly due to tension between France's 600,000 Jews and 5 million Muslims, the largest such minority in Europe. Jewish leaders and public officials blame Muslim youths for the rise in attacks. Barnier also said he would visit Israel next month to improve bilateral relations that have often been strained over France's support for the Palestinians and continuing ties with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.
Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, one of the Jewish leaders who attended the 90-minute meeting, praised the change in France's attitude in the last year. "Compared to last year's meeting [with then Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin] there was a major difference in mood and tone. The French government has stopped denying that there's anti-Semitism," Foxman told Reuters. "The president has spoken out clearly. The government is struggling clearly. There still remains not enough action, arrests and prosecutions but things are better," he said. He also said there had been important changes in France's relationship with Israel, even if differences remained over Arafat and the West Bank separation fence. "[Barnier] was very sincere and very convincing that France will become more of a voice against anti-Semitism in the Arab world," Foxman added.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 1:45:35 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Extraordinary stuff. Especially with the two French journalists still captive. Greater minds than mine will have to explain this to me. Could it be that France is slowly waking up to the danger posed by the Arab/Muslim world??
#3
Bryan, if the dark days of 1940 are an example of today's France, a few have always been awake. some are awakening, while the majority will tag along until it's far too late.
Franco-Islamic Republic. the first E.U. state to fall to the forces of jihad.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Barnier also said he would visit Israel next month to improve bilateral relations that have often been strained over Franceâs support for the Palestinians and continuing ties with Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat.
This is exactly the same sort of crap we are seeing from Saudi Arabia. France is trying to paint themselves as being anti-terror while they nonetheless harbor Arafat's wife and continue to fund terrorism abroad. France's duplicity makes their internal problems with Islamic unrest just that much more richly deserved.
#6
I think this Michel is a man. Not sure about Michelle or Dominique...
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2004 15:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
France is trying to improve it's relationship with Israel only to benefit it's self. The government of France does not now or has it ever given a damm for the Jews or Israel.
#11
"Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, one of the Jewish leaders who attended the 90-minute meeting, praised the change in Franceâs attitude in the last year."
Fool me once --- shame on you.
Fool me twice --- shame on me.
#12
Dominique Galouzeau alias de Villepin is now Minister of Interior meaning he is head of the Fight against crime, terrorrism and reckless driving. :-)
but I note you aren't sure of Dominique's gender either ...heh heh
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2004 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#13
French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier promised U.S. Jewish leaders ...
Wouldn't it be better if his governments made committments to the French Jewish leaders?
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/25/2004 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
#14
My family always said:
"Fool Me Once Shame on You,
Fool Me Twice Shame on Me,
Fool Me Thrice And I'll break the restraints and chase you to the ends of the earth with my cliche axe.
#15
Could it be that France is slowly waking up to the danger posed by the Arab/Muslim world??
Perhaps but not likely. The French like anyone are creatures of habit, and France's favorite game in the middle east--more precisely, re the jihadists, the mullahs and the pan-arabists-- is the same game that De Gaulle introduced vis-a-vis the superpowers and theat France has played ever since: triangulation between the US hyperpower and its mortal rival(s).
France's number one priority has been and remains countering and thwarting the US hyperpuissance wherever they can do so at little or no economic or strategic cost. In the middle east, this means tilting toward the jihadists et al; in the far east it means joint military maneuvers with China and red-carpet receptions for Chinese leaders in Paris, including military parades and stunts like bathing the Eiffel Tower in red light (I'm not joking).
POsturing? Maybe; they love to pull the same stunts with Castro. But Iran is different. This isn't a tinpot caribbean caudillo; this isn't about a third=party like Taiwan. Iran's challenge is now, or soon will be, an existential threat to the US. The time for French gaming is long past. Either with us or against us, Jacques.
#16
lex: Iran's challenge is now, or soon will be, an existential threat to the US.
Iran will never be an existential threat to the US. It can cause some destruction stateside through terror attacks, or in the future, via ballistic missile attacks, but definitely not endanger this country's existence, especially not if we implement a full-scale missile defense.
#17
Alright, maybe the "existential" characterization was over the top. But you shouldn't underestimate the amount of havoc-- economic and even strategic-- that can be created by a few well-placed dirty nukes in container-cargos.
Few people realize how dependent this new economy is upon automated container-unloading and just-in-time inventory management. These innovations are responsbile for much of the nation's productivity improvements in the last decade, and if we're forced to search every (or even a large smapling of) container, the economic recovery will come to a halt. This economy depends on efficient retailing and cheap goods from Asia. Eliminate those and you can shave about a point, maybe a point and a half, off of GNP growth in this country for years to come.
How do you think the Chinese central bank strategists would respond to that scenario, Zhang? Think they might want to reduce their US Treasury holdings?
#18
While Iran may never mortally endanger America, Zhang Fei, France's duplicity still carries a high price tag, as lex points out. China's sowing of discord and increasing threat levels on the Korean peninsula or in the Middle East carries with it a gigantic economic burden in terms of costly military interventions required to pacify these hotspots. A putative NATO ally like France cheerfully abetting China's strategic sabotage is simply outrageous. That America does not have the moral fortitude to begin sanctioning its own trade with China is nearly as bad. Such willing participation with the Chinese communists is tantamount to financing their constant undermining of global security while the United States picks up the tab.
France's actions are nothing less than the equivalent of touching off a security backfire intended to blaze towards the inferno raging through the Middle East. Distant China can only sit back and laugh riotously at such Gallic gullability. Other European countries should take notice of France's malfeasance. Instead, in some mistaken desire to thwart perceived American unilateralism, they are tacitly or overtly encouraging this sort of lemming-like rush to the cliff's edge.
Europe's continued dalliance with Iran is proof positive of their shortsightedness. No amount of trade can compensate for the danger that a nuclear armed Iran represents. Instead, Europe actively courts both communist China's strategic encroachment and Middle East terrorism's benediction. Witness France's overtures to Hamas vis their hostage in Iraq.
As lex has repeatedly mentioned, NATO may well need to be dissolved and replaced with a coalition of those who will not betray the vital interests of both America and Europe.
#19
No need to dissolve it-- LiberalHawk has pointed out that NATO can still be useful in some circumstances, like Afghanistan. the point is to let NATO die a slow death and start ramping up bliateral security relationships-- call them understandings, if you like, or agreements to cooperate, or whatever-- with Russia above all and also India. The future is coming at us a lot faster than anyone thinks.
#20
Your point about container traffic is well made, lex. However, I must disagree with you about China. Imagine the money we could save if China was taken off of our radar screens. If we were able to economically cripple them to where they could no longer export missile and nuclear technology, there could be tremendous cost savings realized at home through decreased military spending on places like Iran and the Koreas.
It is much like the deceptively low price of gasoline. Once you factor in all of the military budget consumed by our defence of the Persian Gulf, suddenly that oil starts costing closer to $100 a barrel. We need to neuter China's constant meddling in world affairs. To do so requires that we wean ourselves of the cheap VCRs and running shoes pouring out of communist China.
Eliminating some of the $127 BILLION trade deficit that we have with China could go a long way towards freeing up money to create new jobs at home. China has very cunningly invested in a large chunk of America's Treasury holdings. Suppressed GDP and inflation may end up being a small price to pay compared with having to piss on every one of China's endless arsons around the globe. We are dying the death of a thousand paper cuts while China laughs up their collective sleeve.
#21
I think the threat of economic disruptions from China in the event of war is overstated. US trade with China is perhaps 2% of the US economy. We can take the hit. We've gotten along without them for over 200 years. I think China could disappear off the map tomorrow and it still wouldn't matter.
As to the matter of Treasuries, Americans own $34T worth of assets. If Treasury yields get more attractive, we'll buy 'em by the truckload. Alternative investments are just too attractive. Strangely enough, if Treasury yields go up, other asset prices will go south, as they lose their attractiveness relative to Treasuries. And that will make America a lot more attractive place to invest in.
#22
I think the threat of economic disruptions from China in the event of war is overstated. US trade with China is perhaps 2% of the US economy. We can take the hit. We've gotten along without them for over 200 years. I think China could disappear off the map tomorrow and it still wouldn't matter.
Then, aside from a nearly treasonous political conflict of interest, what is it that prevents America from instituting harsh sanctions against China? We are spending untold billions around the globe thwarting Chinese destabilization plots. Why not collapse their economy and bring the savings back home?
There is no way on earth that China could possibly find any other buyers to take up $127USD billion worth of idled manufacturing capacity. We DO NOT have to start a war with them to do this. All we need to do is adopt some reciprocal trade agreements AND MAKE THEM STICK.
