The usual suspects with the usual BS face off with Powell... and you know whose fault everything is...
RABAT (Reuters) - U.S. calls for reform in the Middle East have clashed with Arab demands to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict as Washington insisted that economic and political modernisation is needed to fight terrorism.
With unabated violence in U.S.-occupied Iraq, the inaugural "Forum for the Future" in Morocco was viewed by many in the Middle East as U.S. meddling even though American officials insist change must come from within the region.
Outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Washington was committed to working actively with Palestinians and Israelis to solve the conflict but that "reform does not have to wait for that".
"We did not overlook some of the challenges that we are all facing in the region and uppermost in that list of challenges is the situation between the Israelis and the Palestinians," he told a news conference on Saturday at the close of the one-day conference.
"But we cannot ignore the fact that reform has to go on ... A child who is in need of an education and will not be a contributing member of society without that education, needs that education now," he said.
The original U.S. initiative to promote democracy across the Arab world was watered down after an outcry from Arab critics. More emphasis was put on economics and less on political reform.
"Now is not the time to argue about the pace of democratic reform or whether economic reform must precede political reform," Powell told delegates from nearly 30 countries.
"All of us confront the daily threat of terrorism. To defeat the murderous extremists in our midst we must work together to address the causes of despair and frustration that extremists exploit for their own ends," he said. Still hoping, after almost 60 years, to keep up the Paleo Gambit and avoid all other issues - particularly those leading toward substantive change. Nothing doing, boys.
Posted by: .com ||
12/12/2004 1:34:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
U.S. calls for reform in the Middle East have clashed with Arab demands to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict as Washington insisted that economic and political modernisation is needed to fight terrorism.
Yep, them nasty ol' Jews are always supposed to be at the root of all the Arabs' problems. It's about time someone bluntly told them to find another scapegoat.
#2
I guess we haven't reached the point of desperation yet. When we do the Arabs are going to find out what kind of "incentives" we can bring to the table.
#3
the Arabs are going to find out what kind of "incentives" we can bring to the table
HV, For starters the 40 mile wide Free Republic of [clanname_puppet] Arabia.
Actualy, we're seeing right now some real desperation, in a tightly controlled manner. They keep hitting all the usual buttons, but it dosen't work the same way, or at all (ie palis). And do you think that the spike in crude prices right before the election was entirely co-incidental? (No, I am not a kook!) But it did not work.
Iran just saw 2 of its neighbhors get blown out in rapid sucession. They have no illusions as to what their fate is, if/when we get around to them.
The magic kingdom is beginning to wonder what the real value of their stock with us is worth.
As for baby asshat assad, well, Meine Meine Tenkel Upharishin.
They have yet to stop confusing gentile words with weakness, but we shall see.
Posted by: N Guard ||
12/12/2004 11:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
the Arabs are going to find out what kind of "incentives" we can bring to the table
HV, For starters the 40 mile wide Free Republic of [clanname_puppet] Arabia.
Actualy, we're seeing right now some real desperation, in a tightly controlled manner. They keep hitting all the usual buttons, but it dosen't work the same way, or at all (ie palis). And do you think that the spike in crude prices right before the election was entirely co-incidental? (No, I am not a kook!) But it did not work.
Iran just saw 2 of its neighbhors get blown out in rapid sucession. They have no illusions as to what their fate is, if/when we get around to them.
The magic kingdom is beginning to wonder what the real value of their stock with us is worth.
As for baby asshat assad, well, Meine Meine Tenkel Upharishin.
They have yet to stop confusing gentile words with weakness, but we shall see.
Posted by: N Guard ||
12/12/2004 11:34 Comments ||
Top||
Al Qaeda militants in Saudi Arabia have been weakened by a government crackdown but remain determined to attack US targets whatever the cost, US Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said. "We are aware that our enemy is determined to attack us and they do not care about their lives but want to inflict the most damage on others...They are bloodthirsty," Armitage told Arabic satellite television Al Arabiya in comments aired on Saturday.
