Residents of a small South African coastal town are threatening to declare all-out war on baboons who have terrorised pre-schoolers, raided homes for food and urinated on clothes after pulling them out of closets. Diana Head, the chairwoman of the local taxpayersâ association in Pringle Bay, an hourâs drive east of Cape Town, told AFP Monday that baboons broke into the local nursery school -- located in a church -- three times, using the same method. "The baboons lifted a window latch and stormed a church hall where the children were," she said. "They grabbed sandwiches and cold drinks out of the childrenâs hands... Local official Craig Spencer told the Cape Times newspaper that the town did not have the authority to intervene, adding that the municipality had hired a nature conservation student to manage the baboons and printed pamphlets on how to keep baboons at bay. You roll the pamphlet up and wack âem on the nose. If that doesnât work, stop feeding the children.
#7
Hey, hey, they're just monkeys, and people say they monkey around, but they're too busy storming church halls to put anybody down. They're probably just trying to be friendly, so come watch them sing and play. They're with the primate classification, and they've got something to say.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/14/2004 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Sounds like the baboons are just copying the humans in that part of the world . . . It's a baboon jihad!
Seriously--that had to be frightening to the little ones, but the baboons are animals, and are just trying to survive. Not enough natural food for them in their natural habitat, evidently.
#11
I have believed for some years that monkeys and their relatives were plotting to overthrow human civilization.
That's right, you think they are cute hairy little bare-ass creatures, but don't let the sly beasts fool you!
Someday the signal will come and awaken the conciousness of every ape, monkey, and baboon... spider monkeys and lemurs, too. Then the little bastards are going to rip and sack their way through the unsuspecting nations of the Earth.
Many leading humans have been aware of this simian conspiracy for some time. Why do you think experienced ape-fighter Charlton Heston was named to lead the NRA a few years ago? Heston is out of it now, but others have taken his place in preparing our resistance.
Stock up on ammo, guns, and bananas! I plan to hold my ground.
No monkey is going to piss in my toilet, that's for damn sure!
#12
Can we be sure that all of our posters are loyal humans?
Couldn't one or more of them be the proverbial monkey pecking at a keyboard, sent here to spy out the Rantburg Resistance Front?
Hmmmm?
The monkeys are way too bright to be Maoists. Probably unreconstructed Trotskyites.
Posted by: Darth VAda ||
06/15/2004 0:16 Comments ||
Top||
#18
I hate them all from Chimpan A to Chimpanze!
[/Simpsons]
Can we be sure that all of our posters are loyal humans? Couldn't one or more of them be the proverbial monkey pecking at a keyboard, sent here to spy out the Rantburg Resistance Front?
Just keep an eye out for whoever starts typing some Shakespeare.
EFL.When in St. Pete, make sure to visit. And, yes, there is a picture.
SAINT PETERSBURG, Russia - In a more innocent age, it was said that Gregory Efimovich Rasputinâs legendary power over women was due to his piercing eyes. But a new museum of erotica here suggests that the mad monkâs charm may instead have been, ahem, concealed beneath his cassock. Measuring 28.5 centimeters (about 11 inches) -- allowing for shrinkage caused by pickling -- Rasputinâs penis displayed in a tall glass bottle is, to put it delicately, a big attraction at the museum. Shrinkage. I hate that.
Director Igor Knyazkin said he bought the object from a French antiquitarian for 8,000 dollars (6,600 euros), along with several of Rasputinâs hand-written letters. Somebody collects these? Thatâs... disturbing.
It was not known if he had a certificate of authenticity for such a remarkable piece. Maybe itâs got a hologram on it, like baseball cards.
Reputed both for his mysticism and his debauchery, Rasputin was a powerful influence at the court of the Romanov Tsars. Concerned about his unusual hold over the Empress Alexandra, a group of aristocrats decided to kill him to save Russia. They lured him to an assignation in 1916, fed him drugged cakes, shot him and finally killed him by wrapping him in a carpet and throwing him into the frozen Neva river. Or maybe they were just jealous?
The aura of sexual power and mysticism lives on. Some Russians think just by staring at the object, they can cure sexual impotence. One visitor asked Knyazkin if this is true. "Without a shadow of doubt," he replied with a smile. Spoken like a man who knows...
Knyazkin, 37, a urologist and sexologist, set up the museum in the clinic he runs, partly with the aim of helping his patients overcome impotence. The atmosphere of the museum makes patients "more optimistic and relaxed," he said. If I had this problem, and saw this thing, the last thing I would be is "more optimistic and relaxed".
"The aim of the doctor is to free his patient from anxiety and fears. Men who come here are ill at ease because of their problems, and our light and happy atmosphere reassures them."
Only part of Knyazkinâs collection of 12,000 erotic objects is displayed in the clinic, which is staffed by buxom nurses wearing short white blouses and high heels. Donât sound like a museum to me.
"I keep the valuable stuff at home," he said. I donât even want to know.
#5
My wife, who is Russian, doesn't think it is really his. She thinks like "B", a publicity stunt for the guy running the museum.
However, I have always wondered : Why Empress Alexandra was so interested in the guy might say volumes about old Nick the 2nd, who must have come up a little "short", even though he fathered five children.
BANGALORE, India - With Roman Catholic clergy in short supply in the United States, Indian priests are picking up some of their work, saying Mass for special intentions, in a sacred if unusual version of outsourcing. American, as well as Canadian and European churches, are sending Mass intentions, or requests for services like those to remember deceased relatives and thanksgiving prayers, to clergy in India. About 2 percent of Indiaâs more than one billion people are Christians, most of them Catholics.
In Kerala, a state on the southwestern coast with one of the largest concentrations of Christians in India, churches often receive intentions from overseas. The Masses are conducted in Malayalam, the native language. The intention - often a prayer for the repose of the soul of a deceased relative, or for a sick family member, thanksgiving for a favor received, or a prayer offering for a newborn - is announced at Mass.
The requests are mostly routed to Keralaâs churches through the Vatican, the bishops or through religious bodies. Rarely, prayer requests come directly to individual priests. While most requests are made via mail or personally through traveling clergymen, a significant number arrive via e-mail, a sign that technology is expediting this practice.
In Keralaâs churches, memorial and thanksgiving prayers conducted for local residents are said for a donation of 40 rupees (90 cents), whereas a prayer request from the United States typically comes with $5, the Indian priests say.
Bishop Sebastian Adayanthrath, the auxiliary bishop of the Ernakulam-Angamaly diocese in Cochin, a port town in Kerala, said his diocese received an average of 350 Mass intentions a month from overseas. Most were passed to needy priests. In Kerala, where priests earn $45 a month, the money is a welcome supplement, Bishop Adayanthrath said.
But critics of the phenomenon said they were shocked that religious services were being sent offshore, or outsourced, a word normally used for clerical and other office jobs that migrate to countries with lower wages.
In London, Amicus, the labor union that represents 1.2 million British workers, called on the government and workers to treat outsourcing as a serious issue. In a news release, David Fleming, national secretary for finance of Amicus said the assignment of prayers "shows that no aspect of life in the West is sacred.ââ
Funny, been saying that about unions for a long time now!
However, congregations in Kerala say the practice of ordering prayers is several decades old. "The church is not a business enterprise, and it is sad and pathetic to connect this practice to outsourcing software work to cheaper labor destinations,ââ said the Rev. Vincent Kundukulam of St. Joseph Pontifical Seminary in Aluva, near Cochin. In Bangaloreâs Dharmaram College, Rector James Narithookil said he often received requests for Mass intentions from abroad, which he distributed among the 50 priests in his seminary. Most of the requests from the United States were for requiems, with donations of $5 to $ 10, he said. Bishop Adayanthrath said sending Mass intentions overseas was a way for rich churches short on priests to share and support smaller churches in poorer parts of the world.
The Rev. Paul Thelakkat, a Cochin-based spokesman for the Synod of Bishops of the Syro-Malabar Church, said, "The prayer is heartfelt, and every prayer is treated as the same whether it is paid for in dollars, euros or in rupees."
Posted by: tipper ||
06/14/2004 10:19:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Our Ganesh, who art an elephant, hallowed be thy name...
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/14/2004 11:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
In Keralaâs churches, memorial and thanksgiving prayers conducted for local residents are said for a donation of 40 rupees (90 cents), whereas a prayer request from the United States typically comes with $5, the Indian priests say.
Hi boys and girls! Can you say "indulgences?" Very good, I knew you could!
[/Mister Rogers]
While not precisely indulgences, per se, purchasing the pious prayers of others still strikes me as pretty d@mn odd. Sorta takes the starch right out of an individual's personal relationship with their God. Oh, that's right ... the Catholic church was never big on that in the first place.
#5
Chris! outrageous! I'm pissing myself laughing here. As they say, nice one centurion!
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/14/2004 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Its not a purchase. Learn something. Its an honorarium thats paid to thank the church (note the lower case "c") for taking the time and effort. Much like a special offering to assist overseas missionaries (Jesuits, Capuchins, etc). And its completely voluntary. Your own prayers are considered enough thanks, but money helps the locals. The mercantile selling of Church (note the big "C") favors ended quite some time ago.
Its not like they use that money to go down to the corner crack dealer (AKA MArion Barry).
Why am I running for governor of Texas in 2006? Why the hell not? I already have several good campaign slogans, starting with "How hard could it be?"
Compared with the daunting financial crunch that Arnold Schwarzenegger inherited when he became governor of California, being governor of Texas is a notoriously easy gig. Itâs rather like being the judge of a giant chili cook-off.
Consider that in the past a series of wealthy Texas oilmen have ascended to the office, some of them rarely bothering to leave their ranches to go to Austin unless there was a football game. And itâs clear that not much was expected of our first female governor, Ma Ferguson, who, regarding bilingual studies, once said: "If the Kingâs English was good enough for Jesus, itâs good enough for Texas."
Hereâs another reason Iâm running: Texas has a tradition of singing governors. Pappy OâDanielâs successful race took place in the 1940s. He had a band called the Light Crust Doughboys. I, of course, had a band called the Texas Jewboys. His slogan was "Pass the biscuits, Pappy." One of my own most popular, often-requested songs is Get Your Biscuits in the Oven (And Your Buns in the Bed). The parallels are almost uncanny.
Our current governor, Rick Perry, is very proud of his hair. Iâve got a better head of hair than him, but itâs not in a place I can show you because I wear a cowboy hat most of the time. Actually, the only thing cowboys and Jews have in common is that we both like to wear our hats indoors. In the rare instances in which I take off my hat, I have what I often like to refer to as the Lyle Lovett Starter Kit.
Part of the charm of my quixotic campaign is that it may be taken as a joke by some, an article of faith by others. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, the other guyâs got the experience -- thatâs why Iâm running.
I have a new product coming on the market this summer. My Palestinian hairdresser, Farouk Shami, and I are importing olive oil from the Holy Land. One hundred percent of the profits of Farouk & Friedman Olive Oil will go to Israeli and Palestinian children. We aim to show Yasser Arafat and Ariel Sharon how itâs done. When Iâm governor, Farouk will be my ambassador to Israel.
Willie Nelson, the hillbilly Dalai Lama, also will play a seminal role in my plans. In a Friedman administration, Willie confided to me, he would like to be head of the Texas Rangers. If thatâs not possible, heâd like to be head of the DEA.
Willie and I, of course, do not always agree on everything. More than a year ago, just before the invasion of Iraq, we discussed the subject on his bus. I was very much for the war. He was very much against it. Finally, I tried to reason with him. "Look, Willie," I said, "the guyâs a tyrannical bully and weâve got to take him out." "No," Willie said. "Heâs our president and weâve got to stand by him."
Even though the governor of Texas does not do much heavy lifting, this does not mean that he canât do some spiritual lifting. I have a plan to start a Texas Peace Corps, and that is not an oxymoron. I want to fight the wussification of Texas. We didnât get to be the Lone Star State by being politically correct.
Iâm not anti-death penalty but I am anti-the-wrong-guy-getting-executed. Max Soffar has been on death row for 23 years, brought to trial solely on the basis of a long-ago recanted confession and represented by the infamous Joe Cannon, a state-appointed attorney known to have slept through some clientsâ capital murder cases.
And I donât merely want to save innocent people. I also want to save innocent animals. When Iâm governor, Texas will become a no-kill state. Iâll also outlaw the declawing of cats. For five years, Iâve been involved with Utopia Animal Rescue Ranch, a never-kill sanctuary for stray and abused animals. You can learn a lot about life by working with such animals. Iâd probably be a Buddhist today if it werenât for Richard Gere.
I aspire to inspire before I expire -- to remind people that JFK is not an airport, RFK is not a football stadium and Martin Luther King Jr. is not a street. In 2 and 1/2 years you may see me in the back of a long, black limousine, which will mean that Iâm either governor or Iâve been bugled to Jesus, the distinction often not being readily discernible.
If I am elected, I already know the first thing Iâll do: Demand a recount! But can I really win? Read my lips: I donât know.
Friedman is an author, musician and columnist for Texas Monthly.
Posted by: tipper ||
06/14/2004 10:03:27 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
So what does it taste like? Like cauliflower, or carrots, or sweet potatoes, or yams? Because I really like cauliflower, but I can't stand the flavor of most of the "orange" vegetables.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/14/2004 9:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Orange cauliflower now available - has 25x more Vitamin
And it'll cause your sexual organs to wilt and drop off.
#6
Cauliflower For Those Who (think they) Hate Cauliflower
1. 1/4 cup minced fresh onion
2. 1/2 tsp salt
3. 1/8 tsp pepper
4. 2 tbsp prepared mustard (type=your preference)
5. 1/3 cup mayonnaise
6. 1/2 cup grated cheese (type=your preference)
7. 1 lrg head cauliflower (trim off excess stem)
========================================================
1. Mix first 5 ingredients thoroughly in small bowl - set aside.
2. Turn cauliflower head upside down and, using sharp knife, carefully pierce thick stems (don't cut through them or it will fall apart, duh!) repeatedly to assist in even cooking.
3. Place cauliflower head in medium sauce pan (large enough that head is not touching sides), add water to 1/2 way point of pan.
4. Bring water to boil, reduce heat to medium and continue boiling uncovered until knife can be inserted in cauliflower with minimum force - i.e. cauliflower is "soft" - adjust this to your preference) - approx 18-25 minutes for large head.
5. Drain water & discard.
6. Place cauliflower head in serving dish with low sides to allow access.
7. Carefully spoon mixed ingredients over cauliflower and cover completely - this coating will allow cheese to "stick" while it melts.
8. Sprinkle grated cheese evenly on the caulifower and try to cover completely.
9. Cheese will melt in a few minutes - serve.
========================================================
I used this recipe for children who hated cauliflower. They ate every bite. As for adults who don't like cauliflower, beat their parents for being unoriginal drones and try this on them. If you think about it, you can add a (very) small amount of almost any spice to this recipe to give it a particular flavor to go with other dishes. Examples: garlic; chili powder; even nuts!; etc. And varying the type of cheese works the same way. I found smoked Gouda and top-shelf Swiss / Emmental to be my favorites - try swiss with crushed walnuts!
#8
Lol! Hey, when my kid brought home all those other kids, I had to get creative. Go ahead. Sneer. You're an uncultured Alley Oop Neanderthal! Get back to your simpleton nachos (I have a killer recipe for that, too!), dood! Now clean off the remote control and give it to your wife - you're obviously not qualified to drive! ;->
Yep - I've tried fresh crumbled bacon (You have the key to why this recipe works so well, heh) and it was excellent with cheddar and more onion - half of which I browned in olive oil.
#11
Sounds like fun... I've copied #6, and will give it a try.
Anyone for an official Rantburg cookbook? I can contribute a pretty good wild rice recipe.
Posted by: Old Grouch ||
06/15/2004 1:11 Comments ||
Top||
The results of the UKâs European elections (for European Parliament MEPs) are announced.
The UK Independence Party made significant gains in the European elections last night and achieved the biggest breakthrough by a minor party for 25 years. After 10 of the 12 regions had declared early today, the party had more than doubled its share of the vote and increased its number of Euro-MPs from three to 12, establishing itself as a force in British political life for the first time. Although it fell short of the spectacular advances predicted in some opinion polls, UKIP candidates - who fought on a platform of withdrawal from the European Union - took large numbers of votes away from the Conservatives also Labour and the Lib Dems.