The only thing I can see preventing this is how addicted American politicians are to campaign contributions being made by those who profit from dealing with China. Wal-Mart is a sterling example and represents 10% of the entire Chinese trade deficit all by itself.
America's manufacturing jobs are being sold down the river and our soldiers' blood is being spilled abroad so that Capitol Hill politicians can fart through silk during their re-election campaigns. Doesn't anyone else have a problem with this?
#23
Not sure I have a problem with it. THe harsh economic reality for us is that we have a mature, slow-growth economy and a fast-growing elderly population (which will include you and me soonah dan you tink). The numbers don't add up for us: 2% economic growth will not support asset price increases of the range needed to allow you and me to retire--no matter which assets you're carrying-- before we're eighty. We need access to high-growth markets, to support top-line revenue growth for our companies, hence for government revenue growth as well, and to enable bottom-line growth as well, via lower-cost, more efficient manufacturing. For each of these vital American economic goals, China is extremely important because there is no large economy on this planet that offers anything like the pace of growth, in demand or offshore manufacturing supply capacity, that China offers.
Look at the alternatives: aside from oil, gas, and nickel, Russia is a basket case. Mexico's another oil-rich, manufacturing-poor basket case. Brazil and Indonesia are not much better. India's desperately poor and hopelessly bureaucratic.
Face it, 'mericans, we and the Chinese are joined at the hip. We need growth, and they've got it: they need vast and stable demand and reinvestment opportunities, and we've got 'em. There's not going to be a divorce here.
PARIS -- A son of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi was at the center of a commotion in Paris before dawn Saturday, after police stopped him for speeding and the Libyan's bodyguards attacked the officers, police said. Police stopped Hannibal Gadhafi, 28, after he raced through a red light on the Champs-Elysees at about 2 a.m. Saturday, driving a Porsche. A group of Gadhafi's bodyguards, who had been trailing in two cars, intervened and began hitting the two officers as they questioned him.
"Don't you know who he is, infidel? Take that!"
The blows caused injuries to one of the officers, who was given four days off work to recover, police said. Two of the bodyguards were detained but released later Saturday after a delegation from the Libyan Embassy showed up at the police station and apologized. Gadhafi, who has diplomatic immunity, was not detained.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 1:41:52 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why couldn't he have been speeding down Broadway in Manhattan? How come the French get all the luck? I would have paid his ticket to see his bodyguards try to "beat up" on one of city's finest. And how about that name - Hannibal. Like in Lechter or the guy with the elephants?
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/25/2004 14:37 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Hannibal" Gaddafi? Priceless. Was he driving an elephant when the european centurions stopped him?
#3
"...released later Saturday after a delegation from the Libyan Embassy showed up at the police station and apologized..."
Sometimes a briefcase full of money can work just as well as diplomatic immunity.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/25/2004 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
Looks like many GIs will have to rely on CBS and other such outlets for their news, since many weblogs are blocked by Websense, a company apparently selected by the Air Force to keep the troops away from objectionable material online. I'm not talking about work computers either, these are in the morale tent, designed for use by GIs while off duty. Which blogs, you ask? Instapundit is blocked, Hugh Hewitt is not.
Roger Simon is blocked, LGF is not. Gee, how'd they miss that one?
Daily Kos is not blocked. Figures. Blackfive: Blocked. Sgt Hook: Blocked. Chief Wiggles
(who was publically praised by President Bush for Operation Give): Blocked. WTF? As Citizen Smash says, the other services could learn a thing or two from the Marines.
[Hattip, Roger Simon.]
Posted by: Old Grouch ||
09/25/2004 2:08:02 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just don't understand the logic of their choices. You should have diversity of opinion even those as stupid and ill-informed as Kos (in fact, if you are GI and reading him you've just become another sure vote for Bush). But Glenn not on the list - he is extra mild compared to Hewitt and Charles. Weird but then its the Army (true to color).
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/25/2004 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I could understand if they did not want them posting on sites like rantburg (loose lips) but why instapunidt?
Bangor - It had been a pretty glum day for Spec. Brian Parker, who along with the other members of his National Guard unit said goodbye to their families and departed on a charter flight for a long-term stint in Iraq. But then, on a refueling stop here, a familiar figure boarded the plane. "We were down when we left our families," Parker said, giving a thumbs down. "But then we heard Air Force One was here. It's a good morale boost."
President Bush, after a campaign appearance in Bangor, held his plane on the tarmac when he heard an MD-11 carrying 292 Army reservists and National Guard members was about to refuel here. For the troops, grimly heading toward an 18-to-24-month assignment in Iraq, it was a welcome lift. For Bush, who has been accusing his Democratic presidential opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry, of demoralizing the troops in Iraq by criticizing the war effort, it was a chance to demonstrate his devotion to the troops. "May God bless you all," the commander in chief said over the plane's public address system. "May God keep you safe." As he worked his way up and down the plane's aisles, posing for photographs, signing autographs and shaking hands, the happily surprised troops called out to him. "That's my president, hooah!" shouted Sgt. Wanda Dabbs, 22, a member of the 230th Area Support Group, a Guard unit from Tennessee. Others seconded her cheer...
#1
That's the great thing about W -- most of the troops seem to genuinely like him, which is great for morale. It seems to me it would be pretty demoralizing to have some clueless clown -- say, John Kerry -- as your CINC.
Posted by: Jonathan ||
09/25/2004 22:37 Comments ||
Top||
Thanks once again John Forbes Kerry for assisting the terrorists which are attempting to crush all aspects of Iraq's newly discovered of freedoms. The jihadists should place you on their payroll, then again you don't need the additional dough.
After you are defeated in the upcoming presidential election your name will relegated to the back water of political obscurity and viewed with scorn & shame by the majority of the American voters for repeating what you seem to relish, supporting America's enemies in times of turmoil.
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said Thursday that Iraq's Ayad Allawi was sent before Congress to put the ''best face'' on Bush administration policy. Shortly after Allawi, the interim government's prime minister, gave a bright portrayal of progress toward peace in Iraq, Kerry said the assessment contradicted reality on the ground. ''The prime minister and the president are here obviously to put their best face on the policy, but the fact is that the CIA estimates, the reporting, the ground operations and the troops all tell a different story,'' Kerry said.
Allawi said democratic elections will take place in Iraq in January as scheduled, but Kerry said that was unrealistic. ''The United States and the Iraqis have retreated from whole areas of Iraq,'' Kerry told reporters outside a Columbus firehouse. ''There are no-go zones in Iraq today. You can't hold an election in a no-go zone.'' Kerry's remarks come one day after he said that President Bush's statement that a ''handful'' of people are willing to kill to stop progress in Iraq was a blunder that showed he was avoiding reality.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 2:58:57 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Keep on JF'nK! - our allies will yearn for W's courage, strength and recipocated loyalty. Kerry is loyal only to himself, and doesn't give a peon's ass for anyone else
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2004 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I would encourage violence against this jackoff but that would be illegal I think. So i'll encourage you all to go over to Communists for Kerry dot com instead as comic relief. The man is such a clueless tool.
"I mean come on, American dudes, three purple hearts without a Bandaid? By that standard every man, woman and child in Iraq should get the Medal of Honor. But hey, if Senator Kerry thinks he knows more about Iraq than I do, I'll let him have my job for a month. Watch your back, big guy."
Posted by: Matt ||
09/25/2004 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
No wonder so many people are for Kerry. I can see how his nuance, and diplomatic skills will win many new friends for America. - NOT
#5
Mark Steyn has the definitive comment on Kerry.: What a small, graceless man Kerry is. The nature of adversarial politics in a democratic society makes George W. Bush his opponent. But it was entirely Kerry's choice to expand the field, to put himself on the other side of Allawi and the Iraqi people. Given his frequent boasts that he knows how to reach out to America's allies, it's remarkable how often he feels the need to insult them: Britain, Australia, and now free Iraq. But, because this pampered cipher has floundered for 18 months to find any rationale for his candidacy other than his indestructible belief in his own indispensability, Kerry finds himself a month before the election with no platform to run on other than American defeat. He has decided to co-opt the jihadist death-cult, the Baathist dead-enders, the suicide bombers and other misfits and run as the candidate of American failure. This would be shameful if he weren't so laughably inept at it.
#8
what a load of crap here.. With Kerry, the US is going to have much better multilateral relations with a lot more countries then is the case right now.. that's cristal clear
#10
Anonymous6643, unless your comment was an attempt at sarcasm, your comment needs clarification. What has Kerry done that makes you think that our relations will improve with our allies? He's disparaged and denigrated all those who have stood with us. Unlikely that they will forget his gratuitous insults. As for the others, the French and the Germans cannot project any significant military power and their economies are faltering to the point that it is unlikely that they would be willing or able to pay for anything. So how will Kerry joining with them in denouncing American values, institutions, and beliefs in fluent French make them more willing to help us achieve the objectives that they denounce? As for the rest of the world, how will projecting weakness and withdrawal make them want to stand by us? It is crystal clear that John Kerry would be more comfortable standing with the Europeans than with America and that he is not capable of leading either America or the Free World.