Al Qaeda gunmen stormed the US consulate in Jeddah on Monday, killing five people and briefly taking hostages before Saudi security forces retook the complex and killed four of the five militants. Saudi officials say they have broken the back of a deadly 19-month Al Qaeda campaign against foreigners and government targets in the world's biggest oil exporter. Armitage praised Saudi Arabia's response but said it must remain vigilant. "I think (Al Qaeda) are becoming weaker but are still active and our friends the Saudis are aware of that and so are we," said Armitage, whose comments were dubbed from English into Arabic. "We have to be more cautious at all times and we cannot let up for a single moment."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 1:26:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
Kuwait said on Saturday it had put behind it its anger at the Palestinian leadership's perceived backing of the 1990 Iraqi invasion, as it prepared to receive PLO chairman Mahmud Abbas on a landmark visit on Sunday. "We consider the issue of the position of the Palestinian Authority (leadership) towards the Iraqi invasion as over. We welcome the visit of PLO chairman Mahmud Abbas," Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah told reporters.
Damned sight more forgiving than I'd be.
"Why talk about an apology?" Sheikh Sabah said in response to a question on whether Kuwait will still demand an apology.
'cause they helped Saddam rape your country?
"We welcome him and his brothers in the delegation accompanying him," he said.
"Mahmoud, check their luggage and effects. You know what to do."
The state KUNA news agency said Abbas would arrive Sunday on the first visit by a high-ranking Palestinian official to Kuwait since the troops of ousted Iraqi president Saddam Hussein invaded the emirate 14 years ago. Acting Palestinian Authority chairman Rawhi Fattuh, prime minister Ahmed Qorei and foreign minister Nabil Shaath will be among the Palestinian delegation. Abbas's visit comes just days after a two-day official visit by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to the oil-rich emirate during which he discussed the need to "support the new Palestinian leadership." Relations between Kuwait and the Palestinians have remained frozen since the emirate accused the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat of backing Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. The emirate demanded a public apology from Arafat as a precondition to normalising ties with the Palestinians. An official visit by Abbas to Kuwait in August 2003, when he was the PA's prime minister, was called off due to differences over the proposed apology.
I'd hold out for Yasser's apology. Might take a while.
Abbas however visited Kuwait in May this year in his personal capacity to address a political symposium organized by the Kuwaiti parliament. He was received by a number of senior officials.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/12/2004 12:00:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
The former head of Britain's armed forces has warned against planned cuts in the standing army, saying they would leave it "dangerously small and over-committed," in comments published on Sunday. Lord Charles Guthrie told The Sunday Telegraph that the British army "has become dangerously small for what it is being asked to do."
"Of course, if you have too small an army you can't react," said Guthrie, a former chief of both the army general staff and the defense staff who holds the title of colonel commandant of the Special Air Service. His comments were published a day ahead of the expected announcement of government restructuring plans for the armed forces.
Why, it's almost by design.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour government has already detailed its plans to reduce troop numbers and merge several regiments, in reforms, which are expected to save 250 million pounds (480 million dollars, 360 million euros) per year, according to The Sunday Telegraph. Guthrie countered that "none of them (in the cabinet) has been in the military and politicans do not understand nowadays that the army is not just another job." A Minister of Defence spokesman quoted by the newspaper said the army would actually have "more boots on the ground" because of efficiency-minded restructuring.
The Euro forces have becoming smaller and more efficient with more boots on the ground for the last couple of decades. That's why you see the Euro armies everywhere there's trouble.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/12/2004 12:13:21 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yeah, and they will do their verbal dumps on the US, but will cry and ask for help when they can't get the job done themselves. Hell, just look at Kosovo. They cannot even clean up the mess in their own backyard.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/12/2004 0:30 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Good thing the UK isn't as efficient in streamlining its forces as some of its Euro-peers - or they'd have no army at all.
#5
Hell, just look at Kosovo. They cannot even clean up the mess in their own backyard.
Or don't want to. After all, that would require believing in something ..... not to mention Work and Risk. (apologies to those who are offended by the rough language in that last phrase, I realize that W**k and R**k are strong words, but sometimes profanity is called for ....)
Posted by: too true ||
12/12/2004 6:44 Comments ||
Top||
#6
just when an army is at is lowest ebb, that's when a really big war comes along.
Yeah, strange how it seems to work out that way.
Posted by: too true ||
12/12/2004 6:45 Comments ||
Top||
#9
All this to 'save' 250 million a year. Do you know how much the IT systems are going to cost for our 'much lauded, envy of the (third) world' 'health' service?
Guess.
30 billion pounds.
30,000,000,000 pounds. It's a lot of money. It's a (expletive deleted - I've not been on the wine this evening) waste of money too. The *waste* in the NHS (spit) is unreal.