In the East Midlands, Robert Kilroy-Silk, the former television presenter who has become the figurehead of UKIP, helped the party run the Conservatives a close second. Mr Kilroy-Silk will take one of his partyâs two seats in the European Parliament for the region. The Tories won another two, while Labour and the Liberal Democrats won one each. After being elected, Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "As poll after poll has demonstrated, voters want our country back from Brussels. They want it back from a corrupt, dictatorial regime and we are going to get it back for them. "The British people have sent a very clear message to the Prime Minister: you have not been listening, you have not been taking our views into account." In the South-West and South-East regions, UKIP also came second behind the Tories. Its new Euro-MPs include the partyâs leader, Roger Knapman. Labour was pushed into fourth place in both regions behind the Lib Dems. Last nightâs results showed UKIP recording about 17 per cent of the vote, two points ahead of the Liberal Democrats, and more than double the 6.9 per cent share they achieved the last time the European elections were fought in 1999.
Turnout was about 39 per cent, a record, with postal voting in four regions. Interestingly, turnout across the rest of Europe was a record low.
Liam Fox, the Conservative Party co-chairman, said Labour had polled the lowest share of the vote for any governing party in history. He said the clear message was that the public did not want further integration in Europe. Together, the Conservatives and Labour were scoring well under half the total vote - an unprecedented situation for the two main parties.
The Conservative leadership has summoned all the partyâs MPs to a "council of war" at Westminster tonight in an attempt to head off an outbreak of damaging in-fighting over Europe. During the campaign, Mr Howard sought to present the Conservatives as representing the moderate mainstream of Europe - between UKIP on one extreme who wanted to quit the EU and Labour and the Liberal Democrats who wanted to cede further powers to Brussels. The Tory leader is under pressure from Eurosceptics in his party to promise a fundamental review of Britainâs relationship with the EU to prevent a further haemorrhaging of support to UKIP, which is threatening to put up candidates against pro-European candidates at the next election. Lord Tebbit, the strongly Eurosceptic former Tory party chairman, said voting UKIP for a lot of Tory voters was "a way of firing a shot across the bows" of the Conservative Party. "The trouble is that if they are not careful they could fire it a bit close to the waterline," he told Breakfast with Frost.
Kenneth Clarke, the pro-European former Conservative Chancellor, cautioned Mr Howard against taking a more Eurosceptic line in response to the UKIP vote. "The great thing I would say is for heavenâs sake donât panic in the face of a protest vote in the European elections at a time when a lot of the population are in a mood to protest against the state of politics anyway," he told Sky News.
After a weekend of recriminations over Labourâs dismal performance in the local elections - coming third behind the Liberal Democrats - the prospect of Tory in-fighting over Europe provided some relief for Mr Blair. The strength of the UKIP vote creates a longer-term headache for Mr Blair and his referendum plans. Although Mr Blair has promised to defend Britainâs control over defence, foreign policy, tax and social security, he is under pressure to make concessions. But a strong showing by UKIP may well strengthen Mr Blairâs hand in the negotiations, because he will be able to argue that giving ground would make it even more difficult to win a referendum.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
06/14/2004 4:14:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We are starting to take our country back.
Read the last paragraph again, we have our Prime Minister in negotiations regarding our defence, foreign policy, tax and social security legislation with bureaucrats from other countries.
How would that play in Preoria eh?
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/14/2004 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"Whwn you guys get a Constitution together that can be read and understood without having a lawyer at your elbow, give us a call, ok?"
#3
Looks like the British had a Howard Beale moment;
"We're mad as hell, and we're not going to take it anymore!"
But if you look at the rest of the results it seems that many nations, each in their own way are saying the same thing.
Apparently Angela Merkel's CDU stomped Schroeders SDP, ending up with close to an absolute majority of the German seats. Many nations returned odd results. So the Eurostatists have got to be scrambling.
#4
mojo...LOL! We the subjects, herforeto mentioned in sections 1A - 25,938,098C .....
Posted by: B ||
06/14/2004 13:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
mojo, BigEd, B - LOL! And all so true.
Tony(UK) - exactly! From the other parties all we hear is a universal "we're (going to be) fighting the UK's corner in Europe". As though that's meant to be inspiring confidence in us. We have to 'fight our corner'? Then what the hell are we doing there?! What's the punishment when it's our brave representatives who are taking the blows? Why should we be bashing away at our neighbours? It was meant to be a free trade zone, not Fight Club, FFS...
#8
Bulldog> Then what the hell are we doing there?!
I keep on telling you: What the UK is doing there is "sabotaging". And whining. Lots and lots of whining.
But one thing we agree of is that UK has no role in a union that she sees as hostile.
I'd wish you Godspeed but I'm afraid that the UKIP strengthening will be used as an excuse to "bash away at your neighbours" some more, instead of opting to stop the fight by simply leaving.
#9
mojo - totally agree. One of the reasons I get so pissed off with the EU is that bloody 'constitution'. If we really need one, then why not use a template that's worked fine for 200+ years?
BigEd - we're not there yet, but moving in the right direction. For a picture of what the future might hold, check out this Remember the day Britain left the EU? from The Scotsman newspaper. it's really worth reading ;)
B - it'd be funny if it weren't so bloody spot-on...
BD - quite. I think they're bricking it actually, all the Europhiles in the Tory party are geriatric, and are backing Howard (Tory leader to our American friends) as they need to show party unity. They'll all be gone soon. They're bloody fools though, if they'd followed the UKIP line, they would have wiped the floor with Labour.
The EU started off as 'The Common Market', then it became 'The European Economic Community', then finally 'The European Union'. It needs to be stopped in its tracks, before it becomes 'The Peoples Republic of Europe'. Polls from around Europe are showing that people are more sceptical of the EU. It could be a flash in the pan, but it could be something more interesting...
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/14/2004 14:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
My take on EU Government problems.
1)The EU Govt. doesn't have the power or responsibility to go along w/its authority.Its bureaucracy can pass any decree it wants,but has neither the power to enforce the decree,nor the responsibility of carrying out the decree.Individual govt.s can safely ignore inconvenient rules/regulations/agreement/etc.,leading to public cynicism,apathy and disrespect.The bureaucracy can issue the most over-reaching,ridiculous,asinine,mind-numbingly comprehensive decree it wants,safe in the knowledge no one in the bureaucracy actually has to make it work.Since there is no way of judging the performance of a bureau/bureaucrat by seeing how well they implement the assorted decrees,the standard of rating performance becomes how much paperwork did they create.(Note:French EU Parliament members were recently criticised as lazy because they didn't write as many reports as other members!)When the bureaucracy's decrees are implemented by national govt.s,any complaints are met w/"Hey,the EU passed it,take it up w/them."This leads to furthe public anger as now no can be held accountable.
2)The chief flaw in the current EU Government is the lack of a strong(or any at all)executive power to oversee bureaucracy and to be held accountable for it.This is because the believers in a United Europe,a UE where national govt.s are memories and the nation-states have evolved into colorful regions of a United Europe,do not believe they can sell their vision to the public.So the UE true-believers have adopted the technique of gradually installing the UE government on Europe:we can agree common trade policies are good,so let's set up a body to coordinate trade issues,and we don't want them unsupervised,so let's set up an elected body to keep an eye on them,and so on,and so on...
But a strong executive requires real powers,the power to tax,to enforce its rules,to protect itself and its people,in other words to act as a government,not a bureaucracy.It would require a complementary judiciary,and in a democratic society,a legislature to provide checks on executives power.The current EU "constitution" is attempt to create the basis for such an executive.But still afraid to ask for what they really want,the UErs are trying to use the national governments as partners in governing,instead of abolishing the national governments.(For an idea of what current EU constituion would be like,imagine US Federal Government consisting only of President,House of Representatives,State Department,Treasury-but no IRS,no Federal courts except Supreme Court,OSHA,EPA,FDA,NASA,FBI and no armed forces except Marine Corps.)The proposed constitution is so wordy because it is a compromise.A constitution like US would have to be for a United States of Europe that essentially does away w/nation-states.It is what the UErs want,but they don't believe the people support them,so they make do w/half-measures and deceptions until they get the Europe they want.
But by trying to impose a government on the people the UErs are risking popular revolt that will undue all their work.Instead of this deceptive monstrosity,the believers in a One Europe should be trying to gain control of education and establish common,European-wide education(have to pick a language as European language-English or Latin would be best choices) creating basis for common European culture that would evolve into a United Europe w/in couple generations.
Posted by: Stephen ||
06/14/2004 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Is not the bottom line of the EU become a sort of Homogeneous Hegemony? That is everyone is supposed to be alike although there are cultural nuances that are going to prevent this process that the Eurostatists don't see? (to say nothing of a language thing. What are they going to do? Force everyone to learn Esperanto?)
Sitting here "across the pond", my heart goes out to the British who seem to be the only ones in large seeing the problems of the EU structure clearly.
#12
Sitting here "across the pond", my heart goes out to the British who seem to be the only ones in large seeing the problems of the EU structure clearly
Don't believe the UK is the only hold out. I'll show my ignorance and lack of a damn by guessing Denmark and Norway at least feel the same way.
#13
Shipman - Norway voted No on entry several years ago in a referendum! They sit fat and happy like Switzerland watching the manure toss from the outside.
#15
Aris is right - we should just leave. The British are mad because Bush lied and Blair did too.
Posted by: Jennifer ||
06/14/2004 18:15 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Come again Jennifer? I mean I got the first bit - I agree with that. It's the second sentence that got me.
Oh, we're talking about Iraq are we?
If it was all about Iraq then RESPECT (spit) would have done well, wouldn't they? ....and they didn't, did they?
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/14/2004 18:35 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Norway doesn't need to join the EU for the same reason why the UK doesn't need the Euro. Why was the Euro created? To facilitate trade. Instead of dealing with 20 currencies, merchants have only one to worry about. The goal has already been accomplished. There's not a big incentive for any remaining hold outs to join the Euro. Same with the EU in general.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2004 18:36 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Shipman> As BigEd said, Norway's not a part of the EU. As for Denmark it has done the honourable thing: asked and been given lots of opt-outs, it isn't part of the Eurozone, it won't ever take part in any defense treaty, etc, etc -- but at the same time it hasn't stopped the rest of the Union from going ahead with these things on their own.
BigEd> As for EU being a Roman Empire redux, except on a voluntary basis, not one derived of conquest. If we're an empire then we're the only one in the history of the world that has expanded only through countries voting to join us, and the only one that has never forced a territory to remain part of us.
Stephen> You can't pick a "language", nor "take control of education". Even inside nations, different school often teach linguistic minorities. It's sheer stupidity to think we can create a "language for Europe" by force.
#19
but at the same time it hasn't stopped the rest of the Union from going ahead with these things on their own.
Probably because Denmark does not have the power to influence these things either way. So...it stays out.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2004 18:42 Comments ||
Top||
#20
expanded only through countries voting to join us, and the only one that has never forced a territory to remain part of us.
Both of your assertions are dubious at best. The latter is moot. For example, the recent EU entrants had no choice, practically speaking.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2004 18:46 Comments ||
Top||
#21
There's not a big incentive for any remaining hold outs to join the Euro.
I don't know much about economics, but I believe the currencies/economies of minor countries might still be subject of attack -- I think Soros recently attacked the currency of Slovakia?
Anything, I believe (but again am not sure) that the accession treaties of the ten new nations, specify that these countries will also join the Euro when they satisfy the specific economic criteria.
After all there are still lots of different currencies in Eastern Europe. :-)
#23
when they satisfy the specific economic criteria.
And I wonder if this will be a moving target. In any case, I'm assuming all the EU newbies will join in a matter of months, maybe a couple of years at most.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/14/2004 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Aris,it may be sheer stupidity,but the surest way to create a Common Europe would be for a common culture and an essential component of that culture would be a common language.If the effort that's been put into the EU bureaucracy and assorted constitutions and Treatys had been spent on campaigning for first common Euro education standards,then common courses,a common European education system would have evolved w/out the need for force.As a component of a common education,a common language would be taught-along w/"native" languages for a while.An agreement on which language would be difficult to get but the end results would have done more to further a United Europe than all the Treatys,meetings and constitutions combined.
Posted by: Stephen ||
06/14/2004 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Rafael> I think that with the exception of Cyprus the rest of the countries are a bit further away actually, certainly not "months" and unlikely to be a couple of years either. Perhaps half a decade or even a full decade, would be my guess.
Stephen> Most countries already teach a second language at schools I believe -- certainly Greece teaches English, even though they start to teach it at Junior high (or atleast they did when I was going there).
That doesn't create a common language. It simply creates some small knowledge of a second language. There's neither incentive nor desire to break away from our pasts. The European Union will never be as homogeneous as the United States -- nor is there any belief that it *should* be.
#2
The greatest public health improvements in history are due to clean drinking water. Only indirectly, the greatest public health improvement was sewage disposal.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/14/2004 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
you can thank Civil Engineers for both - hug a Civil Engineer today :-)
start with Alaska Paul....
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Pipes and poop keep food on the table up here. Er, that is not the way I originally meant it. Thank you, delegates, for the vote of confidence. Frank should get a medal, as he is fighting in the lair of the bureaucrats in SoCal.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/14/2004 10:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The Chinese were much better off when they stuck to the cat & dog diet.
Posted by: Chris W. ||
06/14/2004 11:21 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Phil-sewage treatment is, of course, one of the largest factors in clean drinking water.
Alaska Paul-how about a hearty hand-clasp instead of a hug?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/14/2004 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#9
. . . What we take for granted around here, in the good ol' USA--and in other developed countries whose populations don't want to listen to Islmoturds (literally).
#6
I'm wondering whether mommy earth is in some sort of astro belt.
The object that shot through the NW last week must have been big to put out the amount of light it did. Outdoor surveylence cameras caught the event from all over the state,(the story about that being a hoax was about whether a meteorite had hit the city of Olympia) but, strangely to me, it was touted as being small, about the size of a desktop computer. More like the size of a micro bus, or space shuttle!
It was loud by all accounts but was touted as being loud because of the type of small matter it was. Strange to me. I witness' said it broke apart into at least three fiery pieces (small?)
#9
Lucky, remember the amount of energy is defined as a force applied over a displacement of distance. So since force is mass time acceleration a small mass at a larger velocity (and larger deceleration) will have the same energy as a larger mass with a smaller velocity (and smaller deceleration). So a computer monitor sized meteor is entirely resonable depending on its velocity
#10
Chemist, Thx, but wouldn't a meteorite entering the earths atmos have the same velocity as another depending on the mass or density. For example the rock that landed on the couch had to have enough dense material to make it all the way to its soft landing. It was dense enough. But did it light up the night as was reported over the NW?
I wonder what sort of luminosity the Space Shuttle would have looked like at night.
I still think whatever did light it up around here was large and very hot. It also made alot of noise. That means, to me, big thing moving mucho air.
#14
I saw a picture of the so-called meteorite, and it is the spitting image of a good sized beach pebble. It also has a line across it that looks like stratification. I has me doots.
EFL from the BBC Leaders rue Euro poll âdisasterâ
The disappointing turnout figures have spread gloom in Brussels
Senior politicians across Europe have voiced dismay at EU parliamentary election results, after low turnouts and big gains for opposition parties. [the center right, the EU skeptics and independent parties made gains; the greens and the socialists had losses]
Governing parties in Germany, France and Poland suffered big losses, while many eurosceptic parties had their best result at the polls. Dutch Foreign Minister Ben Bot said the outcome was a "disaster for the existing coalition in many countries". Turnout reached a record low, with just 45.3% of EU voters casting ballots.....
The Pentagon is proposing sharp cuts in U.S. forces in Germany, which for more than half a century has been Americaâs biggest military outpost in Europe. Itâs a bad idea, particularly at a time when the United States is struggling to rebuild its relations with its NATO allies. On good track with Germany, probably less so with France.
Washington is hoping to cut its military presence in Germany â a little more than 70,000 soldiers â roughly in half. Two heavy divisions now based there, and the soldiersâ families, would return to the United States. They would be replaced by a much smaller light combat brigade, while other units would be rotated in and out, at considerable cost, for short-term exercises. The Air Force is also thinking of moving some of its F-16 fighter jets from Germany to Turkey, where they would be closer to Middle East trouble spots but subject to restrictions by the host government. I suppose we all know what kind of "restrictions" this means. And will this all really come cheaper?
The large American military presence in Germany has long symbolized the understanding at the heart of NATO â Washingtonâs commitment to remain permanently engaged in Europeâs security and to integrate its military operations with those of its major European allies. Recent history has only reinforced how important that relationship is to the United States. NATO is the only alliance capable of sharing some of the global military burdens that have now overstretched Americaâs ground forces. It is not so much about Europeâs security anymore but about global security ensured by a close collaboration between both sides of the Atlantic. Europe may take a bit longer to adapt to the new challenges but it will.