#11
Anon 6643, oops, sorry, Tereeeyzza...you inadvertantly exposed yourself. Cristal is a champagne of the rich ($200+ a bottle) , crystal clear is the image we peasants have of your boy toy - a lying scumbag who insults our allies (who live in higher danger than you do on your well-guarded estates) and who can't find a core belief or his backbone til you or his campaign managers tell him where to look
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2004 18:01 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Sock, you & the boys keep up the great work at CFK! Bravo!
Anonymous6643 (and we know why you choose to be so), my count indicates only three hard-care E.U. states which think appeasement works, and two them should know through their own history (France & Germany) as far as Spain, well, they remained on the pro-Axis sidelines thus it is expected but sets a real poor example in confronting the Islamic terrorist horde as a united force, sort of ----> like you.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 18:23 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Am I the only one to notice this? AFAIK, John Kerry has never-- not even once, not in any context-- actually specified exactly WHICH countries comprise this list of "allies" we allegedly don't get along with, and whose fervent support we would allegedly get if only we would elect him President.
Perhaps he knows how asinine he'd sound, proclaiming "George Bush has alienated France!"
Posted by: Dave D. ||
09/25/2004 18:56 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Dave D, you are not the only one to notice this. In a side note, I don't quite know what to make of this but I met some New Jerseyites today and the talk got around to politics. These people told me to not be too surprised if the President takes New Jersey. What they told me was that Kerry was much too liberal for New Jersey and they were fed up with the tax and spend Democrats. I'm beginning to think the Democrats are in much worse trouble than they or the MSM let on.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/25/2004 22:44 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Mark I got nothing to do with CFK but enjoying it.
Now I got to study for a test monday night.
These countries Kerry keep talking about don't exist. Kerry is so clueless he doesn't know No means No. No as in Germany has No troops to send. None of them have troops to send. They are bankrupting from their aging population and massive years old unemployment rates.
#16
Right on, SPoD. In the radio interview last week on NPR the reporter brought up the fact that Frogistan and Germay don't have the troops to send and his reply was they could train Iraqi troops on their own soil, a proposal by the Bush Administration which has been rejected by both Frogistan and Germany. He is truly absolutely clueless.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/25/2004 23:12 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Just one more observation. Some months ago I posted that I thought the reason John Kerry didn't resign his Senate seat to run for President (he did call for Bob Dole to resign) was that he was hedging his bets. He wasn't fully convinced he could win and he didn't want to be left out if he did lose. This seems to be to me even more so today. He has totally abandoned his Senate duties but he won't resign. I think he doesn't really believe he will win and he wants to be a green turd in the pickle jar for quite some time yet.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
09/25/2004 23:32 Comments ||
Top||
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama suggested Friday that the United States one day might have to launch surgical missile strikes into Iran and Pakistan to keep extremists from getting control of nuclear bombs. Obama said the United States must first address Iran's attempt to gain nuclear capabilities by going before the United Nations Security Council and lobbying the international community to apply more pressure on Iran to cease nuclear activities. That pressure should come in the form of economic sanctions, he said. But if those measures fall short, the United States should not rule out military strikes to destroy nuclear production sites in Iran, Obama said.
Hey! Careful with that feather! You almost knocked me over!
"The big question is going to be, if Iran is resistant to these pressures, including economic sanctions, which I hope will be imposed if they do not cooperate, at what point are we going to, if any, are we going to take military action?" Obama asked. Given the continuing war in Iraq, the United States is not in a position to invade Iran, but missile strikes might be a viable option, he said. Obama conceded that such strikes might further strain relations between the U.S. and the Arab world. "In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/25/2004 12:03:53 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He has to show some alliegance to the party line right now, but I don't think he really buys this.
It's that, or he's not as tone deaf as Kerry, McAwful, etc., and can see how badly the Dems are about to do in November. If the Dems then clean house, this guy's political stock will go through the roof. Too bad the guy's a freakin' Marxist.
#2
He may be more familiar with the true Religion of Death Peace than is Kerry.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/25/2004 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The more I've read about this guy, the more I see a "Classical" liberal.
Unlike a lot of the others at the top of the Democratic party, he has his eyes open and no blinders on, when it comes to the safety of the US and western civilization. Anyone that can see the truth about this should eventually see the truth about other things, so long as he doesnt fall victim to the political culture surrender the left genrally has assumed.
IIRC, he also went to Africa, and saw how Africans treated each other based on religion, tribalism and skin color - so he has fewer illusions than most black activists.
I may disagree with him about a majority of things, but this is the kind of guy I feel OK about having given years of my life in the military to ensure he has free speech.
#4
Barack Obama you know, that you know, you really should be in the party of Lincoln.
Don't fight it any longer, your too bloody smart for the likes of sellouts leading the Kerry camp.
How many radical Dems sound like this? "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse" Bingo G you got it!
Yo! Barack, switch now, and work for a strong America & the world, not the masked agenda interests of the limo riding elitists, neo-socialists and old 1960's Leftovers!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 13:23 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Geez, hold your skirts down ladies. What weasel words. He sounds like Kerry did in 97, 02 and during the primaries. There are more caveats in there than in a mutual fund prospectus. He first goes to the UN and waits for them to decide - the great Democratic party cop out on National security issues. So, how long do you wait - 6 days, 6 weeks, months, years? No, a true pre-emptory policy is one where you wait on no one but your own decision. Lay you 10 to 1 that if he is elected and so is Bush - he will take up the Gore/Kerry/Byrd mantle and back anything but Bush in the Senate.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
09/25/2004 14:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Liberals have always talked tough. The problem is that they think tough words are a substitute for tough actions.
#13
Agree with Zhang and Jack. Compare this with his ridiculous convention speech-- the one that began by bashing furreigners, that devoted about three seconds to foreign policy generally (he couldn't even be bothered to mention Iran)-- and you have to be skeptical.
The guy's up by, what, forty points in the polls? He could argue for invading France and he'd still be guaranteed a Senate seat. Jury's out on this one.
#14
...so long as he doesnt fall victim to the political culture surrender the left genrally has assumed.
I think you've hit it here OldSpook. The guy's still somewhat of a free agent since he has yet to spend his first tour in DC where he'll almost certainly cave to the pressure and fall into step with his party's liberal intelligensia. He's already there on economic issues and his statements regarding the use of force are tepid at best, "... as a last resort after first consulting the UN Security Counsel." The fact that we'd find this sort of dialogue encouraging is merely another sign of how far gone the political left truly is.
IMHO he's a lib trying desperately to clothe himself in moderate garb. His mildly hawkish statements will act to immunize him for a time from the inevitable hard left turn he'll be forced to take on the issue in DC.
He's way too young to take a shot at President in '08 though I do look for him to be the top contender for the veep slot on the Hildebeast's ticket. Watch for Obama to make a lot of moderate noises while being a reliable far left vote. He'll try for the straddle so that he can have room to move between the center and far left to shore up the base as necessary in '08.
He's never held meaningful office, never been tested in a real crisis pitting his conscience against demands of party elders or constituents. It's one thing to represent a gerrymandered district which will never be challenged by anyone not left of Cynthia McKinney or Charley Rangel; another thing entirely to represent a large and politically diverse state like Illinois.
BTW, '08 is far, far too early for him to run for prez. He needs seasoning outside that incestuous club called the Senate. No one with only congressional experience has won the presidency in the last forty years.
#16
From what I have heard him speak he is a "good" politicial, that is he listens to what voters are saying and tailors his words to their wants. He may or may not follow through on his words when he is in office. I think it best just to keep a good eye on the young gentleman and see where he goes.
Posted by: Old Fogey ||
09/25/2004 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
excerpted to cover the actual differences of opinion.
But the bills will clash on several key points, these sources say, especially regarding powers afforded to federal law enforcement agencies and the military. A top Republican House aide, speaking on background because his bosses will roll out their bill today, said it will contain two provisions omitted from the Senate measure and opposed by civil liberties groups. One would allow federal agents to obtain secret warrants for "lone wolf" suspects not connected with a terrorist group or nation. The other would make it easier for agents to charge people with providing "material support" to suspected terrorist groups, even if, for example, they attended a training camp but never acted on their training. Rep. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, denounced the proposals, saying they go beyond the recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. John recommends that we hold off on proactive items until they are approved by the commission that follows the next attack.
That's the commission that will blame Bush, right?
Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said the House bill would also give the secretary of defense greater control of several agencies, including the National Security Agency, than would the Senate bill. An aide familiar with the language predicted that House members will fight vigorously for it because they feel the Pentagon's clout should not be further eroded. A senior Democratic aide, meanwhile, said some House members believe that the GOP leadership -- which from the start expressed wariness about the proposed changes -- wants the proposals to collapse in House-Senate negotiations that would follow each chamber's passage of competing measures. Democrats especially worry that Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.), who faces a tough reelection fight, could be portrayed as an obstructionist if he uses Senate rules to block a conference committee in order to kill the House provisions.
Some GOP lawmakers said Democrats face a dilemma: Vote for a bill they find objectionable or risk being labeled soft on terrorism. "If they want to make it an election issue, fine," Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said. "When you have them over a barrel, you have them over a barrel." Even if both chambers agree on a bill, it is unclear how it would be implemented while conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan continue. An administration official noted that Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) has just been confirmed as CIA director without a firm signal that he is President Bush's choice to be the new national intelligence director. "He has just got the job and it may shortly be eliminated," the official said. "Major shifts in the structure of a body as massive as the U.S. intelligence community . . . create massive turbulence and morale problems, and can often take years to fully sort out new systems and make them effective," said Anthony S. Cordesman, an intelligence expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Meanwhile, some prominent former officials continue to criticize the Senate bill, which would place the intelligence director at the head of a new national intelligence authority that is to be separate from the CIA and other intelligence agencies. "If he is the principal intelligence adviser to the president and has no bureaucracy working immediately for him, he will be lost," former secretary of state George P. Shultz said. The Senate bill would bar the office of the intelligence director from being located within the CIA or other elements of the intelligence community. White House-drafted legislation, which House leaders adopted in part, would create the director's office within the executive branch. The White House's proposal would leave it all but certain that the director would be based at the George Herbert Walker Bush Intelligence Center, where the CIA is headquartered.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/25/2004 4:00:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"If they want to make it an election issue, fine," Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) said. "When you have them over a barrel, you have them over a barrel."
Sorry, but this issue is beyond partisanship. We want to be effective at countering terrorism, and we want to avoid trampling on the people's rights. If the two parties try to game this issue, then it's about time the people started demanding a third party.
Keep in mind that these are rather out of date in places, given how the "2004 Global Survey" concerns the status of *2003*. But nonetheless Iâve found FreedomHouseâs data some of the useful there are, where detailing the status of liberties worldwide is concerned.
EFL
Syria's President Bashir al-Asad is in secret negotiations with Iran to secure a safe haven for a group of Iraqi nuclear scientists who were sent to Damascus before last year's war to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Western intelligence officials believe that President Asad is desperate to get the Iraqi scientists out of his country before their presence prompts America to target Syria as part of the war on terrorism. Hot Potatoes, eh? I know how daddy would have solved this problem.
The issue of moving the Iraqi scientists to Iran was raised when President Asad made a visit to Teheran in July. Intelligence officials understand that the Iranians have still to respond to the Syrian leader's request. We don't need 'em. We got our bomb. Besides, who let you into the Axis?
A group of about 12 middle-ranking Iraqi nuclear technicians and their families were transported to Syria before the collapse of Saddam's regime. The transfer was arranged under a combined operation by Saddam's now defunct Special Security Organisation and Syrian Military Security, which is headed by Arif Shawqat, the Syrian president's brother-in-law. The Iraqis, who brought with them CDs crammed with research data on Saddam's nuclear programme, were given new identities, including Syrian citizenship papers and falsified birth, education and health certificates. Since then they have been hidden away at a secret Syrian military installation where they have been conducting research on behalf of their hosts. The Terrorist Protection Program, just like the FBI.
Growing political concern in Washington about Syria's undeclared weapons of mass destruction programmes, however, has prompted President Asad to reconsider harbouring the Iraqis. They have also uncovered evidence that Damascus has acquired a number of gas centrifuges - probably from North Korea - that can be used to enrich uranium for a nuclear bomb. Kimmie will let 'em in the Axis; what's your problem Khamehni?
Relations between Washington and Damascus have been strained since Noah landed on Mt. Ararat last year's war in Iraq, with American commanders accusing the Syrians of allowing foreign fighters to cross the border into Iraq, where they carry out terrorist attacks against coalition forces. "The Syrians are playing a very dangerous game," a senior Western intelligence official told The Sunday Telegraph. No wonder that guy's in intelligence!
"The Americans already have them in their sights because they are doing next to nothing to stop foreign fighters entering Iraq. If Washington finds concrete evidence that Syria is engaged in an illegal WMD programme then it will quickly find itself targeted as part of the war on terror." Under the terms of the deal President Asad offered the Iranians, the Iraqi scientists and their families would be transferred to Teheran together with a small amount of essential materials. The Iraqi team would then assist Iranian scientists to develop a nuclear weapon. Draft choices?
Apart from paying the relocation expenses, President Asad also wants the Iranians to agree to share the results of their atomic weapons research with Damascus. Honor among theives, eh?
The Iranians yesterday also accused America of "lawless militarism" Plagarism! That's Kofi's line. He's got it trade marked.
in Iraq and called Israel the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. "The attack against Iraq was illegal," Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign minister told the UN General Assembly. He thanked Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, for stating the same in a television interview last week.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/25/2004 9:13:56 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Growing political concern in Washington about Syriaâs undeclared weapons of mass destruction programmes, however, has prompted President Asad to reconsider harbouring the Iraqis."
It also made him consider hamburgering the Iraqis as well, which is what has already happened to about twelve Iraqi scientists so far this year.
Posted by: an dalusian dog ||
09/25/2004 22:43 Comments ||
Top||
Iran is set to increase its oil production by 146,000 barrels per day (bpd) starting November, 2004, said Hussein Kazempur Ardebili, Iran's representative in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC. While terrorist promoting Iran sabotages Iraq's crude oil exports via its border infiltrations of scores of Iranian trained fanatical jihadists. The geostrategic & economic balance relating to petrol-power between Iraq and Iran must be reversed and soon
Referring to Iran's oil production capacity after OPEC's recent decision to increase its production by one million bpd, Ardebili said, "Iran's total oil production will hit 3,960,000 bpd starting from November", Iranian Students' News Agency (ISNA) reported. There is something very wrong when Iran's oil revenue increases and Iraq's decreases.
Commenting on the results of OPEC members' negotiations to boost the organization's oil production and their decision on the new prices, Ardebili pointed out that after consultations, the executive board and the long-term policies' Committee would submit their reports for final decisions by the members during the OPEC's extraordinary meeting to be held in Cairo, on December 10.
At the recent meeting, it has been agreed that the upcoming OPEC conference would be held in the northern Iranian city of Mahmudabad, in March 16, 2005, Ardebili said. He further noted that, oil ministers from OPEC member states would attend the meeting. Referring OPEC's basket price, Ardebili said, "Presently, all members are discussing the issue, however, all of them defend the current price of $25 plus or minus $3".
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 2:50:50 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just what we need -- Iran becoming a bigger producer. Makes it all the more disruptive when we have to take out their nukes.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/25/2004 15:42 Comments ||
Top||
Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the "big powers." Iran's new missiles can reach London, Paris, Berlin and southern Russia, according to weapons and intelligence analysts. "This strategic missile was successfully test-fired during (the recent) military exercises by the Revolutionary Guards and delivered to the armed forces," Defense Minister Ali Shamkhani was quoted by the state-run radio as saying.
The missile is believed by intelligence analysts to be an updated version of the Shihab-3, improved with the help of the North Koreans. The news comes shortly after Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards staged military maneuvers near the border with Iraq, seen as a signal to Washington Tehran is prepared to fight back against any attempts to prevent the development of a nuclear reactor that could be used to make weapons-grade plutonium. The radio said Shamkhani refused to give details about the missile for "security reasons," but said Iran was "ready to confront all regional and extra-regional threats." Shamkhani last month said Iran was working on improvements to the range and accuracy of the Shihab-3 in response to Israel's moves to boost its anti-missile capability.
Today's announcement came days after Israel said it was buying from the United States about 5,000 smart bombs, including 500 one-ton bunker-busters that can destroy 6-feet-thick concrete walls. Analysts say such bombs could be used to destroy Iran's nuclear reactor before it goes online. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor before it went "hot." Iran may be only weeks or months away from activating the reactor. The 2,000 pound "bunker-buster" bombs are part of one of the largest weapons deals between Israel and the U.S. in years. The bombs include airborne versions, guidance units, training bombs and detonators. They are guided by an existing Israeli satellite used by the military.