Many Germans, remembering Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeldâs scornful "old Europe" put-downs of their country last year, will see these withdrawals, and the accompanying German job losses, as payback for Berlinâs diplomatic opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Actually the subject seems to be widely ignored in most parts of Germany except in the regions where U.S. troops are actually stationed. And liked.
Washington denies that. But the Pentagon does seem to have a growing preference for stationing troops either at home or on the territories of allies ready to embrace President Bushâs notions of unilateral preventive war. That latter is of course nonsense, because it defies the meaning of "unilateral". If other nations "embrace the notions", the thing is not "unilateral" anymore, right? And in Germany the government will change, and the idea of preemption (or prevention) will look much more interesting once Al Qaeda stages its first major attack in Berlin or Frankfurt.
Despite its criticisms of the Iraq war, Germany imposed no restrictions on the use of American bases during that conflict. It continues to deploy thousands of German soldiers to protect those bases, freeing American troops for other uses. Berlin also contributes $1 billion a year to the basesâ support. I guess you donât read about this very often in the States?
Economically, the plan to bring the soldiers home is a loser. Well I donât have the figures but itâs not all figures here.
The German bases have other advantages as well. They are much closer to the Middle East and Central Asia than bases in the United States and are in a safe country with a stable democracy and the modern conveniences that make life easier for troops on long tours overseas. Soldiers stationed there have access to a variety of training exercises and can enjoy down time with their families. The American military hospital at Ramstein Air Base, the largest outside the United States, provides specialized care for battlefield casualties from Iraq and Afghanistan as it did for those from Bosnia, Kosovo and the U.S.S. Cole. It would take a lot of time to attain the same standards in say Romania or Bulgaria. I believe though that Ramstein would be the last to go anyway.
There is nothing sacrosanct about maintaining particular Army divisions in Germany. The role of American military forces there has evolved considerably over the decades â from occupying a defeated enemy to deterring Warsaw Pact aggression to symbolizing Washingtonâs post-cold-war commitment to remain militarily engaged in Europe. Along the way, the size of the American presence has evolved as well. In the nearly 15 years since the Berlin Wall fell, United States force levels in Germany have dropped by roughly 75 percent. Further reductions should not be ruled out. But the Pentagonâs current plans are unduly drastic, unfortunately timed and suspiciously motivated. I donât buy the latter. Rumsfeld personally told me that this was not the case. And given his usual "undiplomatic" bluntness, I believe him. I wouldnât rule out that some people do like the "payback" idea (even on Rantburg). But payback might be a bitch... sometimes for the one who deals it out.
Posted by: True German Ally ||
06/14/2004 12:52:56 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
NATO has to change or die on the vine. If the EU cannot committ itself to global defense (remember this treaty is supposed to go both ways) partnered with the US it is dead.
Economics should not guide our defense posture. Regardless of the cost the battles are not in Europe at this time.
As for economic impact where bases are located it is no different than what communities went through here in the states. And the overall impact on German GDP is very minimal.
I just hope the German's realize that we are friends and this in no way some kind of punishment. And if it is it is pathetic given GDP impact of our forces.
Posted by: Dan ||
06/14/2004 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The large American military presence in Germany has long symbolized the understanding at the heart of NATO â Washingtonâs commitment to remain permanently engaged in Europeâs security and to integrate its military operations with those of its major European allies
But it now symbolizes to Americans that Europe expects American taxpayers to foot their defense bills so they don't have to.
I hope that the impact to the communities that have supported us is minimal. But I've lived in communities here at home that have gone through base closings and so.... as a taxpayer wanting to see my money well spent.... I see no reason that Germans, spending my money, shouldn't have to as well.
Posted by: B ||
06/14/2004 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Dan and B, I'm afraid you both miss the central point here. You are NOT footing the German defense bill here. Germany does not save any defense money because you are here as Germany is in no danger of being attacked by anyone.
War of Terror you say? The thing is, if Germany (and Europe) wanted, they could just be free riders because the U.S. will lead that war... with them or without them. I guess I don't have to point out what is cheaper. The global nature of (Islamist) terrorism means that no threat is specifically directed against Europe OR the U.S. But as Dan said, the battles won't be in Europe. We all know where they are and probably will be in the next ten years.
This is not about financing a few German communities (never was), this is about keeping Europe involved in global matters. If you leave Europe and disassociate yourself from European affairs and joint military endeavours, it will cost you more than keeping 50000 troops (for your own benefit) in Germany.
Don't declare NATO dead before you found something better. Let's work together to redefine NATO. United we stand.
#5
Let's work together to redefine NATO. United we stand.
sniff, sniff, TGA...if everyone in Europe (or even Germany) was like you, the world would be a great place.
I don't know how I feel about the bases in Germany, but I do know that you have reminded me that when you drop all the rhetoric, good people from all countries have similar goals.
Posted by: B ||
06/14/2004 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Why U.S. troops should stay in Germany
Just in case we need to (in the immortal words of Hollis P. Wood in "1941") "kick the livin' shit outta" them again...
#7
Don't declare NATO dead before you found something better. Let's work together to redefine NATO. United we stand.
Totally agree with those sentiments TGA.
mojo - that was uncalled for.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/14/2004 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#8
TGA-What this discussion should reveal is that, while there is growing anti-Americanism in Europe, its reciprocal is growing resentment of Europeans in the US. I hope we can make NATO sound again, but there is significant resentment here for the European hostility towards Americans, and we are beginning to see signs of that resentment seep into action on this side. Of course we want a restored, updated NATO, but not at any price.
#9
The combat divisions in Europe are coming home for the simple reason they aren't needed to help protect Western Europe from invasion.If they are to be used in future,it will be as expeditionary forces dispatched from home bases,and it is cheaper to base them w/their families in the US.The infrastructure will be kept for forseeable future-to show US still engaged w/Europe,already built so don't have to spend scarce dollars to build new,and as TGA points out Germany allows US to use bases pretty much unrestricted.Tactical aviation(F-16s,F-15s,etc.)would be moved for couple of reasons.If based in Turkey then Iran,Syria,Palestine and Iraq would be w/in range.If moved to SE Europe,I suspect it would be more a matter of local governments not minding US a/c practicing low-level flight,with a touch of rewarding new friends thrown in,but mostly no noise abatement restrictions on training flights.
Posted by: Stephen ||
06/14/2004 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Tony - probably due to unresolved feelings - I was stationed in Germany at the height of the cold war. Some of the W. Germans were ok, most even, but lots were real "aryan assholes" to Americans, and it's only gotten worse.
#11
TGA - not saying that Germany/EU is footing the bill. What I am saying is that Americans want a true mutual self-defense pact. Not one where the Europeans can pick and choose when to uphold and when not to uphold NATO agreements. We were attacked but the Europeans chose not to fullfill thier part of our mutual defense pact. Which has alot to do with not being militarily able too, this needs to change on the Euorpean side if NATO is too survive.
Jules post is put spot on, there is growing resentment of Europe in this country. I do hope NATO can be resucued. But as you put it the US will still lead in a war - with or without Europe. This, I believe, is part of the problem we face. The Europeans will benifit regardless. This needs to change since we cannot do it alone. But if forced to we will sure give it a go, the alternative is surrender.
TGA I respect your opinions and am in full agreement with what you say. I just wish your fellow EU citizens felt the same.
Posted by: Dan ||
06/14/2004 18:19 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Stephen always has the killer insight on this particular flavor of stuff.
A mural painted by Jewish children imprisoned in a Second World War concentration camp near Perpignan, southern France, has been vandalised days after the government announced a growing anti-Semitic trend. A historian discovered the desecrated painting at Rivesaltes on Friday while visiting the site where 4,500 Jews and gypsies were held by the Vichy regime from 1941-2. Half were sent to their deaths in Auschwitz, including 400 children. The perpetrators left no message. Police at Rivesaltes said no complaint had been filed after the so-called Fresco of Jewish Children was reduced to rubble, apparently with a chisel. The incident was being investigated.
In 1942, a Swiss nurse at the camp had asked the children to paint a typical Swiss landscape on a wall of the infirmary to "give a bit of gaiety to this sinister place". They depicted bucolic scenes from the Swiss countryside, with joyful characters, musical instruments, cows, chalets and pine-covered mountains. After being left abandoned for half a century, local school children discovered the fresco in 1999 under the whitewashed walls.
"This was a premeditated act," said the prefect of the Pyrenees-Orientales region. Although the motives remain unclear, this is not the first apparent act of anti-Semitism to hit the region. Last year, hooligans smashed two plaques on a nearby monument commemorating French deportees. Local authorities are in the process of building a memorial to all Rivesaltesâs prisoners, where the fresco was to be displayed. The interior minister, Dominique de Villepin, expressed his "indignation" at this "new attack on the memory of the children of the Holocaust".
Jewish groups and politicians have been saying for months that anti-Semitism is on the rise in France. Last week, the justice minister, Dominique Perben said 180 anti-Semitic acts had been recorded since the beginning of the year. In 80 per cent of cases, the perpetrators have not been brought to justice. M Perben called for a "firmer, more dissuasive judicial response" to what he described as a "cancer". Rings a bit hollow when the French establishment does all it can to demonise Israel.
Such is the dismay of Franceâs Jewish population that 30,000 French Jews are considering emigrating to Israel. Experts believe that the rise in anti-Semitism is directly linked to Arab-Israeli tensions in the Middle East, in particular since the beginning of the second Palestinian Intifada in 2000.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
06/14/2004 5:49:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The truth is, Mssr Villepin and his political cronies are very PLEASED with this display of anti-Semitism; it reinforces France's biased stance on the Israel/Palestinian conflict: Palestinians (Arab Muslims) good victims, Israel (Jews)subhuman villains.
Ruling parties in some countries that supported the war, including Britain and Italy, saw their support fall, and the Socialists in Spain, who won Marchâs general election on an anti-war platform, attracted the most votes there. In Britain, Prime Minister Tony Blairâs Labor Party slumped to a humiliating third place in local elections last week, prompting fresh speculation in the media about his political future. However, the rise of the UK Independence Party appeared to be dividing the anti-Blair vote by drawing votes away from the Conservatives, who have been suffered internal divisions in recent years over their position on Britainâs role in the EU. Projections from the EU had the Conservatives winning 23 seats, to 19 for Labor and 15 for the UKIP.
Iraq was also an issue in Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconiâs party lost about 4 percentage points, but his center-right ruling coalition appeared to hold its own, projections showed early Monday. Turnout was a robust 73.1 percent in Italy, where Berlusconi has faced strong opposition for his decision.
In Spain, Prime Minister Jose Kuis Rodriguez Zapateroâs Socialists led by won [sic] 43.3 percent, edging the conservatives who took 41.3 percent -- an apparent vindication of the Socialistsâ opposition to the Iraq war, which was supported by the previous prime minister, Jose Maria Aznar. But both French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Schroeder -- steadfast opponents of the war -- also suffered at the polls. Schroederâs Social Democrats slumped to its worst nationwide performance in post-World War II Germany -- taking just 21.5 percent, compared to 30.7 percent in the last European election five years ago, according to official results. The opposition Christian Democrats won 44.5 percent. In France, Chiracâs Union for the Popular Movement was projected to win about 16.5 percent of the vote, a far second behind the Socialist Party, with a projected 30 percent, according to Sofres polling firm. Note while that Iraq war support was the cause of the falls in votes for Blair and Berlesconi, France and German opposition to the war was not a factor in the even worse performance of their parties (relative to the UK and Italy). They can write this stuff because their spin always over-rides any rational analysis.
Posted by: phil_b ||
06/14/2004 5:22:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I don't know about Italy, but the UK vote was apparently more about the EU than Iraq, and I suspect EU issues were paramount in other countries also.
#2
So when some loose, it's because of their support in the irak war; whereas when other ALSO loose, it is NOT because of their war support!!!
I wonder why they neglected the abu ghraib factor....
#3
"Iraq was also an issue in Italy, where Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconiâs party lost about 4 percentage points, but his center-right ruling coalition appeared to hold its own, projections showed early Monday. Turnout was a robust 73.1 percent in Italy, where Berlusconi has faced strong opposition for his decision." ....and won.
apparently that "strong opposition" wasn't really all that strong, now was it?
This whole piece is an exercise in logic gymnastics. And the media wonders why they have zero credibility anymore!
Posted by: B ||
06/14/2004 10:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's now already officially forgotten (if you listen to BBC talking heads) that Aznar was headed for victory in Spain right up until the Islamoid bombings three days before the election. And that was despite 80 - 90 % opposition to the Iraq war amongst the Spanish populace. Clearly, even back then, European electorates weren't as obsessed with the Iraq issue as the liberal media would have us believe.
Filmmaker Michael Moore said Friday he wasnât sure he did the right thing by saving footage of U.S. American soldiersâ cruelty toward Iraqis for his controversial documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11,ââ instead of releasing the evidence earlier when it might have helped halt such abuse. For the committed left, itâs all about power, and preferrably in Totalitarian mode. There is no higher calling, and if a few Iraqis had to be whacked around ex-officio, it doesnât matter. Michael Moore had a film to make, and the release of info about prisoner abuse could wait. Besides, if this had come out earlier, it would have had more time too blow over, and egad, Bush would be re-elected for sure!
"I had it months before the story broke on â60 Minutes,â and I really struggled with what to do with it,ââ Moore said in a telephone interview with The Chronicle. "I wanted to come out with it sooner, but I thought Iâd be accused of just putting this out for publicity for my movie. That prevented me from making maybe the right decision.ââ If he really struggled, and yet he now says its the worse thing ever, it proves a Jabba has great big ego, even bigger than Jabba himself. Also, he has no conscience, or at least nothing we would call a conscience.
The footage, eerily similar to film of the atrocities at Abu Ghraib prison, shows GIs laughing as they snap photos of each other putting hoods over Iraqi detainees. In the same scene from "Fahrenheit 9/11,ââ which opens Friday at Bay Area theaters, an American soldier fondles a prisonerâs genitals through a blanket. ...and he keeps the porn to himself? Might this be borderline obstruction of justice?
"The stuff with the detainees in my movie is even more shocking than what we saw in that prison because it happens outdoors and is more commonplace,ââ Moore said. That porn is making Jabba drool
The documentary allegedly links President Bush to the family of Osama bin Laden and other oil-rich Saudis and takes the president to task for his response to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. It also links the tooth fairy to child self-mutilation - all for that dollar bill!
The film, which won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival last month, became the center of a corporate spat between Disney and its subsidiary Miramax when Disney Chairman Michael Eisner said he wouldnât allow the film to be distributed. Later, Disney sold the film to Miramax co-Chairmen Harvey and Bob Weinstein. The film is now being distributed by Lions Gate Films, IFC Films and the Fellowship Adventure Group, the latter specifically set up by the Weinsteins to handle Mooreâs documentary. At least Eisner got a bit queasy. Maybe he wants to keep some semblence of a job for a few weeks more.
Had Miramax released the film as originally planned, it most likely would have played in art houses, the traditional home of documentaries. But because of the intense interest in "Fahrenheitââ fueled by the distribution controversy, the film will now open simultaneously at multiplexes around the country. Played in art houses, i.e. "Speaking to the choir"
"It will be in 700 theaters," Moore said. "Itâs the largest opening Iâve had, four times the number of screens that âColumbine,â was on." Moore won the Oscar for best documentary for his 2002 "Bowling for Columbine." An opening larger than neccessary to swallow those three Burger King Whoppers at once?
"Fahrenheitââ comes down hard on Bush for starting a war the filmmaker clearly sees as folly. But the most disturbing images are of Americaâs fighting forces in Iraq appearing as dazed and confused as soldiers portrayed in the Vietnam movie, "Platoon.ââ Platoon? Mikey Moore and Olly Stone, the Laurel and Hardy of the leftist conspiracy nuts
"The situation is like Vietnam. The conditions in Iraq are just terrible, ââ Moore said. "The soldiers know they are over there for a bull -- reason. .. . Bush has created an atmosphere for those who serve under him to also behave in immoral ways.ââ More drool and heavy breathing
Moore said he has received more than 1,500 letters from American soldiers expressing opposition to the war and said he is considering compiling the letters into a book. Those two guys who went to Canada wrote 750 each. Thay must be highly skilled!
Filmmaker Michael Moore said Friday he wasnât sure he did the right thing by saving footage of U.S. American soldiersâ cruelty toward Iraqis for his controversial documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11,ââ instead of releasing the evidence earlier when it might have helped halt such abuse. EFL, the rest is at SFGate.com
"The situation is like Vietnam. The conditions in Iraq are just terrible, ââ Moore said. "The soldiers know they are over there for a bull -- reason... I wonder how he figured that out? If he even did?
Moore said he has received more than 1,500 letters from American soldiers expressing opposition to the war and said he is considering compiling the letters into a book. Would they be like Sgt. Mejia or Stephen Funk?
Bill Clinton is set to hit the talkradio waves with a live special promoting his new book -- one that CBS has ordered a "must carry" directive for all of its news affiliates, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.
Each and every one of CBSâs news and talk stations will be required to take the Clinton book special, now scheduled for next 6 PM ET Thursday -- whether local programming management wants it or not!
"Itâs going to be like one big commercial for the book! Why didnât Mr. Clintonâs publisher just buy an hour," one angry executive for a CBS news station said late Monday. "This is not news, this is marketing. I already feel dirty!"
Other CBS radio excutives are excited about Clinton finally appearing on live talkradio. "I canât wait for the callers," said one CBS radio suit. The one hour session titled "CLINTON CONNECTS WITH AMERICA" will be moderated by CBS EARLY SHOW host Harry Smith.
The program appears to be part of a larger cross-promotion platform package with Clinton and CBS parent VIACOM. The former president is set to sit with CBSâs Dan Rather at the Clinton library in Arkansas for Sundayâs CBS 60 MINUTES.
Developing...
No agenda here...nothing to see... go about your business
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 6:58:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Each and every one of CBSâs news and talk stations will be required to take the Clinton book special, now scheduled for next 6 PM ET Thursday -- whether local programming management wants it or not!
#2
Local station in my brother's town has already told CBS to stick it. Has a Sports Program they are under contract to do. You do NOT want to cross Rome and his gang of wild men.
In a rare election-year political truce, US President George W. Bush warmly paid tribute to Bill Clinton and even plugged his forthcoming memoirs at his formal White House portrait unveiling. Geez, the things ya gotta do not to come off as mean.
"Bill Clinton showed incredible energy and great personal appeal. As chief executive, he showed a deep and far-ranging knowledge of public policy, a great compassion for people in need, and the forward-looking spirit that Americans like in a president," Bush said in a speech at the ceremony. Monica, Monica, where for art thou Monica
Bush and First Lady Laura Bush sat with Clinton, first-lady-turned Senator Hillary Clinton and their daughter Chelsea as the former first coupleâs individual portraits were unveiled before being hung in the White House. Keep Hillaryâs away from the antique mirrors. They might crack.
Bush said that Clintonâs rise from humble beginnings in the rural state of Arkansas "took more than charm and intellect. It took hard work and drive and determination and optimism." "took more than charm and intellect"Umm - there is an article about Rasputin elsewhere on RB today. . .
"I can tell you more of the story, but itâs coming out in fine bookstores all over America," Bush quipped, a reference to Clintonâs memoirs, "My Life," which comes out June 22. "Fine Bookstores" - And every supermarket from San Diego to Bangor, next to National Enquirer and Weekly World News, who this week is talking about the love child of an alien by Saddam Hussein. Mr. President; were you choking when you had to say this?
"The president, by his generous words to Hillary and me today, has proved once again that in the end, we are held together by this grand system of ours that permits us to debate and struggle and fight for what we believe is right," said Clinton. The man has so much syrup that Mrs. Butterworth is jealous. . .
#4
The funny thing is Bush probably would like to work w/Demos in Congress,like he did in Texas.But the Demo party would rather jump off cliff than work w/him.
Posted by: Stephen ||
06/14/2004 20:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Bush can be curtious and pleasant, but he does not have to put a stick of butter and a bottle of Log Cabin Syrup all over it. Too much! *gagging sound*
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/14/2004 23:11 Comments ||
Top||
Way too long to reproduce here (does Mr. Den Beste ever write a short article?), but worth every bit of reading.
Mr. Diggins: that has to hurt.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/14/2004 1:41:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
DB has the gift of being able to dissect idiots and hypocrites so thoroughly thier arguments can't be put back together logically.
It's best summed up that Mr. Diggins has Mr. DenBeste's foot in his ass.
This may get lots of attention, even if from the LA Times
WASHINGTON â A group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that President George W. Bush has damaged Americaâs national security and should be defeated in November. The group, which calls itself Diplomats and Military Commanders for Change, will explicitly condemn Bushâs foreign policy, according to several of those who signed the document.
Wonder how many have a sinecure from the Magic Kingdom?
"It is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration," said William C. Harrop, the ambassador to Israel under President Bushâs father and one of the groupâs principal organizers. Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former U.S. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including Israel, the former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia. snip
It is unusual for so many former high-level military officials and career diplomats to issue such an overtly political message during a presidential campaign.
A senior official at the Bush reelection campaign said he did not wish to comment on the statement until it was released. But in the past, administration officials have rejected charges that Bush has isolated America in the world, pointing to countries contributing troops to the coalition in Iraq and the unanimous passage last week of the U.N. resolution authorizing the interim Iraqi government.
One senior Republican strategist familiar with White House thinking said he did not think the group was sufficiently well-known to create significant political problems for the president. The strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said the signatories were making an argument growing increasingly obsolete as Bush leans more on the international community for help in Iraq. "Their timing is a little off, particularly in the aftermath of the most recent U.N. resolution," the strategist said. "It seems to me this is a collection of resentments that have built up, but it would have been much more powerful months ago than now when even the presidentâs most disinterested critics would say we have taken a much more multilateral approach" in Iraq.
But those signing the document say the recent signs of cooperation do not reverse a basic trend toward increasing isolation for the U.S. "We just felt things were so serious, that Americaâs leadership role in the world has been attenuated to such a terrible degree by both the style and the substance of the administrationâs approach," said Harrop, who served as ambassador to four African countries under Carter and Reagan. "A lot of people felt the work they had done over their lifetime in trying to build a situation in which the United States was respected and could lead the rest of the world was now undermined by this administration â by the arrogance, by the refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organizations," Harrop said.
Jack F. Matlock Jr., who was appointed by Reagan as ambassador to the Soviet Union and retained in the post by President Bushâs father during the final years of the Cold War, expressed similar views. "Ever since Franklin Roosevelt, the U.S. has built up alliances in order to amplify its own power," he said. "But now we have alienated many of our closest allies, we have alienated their populations. Weâve all been increasingly appalled at how the relationships that we worked so hard to build up have simply been shattered by the current administration in the method it has gone about things."
The GOP strategist noted that many of those involved in the document claimed their primary expertise in the Middle East and suggested a principal motivation for the statement might be frustration over Bushâs effort to fundamentally reorient policy toward the region. snip
A Bush administration ally said that the group failed to recognize how the Sept. 11 attacks required significant changes in American foreign policy. "Thereâs no question those who were responsible for policies pre-9/11 are denying what seems as the obvious â that those policies were inadequate," said Cliff May, president of the conservative advocacy group Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. "This seems like a statement from 9/10 people [who donât see] the importance of 9/11 and the way that should have changed our thinking."
There's a shot in the chops.
snip
The groupâs complaint about Bushâs approach largely tracks Kerryâs contention that the administration has weakened American security by straining traditional alliances and shifting resources from the war against Al Qaeda to the invasion of Iraq.
Oakley said the statement would argue that, "Unfortunately the tough stands [Bush] has taken have made us less secure. He has neglected the war on terrorism for the war in Iraq. And while we agree that we are in unprecedented times and we face challenges we didnât even know about before, these challenges require the cooperation of other countries. We cannot do it by ourselves."
Posted by: Sherry ||
06/14/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The good folks at http://www.thatliberalmedia.com has the story on this newest 'letter.' Another political play, sponsored undoubtedly by McAuliffe and the DNC, etc.
Other portions of the story on the front page highlight the theme that these officials served under Republicans as well as Democrats:
Those signing the document, which will be released in Washington on Wednesday, include 20 former U.S. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including Israel, the former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia.
Others are senior State Department officials from the Carter, Reagan and Clinton administrations and former military leaders, including retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, the former commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East under President Bush's father. Hoar is a prominent critic of the war in Iraq.
Let's read further, shall we? I'll identify for you the precise moment when the editors jump the story to the back pages -- where, studies show, most readers don't bother to follow the story:
Some of those signing the document â such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff
[See Statement, Page A26]
and here the story jumps to the back pages, which generally signifies that this is the part the editors don't want you to know:
Merrill A. McPeak â have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said.
The first hint that this might be a group of Democrat partisans, and it's buried on Page A26. Most readers will never see this. Accordingly, their primary impression is likely to be: Wow, this sounds like a bunch of Republicans criticizing Bush...
#2
"Wah waaah! If Bush reorders the Middle East, then the dictators might fall, and then where will I get my supply of little children to molest?!"
(According to rumors, this is NOT an exaggeration.)
But in any case, that GOP strategist is right on the dot. That they're diplomats - state - should have been the first hint that they lack the standing to criticize the president on this isuse (being themselves at fault for some of the complained-of dictator-coddling), with John Bolton as the glaring exception.
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
06/14/2004 2:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Your basic bull. Most of these folks have not been in a meaningful governmental position for a decade. LA Times Brownstein is masterful though, notice how he cites two names being aligned to Kerry early in the article and then again towards the end. At least he's consistently bias.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/14/2004 5:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yea, paragraph 6 reads, "Some of those signing the document â such as Hoar and former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak â have identified themselves as supporters of Sen. John F. Kerry, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee. But most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said."
Then, 7th paragraph from bottom, "Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., though named chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Reagan, supported Clinton in 1992. Crowe has endorsed Kerry. Retired Adm. Stansfield Turner served as Carter's director of central intelligence and has also endorsed Kerry.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/14/2004 5:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Uh, Edward, could you expand on that insinuation? What rumors?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/14/2004 9:01 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Mitch, I believe he's refering to the well known ex-UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, aka "Chester the Molester".
Posted by: Steve ||
06/14/2004 9:34 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Thereâs no question those who were responsible for policies pre-9/11 are denying what seems as the obvious â that those policies were inadequate,"
ouch indeed!! You almost feel sorry for these guys for willingly placing themselves in a line of fire for John Kerry, he's soo not worth it. Though it will play well to CNN/IndyMedia/HateBush(TM) crowd, it will a get a big yawn from everyone else for being what it is, politics. As for the individuals who signed on, it will be like the Gorelick thing... the world will take note of these specific individuals who fiddled pre-9/11 and laid the foundation for 9/11 to occur and still, today, haven't got a clue.
Posted by: B ||
06/14/2004 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Folks with this mindset will not be satisfied until:
1.) America accepts blame for all the wrong in the world as some kind of penance for being the most powerful country in the world.
2.) America apologizes for all the crimes in the world and submits itself as the SOLE INDICTED GOVERNMENT, with countries like Sudan, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba as our judges.
3.) America grovels to persuade allies to initiate good-willed dialog THAT THEY SHOULD ALREADY BE GIVING AS ALLIES.
So, we are supposed to accept blame, apologize, grovel? Shame on anyone who accepts this proposition.
#9
..."Red Mike' McPeak did more to damage the United States Air Force than fifty years of fighting the Cold War EVER did. If he told me the sun rose in the east, I would ask a dozen Rantburgers to go outside and check. He is an arrogant, egotistical, and obnoxious SOB who is proof that every now and then, soembody manages to get through all the safeguards built into the system. Ignore him.
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
06/14/2004 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Yeah, I remember those thrilling days of yesteryear when Gen. Wesley Clark was gonna cakewalk to the Democratic nomination. Madonna told me.
Wait a second, that was 3 months ago.
#11
He is an arrogant, egotistical, and obnoxious SOB who is proof that every now and then, soembody manages to get through all the safeguards built into the system. Ignore him.
#12
A long time ago (twenty years) Presidents made a habit of appointing career politician to Ambassadorships whether they were left or right of the political spectrum. Of course in todays NASTY world of politics that is no longer so. Funny that no of these 'experts' think that establishing democracy in the middle east is a good thing? Tells you a lot about their political thoughts.
Jimmah had his killer rabbit, Kerry IS the killer hamster!
You have to wonder if Jodi Wilgoren got kissed after this shameless fellating of the the Kerry campaign. Was there a blue dress? Inquiring minds, yâknow...
Posted by: mojo ||
06/14/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Much has been written about our problems with this postmodern war and why we find it so difficult to fully mobilize our formidable military and economic clout to crush the terrorists and their patrons. Of course, we have no identifiable conventional enemy such as Hitlerâs Panzers; we are not battling a fearsome nation that defiantly declared war on us, such as Tojoâs Japan; and we are no longer a depression-era, disarmed, impoverished United States at risk for our very survival. But then, neither Hitler nor Mussolini nor Tojo nor Stalin ever reached Manhattan and Washington.
So al Qaeda is both worse and not worse than the German Nazis: It is hardly the identifiable threat of Hitlerâs Wehrmacht, but in this age of technology and weapons of mass destruction it is more able to kill more Americans inside the United States. Whereas we think our fascist enemies of old were logical and conniving, too many of us deem bin Ladenâs new fascists unhinged â their fatwas, their mythology about strong and weak horses, and their babble about the Reconquista and the often evoked "holy shrines" are to us dreamlike.
But I beg to differ somewhat.
I think the Islamists and their supporters do not live in an alternate universe, but instead are no more crazy in their goals than Hitler was in thinking he could hijack the hallowed country of Beethoven and Goethe and turn it over to buffoons like Goering, prancing in a medieval castle in reindeer horns and babbling about mythical Aryans with flunkies like Goebbels and Rosenberg. Nor was Hitlerâs fatwa â Mein Kampf â any more irrational than bin Ladenâs 1998 screed and his subsequent grainy infomercials. Indeed, I think Islamofascism is brilliant in its reading of the postmodern West and precisely for that reason it is dangerous beyond all description â in the manner that a blood-sucking, stealthy, and nocturnal Dracula was always spookier than a massive, clunky Frankenstein.
Like Hitlerâs creed, bin Ladenism trumpets contempt for bourgeois Western society. If once we were a "mongrel" race of "cowboys" who could not take casualties against the supermen of the Third Reich, now we are indolent infidels, channel surfers who eat, screw, and talk too much amid worthless gadgetry, godless skyscrapers, and, of course, once again, the conniving Jews.
Like Hitler, bin Ladenism has an agenda: the end of the liberal West. Its supposedly crackpot vision is actually a petrol-rich Middle East free of Jews, Christians, and Westerners, free to rekindle spiritual purity under Sharia. Bin Ladenâs al Reich is a vast pan-Arabic, Taliban-like caliphate run out of Mecca by new prophets like him, metering out oil to a greedy West in order to purchase the weapons of its destruction; there is, after all, an Israel to be nuked, a Europe to be out-peopled and cowered, and an America to be bombed and terrorized into isolation. This time we are to lose not through blood and iron, but through terror and intimidation: televised beheadings, mass murders, occasional bombings, the disruption of commerce, travel, and the oil supply. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
06/14/2004 8:59:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sadly, I think that this comment sums up nicely what it is that, we, as a nation, really fight: Individual greed and cowardice. It's fashionable to be anti-Bush and unfashionable to be proud of America and her president. Too many are afraid to speak out against those who are willing to sacrifice our country and our freedoms in order to be or feel accepted.
Posted by: B ||
06/14/2004 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
oops..here's the comment for my post above: "While all Westerners prefer the bounty of capitalism, the delights of personal freedom, and the security of modern technological progress, saying so and not apologizing for it â let alone defending it â is, well, asking a little too much from the hyper sophisticated and cynical. Such retrograde clarity could cost you, after all, a university deanship, a correspondent billet in Paris or London, a good book review, or an invitation to a Georgetown or Malibu A-list party."
Posted by: B ||
06/14/2004 11:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Nobody "in their right mind" actually believed in Hitler and his so-called mad ravings BEFORE he amassed the power to conquer. Same thing now. Nevertheless, Hitler went on to do, and almost completed doing, exactly what he said he would do. Adolf Hitler wasn't some "larger than life" comic book super villian. He was a man--a commited, determined, evil little man, able to lie and manipulate to achieve his ends, and to amass support and weaponry in order to accomplish his "ascent" of Aryanism.