In addition to the 500 one-ton bunker-busters, the purchase includes 2,500 other one-ton bombs, 1,000 half-ton bombs and 500 quarter-ton bombs. Funding will come from U.S. military aid to Israel. On Tuesday, Iran defied the International Atomic Energy Agency by announcing it is producing uranium hexafluoride, the material for centrifuge enrichment. Kurtis Cooper, a U.S. State Department spokesman, declared: "Although Iran has repeatedly asserted that its nuclear program is exclusively for peaceful purposes and its pursuit of uranium enrichment technologies are to fuel a planned civilian power program, Iran will have no peaceful use for enriched uranium for many, many years. ... The rush to convert 37 tons of yellowcake into feed-stock for centrifuge enrichment has no peaceful justification. ... Thirty-seven tons of yellowcake is not a test. It is a production run."
You are now under the umbrella of Iranian tolerance, against Iranian biological, chemical and possibly nuclear weapons.
Don't you wish the US had Ballistic Missle Defense capability?
Oh thats right, we do, even if its rudimentary. But not for you - you laughed at it and basically told us to go home and "throw away our money".
I hope Chirac, and all the other Eurocentric socialists enjoy living under the threat of the Islamic Nuclear Powers - you've brought it upon yourself with your craven pandering and abject moral abandonment of wester civilization.
Break out the Burkhas in Paris, Berlin and Madrid.
#2
Tehran is making it pretty clear that taking out their nuclear facilities is not enough. Most of the Iranian military and all of Qom are going to have to be glassed over.
Can you imagine that Tehran will implement the kind of command and control that has kept us from having any rogue firings?
Posted by: Tom ||
09/25/2004 13:24 Comments ||
Top||
#3
No "glass" needed.
Simply knock out enough of the government control facilities at the right time in the right circumstance, and you can throw Iran into a civil war.
#4
Simply knock out enough of the government control facilities at the right time in the right circumstance, and you can throw Iran into a civil war.
While that represents a good start, Old Spook, we are also obliged to level all of Iran's nuclear facilities. We cannot be sure who will take the reins if and when Iran's government is toppled. Even if friendly parties did assume power, it would still remain prudent to deny them any form of nuclear weapons development.
I continue to maintain that Iran's nuclear facilities all need to be attacked during peak periods of operation so that maximum casualties are inflicted upon their scientific staff and all operational support crews. This should extend to specific targeting of each sites' air raid shelters as well.
Iran has no immediate need for nuclear power generation. The burn-off from their oil refineries alone could probably provide equal levels of power generation that they ostensibly seek via nuclear technology.
If Iran ends up with a government that is friendly to the west, we can then provide them with power-only reactors that will ensure no dual use for military purposes. As of now, our major objective must be the elimination of both their facilities and technically trained staff. Nothing less will serve to reinstate some modicum of regional stability that is so directly threatened by the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran.
#5
The FIRST thing to do is to create a propaganda war. That is, publish a list of names and faces of mullahs and scientists who will be KILLED if and when there is war. No effort at capture. No bargains. Deliver this list to as many Iranians as you can. Explain that these are the people responsible for the projected deaths of TENS OF MILLIONS OF IRANIANS, unless they are KILLED. And then a message to Iranians: These people are forcing the world to destroy your nation with nuclear weapons, killing every man, woman, and child. "Kill these people, NOW, or we will kill them for you. They MUST DIE, and they WILL DIE." Kill them now and save your nation.
#6
Not good enough, OldSpook. We have to make sure that they can't fire at oil facilities on the other side of the gulf. They need sudden nuclear, military, and leadership destruction. We can't leave any room for escalation.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/25/2004 15:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Iran said today it has successfully test-fired a long-range "strategic missile" and delivered it to its armed forces, saying it is now prepared to deal with any regional threats and even the "big powers."
Bad move, boys. You don't draw the attention of the 800 lb. gorilla by clearly insinuating that you're willing to take it on, lest he pound your face into the dirt. Whatever you got up your sleeve, your adversaries have more of, with more kick to them, and more accuracy, to boot.
#8
I guess Jack Straw would argue this is only an opening bid in higher stakes negotiations. Neville Jr. - what a putz
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2004 17:51 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Truth time, mates. Now we'll see whether my (and Niall Ferguson's) supposition-- that Tony's support for us in Iraq was a fluke, and that the British political elite, no less than the French, perceives Britain's long-term mideastern interests to be with the French and their major muslim powers/trading partners, ie Iran-- is correct. I hope I'm wrong. But we'll have an answer soon.
#11
Frank: Jack = Tony. Jack's errand is at Tony's bidding. If we can't count on Tony's givernment to stand up to the mullahs, then it's safe to say we can't ever count on any UK government to stand up to this existential threat. In other words, this may mark the beginning of the end of the Special Alliance. Suez Crisis in reverse, if you like.
Note to our UK friends: I do not wish the above to come to pass. However, I'm a realist. Let's take the world as we find it, not as we wish it to be.
#12
Lex, I'm not convinced Jack hasn't sold Blair a bill of Goods re: th edevelopments in diplomacy in Tehran. This should end it. If Blair doesn't respond, you're right....
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2004 18:06 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Speaking of bill of Goods... LOL! Consider the rotation of the earth, the morons in the story are basing this on an west to east launch. The targets on in another direction.... hmmmm.... add another 2,000 mph to the missle and we'll see.
Iran, under fire on suspicion of secretly seeking nuclear arms, has accused the United States of "lawless militarism" in Iraq and has called Israel the biggest threat to peace in the Middle East. "The attack against Iraq was illegal," Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi told the U.N. General Assembly on Friday, thanking U.N.
(Kharrazi also stated his Kerry script was sent to his swanky hotel room via Fedex, just don't mentio that to too many people :)
Secretary-General Kofi Annan for publicly stating the same in a television interview last week. (Same script writer)
The invasion was an example of "increasing lawless militarism," (by Iran & Syria, see, he forgot to add that portion)
involving "the use of brute and unsanctioned military force to achieve some political goals, albeit desirable goals," said Kharrazi, explaining that his country, which fought an eight-year war with its neighbour, had "benefited greatly by the removal of Saddam Hussein." (and Iran thanks President Bush and the Coalition forces) Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 3:44:22 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bottom line Iranians are cowards who will not rise up and smite this satatnic cult that runs it's country.
Posted by: Shep UK ||
09/25/2004 4:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Actually they get it back either way...
The second way may be even more chaotic though...
Posted by: DanNY ||
09/25/2004 7:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Actually they get it back either way...
The situation in Iran reminds me very little of what the veterinarian taxidermist once told me;
"Either way, you get your dog back."
As SPoD duly noted, if the Iranian people want to avoid having parts of their country glow-in-the-dark, they should consider taking up arms themselves and personally demonstrate their displeasure to the mullahs. Any effects on their infrastructure may well prove far more limited that way than if they leave the job to outsiders.
France's foreign minister, Michel Barnier, insisted yesterday that Iran must assure the world that it does not plan to acquire atomic weapons as European nations lost patience with Teheran over its nuclear programme.
Nothing quite like a Frenchman insisting on something.
Diplomats close to negotiations in which Britain, France, and Germany are trying to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme said the Europeans might soon be ready to support American demands to refer it to the United Nations Security Council.
Might?
Iran said this week it had begun processing raw uranium to prepare it for enrichment, a process that can be used to develop nuclear bombs. Mr Barnier said Iran urgently needed to reassure the world about its nuclear programme, which Teheran says is purely for nuclear energy.
Or else what?
Posted by: Steve White ||
09/25/2004 12:14:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Despite the perfidy of our European "allies" over Iraq, this may actually be a big deal. Remember, the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one.
Posted by: tibor ||
09/25/2004 0:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Lol, tibor! I'm sure you're right... the EU3 just had to "age" the problem in their sophisticated way, heh. Don't want to agree with the US too quickly, lest someone mistake their shift as a sign we were right. That would never quite do, lol!
#3
Diplomats close to negotiations in which Britain, France, and Germany are trying to persuade Iran to abandon its uranium enrichment programme said the Europeans might soon be ready to support American demands to refer it to the United Nations Security Council.
Boy howdy, after that you can bet all heck will break loose. All HELL breaking loose will have to wait until later when some sort of testicularly endowed nation like America or Israel actually does something about Iran's nuclear lustings.
Remember, the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one.
Sorry to be the one who has to tell you this, tibor, but most of the outside world seems to be following the Roseanne Bahr (i.e., European) model of this crisis.
"The first step towards recovery is admitting that everyone else has a problem."
#4
Pray tell, this "awakening" by France and Germany doesn't have anything to do with the US or Israel taking preemptive action on Iran before long, does it?
But beware, these are the same cast of appeasers who threatened "serious actions" only to tremble and shake.