"I think the Islamists and their supporters do not live in an alternate universe, but instead are no more crazy in their goals than Hitler was in thinking he could hijack the hallowed country of Beethoven and Goethe and turn it over to buffoons like Goering, prancing in a medieval castle in reindeer horns and babbling about mythical Aryans with flunkies like Goebbels and Rosenberg. Nor was Hitlerâs fatwa â Mein Kampf â any more irrational than bin Ladenâs 1998 screed and his subsequent grainy infomercials. Indeed, I think Islamofascism is brilliant in its reading of the postmodern West and precisely for that reason it is dangerous beyond all description . . ."
I do too. I think it's time we pay attention. Beware Barbarians blubbering "nonsense."
#5
Hanson's concern seems to be the same as mine: that as bad as the 9/11 attacks were, it now appears they may not have been sufficient to unite Americans in a prolonged, difficult struggle against Islamic totalitarianism.
For many of us, it seems to be back to business as usual: squabbling over government handouts, and who has the right to claim pity-party status as the "Official Poor Helpless Victim" du jour.
What the hell is it going to take to rouse us from our slumbers and our trivial pursuits-- a couple of nuked cities courtesy of al Qaeda or Hizbollah?
Maybe a better question is, what will it take to get the Democratic Party leadership to shut the fuck up and start putting America's interests ahead of partisan politics?
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/14/2004 12:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Dave D--Right on! Some people just don't get it. Understanding the "reasons" for the terrorists' actions provides little consolation to anyone watching the 1000 bits of their childrens' bodies floating down to Earth after a terrorist attack. Sadly, it is probably going to take a lot of personal loss in this arena to wake some people up to remember and fight for our remarkable ideals.
#7
Does anyone else think that postmodernism and the preaching on the "importance" of "diversity" and the constant chipping at what once was an unquestionable moral code via ultra-liberal professors and the teachings of one of the more selfish generations in history (can anyone say "the sixties?" I knew you could) has actually undermined us a lot more than capitalism ever could? (So the left claims, sometimes.) Is it self-interest, self-righteousness, and a post-modern belief that any idiot can make a claim because their opinion is "just as valid" as those who obviously know better that are all the the biggest enemies in our struggle against Islamic facism?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/14/2004 19:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
TD - I'll posit that the wussification* of America is the core cause. Now that the loonies are "empowered" they employ screeching and hatred memes with imagined impunity - and in lieu of reason or acknowledgement of reality. The "new" kind of trolls we have resident on RB demonstrate this regularly - and even some of our otherwise reasoned voices conceal amazingly bizarre idiotarian views, such as Bush (shrub) is an illegal usurper and Gore is our actual President. Don't believe me? Tis true. There is a covert and insidious rot within which surfaces when you scratch deep enough.
Regards the overt struggles today and ahead, it is, indeed, Islamofascism today. Assuming we survive that, which is not a given by any means, it will probably be the Chinese brand of bastardized commie-capitalism tomorrow. And the Soros-style MultiCulti-Socialism is the constant underlying whine you hear in those quiet moments between flurries.
Just my $0.02.
* When people began to accept the notion that violence (evolving to include disagreement, unless you're Left of Trotsky - then it's okay) is never justified, the loonies began voicing loonie-isms and demanding equal time - no matter the facts - and equating disagreement with Neanderthals and neocons and assorted evil conspiracy cabals. Loonie-ism is now treated as the equal of any logical and fact-based world view.
And the purpose of that chipping away is simple: to cause moral disarmament (or induce moral anesthesia, if you prefer).
And once we are fully disarmed/anesthetized and no longer able to make (or are too afraid to make) even the most simple of moral judgements, we will no longer have any basis for resisting them.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/14/2004 19:49 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"* When people began to accept the notion that violence... is never justified"
Implanting that notion was the assigned task of Fred Rogers, Big Bird and Barney the Dinosaur.
I'm not kidding: I mean it. I've really begun to suspect that much of the looniness of the left we've been seeing lately is from people who, deep down inside their little psyches, are just angry that the world didn't turn out to be the way it was shown on Sesame Street.
Face it, kiddies: Big Bird LIED!!!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
06/14/2004 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Dave D. Right on everything -- loved all your posts --except about Fred Rogers. Sorry, but you shouldn't lump him in with the NY Sesame Street gang and Barney, okay? Moral disarmament is the critical component, and he can't be charged with that.
jules 187--yeah. I think it will take something like that. For a long time people have heard that violence is wrong no matter what--and if others are being being violent, it's the victim's fault. I hate to think of what kind of wake-up call it's gonna take when the Towers weren't enough.
New evidence that the physical abuse of detainees in Iraq and at Guantanamo Bay was authorised at the top of the Bush administration will emerge in Washington this week, adding further to pressure on the White House. The Telegraph understands that four confidential Red Thingy Cross documents implicating senior Pentagon civilians in the Abu Ghraib scandal have been passed to an American television network, which is preparing to make them public shortly. According to lawyers familiar with the Red Thingy Cross reports, they will contradict previous testimony by senior Pentagon officials who have claimed that the abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison was an isolated incident. "There are some extremely damaging documents around, which link senior figures to the abuses," said Scott Horton, the former chairman of the New York Bar Association, who has been advising Pentagon lawyers unhappy at the administration's approach. "The biggest bombs in this case have yet to be dropped."
A string of leaked government memos over the past few days has revealed that President George W Bush was advised by Justice Department officials and the White House lawyer, Alberto Gonzalez, that Geneva Conventions on torture did not apply to "unlawful combatants", captured during the war on terror. Members of Congress are now demanding access to all White House memos on interrogation techniques, a request so far refused by the United States attorney-general, John Ashcroft.
As the growing scandal threatens to undermine President Bush's re-election campaign, senior aides have acknowledged for the first time that the abuse of detainees can no longer be presented as the isolated acts of a handful of soldiers at the Abu Ghraib. "It's now clear to everyone that there was a debate in the administration about how far interrogators could go," said a legal adviser to the Pentagon. "And the answer they came up with was 'pretty far'. Now that it's in the open, the administration is having to change that answer somewhat."
I certainly hope there was a debate; that's the best way to make sure the final policy is a good one.
In the latest revelation, yesterday's Washington Post published leaked documents revealing that Gen Ricardo Sanchez, the senior US officer in Iraq, approved the use of dogs, temperature extremes, reversed sleep patterns and sensory deprivation for prisoners whenever senior officials at the Abu Ghraib jail wished. A memo dated October 9, 2003 on "Interrogation Rules of Engagement", which each military intelligence officer was obliged to sign, set out in detail the wide range of pressure tactics they could use - including stress positions and solitary confinement for more than 30 days.
This isn't torture, this is coercion, and there is a difference.
The White House has ordered a damage-limitation exercise to try to prevent the abuse row undermining President Bush's re-election campaign. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, has ordered that all deaths of detainees held in US military custody are to be reported immediately to criminal investigators. Deaths in custody will also be reported to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Richard Myers, and to Mr Rumsfeld himself. The Pentagon has also announced an investigation into the condition of inmates at Guantanamo Bay, where more than 600 prisoners suspected of links with al-Qaeda are being held. The inquiry will be led by Vice-Adml Albert Church, who has been ordered to investigate reports that extreme interrogation techniques "migrated" from Guantanamo to Iraq. "This is not going to be a whitewash," said the Pentagon adviser. "The administration is finally realising how damaging this scandal could become."
A new investigator has also been appointed to lead the inquiry into abuse at Abu Ghraib. Gen George Fay, a two-star general, will be replaced by a more senior officer. Gen Fay, according to US military convention, did not have the authority to question his superiors. His replacement indicates that the Abu Ghraib inquiry will now go far beyond the activities of the seven military police personnel accused of mistreating Iraqi detainees.
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/14/2004 12:54:35 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I am heartily sick of the media garbling together what is legal (under US and international law) and what is moral. You can either act legally or you can act morally, but you can rarely do both at the same time. Of course the media is almost silent on the fact Arabs states routinely do neither.
#2
Let's see, repeat several million times that this is a Bush sanctioned scandal and, what do you know, the media's new Viet Nam.
Now, isn't the IRC required to work solely with the government? Not run to the nearest media outlet?
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/14/2004 5:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Mission: The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance.
Posted by: Capt America ||
06/14/2004 5:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
#1 garbling together what is legal ... and what is moral
This "garbling together" is done from both sides. I've read many Rantburger comments to the effect that certain prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and therefore there is no moral issue.
Beyond the considerations of legality and morality there is also the consideration of wisdom.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/14/2004 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You are right, Mike. That is why some of your posts in sympathy to prisoners held by the US ( aka enemies of the USA and of freedom ) in the WoT sound like so much political posturing.
#6
Rantbergers' comments? How about facts? Geneva covers those that play by the rules. I'd just as soon shoot any and all "insurgents" and jihadis right on the battlefield, if they don't have any intel to give up.
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Ah yes... Monday and the media is back to sodomizing the 'prisoner abuse' dead horse again I see.
It also looks like Congress is determined to micro-manage the WOT.
And when the Red Thingy starts 'leaking' memos to the press they violate their own impartialialy and neutralily and should no longer be treated as such. What the memo describes is not 'torture' in my book.
#9
What does "use of dogs" mean? Dogs gnawing on prisoners, or dogs scaring the crap out of prisoners? It actually makes a difference...
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/14/2004 9:40 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Capt A, the Communist party's mission was to free the world's workers. What is your point?
As my mother used to say 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions.'
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/14/2004 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this ...
You two are far from the only ones.
Mike: I've read many Rantburger comments to the effect that certain prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and therefore there is no moral issue. Beyond the considerations of legality and morality there is also the consideration of wisdom.
It would be wiser to shoot unlawful combatants out of hand. Or to lock them into itty-bitty cages and hang them in front of mosques so their slow, agonizing deaths can be an example to others.
Terrorists have voluntarily removed themselves from the human race by their own actions. The moral course -- the one that protects the most innocents -- is to remove them from the world as swiftly as possible while making their fates a warning to others.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/14/2004 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I'd just as soon shoot any and all "insurgents" and jihadis right on the battlefield, if they don't have any intel to give up.
I'd be inclined to shoot any and all insurgents and jihadis even after they've given up whatever intel is usable. After all, what are the chances that an insurgent/jihadi is going to be successfully "reformed"? Not good, I would guess.
#13
Now, do you know the difference between a "terrorist" and an "unlawful combatant"?
Because you seem to be using the terms interchangeably.
How do the (non-civilian) "Civilian contractors" fit in with the Geneva convention btw? The way I've understood it, and correct me if I'm wrong, they are "unlawful combatants" also, and thus not protected by it either.
#14
Ummmm because they're there for security? How many IED's has the dreaded Halliburton set off? Brown and Root car bombs?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Aris, the civilian contractors would be unlawful combatants if they carried weapons and used them to attack Iraqis. Most of the civilian contractors are just that. Contractors who are not involved in fighting. THe armed contractor guards are a different story. I'm not sure what status they would have as they are not involved in offensive operations, but are there for defensive purposes.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/14/2004 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Now, do you know the difference between a "terrorist" and an "unlawful combatant"? Because you seem to be using the terms interchangeably.
That's because they are, spanky.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/14/2004 10:53 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Aris are you on vacation? You seem more prolix than usual.
#19
No, they are not. All terrorists are unlawful combatants, but not all "unlawful combatants" are terrorists.
Pardon me while I roll my eyes.
You may have noticed, Aris, that in recent conflicts the two sets have been congruent.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/14/2004 11:14 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I've read many Rantburger comments to the effect that certain prisoners are not covered by the Geneva Convention, and therefore there is no moral issue.
There's some good examples right here in this thread.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/14/2004 11:22 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I don't think the average American really cares what happens to these captives.
It is more moral for certain prisoners to be put to death than to risk them ever killing innocent people. We know that risk is high because those prisoners have ignored the most basic rules we expect of civilized people.
To me there is a moral issue. And the moral weight is on the side of "kill them before they kill".
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/14/2004 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#23
You may have noticed, Aris, that in recent conflicts the two sets have been congruent.
Really?? So EVERY SINGLE PERSON that has been fighting out of uniform (unlawful combatant) has also been intentionally targetting civilians (terrorist)?
#24
That is why some of your posts in sympathy to prisoners held by the US ( aka enemies of the USA and of freedom ) in the WoT sound like so much political posturing. You sound like a Kerry camp shill.
Glad I'm not the only one who has noticed this ...
You two are far from the only ones.
This article was posted by Steve White.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/14/2004 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#25
I'll have to agree with Aris on this. Not all unlawful combatants are terroists. The Dutch Resistance is an example. They targeted German Military targets, not civilians, yet were not "lawful combatants" covered under the Geneva Convention. They certainly weren't terrorists.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/14/2004 11:57 Comments ||
Top||
#26
In fact they were "guerillas", Deacon. Target selection makes all the difference.
But that didn't stop the Germans from shooting tham when they caught them.
#27
For the purposes of the prison "scandal" the differentiation between unlawful combatant and terrorist does not matter. This is all in reference to how the individuals fighting out of uniform are being treated. They are all unlawful combatants and that is the only salient point. Because of this the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply. End of story.
Posted by: remote man ||
06/14/2004 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#28
mojo: My point exactly. They were not accorded protection under the Geneva Convention because they were not uniformed military. Generals Eisenhower and McArthur issued orders that any "resistance" or "guerillas" would be executed in Germany and Japan. I think the same should apply in Iraq.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
06/14/2004 12:24 Comments ||
Top||
#29
#22. Robert, I agree with you about executing terrorists. My concern is that we seem to be mistreating quite a few prisoners who aren't terrorists.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/14/2004 12:28 Comments ||
Top||
#31
remote man> "They are all unlawful combatants and that is the only salient point. Because of this the rules of the Geneva Convention do not apply. End of story."
No, it's NOT the end of the story, exactly because legality and morality are two different issues.
Robert tried to make the two sets (unlawful combatants and terrorists) be synonymous, so as
to support his position that ÃLL these people have "have ignored the most basic rules we expect of civilized people", and therefore they should all suffer slow agonizing deaths locked in itty-bitty cases, hanged infront of a mosque so that their tortuous ends be used for political purposes.
For the crime of not actually being terrorists or killing civilians, but of fighting outside of uniform -- which therefore makes them "unlawful combatants".
#33
The inquiry will be led by Vice-Adml Albert Church, ..."This is not going to be a whitewash," said the Pentagon adviser. "The administration is finally realising how damaging this scandal could become."
Shouldn't that be how damaging the press is hopingit will become?
Let's see here, a Vice Admiral is going to investigate it, and all agree it's not going to be a white-wash .....so the conclusion we should draw from this (according to this article) is that the White House is scared about the revelations???
If it's a Vice Admiral doing it- and it's understood in the Pentagon that it is not going to be a white-wash - then it sounds to me like it's the White House driving the investigation, rather than running away from it.
How do we know - because if the Vice Admiral was a renegade, out to prove the truth at the risk of his own career, the press would be all over that angle. But the press...just...can't..bring...themselves...to... admit that White-House Administration is not asking for a white-wash, so they make up, out of thin air, the claim that Bush is ooooohhh....so scared of the results of the investigation that he ordered.
Posted by: B ||
06/14/2004 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#34
Jules>
1) Name which conventions you believe should apply to unlawful combatants and which should apply to terrorists
Criminal law.
Which means, putting them through a courtroom process with judge and jury and the right of a defense.
Once they've been convicted of this, then do to them as American law says you are allowed to do to people who've done this crimes. If that's the death penalty, then so be it. I oppose the death penalty personally, but there exist worse things than it in the world-- such as treating people as guilty based on mere suspicion.
But until then they are innocent until proven guilty.
2) Define which interrogation methods you would allow to prevent attacks on coalition forces.
On convicted terrorists, on suspected terrorists, on innocent civilians who may have relatives as jihadis, or on eight-year old children who may have simply happened to have overheard something?
It's a somewhat different question based on the scenario, right?
Why don't *you* define what interrogation methods you would allow to be used on civilians who *may* simply know something incriminating that a relative of theirs did/is planning to do? Or then again they may not.
#37
Why don't *you* define what interrogation methods you would allow to be used on civilians who *may* simply know something incriminating that a relative of theirs did/is planning to do? Or then again they may not. How about on the 8-year old
#38
I consider being subjected to Aris' twisted logic to be intolerable torture.
Posted by: B ||
06/14/2004 14:28 Comments ||
Top||
#39
badanov, B>
Ah the ad hominem. You hurt me. Really.