Posted by: Capt America ||
09/25/2004 1:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Serious Actions: flapping arms vigorously while vocalizing a clucking sound.
#7
5000 JDAMS including 500 bunker buster bombs sold to Israel recently does throw some nuance in the Iranian soup du jour. Like I said earlier, this public stuff is all window dressing. What we and Israel really know is held close to the chest. This public posturing and clucking is for the benefit of morons like, uh, Reuters, for example. The Black Turbans and their proxies are too looney to be trusted with WMD. This issue WILL be solved.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
09/25/2004 2:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
If Iran is using Chinese/NK guidance for its missiles, I don't know that Israel needs to fear an attack. I would think the Saudi Arabia and other nearby Moslem countries might be a little leary of a near miss.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
09/25/2004 2:58 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The French are sending cake to teach Tehran a lession!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 3:27 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The French are sending cake to teach Tehran a lession!
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/25/2004 7:14 Comments ||
Top||
#12
This is exactly the time to follow the advice of the former secretary of state Dr. Kissinger. Accordingly, It is the time for U.S. to use the most powerful nuclear bombs to blow up a few mountains in Iran and Iraq just to demonstrate the awesome power that the God have bestowed upon U.S.A since this country is doing exactly the Godâs work by helping people of the world to live and let live in prosperity, irrespective of their race, religion and ethnic backgrounds. The most important aspect of this demonstration of the awesome power will be to warn the followers of radical Islam to shapeup or to face a certain annihilation irrespective of what other stupid countries say simply because it is our right to defend the security of our citizens any where in the world .
#14
A near-space air burst would send deffinative message.The EMP burst would destroy electronics for hundreds of miles without causing massive civilian casualties.
#15
"...blow up a few mountains..."
Very stupid. We will use air bursts as at Hiroshima. They provide the full power of the explosions with far less fallout. [Incidentally, Hiroshima is a thriving city today, so don't give me that "wasteland for 10,000 years" crap.]
Posted by: Tom ||
09/25/2004 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#16
AnOn 6391: blowing up a few mountains will put the fear of (your) god into them? God gave us the H-bomb? You have a strange god. More likely the Iranians will folow the lead of Gen Buck Turgison when he heard about the Soviet's doomsday weapon: "We gotta get us one of those".
Posted by: Weird Al ||
09/25/2004 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#17
"Remember, the first step to solving a problem is admitting you have one." tibor
My name is Tehran.. (hello Tehran) and I have a nuclear problem. I feel this over powering need for nukes that will surely kill me...
#18
The nanny state has left Europe a land of infants still safe in the government cradle. But the wolf is starting to howl, and getting close to the door. And unfortunately for the Europeans, the hunter (US Military) who kept them safe all these years is out killing the wolves that threaten his own home.
Europe had better wake up.
NKor designed missles in Iran with range to all of Europe excepting Scandinavia, and Iran trying to make nuclear warheads.
Add to that mix Iranian work to increase the accuracy and throw weight (the latter is very important because they cannot yet make light enough nuke warheads and their current missles have a capacity for about 500 pound IIRC from open sources), and you get a screaming alarm complete with red stobe and klaxon.
The only question is:
Has Europe become so encrusted with socialism and moral laziness that they are able to hear the alarm - or if they do hear it, does Europe have the will to respond effectively?
Sorry guys, but the US is busy elsewhere. Look no furhter than yourselves: you didnt give us any help, you made things even more difficult in many ways, ensuring that we were fully engaged in our current war.
So, thanks to your snotty vengefulness, you're on your own. The only help we will provide will likely be humanitarian relief and decontamination from whatever city in Europe gets vaporized.
That, and probably we will reduce the Iranian missle and nuclear sites to radioactive slag. But only AFTER they nuke you. After all, YOU don't want us acting pre-emtively, unless a clear immediate danger exists.
#19
The day Iranian missiles stocked with nuclear warheads can reach Berlin Germany will have to rethink its nuclear options.
This is an issue nobody is yet willing to discuss. But I for once am not willing to rely on the French on that matter.
#20
While we're all pretty confident that the first target of an Iranian nuclear strike will be Israel, consider this: Greece, Turkey, some of the new European nations (Ukraine, Moldova, etc), and parts of Italy are in range of missiles Iran currently has, if they move them to Syria. Syria has been used before for this type of activity, and may be used again. It's to no one's advantage to wait until Iran detonates a nuclear device. The entire world needs to blockade Iranian ports, shut down Iranian overland imports, and put as much pressure on Iran as possible to forego developing a nuclear arsenal. Those nations that can should also gear up for a preemptive strike on Tehran and Iran's nuclear development sites if the blockade fails. Of course, there are certain nations that won't allow such an action, even when it's in their own best interest.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
09/25/2004 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Sorry guys, but the US is busy elsewhere. Look no furhter than yourselves: you didnt give us any help, you made things even more difficult in many ways, ensuring that we were fully engaged in our current war.
Does that include Italy, Poland and so forth? Am asking just because you seemed to include Europe as a whole in there.
#23
OS, it sounds good, but the reality is that Israel is the first target and neither they nor we are going to allow that to happen. The second target is probaly not Europe, but the US, via container-ship. The count down starts November 3, in Washington or Jerusalem, depending on election returns.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/25/2004 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
#24
well, I certainly hope that Iran can be stopped before the mad mullahs decide to lob a nuke towards Israel or our European neighbors. And with the exception of France (just kidding...sort of) we'd do all we could to help prevent that.
But it's true Europe needs to wake up and see that mommy and daddy USA can do little to protect them from this threat. Due to proximity and strength, it makes sense for hell-bent Islamists to attempt to expand into Europe first.
Europeans, especially the French, seem to think that because they hate America, that this will somehow innoculate them from them from being considered infidels.
This is absurd. That would be like a KKK caring if a black hails from Africa, America or Jamaca. They don't care if American blacks are more educated or if American blacks look down on African blacks. They are all blacks - period. Logic states they will strike at the blacks closest to them.
We are all infidels and hated equally by the fanatics. They don't see shades of infidels - unless you are already a Muslim.
They hate Europeans as much as they hate us. If it's easier to get Europe first, then logic dictates that they will pick the low hanging fruit on the tree first.
#25
Good cop/bad cop doesn't work when good cop is running all over the hood telling the bad boyz he's not really a cop at all. France has zero credibility here. Germany, not much more. Only a complete turnabout by Jack Straw and the other Stooges will mean anything at this point. We've lost a lot of time, and I doubt any last-minute change of heart by the Stooges will make any difference in the mullahs' calculations.
Also, Mrs D is right: containers, proxies, US port. Those jihadists with some economoics or business training must know that the best way to cripple the consumer-based US economy is to force us to search containers arriving at LA Oakland Baltimore Houston etc. No better, faster way to shave a point off of GNP growth than to eliminate the huge productivity gains the US retail economy has made via automated container unloading/shipping and just-in-time inventory mgmt.
Economics Note: some economists think that as much as one-third of US productivity gains in the last seven years came from one retailer alone, a company whose market valuation is higher than the GSP of ninety percent of the world's nations. Imagine the effects on US retail costs, hence end-user pricing, hence US inflation and consumer disposable income and spending, hence economic growth, if companies like Walmart have their supply chains disrupted. Let's pray the jihadists don't know anything about the sources of US productivity gains and economic strength.
#26
If Iran attacks openly anyone it will be a smoking crater before the end of the next day. The former USSR and US will launch an un corrdinated attack on them I am pretty sure.
I am not so sure searching every container is a bad idea lex. Not just from a security standpoint. I think quite a bit of stuff comes into the US that doesn't have the correct tariff or taxes paid on them. Quite a bit thats not legal comes in here via container too. I say check it all. If you want it on time ship it early.
Again on the proxies and "sneak attacks" I fall back to the letting Islam know. Any attack on the US means Mecca, Medina and the Dome of the Rock are utterly destroyed. Permanately put beyond their reach.
If Iran attacks the US it will be a sneak attack, the same goes for Europe. The Iranians are cowards who have used and currently use proxies. There is no diplomatic solution to this issue. The EU is hosed before it starts.
#27
Proxies, Sock Puppet. Plausible deniability for the mullahs.
Also, I can assure you that searching all containers is simply not possible without adding very significant costs to the US economy. Note that the reason most people are happy with our brave new economy is not due to higher wages--which for at least half of the public have remained nearly flat, in real terms, over the last thirty years-- but from steadily declining costs for non-essential consumer goods.
What do you think will happen to the Dow, and to employee pension funds, and to growth and employment overall, when you start searching each of the gazillion containers that arrive in this country each day? Not hard to answer this: go back to the pre-Walmart era. Look at the early seventies. This would be as catastrophic as OPEC's oil price tripling during the seventies.