Come on people, answer the question. What kind of interrogation techniques would you allow your soldiers to use on a child that may or may not know something?
What kind of interrogation techniques would you allow to be used on an innocent citizen, who again may or may not know something?
Come on people, answer the question. What kind of interrogation techniques would you allow your soldiers to use on a child that may or may not know something?
What kind of interrogation techniques would you allow to be used on an innocent citizen, who again may or may not know something?
#41
Aris - the geneva convention states anyone caught on the field of battle not in uniform and carrying a weapon as unlawful combatants. so if a terroist is caught on the battlefield with a weapon then that person is unlawful and can be executed on the spot. do not try and confuse with symantics.
same applys to soldiers of countries who have signed the geneva convention who are caught in the uniforms of thier enemy. they are unlawful and can be executed.
so in this respect the US has applied the moral side of the story. we have not executed these unlawful combatants on the battle field but have held them. they have no rights under any conventions signed. and the last time i heard al-queda is not a signator to the geneva convention.
your logic as usual is twisted and formulated to suit your prevailing views on the post.
Posted by: Dan ||
06/14/2004 14:46 Comments ||
Top||
#42
WTF is wrong with you, Aris? The ideal thing to do is what is done. You brief soldiers on what they cannot do, and nothing more. Let them figure out the rest. If they step out of line, you discipline the soldiers.
But what you don't do is to make rules governing specific behavior.
And Aris, the eight year old is covered in the Laws of War. The fact they are children does not exempt them from the rules of war. And if a child is caught up in a war, the responsibility rests with the side allowing the child to participate, not with the other side. This is black letter international law. All sides in any conflict has the inherent right to self defense.
If an eight year old has a loaded rifle, he/she gets once chance to put it down or be fired on.
It sucks to be the child if adults make him/her participate in war or in guerrilla warfare, and she/he suffers the consequences.
#43
It wasn't a smart ass question--I was asking for your ideas. I actually agree with you on the first part--charge them and give them a trial or let them go, within the time prescribed by law. However, I most faithfully agree with the death penalty should the detainees be proven guilty. They deserve a severe sentence for seeking the destruction of my country.
As far as interrogation methods, here is what I (someone with no military background) would say: Let's hope the film was rolling on everything that happened. That would include crimes by both guards and prisoners.
1.) IF prisoners were sodomized during capture, the US is in big doodoo and rightly so. If they were beaten, the fault may lie with rabid prisoners bent on jihad to their last breath or overzealous guards attempting to establish dominance or get revenge. Personally, I would attribute the best of motives to most troops. Would you?
Add to the list of inappropriate treatment: threatening electric shock. I am not sure whether the use of dogs was appropriate or not.
2.) Now, this Abu Ghraib situation-in my view, it is completely overblown and I have full confidence that some are using it not because they believe what they are saying but because it serves their political purposes. In the grand scale of human injustice, this is surely at the bottom of the pile when you have things like ethnic cleansing (rape, mutilation, burning people to death), REAL torture (like cutting off people's lips, putting them feet first in meatgrinders, throwing acid in someone's face), and starvation in captivity, to name but a few. The reason these debates get so heated, I think at least from this side, is that we are stunned that you focus on Abu Ghraib when the worst of what happened there is nothing compared with unexaggerated things that happen everyday around the world. Personally, I would rather focus on the big crimes first. That is what the police do--they don't devote all their energy and outrage on the hazings at the school down the street-they focus on the corpses hanging from the bridge.
#44
Dan> There existed wars before a Geneva convention was signed you know. There existed prisoners of war before a Geneva convention was signed.
Someone doing all these things you mentioned isn't under the protection of the Geneva convention. So what? That doesn't mean he "deserves" to be murdered as people have said, that doesn't mean he deserves to be tortured as people have said, that doesn't mean he deserves to suffer a slow agnozing death locked in a itty-bitty-cage hanged infront of a mosque, as people have said.
It only means that the Geneva convention isn't protecting him.
Can you even UNDERSTAND the difference between "he deserves to be slowly tortured to death" and "the Geneva convention isn't protecting him"? Can you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about?
#45
I see I forgot to address interrogation methods directly. I have seen it reported that torturous methods are generally not very effective in that a person will say anything, including wild fabrications, to make the pain stop. However, equally repulsive to me is coddling people who think torture is fun, murder and rape are ok, and destruction of the US is a good idea. I guess with some creativity we can find other ways of convincing people to spill the beans. But overprotection of prisoners will only doom good servicemen and citizens to more suffering.
#46
And Aris, the eight year old is covered in the Laws of War. The fact they are children does not exempt them from the rules of war. And if a child is caught up in a war, the responsibility rests with the side allowing the child to participate, not with the other side.
Yep. Sending kids to war is a war crime; the fate of the children is the responsibility of those committing the crime, not the other side.
I just wish Aris would answer his own question. It seems to me he's demanding an answer while leaving his own position open -- that way he can jump whatever way he wants to make everyone else look bad.
Robert tried to make the two sets (unlawful combatants and terrorists) be synonymous, so as to support his position that ÃLL these people have "have ignored the most basic rules we expect of civilized people", and therefore they should all suffer slow agonizing deaths locked in itty-bitty cases, hanged infront of a mosque so that their tortuous ends be used for political purposes. For the crime of not actually being terrorists or killing civilians, but of fighting outside of uniform -- which therefore makes them "unlawful combatants".
Why, yes, Aris. I'm not sure why you consider saving the lives of innocents a "political purpose", but there it is.
See, Aris, the reason the GC (at least, the parts the US has signed on to) equates combatants out of uniform to those who intentionally attack civilians is because hiding as a civilian increases the probability that the other side will strike at civilians. That's also why putting military forces in civilian areas is against the Geneva Conventions.
There is no legal difference -- and IMHO, no moral difference -- between a terrorist and an unlawful combatant. Both have placed themselves outside of the law; neither are entitled to the law's protection.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/14/2004 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#47
Can you even UNDERSTAND the difference between "he deserves to be slowly tortured to death" and "the Geneva convention isn't protecting him"? Can you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about?
I understand the two concepts are basically irrelevant. If we hold illegal combatants, then we own them, from the top of their shaved heads, to the bottom of their feet and legally, there is nothing anyone can do about it. They can talk and tell us what we need to know to better protect us and our allies, or they can clam up. In any case, we own them and they know it.
Don't think for one second we do not consider this a war for the very survival of our civilization, and if some hair gets mussed, or a liberal starts crying because one of their allies is lead about on a dog leash, then that is a sacrifice our enemy must make.
And as the story indicates, I expect nothing less than a all or nothing policy with regard to illegal combatants.
And Aris, I am sorry if your friends who are bombing and murdering in Iraq gets hurt. Sucks to be you, I guess.
#48
Can you even UNDERSTAND the difference between "he deserves to be slowly tortured to death" and "the Geneva convention isn't protecting him"? Can you even UNDERSTAND what I'm talking about?
Certainly, I understand what you're talking about.
What you're ignoring is that killing an unlawful combatant -- cruelly or quickly -- can save a hell of a lot more lives than it costs. This is the logic that underpins the Geneva Convention's definition of who is a "lawful combatant" and who is not.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/14/2004 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#49
Aris - Yes i do understand the difference. Your logic on the morality of the situation is realy irrelevant. Our enemies have no morality, they will kill you on the spot. Remember that Green Beret who fell out of his helo in Afganistan two years ago? Was he afforded any protections? No the dogs butchered him on the spot! But then again they are not signators to the Geneva convention so they our not bound to protect enemy combatants just as we are not bound to protect the these islamofacists.
Do you understand this is war? Were not putting on kid gloves here. You kill our people, you enter into battle as a combatant then you choose your own fate. Do not try and give morality lessons. The Geneva convention was created to govern the rules of war (and Greece is a signator)between nations, not organizations on the fringe.
Now i know you are going to comment about abu-ghard. Were the prisoners captured on the battlefield as an organzid army, under a country that has signed the convention? I do not think so. Still I would rather have my underwear on my head than my head cut off!
that doesn't mean he deserves to be tortured as people have said, that doesn't mean he deserves to suffer a slow agnozing death locked in a itty-bitty-cage hanged infront of a mosque,
regardless of what people would like to happen this is not happenning so it is a mute point, period. Stop harping on it and try and agrue factual events.
Posted by: Dan ||
06/14/2004 15:41 Comments ||
Top||
#50
Yep. Sending kids to war is a war crime; the fate of the children is the responsibility of those committing the crime, not the other side
Too bad I didn't say anything about children that were sent to war. I spoke about children that might have overheard something. I spoke about innocents.
Torture them to spill their guts or don't? Come on people, there are American lives that can be saved if you torture the eight year old that saw to which house a certain terrorist fled to, or that might have overheard his jihadi parents talk about future attacks.
What you're ignoring is that killing an unlawful combatant -- cruelly or quickly -- can save a hell of a lot more lives than it costs.
I haven't seen any reason to believe that it would save such lives, even if it was about actual unlawful combatants, not simply "suspected ones" that were talking about.
And ofcourse the other little matter most of you are evading is that these people are often simply "suspected" of being terrorists/unlawful combatants. Aka not guilty. Aka possibly innocent. Aka possibly *you* or *your son* or *your daughter*.
If you let your government treat them as guilty based on mere suspicion, perhaps you deserve of being suspected of such terrorism yourself.
But I guess that Christian American boys will probably be treated better than Iraqi Muslim ones, even when suspected of terrorism.
#51
Aris-it is good to make sure that humans act humanely in the 21st century. This is reasonable. What is not reasonable is your hostility towards Americans and your scoffing at our basic sense of right and wrong-we do not torture 8 year olds, we do not treat Muslim prisoners worse than Christian ones. If America disappeared off the face of the earth, you'd have to find a new cause and the world WOULD be worse off.
#52
C'mon, Aris, answer your own question first. What would you do?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
06/14/2004 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#53
Robert> I wouldn't torture anyone who's merely "suspected" of terrorism, and I would definitely not torture an innocent, regardless of age, regardless of how crucial information he/she may be carrying. And I wouldn't torture people who's only violation of the rules of war was that they weren't wearing uniforms either.
The torture of *definite* civilian-killing terrorists that *definitely* have information that would save dozens/hundreds/thousands of lives, I wouldn't mind so much.
So, here you go, I answered you. Now your turn.
jules> If America disappeared off the face of the earth,
If America disappeared off the face of the world, the world would indeed be worse off, and that's something I've stated repeatedly, in this forum also.
My contempt and hostility is directed towards a large number of people here, not Americans as a whole, or even as majority, or even as large percentage. Only those few ones who feel that torture towards suspects is okay.
As for whether Muslim prisoners are treated worse than Christian ones, in cases of terrorism atleast they seem to me to be -- Timothy McVeigh and his associate-whose-name-I'm forgetting was afforded a trial, right? He wasn't threatened/attacked by dogs, he wasn't photographed in sexual pyramids. He was allowed the right of a trial.
#54
But I guess that Christian American boys will probably be treated better than Iraqi Muslim ones, even when suspected of terrorism
well that traitor Lindh was not treated so well on the battlefield from what i have read..
Aris - you are just ant-american and you are blinded in your hatred.
Give some examples of when an 8 year old was tortured by americans? Sure could come up a few from africa and the former yugo..but then again it is not americans so you are not concerned! I never see you post on articles regarding Sudan? Is this because it is ok to murder, mame, rape, enslave just as long it is not americans putting underwear on your head?
If you let your government treat them as guilty based on mere suspicion, perhaps you deserve of being suspected of such terrorism yourself
If I allowed myself to be associated with terrorists than yes I do deserve the full force of my govt down on my ass..get real will you.
Explain the difference between suspected and actual unlawful combatants? You talk as if the US govt is just going around and randomly picking people for interrogation. If this was true I would hope they'd find you....To be suspected you've done something....
Posted by: Dan ||
06/14/2004 16:36 Comments ||
Top||
#55
I never see you post on articles regarding Sudan?
That's probably because I tend to object only to posts that I actually object to, and rarely feel useful in supporting posts where everyone is in agreement.
Oh, Sudan is pretty awful. Yeah Sudan is indeed pretty awful. Gee, Sudan keeps on being pretty awful. Everyone in agreement that Sudan is pretty awful? Jolly good, then.
I comment on articles on Syria, but then again that's because I felt they should be the ones to have been attacked rather than Iraq -- unlike pretty much everyone else here. I comment on Russia, but that's because I feel few see Putin for what he is, and Rafael worships him. I object to posts that actually are *objectionable* to me.
To be suspected you've done something....
Yeah, like be the neighbour to an actual terrorist. Or be in the general location when a bomb goes off.
#56
As for whether Muslim prisoners are treated worse than Christian ones, in cases of terrorism atleast they seem to me to be
This is revealing....based on what? Do you not imagine that your opinions of Americans are being skewed by (liberal) media or the current vogue of blaming America? It is this fixation on Americans as the people most needing of censure that makes Americans conclude that you are being anti-American...why would we be so disposed to torture...is that our history? What justifies such a judgment of Americans?
#57
First of all you ask "based on what". I already told you that -- based on the case of a Christian terrorist/mass murderer who nonetheless I haven't heard being tortured/photographed in sexual positions. And if I may add a second point based on human nature as well, who is more likely to treat better the people that it sees as "us", especially if you keep it unrestrained.
Secondly you keep on assuming things about me. If there weren't people here that defended torture, then I wouldn't have any reason to attack them. You talk about some fixation of mine on Americans as the people most in need of censure. But "American" just happens to be the nationality of the specific people that supported these things in this forum.
It's you who sees nationality as an issue, not me. In a recent thread, I didn't have any problem with bashing Polish-Canadian Rafael for defending the criminal actions of Russian Putin, the same way that I don't have any problems of bashing e.g. American Robert for defending the criminal actions of other Americans.
#58
Aris - Your a hypocrite. You are so moral when Americans are involved but ONLY when Americans are involved. Everything else is petty and not deserving of your attention? Like I said your a hyporcrite.
Syria is minor when compared with iraq and iran. Take out the rest and the syrians fall in line...
And if you feel that Syria should of been the target what are you doing to convince your countrymen?
Well Lindh is/was American. You really do not understand Americans. It does not matter what religion - if your a terrorist your a terrorists..and how does being a neighbor of a terorists make you guilty? Maybe in Greece but here you would have do a little more..like having conversations with your neigbor recorded by the NSA plotting something...the use of code words in your conversations..if you give cause then that is your own fault...but the majority of Americans do not need to worry about terrorists next door..in Greece you would though..your in the middle of the bullshit...like i said get real.
Posted by: Dan ||
06/14/2004 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
#59
I have assumed nothing about you. Your comments are the only way you can reveal yourself and how you think to others.
I don't give a hoot for commenters' nationality-only their ideas.
When we start beheading people while they're still alive and conscious, and making a tape of it to show the world, call me and we'll chat.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/14/2004 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#61
Aris - Your a hypocrite. You are so moral when Americans are involved but ONLY when Americans are involved.
Didn't I just mention a recent thread of mine with a Polish-Canadian about a Russian?
Syria is minor when compared with iraq and iran.
No, it's not. It's the base of Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Hezbollah, the occupying power of Lebanon, the chief supporter of Palestinian terrorism. *Iraq* was minor, compared to Syria. Syria is about ten times more important than Iraq in the support of regional and global terrorism.
And if you feel that Syria should of been the target what are you doing to convince your countrymen?
To convince my countrymen that Greece should invade Syria? We don't have the power. To convince my countrymen that *America* should have invaded Syria? I'm still at the point when I'm trying to convince them that America isn't doing all this for the oil and that Islamofascism is a real problem. And that the invasion of Iraq wasn't *morally* wrong, just bloody bloody stupid.
If I ever convince them of all this, *then* I'll start discussing choice of targets with them. Priorities, people. Priorities.
and how does being a neighbor of a terorists make you guilty?
It only makes you a "suspect" when you happen to be an Iraqi. And ofcourse suspects are already guilty according to you.
Why do you even bother with trials of American citizens btw?
but the majority of Americans do not need to worry about terrorists next door.
Yeah, only the Iraqis need to worry about that. We're still discussing about suspected Iraqis being captured and (according to Frank's suggestion for example) summarily executed so that you avoid the trouble of telling the guilty from the innocent, aren't we?
#62
LOL! But I guess that Christian American boys will probably be treated better than Iraqi Muslim ones, even when suspected of terrorism.
Yep! You win Aris! If they are white they will be treated even better and if they have a decent swing they may be invited to Augusta. It's our way. ;)
We sneeze world gets a cold. Sorry.
#65
Aris - where are the strings pulled for the terrorist organizations based in syria/lebannon? Iran - Bush has set us up nicely to take care of Iran. Now if we had gone straight into Iran you and the rest of bleeding hearts out there would be up in arms. Just take a step back and analyze where we are. If you trully want to take care of Syria you would see this. There is a master plan and it is being put into place.
And if this is for oil all I have to say where's the money? get a grip will you.
It was Iraq that had 17 UN resolutions - not syria or iran. Iran will be dealt with then Syria will either wither and abandon it's current quests (no dissagreements there with you - did i say that)..or have to deal with war. Hell without iran israelis could deal with syria without fear of a nuclear war.
now that is funny iraq minor compared to syria...
you really do not know which way your going.... we either deal with all islamofacist/bathist terrorism/antagnoism or walk away.
If we walk get your tribute ready!
oh your so concerned with the poor iraqis....the US is doing more for the iraqi's than all of Europe has done in decades.
too much bandwith wasted on you..
Posted by: Dan ||
06/14/2004 19:42 Comments ||
Top||
#66
There is a master plan and it is being put into place.
Yeah, I once thought there had been a "master plan" also. I then saw that one didn't infact exist on the US side. It did perhaps exist on the Iranian side who may have very well tricked you into invading Iraq so that all your forces were tied up and you wouldn't be able to bother them.
Iran will be dealt with
You are just hoping. I had once been hoping also, and my hopes proved false. Iran will unfortunately not be dealt with. US chose to deal with Iraq instead and it doesn't have the available power to deal with both at the same time.
It was Iraq that had 17 UN resolutions - not syria or iran
Do you know what the words "UN resolutions" mean? It means that Russia and China didn't oppose them being passed, that's what it means.
In short UN resolutions are *worse* than meaningless most of the time -- they signify that two criminal imperialistic superpowers don't have any objection towards them.
Says developing nations canât rely on donors, agencies for aid
Saturday, June 12, 2004 Posted: 7:41 PM EDT (2341 GMT)
(CNN) -- U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan lamented new struggles to pad his bank accounts that developing countries face in trying to pull their people out of poverty in a speech Saturday to the Group of 77.
"Debt crises have revealed serious weaknesses in the international financial architecture, and especially my 401K retirement account" Annan said. "Too many developing countries remain dependent on the UN to actually do something for them instead of using export of primary commodities for all or most of their foreign currency earnings, leaving them vulnerable to the peacekeepersâ bizzare sexual appetites, price declines and volatility."
Annanâs remarks were delivered at a meeting in Sao Paulo, Brazil, to mark the groupâs 40th anniversary with feasting amidst Brazilâs abject poverty. The international body of developing nations has grown to 132 nations, though it retains the name Gang of Four Group of 77.
Annan called on the members to build him a new hot tub out back instead of any democratic institutions at home.
"Developing countries have not paid me enough graft, even though they have finally recognized that they have the primary responsibility for their own development," he said. "Donor countries and agencies ... are gradually getting tired of my parasitic @ss and telling me to f&%k off, even while ceding ownership over programs and projects. I urge you to continue along this path of complaisance instead of making any substantial reform."
Annan described the Sao Paulo conference as an opportunity to order second helpings of the truffled lobster and promote greater attention to the vintage wine list, while denying the economic plight of developing nations.
He also called on leaders of the developing nations to build on a sauna to that hot tub and forget about progress they have made "in improving governance and economic management."
"Building democratic institutions is essential, as are popular participation in decision-making and the protection of my womenâs rights," he said. "The most vulnerable members of society should also service me and have a special claim box on my expense account forms on your attention, and I hope that even as you strive for fiscal prudence you will also ensure that the necessary social investments and safety nets are put in place with any money that happens to be left over after weâve carved out our cut."
Posted by: Zenster ||
06/14/2004 1:18:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You should go go read the article sans Zenster's comments for a shining example of vacuous drivel.
#3
Nice...the "Group of 77" has 132 members? They didn't want to change that well-known snappy brand name? Kofi really needs to get a real job
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 10:45 Comments ||
Top||
#4
We've heard the pretty speech before-it all just comes down to his notion that America's duty is to open it's wallet, give ALL its hard earned cash to the rest of the world, transfer others' suffering to ourselves-then everything will be fair. Since calling for powerful leaders to resign appears to be in vogue these days, it should be completely acceptable for us to demand Annan's resignation for corrupt helmsmanship of the UN as well as cultural bias against America.
Goodness knows I try, sakattack. Very witty reply.
#4 ...it all just comes down to his notion that America's duty is to open it's wallet, give ALL its hard earned cash to the rest of the world, transfer others' suffering to ourselves-then everything will be fair.
jules, I call this the "Proudly Displayed Open Sores" school of international economics. Kofi's Kannibal Klan⢠firmly believes that the United States should be ashamed of its grand success as one of the only functional pluralistic secular democracies in world history. It is one of the greatest betrayals of our nation that so many Americans have been persuaded to feel as though our wealth and military might are undeserved.
That Annan should spew such balderdash from a bully pulpit built upon American soil is the height of hubris larded arrogance. The man is a ambulatory political ebola virus that liquifies his victims from within.
The picture shows the apparent military police officer (MP) looking down at the dog and smiling. The MP is standing on gravel in front of a grassy incline. A source who tracks radical Islamic activity on the Internet said while the picture has "floating around" for a while she had not seen the Arabic looking text clearly visible where the gravel and grass meet. An additional picture also making its way around jihadi groups shows a close up of the dog dressed in the same Arab headgear but without the MP. An official from U.S. Central Command said one always questions the authenticity of such pictures.
Via Blackfive, the Paratrooper of Love AP, of course; severely EFL
A car bomb shattered a convoy of Westerners in Baghdad Monday, killing at least 13 people, including three General Electric workers and two bodyguards. Crowds rejoiced over the attack, dancing around a charred body and shouting "Down with the USA!" ... But, buried way down in the story:
Iraqi bystanders scooped up victims and loaded them into vehicles or pickup trucks to speed them to hospitals. Body parts and fragments of clothing lay scattered around the street. Blackfiveâs comment: "Maybe the headline should have been "Iraqis rescue ambushed convoy"?
Nah. No one would want to read that...at CBS."
Typical. Goddam LLL media.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/14/2004 8:27:23 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A leading UN official has warned US manufacturer Caterpillar that it may be complicit in human rights violations in the West Bank and Gaza. The company supplies armoured bulldozers to the Israeli army that are used to demolish Palestinian homes. Human rights official Jean Ziegler expressed "deep concern" over the sales, in a letter to Caterpillar. The company says it shares world concern over the Middle East but it cannot police the use of its equipment. Human rights groups estimate that around 3,000 Palestinian homes have been demolished since 2000. Israel says the demolitions are necessary on security grounds.
âRights Violationsâ
Mr Ziegler is the UN High Commissioner on Human Rightsâ Special Rapporteur on the right to food. In his letter, he described destruction by the bulldozers of "agricultural farms, greenhouses and ancient olive groves". Caterpillarâs actions in supplying the D-9 and D-10 bulldozers mean they may be complicit in violating the right to food, Mr Ziegler said. Over 50% of Palestinians are already largely dependent on food aid.
Human lives had also been lost during the demolitions, Ziegler wrote, including that of American peace activist Rachel Corrie. The companyâs role in supplying Israel has also been recently criticised by human rights group Amnesty International. In an April report on Palestinian home demolitions, they called on Caterpillar to "guarantee that its bulldozers are not used to commit human rights violations".
âCompassionâ
In a statement on its website, Caterpillar says it "shares the worldâs concern over unrest in the Middle East and certainly have compassion for all those affected by political strife". Nevertheless, it has "neither the legal right nor the means to police individual use of its equipment," the statement says. Campaigners have claimed that this is a direct contravention of the companyâs own corporate responsibility policy. The policy states: "Caterpillar is committed to enabling positive and responsible growth around the world, and we believe in the value of social and environmental responsibility." The company reported profits of over $1 billion last year. I trust this means that Ziegler and Amnesty International will now be going after communist China to ensure that their millions of rocket propelled grenades sold annually "are not used to commit human rights violations" as well.
#2
"Mr Ziegler is the UN High Commissioner on Human Rightsâ Special Rapporteur on the right to food." And is seems to be given a WIDE latitude conducting investigations. Seems the Paleos have all the food they need and the Dozers fall into the sphere of influence??? Just another un dog-pile on Israel and I doubt that Mr. Catepiller would have to even respond to a summmons from this gaggle of idiots. Why not investigate the arms being smuggled INTO the UN REFUGEE camps? Where are they coming from? Did Mr Ziegler send a note to those countries and call them 'complicit' in the deaths of civilians TARGETED civilians? At least teh Israelis give the Paleos a chance to leave before they level their house.
#3
How does the "Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food" (no ordinary rapporteur is he; no, he's special!) get jurisdiction over bulldozers, anyway?
"Well, uh, you see, he's the special rapporteur on the right to food and Rachel Corrie is 'St. Pancake.' Pancakes are food, right? There you go. Makes perfect sense, it does."
Posted by: Mike ||
06/14/2004 16:34 Comments ||
Top||
I suppose that now the town of Granby CO is going to sue Cat - if they assume the same basis. Remember, a D9 was what they guy used to level parts of the town.
Its akin to blaming the gun instead of the gunman.
#6
Catapillar lawyers are busy writing new instructions into the next bulldozer manual.
1. Always walk around bulldozer before operating to make sure path is clear.
2. Always buckle seat belt before operating.
3. Do not commit human rights violations with bulldozer.
4. Before dozing, always make sure olive groves are no ancient.
. . .
Posted by: Sam ||
06/14/2004 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"Oh, sorry...
Ari? Hey, listen, never mind the olive groves, just knock down the houses."
#8
Well, we should also investigate the explosives companies for human rights abuses, along with the nail companies, frabric companies for vests, etc...
#12
I don't know; they may be on to something here - and we could get in a few good lawsuits ourselves. How about hauling the entire Saudi Royal Family into the war crimes court for the actions of their citizens on September 11, 2001? How about going after the makers of the AK-47s used on our men? How about grabbing the makers of those damned bombs the suicide-jihadis love so much? And what about suing anyone who publishes the Qu'ran, which inspires the fanatics?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/14/2004 19:22 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'd put the D-9 on the stand in a heart beat if I were the defense lawyer.
#14
I'm thinking Caterpillar oughtta take this as free publicity....perhaps a 2005 D-9 Calendar with "squashed ISM 'tools' of the month" starting with the extra-special St. Pancake?
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 19:34 Comments ||
Top||
#15
So where is this Mr. Ziegler's office? Maybe Mr. Caterpillar should go to Mr. Ziegler's office and negotiate, face to face, man and machine working out their differences together.
Mr. D9 is all grown up. Check out his D11 bio here. He can turn a normally quiet breakfast into a real Pancake Feed!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/14/2004 23:31 Comments ||
Top||
Supreme Court : This is an election year. We arenât touching this with a ten foot pole!
"One nation, under God," will remain, at least temporarily, in the Pledge of Allegiance, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, saying a California atheist could not challenge the patriotic oath. But whether or not the pledge recited by generations of American schoolchildren is an unconstitutional blending of church and state was not directly addressed at the procedural ruling. The court said the atheist could not sue to ban the pledge from his daughterâs school and others because he did not have legal authority to speak for her. The father, Michael Newdow, is in a protracted custody fight with the girlâs mother. He does not have sufficient custody of the child to qualify as her legal representative, eight members of the court said. Justice Antonin Scalia did not participate in the case. Boys & Girls : Looks like the ACLU wasted a whole lot of money! HE HE HE
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 13:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I may be the best father in the world," Newdow said shortly after the ruling was announced. "She spends 10 days a month with me. The suggestion that I don't have sufficient custody is just incredible. This is such a blow for parental rights."
It'd be nice if Mr. Showboat could make up his mind. Before today it was the pledge; now it's about parental rights? WTF?
#3
The Court is probably right on this--as the non-custodial parent, Newdow probably doesn't have standing. That said, they're probably just as happy not to have to decide the case on the merits.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/14/2004 14:50 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Now it's about "parental rights"?
Always working an angle aren't you, Mike.
I do work angles for a living, you could say, but that's not it at all. A minor kid can't file a lawsuit by herself; her adult parent or a court-appointed guardian has to do it for her. If he's not the legal parent, and he's not appointed a guardian, he can't bring the case, period, full stop, end-of-file marker.
Now, I'd also agree that it gave the court a nice way to get out of the matter without having to contribute another hundred printed pages of legalese to its already-messed-up-beyond-recognition body of work on church-state separation. Think of it as the Supreme Court's version of "buck-buck-braaawk!"
Posted by: Mike ||
06/14/2004 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I think TU was referring to Michael Newdow, but I could be mistaken...
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 17:36 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Point taken, Frank. Sorry if I gave offense, TU.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/14/2004 17:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
It was most definitely Mr. Newdow I was referring to.
#9
Mike M still works angles, heh heh, and he can make good satire songs on the side....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/14/2004 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#10
As for the case itself, I think it's just stupid. We've got Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Jews, and Christians in this country. I haven't seen any statistics, but I would suspect that the majority of Americans have religious beliefs and affiliations. The minority should understand this, shut up, and sit down. And besides, wouldn't this actually violate that multiculturalism they hold so dear if they silence the mention of God?
Also, all arguments about the difference between the Jewish/Christian God and Allah aside, "God" does nicely as a blanket name for the Almighty Being which all religions believe in. We as a nation have to stand for something, or else others will dictate what we stand for. Believing that we are ultimately judged by a God everybody believes in is going to dictate how we act, correct? Or it should, anyway. Should we forget that higher judgement and lose the moral compass which comes with it?
Posted by: The Doctor ||
06/14/2004 19:17 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 13:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We should start adding more "apologies" to the article, copy them into an e-mail and send it to the major Middle Eastern newspapers.
I am truly sorry that we introduced you to phones, cars, internet, satellites, and other technological advances. We promise to refrain from exposing you to any discovery or progress that will make life more enjoyable in the future.
#2
I'm sorry you're all captive to Islam. I am sorry you're stuck in amber. I'm sorry you're doomed by your own gutlessness to throw off both Islam and the dictator [insert name of thug or king or turban here] that enslave your mind and body. I'm sorry you are a speedbump in the road of history.
#3
I am sorry that we have a religion which supports free will, where you can join and leave at our choice without fear of death. That we have a religion which values life and beauty over death and destruction.
I am sorry that we have a government which values the right of individuals regardless of nationallity, creed, faith (or lack thereof), gender, or ability.
I am sorry that we live free and can choose who leads us and can even say our leaders are a bunch of fools without fear of being raped or tortured or killed. We can even make fake documentaries detailing lies and slander about our leaders without fear of any sort of punishment (outside of receiving a Cannis award -- see Michael Moore).
I am sorry that we are sexually mature enough to see parts of a woman's body, or a woman's face without going into a sexual rapist frenzy while some of you cannot even stand to see an ankle because you are so sexually repressed.
The newly elected Prime Minister of South Africaâs Western Cape Province, Ebrahim Rasool, has expressed his interest in twinning the Kingdomâs Western Province and the Western Province of South Africa. âThere is a close affinity between the Western Provinces of the two countries. For instance, they are both sea ports and both have historical Islamic links,â Ebrahim told Arab News in an online interview.
South Africa - the 3,678th holiest place in Islam
He said he planned to visit Jeddah in August.
Kissing a few rings and picking up a check
âEbrahim Rasool is the first Muslim premier to be elected by the general population,â said Muhammad Dangor, South African consul general in Jeddah. He said the Muslim Judicial Council did not tell people who to vote for but provided guidelines such as uprightness, participation in the countryâs freedom struggle and commitment to development with justice and honesty.
I'll bet they "suggested" who to vote for.
âCongratulations have been pouring in highlighting the integrity and honesty that has always been a hallmark of Ebrahimâs work,â Dangor said. In a statement the Durban-based Islamic Propagation Center International said Ebrahimâs election âis a great milestone for South African Muslims.â
Another milestone towards the caliphate
Ebrahim, who is also leader of the ANC in the Western Cape, said he had learned that one did not have to compromise his principles in order to advance in life. âThe fact that a Muslim can be elected even though most people in South Africa are not Muslims says a great deal for the respect South Africans have for Islam,â he stressed. Ebrahim said during his five-year term as premier he would try to unite all sections of the community in the Western Cape. South African President Thabo Mbeki has indicated that Ebrahim should lead in accordance with the mandate voters had given him. âI hope the Muslim community sees this premiership not just as an opportunity for Ebrahim Rasool, but as proof of what the community can produce,â he said.