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2004 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Easy there, Sock Puppet, the Dome of the Rock is in Jerusalem. You may want to take that down a bit more carefully.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/25/2004 19:46 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Lex is correct about the feasibility of searching the containers. It is simply a risk we will have to endure if we allow the Mullahs to obtain the bomb. Which is why we won't.
Interesting that today Perv said that he would like to see Pakistan free of nukes before he dies. The costs of nukes are enourmous, as I am sure Powell has impressed on Perv. The trick will be to get the Indians to follow suit. That would be worth guaranteeing Indian secuirity, though it would drive the Chinese nuts. Or perhaps because.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
09/25/2004 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
#32
I know where it's at Tom. That doesn't precude it's utter distruction if we suffer a "sneak attack" The Jews will be happy to have the temple mount back. One more thing that would scare the mooslimbs fecaless teh temple mount back in Jewish hands.
A tense confrontation is building in this refugee-swollen city, with hardline Kurdish politicians demanding the departure of some 200,000 Arabs who settled here during a 30-year government campaign of Arab migration to oil-rich parts of northern Iraq. "The Arabs must go back," Azad Jindyany, director of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan's media office, said in the northern city of Sulaimaniyah this week. "This is the central policy for every Kurdish party and all Kurdish movements."
Kurdish parties appear to be trying to recreate a majority they held long ago in the contested province, traditionally a multiethnic place with Christians, Turkomen and some Arabs who trace their roots back hundreds of years. An August report from New York-based Human Rights Watch said the hardline Kurdish position underscores a "dramatic change in power relations in northern Iraq" that has left Arab families "almost completely powerless" and Kurdish parties creating conditions for "a major confrontation."
Army Maj. Gen. John Batiste, U.S. commander in the region, said the province's fast-changing demographics are the hottest long-term security threat in northern Iraq. "We've got to work hard now so it doesn't become a civil war," Batiste said in a briefing on the U.S. Army base in Tikrit. If Kirkuk disintegrates into war, "we'll be right in the middle of it."
A Sunni Arab councilman for Kirkuk province, Mohammed Khalil Nasif, said the hardline demands for reversal of the previous government's Arabization policy sound almost as drastic as the original ethnic cleansing policy itself. "If the Kurds do the same thing, it'll be the Kurdization program," Nasif said before a recent council session in this city of 750,000. "We don't believe in fixing a wrong with a wrong. If a refugee comes back and wants to kick someone else out, we don't approve. Kirkuk is big enough for everyone."
It is unclear how the Kurdish parties will pursue the removal of Arabs from Kirkuk if the Arabs wish to stay. Iraq's U.S.-approved national laws allow Iraqis to live where they choose. Jindyany said the new law doesn't apply to Arabs who were given Kurdish homes and land by the deposed government of Saddam Hussein, whose moves to solidify control of the oil-rich cities of Kirkuk and nearby Khanaqin brought hundreds of thousands of Arabs to northern Iraq. A similar number of Kurds were forced from their homes in the process. "Kirkuk must be restored" to the Kurds, Jindyany said. "After it's restored, anyone is free to move anywhere in Iraq." Few Arabs want to return south, Nasif said. Often they were coaxed north from desert areas or poor Shiite Muslim villages. After living as long as 30 years in wealthier, more temperate Kirkuk, they have roots in the area. "This is their home," Nasif said.
The resurgent Kurds are being closely watched by leaders of Kirkuk's Arab and Turkomen communities, as well as by the U.S. military, which still operates several bases around Kirkuk and enforces a nightly curfew here. The government of neighboring Turkey has said Kirkuk should remain a multiethnic city, and not the capital of an enlarged Iraqi Kurdistan, the autonomous northern area. Turkey, which counts a huge Kurdish minority, has said it will block any Iraqi Kurdish steps toward independence. Thus far, the ongoing return of some 70,000 Kurdish refugees has been marked by its lack of violence. Most Arab leaders in the region have spoken cautiously about the issue. "We Arabs welcome the Kurdish refugees to come back to Kirkuk," Nasif said.
Batiste and other U.S. officials are trying to calm the confrontation by pleading for action from the Iraqi claims compensation committee, which is supposed to grant money or land to Arabs willing to leave. The committee might also settle with Kurds by giving them new land and housing funds, he said. "It doesn't have to be a train wreck," Batiste said. "There are certainly some Kurds and Turkomen and Arabs who are very hardline on this. But I think there's a way of doing it."
Batiste said the basic solution hinged on the idea that each ethnicity has a place in Kirkuk, but some Arabs "need to move back to where they came from." The general acknowledged that the government's compensation process has failed to solve any of the 6,000 claims already filed in northern Iraq, leaving Kurdish political parties to push refugees to begin homesteading in Kirkuk. "One and a half years after deposing Saddam Hussein, the government hasn't started any process to address our claims, so the people are simply returning back," Jindyany said. "They don't want to lose their chance, or their land." Ultimately, hundreds of thousands of people could file claims for compensation with Baghdad. The United Nations found some 800,000 displaced Kurds inside the northern autonomous area, many of whom were pushed out of Kirkuk. That figure includes refugees displaced by intra-Kurdistan fighting between militias controlled by the two chief parties. The Kurdish parties are also after a second goal: restoring Kirkuk to its original area before Saddam lopped off outlying Kurdish lands and transferred them to four neighboring provinces as part of the Arabization campaign. The restoration would tilt the population even further toward a Kurdish majority. "All the parts that were cut off must be restored," Jindyany said.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 7:03:03 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A Sunni Arab councilman for Kirkuk province, Mohammed Khalil Nasif, said the hardline demands for reversal of the previous governmentâs Arabization policy sound almost as drastic as the original ethnic cleansing policy itself.
One word: Payback.
This volatile situation is going to be a really good indicator of how much real progress has been made in Iraq. While the Kurds certainly deserve American thanks for their amiable compliance during the liberation, neither should they be allowed to initiate their own brand of ethnic cleansing.
Coalition forces need to urge Allawi's government on the strongest possible terms to begin a program of redressing the Kurdish displacement that happened at Saddam's behest. This tinderbox is just one more example of what results from letting tinpot dictators go unchecked.
#2
Why is it that the Arabs who want the Palestinian refugees to have a right of return don't want the Kurdish refugees to have one?
Posted by: Tom ||
09/25/2004 20:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
You answered your own question, Tom.
They're Arabs. The entire world revolves around them, and NO ONE ELSE is important.
Just ask them.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
09/25/2004 21:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Supremely well said, Tom. I like it when you lay off the nuke-'em-up-big-time stuff and cut to the chase like this.
QUESTION: Why is it that the Arabs who want the Palestinian refugees to have a right of return don't want the Kurdish refugees to have one?
ANSWER: Because the Kurds are not Arabs and the Palestinians supposedly are.
Non-Arab and Non-Muslim minorities live throughout North Africa and the Middle East. Contrary to the propaganda that the region is Arab/Muslim, these minorities are remnants of the indigenous peoples, before the great Arab imperialist wars of the 7th century, and "Islamicization process" that followed. Non-Arab Muslims like the Kurds in Iraq, Syria, Turkey, and Iran; the Berbers - known as Amazighes - in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya, have all resisted "Arabization" for over 1,000 years. Non-Muslims like the Assyrian Christians in Iraq - who argue that they are not Arabs - the Copts in Egypt, Christian Lebanese - many who claim not to be Arab but Phoenician - the Christians in Sudan, and other Christians throughout the region, have been persecuted minorities, since the rise of Islam. Others like the Druze and Jews have also been persecuted by Arab/Muslim regimes throughout history.
EMPHASIS ADDED
#5
Because in Islam, Arabs are always better or 'holier' then non-arabs. Something Indonesia and Malaysia should learn. The arabs are coming for them too.
#6
This is a good sign. Pakis want them out of their land. Like wise Russia and not it is the Kurds.
Interesting point is the origin of Arabs themselves. The Pan Arabists call any one who can speak their language Arab. But like Zenster mentioned the Lebaneses are Phonecians, Paloes are also a seperate race they dont admit it, berbers of North Africa are a seperate race.
Any way to cut a long story short, bye bye Camel jockeys you are not welcome any more.
#8
Pay reasonable compensation to the Arabs, funded with bonds secured by future oil revenues flowing to the Kurds, and move the Arabs out. Simply a matter of agreeing a price.
Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, whose Palestinian militant group sends suicide bombers into Israel, knows that Israel has him targeted again. And the leader of the Damascus-based political bureau of Hamas is taking no chances.
"Dey'll never get me! Never! Hahahahaha!"
"We are in a state of alert and vigilance," he told The Associated Press this week during a visit to Cairo from his home base in the Syrian capital, Damascus.