Posted by: Steve ||
06/14/2004 12:00:08 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Perhaps bob might consider late life conversion.
#2
IIUC politics in the western cape is particularly complex. The Nationalist party has evolved from a white apartheid party to the party of the mixed race "cape coloureds", who distrust the largely african (IE black) ANC. The ANC thus selects an Asian premier, (Rasool) in an attempt to deemphasize its "blackness".
#1
IMNSHO Chinese power is still dictated by the number of fodder currently under arms. They will lose much of their force in an encounter with a technologically advanced force
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 12:07 Comments ||
Top||
#2
the chinese really don't concern me much.. they don't have a culture/goverment that will result in greatness.. maybe a temporary bubble, nothing that will last
That aside, communist doctrine troops are not taught to think independently. I'm confident that, like the Soviet Union, China's PLA considers detailed maps (like our widely available USGS topological surveys) to be classified information.
Imagine trying to stage a running battle where your foot soldiers are deprived of terrain models and utterly dependent on senior officers to advise them. Add to that antiquated arms plus marginal C3 capability and the picture begins to take shape.
If you have read General Sir John Hackettâs NATO scenario "World War III," you are familiar with his predicted kill ratios of 10:1. I would wager that pretty much the same applies against China, or any other nation's military.
#5
dcreeper,
Can you ellucidate please? I'm concerned that until China does become fully democratic, then it's a worry.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/14/2004 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'm less optimistic -- China's known to support theft of US technology, and have actively followed US operations in Iraq in hopes of emulating them (psy ops, mobility, precision firepower application, increased technology, the works) ...
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
06/14/2004 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Edward, China is faced with a overheated and hyperventilating economy plus a massive bad bank debt worth some US$200,000,000,000. If we can just manage to keep advanced European arms out of their hands for another few years, they should go through a substantial melt down in the near future.
This is a major task for the AMCs given that China's state owned industries are estimated to face US$ 200 billion in bad debts. The longer-term aim of the AMCs is to rehabilitate the loss making large state owned companies and eventually liquidate their stakes by selling or listing the shares of the firms. However, whether the AMCs will be able to revive the firms and find a market for their shares remains to be seen.
#8
China is the world's biggest Ponzi scheme, waiting to collapse. It repeatedly has done so throughout its history.
China imports nearly all its oil, much of its food, and much of the tech toys and basic infrastructure hardware that makes a First World country. Over 50% of the bank loans in the country are estimated to be bad. The government has been absorbing most of the price increases caused by higher oil prices and higher shipping costs.
They have to keep exporting, primarily to the United States, in order to even keep their head above water. Since the yuan is tied to the dollar, as the dollar has declined, so did the yuan, and so did the billions of dollars in currancy reserves the Chinese have squirreled away. The rise in oil prices is killing them in the long run, because at some point the reserves give out and exports don't match imports and ... well, you get the idea.
#10
You are seriously mistaken to think that bad debts and shutting down state run companies is going to stop Chinese modernization. I don't see anything short of a civil war stopping it.
BTW, China imports a smaller percentage of its oil, than the USA, imports little food in comparison to its production, and most high tech even when designed in the USA, is actually made in Asia, and increasingly that means China.
And also BTW, It looks like the Chinese have made the rational decision in response to dependence on imported oil, which is to build nuclear power stations.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/14/2004 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
#11
China imports nearly all its oil, much of its food, and much of the tech toys and basic infrastructure hardware that makes a First World country
Zimbabwe's opposition has condemned a government decision to order fighter aircraft from China and other military equipment worth an estimated $200m. The defence ministry confirmed it was buying defence equipment from China. Opposition defence spokesman Giles Mutsekwa said 12 fighter jets and 100 military vehicles were being bought. Mr Mutsekwa suggested that the move was intended to intimidate Zimbabweans ahead of parliamentary elections due to be held in March next year.
Bob planning on closing the polls with airstrikes?
Defence Ministry Secretary Trust Maphosa reportedly revealed the purchase during a quarterly review of the defence ministry budget in parliament. Under questioning he also admitted tendering procedures had been breached.
Breached = under the table cash exchange
He blamed this on security reasons and on an arms embargo slapped on Zimbabwe by the European Union and the United States which he said was making it difficult to find spare parts for the current fleet. Mr Mutsekwa said he was deeply concerned that parliament had not been informed. "We believe this is a kind of intimidatory tactic because we are going towards very crucial elections next year," he said. "The idea is that whatever the public does, there is a possibility of it being subverted by the military," he told AFP news agency.
What, you thought it was going to be a honest election?
Posted by: Steve ||
06/14/2004 8:39:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
People starving, all the land about to be taken into government control and what does Bob do? Spend $200 mill on iffy kit from the Chinese.
If ever there was a target for a surgical strike - it's this man.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
06/14/2004 9:14 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I'd wait to get his kleptocratic wife Grace at the same time..
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/14/2004 9:50 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Where the hell is Mugabe getting a spare $200 million? He's engineered a major starvation season, he just abolished private property, and no bank in its right mind will loan to a tinpot with the Iraqi example fresh in their minds. Mining?
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/14/2004 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Perhaps we should send the *ahem* Reverend *ahem* Jackson into Zimbabwe to negotiate, er, something. Where is the outrage of the LLL over the systematic starvation of a people? Oh, yes, sorry. They are all a-twitter over the panties on the heads of prisoners at abu Graib.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
06/14/2004 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Asked and answered: al Queda? Of course, $200 million is a hell of a lot for a relatively resource-poor group like al Queda, so maybe not.
Posted by: Mitch H. ||
06/14/2004 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I hear India's got some Mig-21's. Ya can get them cheap.
From The New York Times
Beginning in November, a small unit of interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison began reporting allegations of prisoner abuse, including the beatings of five blindfolded Iraqi generals, in internal documents sent to senior officers, according to interviews with military personnel who worked in the prison. The disclosure of the documents raises new questions about whether senior officers in Iraq were alerted about serious abuses at the prison before January. Top military officials have said they only learned about abuses then, after a soldier came forward with photographs of the abuse. "We were reporting it long before this mess came out," said one of several military intelligence soldiers interviewed in Germany and the United States who asked not to be identified for fear they would jeopardize their careers. ....
At least 20 accounts of mistreatment were included in the documents, according to those interviewed. Some detainees described abuse at other detention facilities before they were transferred to Abu Ghraib, but at least seven incidents said to be cited in the documents took place at the prison, four of them in the area controlled by military intelligence and the site of the notorious abuses depicted in the photographs. The abuse allegations were cited by members of the prisonâs Detainee Assessment Branch, a unit of interrogators who screened prisoners for possible release, in routine weekly reports channeled to military judge advocates and others. ...
Most of the Abu Ghraib incidents were reported before January, said military intelligence personnel. In one case a detainee told workers from the Detainee Assessment Branch that he was made to stand naked, holding books on his head, while a soldier poured cold water on him. Among the other incidents cited by military personnel: a man was shoved to the ground before a soldier stepped on his head; a man was forced to stand naked while a female interrogator made fun of his genitals and a woman was repeatedly kicked by a military police guard.
The beating of the former generals, which had not been disclosed, is being examined by the Pentagon as part of its inquiry into abuses at Abu Ghraib, according to people knowledgeable about the investigation. By mid-December, those people said, two separate reports of the beating had been made â one by the assessment branch and one by a military intelligence analyst. The analyst asked a former general at the end of an interrogation what had happened to his nose â it was smashed and tilted to the left, and a gash on his chin had been stitched. The prisoner, in his 50âs, told the story of the beating, which he said had occurred about a week earlier. His account closely matched that given independently to the Detainee Assessment Branch by another former general around the same time.
According to their accounts, here is what happened: One evening after fierce riots had erupted at the prison in late November, a group of soldiers rounded up the five former Iraqi generals, who were suspected of instigating the revolt. On their way to the prisonâs isolation unit, the soldiers stopped the captives, who were handcuffed and blindfolded, and arranged them in a line. Then the guards attacked the prisoners with a barrage of punches, beating them until they were covered in blood.
The military intelligence analyst alerted his sergeant, but the sergeant said the prisoners "probably deserved it," a person with first-hand knowledge of the investigation said. ...
The Detainee Assessment Branch was formed in October as a last stop for detainees who were deemed no longer useful by the prisonâs interrogators. The unit included four to six interrogators and some analysts. Claudius Albury, an employee of CACI, a civilian contractor, set up the unit and helped manage it, reporting to Maj. Matt Price, the operations officer in charge of the Joint Interrogation and Debriefing Center at the prison. Mr. Albury said he could not comment, pending clearance from his supervisors. Military officials said the assessment branch was created to help speed the flow of detainee releases. The unit screened prisoners in a process that fell somewhere between an exit interview and an interrogation. The purpose of the screening was to determine whether a detainee was no longer of "intelligence value" â that is, whether other interrogators had forgotten to ask important questions, or failed to notice inconsistencies in the answers.
In preparation for the screening, interrogators read through the detaineesâ files, which consisted mostly of notes by other interrogators and any intelligence reports written about the detainee. Detainee Assessment Branch personnel then asked detainees the same basic questions other interrogators had asked, like biographical queries and whether the detainees knew where Saddam Hussein was hiding. Starting in mid-November, one member of the unit began asking detainees, "How have you been treated since you have been in U.S. custody?" It was intended as a tactic meant to make the detainee feel like the interrogator cared, military intelligence personnel said. But the question soon began eliciting vivid and disturbing answers. ...
"We couldnât believe what we were hearing," said one soldier. Two detainees reported having been given electric shocks at other holding facilities before arriving in Abu Ghraib, according to the interviews. One prisonerâs file included photographs of burns on his body. "We didnât want people to know that we knew about it and didnât report it," the soldier said. ...
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
06/14/2004 8:31:08 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Very long, hit the link for the full story. Just the first couple of paragraphs here.
A commission chartered by U.S. President George W. Bush to advise him on implementing a broad new space exploration vision is recommending streamlining the NASA bureaucracy, relying more heavily on the private sector, and maintaining more oversight of the nationâs space program at the White House. The Presidentâs Commission on Implementation of U.S. Space Exploration Policy is scheduled to release its final report June 16. A copy of that report, âA Journey to Inspire, Innovate, and Discoverâ, was obtained by Space News . The 60-page report outlines the organizational changes the commission says NASA needs to make if it is to achieve the space exploration goals laid out by Bush in January. Those goals include returning humans to the moon by 2020 in preparation for eventual human expeditions to Mars.
The nine-member commission, headed by former U.S. Air Force Secretary Edward (Pete) Aldridge, said if those goals are to be met, the nation needs to commit to space exploration for the long haul, and that the private sector must be given a much larger role in the U.S. space program. âThe Commission believes that commercialization of space should become the primary focus of the vision, and that the creation of a space-based industry will be one of the principal benefits of this journey,â the report states. âToday an independent space industry does not really exist. Instead, we have various government funded space programs and their vendors. Over the next several decades -- if the exploration vision is implemented to encourage this -- an entirely new set of businesses can emerge that will seek profit in space.â While a mission to mars sounds highly inspirational, orbiting laboratories and a lunar base are of much greater priority. Microgravity materials science research has the potential to yield fabulous new alloys and other compounds impossible to obtain in terran facilities. A mars mission would have to overcome gigantic issues involving radiation shielding, extended duration closed-cycle life support and other human factors problems. In light of Chinaâs determination to expand its aerospace program, the United States needs to renew its commitment regarding space flight.
The solutions presented by international consortium participation are of limited use as future defense applications increasingly will rely upon LEO (low earth orbit) and other space based platforms. Novel solutions like tethered "reel-down" packages and long flight time ultralight laser and solar powered vehicles pose interesting alternatives, but space is the place and our defense capabilities should not be shackled to foreign interests. Recent funding and delivery problems with Russian modules for the ISS have made this abundantly clear.
Posted by: Zenster ||
06/14/2004 12:36:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm still awaiting microgravity made anything. It's pretty much a bust so far.
#2
Shipman, I have an killer product requiring micro-gravity and need somewhere to test it. Any suggestions?
Sorry to pick on you. While I am in favor of space exploration, I think trying to justify it through economic spinoffs is very questionable. Its like scientific research. It develops knowledge and that is its justification. The economic benefits will result, but there is no direct linkage and the relationship is complex.
Posted by: Phil B ||
06/14/2004 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#3
We are in 100 percent agreement Phil B. But don't try to sell it with zero gravity cancer cures or alloys from the far side. Sell it as pure basic science and exploration and adventure.
I'll sign off on that in a heart beat. Lets put a 350 inch telescope on the lunar surface starting tomorrow.
#4
Currently you can't build anything in any quantity, we've never really gotten passed the testing stage. That's why its a bust so far.
If someone put up a spacestation/business park that companies could attach their own modules to I think you'd see massive growth in space industry.
I bet Intel and IBM wouldn't mind having the cleanest clean room available. I bet microgravity would remove the imperfections in the wafers and give better yields all around. That's not even counting the pharmacuticals and metallurgical companies.
And don't forget to put the small hotel on the end of the business park to pick up some of the tourist dollars.
#6
I bet Intel and IBM wouldn't mind having the cleanest clean room available. I bet microgravity would remove the imperfections in the wafers and give better yields all around. That's not even counting the pharmacuticals and metallurgical companies.
#7
If there is a sudden chip shortage I expect Intel and IBM to divy right up and commence cranking out the purest of chip sets. I'll bet they make a fortune doing it.
:)
Mean while back at the ranch efficiencies of scale are more likely to reduce cost.
#8
Space is and will be a big BUST as long as its open only to governments. Thats why I have a lot of interest in Scaled Composits. Its the first private space flight scheduled to take place June21.
The "space race" is dead. Now its time to let business in to really get it moving.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
06/14/2004 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Sam,
June 21st is my birthday (55, yikes!) and I used to live right down the road from Burt and the SC facility, so I am really pulling for the big one to come off as expected.
Burt Rutan and SC have what is probably the most remarkable record in the history of aviation, a string of unbroken successes and spectacular innovations without a single fatality.
#12
#4 Currently you can't build anything in any quantity ...
Au contraire, electrophoresis of special pharmaceuticals worth hundred or thousands of dollars per gram could easily be performed in a small orbital laboratory.
I bet Intel and IBM wouldn't mind having the cleanest clean room available.
Unless we have a space elevator, don't bet on any orbiting silicon foundries too soon. The immense launch cost for a fab line would outweigh the short pumpdown times. Contamination issues would still be a problem, especially lattice damage and soft errors due to hard radiation.
Here is a primer on orbital fabrication processes. As I mention in the OP, there are certain alloys and other materials that will only form in microgravity conditions.
The problem is that current materials available do not have the requisite structure and high enough quality to attain predicted performance levels. To improve their quality, materials can be grown as crystalline thin films in a vacuum chamber - but this technique, known as epitaxy, is limited by vacuum conditions in Earth-based chambers. A key to improving semiconductor materials, therefore, is to improve the vacuum environment for thin film growth.
That is the purpose of the Wake Shield Facility (WSF) program being conducted by the Space Vacuum Epitaxy Center (SVEC) of the University of Houston, one of NASA's Centers for the Commercial Development of Space, in cooperation with a consortium of industrial partners led by Space Industries, Inc. (Sll), Houston, Texas. The aim of the program is to demonstrate that low Earth orbit (LEO) offers an "ultravacuum" for growing electronics materials of significantly higher quality than can be produced on Earth, and that these materials can be processed in situ, pointing the way toward future orbital manufacturing facilities producing increasingly sophisticated materials.
A good example of such materials is REAL (Rare Earth ALuminum oxide) glass. Produced under levitation conditions in terran laboratories, an orbital facility could crank out this material in bulk. It's application in fiber-optic communications and laser optics are more than a little promising.
Weber said that the new glass is currently being put through its paces for applications in high-density lasers and low-cost, compact broadband devices.
Such fabrication methods fall under the aegis of "containerless" processing. The absence of containment in the form of a crucible during the melt and solidification phase avoids contamination and other eutectic related processing issues.
Rest assured that I am vigorously cheering on Scaled Composities as they begin to open space for commercial purposes. Privatization of orbital ventures and facilities are a top priority for America to retain its technological pre-eminence.
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.
(Pedersen Farms)