"Guido! We're goin' to the mattresses!"
"Hokay, boss! But my name's Mahmoud!"
Since Hamas suicide bombings killed 16 Israelis in the southern Israeli city of Beersheba on Aug. 31, Israeli officials began focusing their warnings on Syria and the Hamas leaders like Mashaal who are based in Damascus. Hamas officials say all attacks are planned and carried out by operatives in the Palestinian territories. In recent years, Israel has killed top Hamas leaders in the West Bank and Gaza. Just how effective these assassinations have been is not clear. New leaders readily moved to fill the vacuum, but the secrecy and security-dictated restrictions on movements under which they are forced to operate to stay alive is bound to have an effect.
It's amazing how that works when you begin bumping off the "political wing"...
Yoni Fighel, of the Israeli Institute for Counter-Terrorism, said the Israeli campaign against Hamas is making a difference. "The group has to deal with its survival as well as launching attacks," he said. However, Fighel said, the assassinations have not influenced "the consciousness of (Hamas members) to the extent that they would be afraid to carry out attacks."
That's okay. They've only got to influence Meshaal to the extent that he's afraid to order attacks...
Syrian political analyst Ahmed al-Haj Ali disagrees. "Threats will only provoke the resistance to look for new ways to fight and new people for martyrdom," he said.
Six or seven dead bigwigs down the road, the head cheeses will be sending the gunnies out to stop the attacks as a matter of self-preservation...
In a May interview, Mashaal shrugged off Israeli claims they have crippled the organization. "The history of the people shows that the passing of leaders strengthens the spirit of resistance and does not weaken it."
"Attacks are down for... ummm... other reasons."
After the Beersheba bombings, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the deadliest attack in Israel in nearly a year was carried out on direct orders from Hamas leaders in Damascus. A senior adviser, Raanan Gissin, has said neither Hamas nor Syria was "immune" to an Israeli strike. Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said Syria's support for terrorists "will have very clear consequences."
Posted by: Fred ||
09/25/2004 6:43:21 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We can Mash-aal potato, we can do the twist - tell me Mashy, do you like it like Rantisis?
#2
Khaled you had better tape your penis up really good I have a feeling you are going to be a "martyr" soon. Have fun trying to have sex with rasins in hell.
#3
"shave your body daily, oh future-shahid! What? Yes, you with your hand up. Khaled... what? shaving gives you bumps? irritation? Don't worry, it won't last long..."
Posted by: Frank G ||
09/25/2004 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
U.S. troops have been 'assisting' all through this...nuff said
NEW YORK -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the United States would give financial assistance to African Union troops on a proposed mission to end killing and looting in western Sudan. The 53-nation regional bloc has said it can quickly mobilize up to 5,000 troops for the Darfur region, but it needs hundreds of millions of dollars. Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo said Thursday that only $20 million has been received so far, from Canada.
"I think the international community understands the importance of this effort and the money will be forthcoming, but we have to have a good handle on how much is needed, what capabilities are needed, and what it will take to put this force into the field and to sustain it," Powell said Friday.
The African Union now has about 80 military observers in Darfur protected by just over 300 soldiers, monitoring a rarely observed cease-fire signed in April by the government and rebels.
Powell also said the United States was committed to ensuring the protection of United Nations workers preparing to assist the January elections in Iraq. The United Nations withdrew the bulk of its Iraq staff after an Aug. 19 truck bomb killed 22 people last year, including top U.N. envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello, and injured more than 150 others. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has since asked for nations to offer troops to protect U.N. staff who would help with the elections for an Iraqi National Assembly, but has received little response.
Powell said the United States was deeply engaged with "the multinational force and with other nations that might provide funding assistance to help the U.N. build up its presence in the country." The former Soviet republic of Georgia came forward with the first pledge of troops to protect U.N. staff and facilities in Iraq earlier this week.
Powell, who is holding talks on the sidelines the annual U.N. General Assembly ministerial session, said he has spoken with Annan about his security concerns. "We are going to help him with the protection issue," Powell said. But he stressed: "The elections are really going to be run by the Iraqis with the assistance, empowerment and technical advice from the U.N."
Powell, asked how elections could take place amid an upsurge of violence in Iraq, said that 15 of the 18 Iraqi provinces were stable and presented no difficulties. "We are fully aware that we have to take political, military, security and police action to bring these three additional provinces firmly under government control and to create conditions where people will be free to register and able to vote when the time comes," he said.
Powell spoke to the press after a meeting with G8, Arab and North Africa foreign ministers on an initiative by the G8 industrialized nations for democratic and economic reforms in the region.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
09/25/2004 3:25:05 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Iraq war brought 'more trouble to the world,' he says NEW YORK (CNN) -- Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has said he has little doubt that Osama bin Laden is still alive but denied his own security service is aiding, abetting, funding and providing material assistance to al Qaeda. In an interview with CNN on Friday, Musharraf said he is "reasonably sure" that bin Laden is still alive. After undergoing continued questioning it was conceded that there might be a massive funding cut in American support if he said otherwise. Further examination revealed how that same funding is currently being used to investigate the ISI's involvement in numerous assassination attempts against himself.
He said the reason bin Laden is still at large is a combination of the terrain where he disappeared -- in remote eastern Afghanistan or western Pakistan -- and that "he has supporters" in the area where he is hiding. But Musharraf categorically denied that anyone in his country's security service is helping bin Laden in particular or al Qaeda in general. "Not at all. I'm sure if you ask your own intelligence organizations here, they would know the truth, how much they get [from] our intelligence organization," the president said. Musharraf also denied that the United States has been increasing pressure on Pakistan during the past few months to capture or kill bin Laden. "There is absolutely no pressure," Musharraf said, noting "It's a joint responsibility of the whole coalition, and also Pakistan, to eliminate terrorism from Pakistan." Musharraf was less enthusiastic in his support for the U.S. war in Iraq, saying the Muslim world is less safe in the wake of the invasion. By this he meant that his little pisspot of a terrorist hellhole "is less safe in the wake of the invasion."
But the Pakistani president stopped short of calling the invasion a mistake, saying, "I would say that it has ended up bringing more trouble to the Muslim world." Musharraf also said that because of the situation in Iraq, he does not foresee Pakistan sending troops to help with the effort. His troops are far too busy getting lessons from Saudi Arabian security on how to "surround" enemy safe houses.
Musharraf also met with the prime minister of India on Friday to discuss the possibility of a peaceful solution to their differences, which center on Kashmir, over which India and Pakistan have fought two wars. "Now I see sincerity in him. I think he's sincere towards this, and so am I," Musharraf said of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. I'd wager that PM Singh certainly is sincere about one thing. That would be blowing every single square inch of Pakistan to hell and back again if they ever launch even one nuclear weapon India's way.
Posted by: Zenster ||
09/25/2004 11:51:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Surprised the old "Pakistan has Bin Laden now" rumor hasn't popped up yet again.
#2
I think Tereeeza Hind-sKerry actually popped it up about three days ago. She's expecting an October unveiling. For once I hope she's right.
Posted by: Tom ||
09/25/2004 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I don't think they got him despite what the Catsup Loon says.
If they have him I hope he is delivered in a living state. He must be publicly humiliated by being shown begging for his life just before his head is removed with some detonation cord. Turn around is fair play.
A Christian teacher has gone into hiding in the northern Nigerian city of Kano after offending her Muslim pupils. During an economics class, the teacher reprimanded a teenage girl for not concentrating and threw the book she was reading onto the floor. This outraged students as it was a part of the Koran, Islam's most holy book. Police arrived to calm their protests after all the school's teachers fled. Earlier this year Kano was the scene of bloody anti-Christian riots.
Police remain on duty at the Ace Academy secondary school and will do so until the tension eases, Assistant Superintendent Baba Mohamed told the BBC. The name of the teacher, who had only been working at the school for two weeks, is not being released by police. They fear that if people knew where she was, her life would be in danger. According to the BBC's Adow Sale in Kano, an imam at a nearby mosque was able to calm the agitated crowd that had gathered outside the school on Thursday. He pleaded with them to remain calm, our correspondent says.
Props to the imam for not escalating the situation.
Posted by: tipper ||
09/25/2004 12:16:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
Moslems worship one big stupid rock and one big stupid book. The book is full of lies and savagery. A dirty floor is an appropriate place for it to be.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
09/25/2004 1:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Mike, go there and tell that to these students, I am sure they would understand.
#5
memesis: Mike, go there and tell that to these students, I am sure they would understand.
Mike the Muslim / Jihad Unspun devotee is being sarcastic. He is implying that this is what Christians think. Can you imagine Christians threatening murder if a Muslim throws a Bible on the floor? This is why Muslims like Mike make me laugh.
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.