Here's another one - another much-lauded initiative by the Labour (ie Socialist) government is LearnDirect - it's just about to be closed down and has cost 1 billion pounds over the few years it's been going.
I know a lot of people here think Blair is a good guy 'cos he helped out. That's as maybe (can you *imagine* what help you'd have got if Maggie were still around? - friggin hell, she'd have sent launch codes to the boomers!), but he is still a Socialist that used to be in CND and is happily selling our country out to Brussels.
250 million - it's peanuts, about a tenth the cost of our 'asylum' system.
Bah!
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
12/12/2004 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#10
At this time of the year, Tony, one must use the full phrase, just for tradition's sake. "Bah, humbug!" with a full Scrooge emphasis, please. Otherwise, fabulous rant: not only did you convey your frustration, but you gave us facts and figures as well. All that's left for us to say is, "Heah, heah," as of course we now do.
#12
We (US Army and Marines) should offer all these soldiers positions, to include citizenship. I think many highly-qualfied Brits soldiers would jump at the opportunity and we would surely benefit.
The Russian President's adviser, Aslambek Aslakhanov has discussed counter-terrorism issues with U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage. "We believe that it is necessary to unite our counter-terrorism efforts," Mr. Aslakhanov told journalists in Washington. According to him, his visits to the United States and Great Britain aimed at persuading western partners of the necessity to work out a legislative basis for joint fight against international terrorism. "Terrorists should know what is in store for them - life imprisonment or a death penalty. We should take active steps against those who have declared war on us," the presidential aide stressed. In his words, the possible extradition of Chechen emissaries Akhmed Zakayev and Ilyas Akhmadov (the latter was given political asylum in the U.S. and the former in the UK) was not on the agenda of his meetings in London and Washington. We did not discuss these issues, Aslambek Aslakhanov said. On his part, a representative of the Russian Federal Security Service who accompanied Mr. Aslakhanov said that Russian and American special services are constantly exchanging anti-terrorist information.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 1:54:04 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We should take active steps against those who have declared war on us," the presidential aide stressed.
So, when do they begin taking action against Iran? Fricking wanker!
#2
In his words, the possible extradition of Chechen emissaries Akhmed Zakayev and Ilyas Akhmadov (the latter was given political asylum in the U.S. and the former in the UK) was not on the agenda of his meetings in London and Washington.
What are Chechen emissaries? What is the story regarding asylum of these so-called emissaries?
A local court in Izhevsk (capital of the autonomous republic of Udmurtia bordering with Tatarstan in the south) pressed criminal charges against two members of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir al-Islami (Islamic Liberation Party) extremist organization, reported sources in the Izhevsk Prosecutor's Office. "Judging by the materials received from the organized crime department, a criminal case has been filed under the Article 'Inciting national, racial or religious hatred' of the Russian Criminal Code," the Prosecutor's Office spokeswoman said. She stated that the criminal charges had been pressed against an engineer from Belkamneft and an unemployed person who were members of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir extremist organization banned by the Russian Supreme Court in 2003. "These people distributed the Hizb-ut-Tahrir pamphlets and conducted instigating propaganda," she underlined. Earlier reports announced that 11 people were detained in the Nizhny Novgorod region in connection with involvement in Hizb-ut-Tahrir activities. During the search, operatives found two grenades and many illegal audio, video and printed materials. At the end of June, the media reported about the detention of 10 the Hizb-ut-Tahrir activists in Tyumen and Tobolsk (West Siberia).
This might be the first thing that's actually happened in Udmurtia since they invented the chariot wheel...
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 1:50:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I feel terrible. I looked at the title and was sure the name was an obscure Italian joke. My apologies to the Udmurtians for my insensitivity.
The Tajik Prosecutor General's Office pressed charges against leader of the Democratic Party of Tajikistan (DPT) Makhmadruzi Iskandarov. According to investigation, Mr. Iskandarov embezzled $40 million while being the CEO of Tajikgaz.
That's usually an adequate reason for pressing charges...
Mr. Iskandarov has been also accused of terrorist activities, a murder attempt, illegal possession of arms and illegal employment of 11 bodyguards (five of them were officially registered as Tajikgaz employees).
What a busy lad he's been!
According to Prosecutor General Bobokhonov, the Tajik Prosecutor General's Office issued a warrant for arrest of Mr. Iskandarov on November 26, 2004. After that the name of the DPT leader was put on the interstate search list.
That means he coup the floop?
He was arrested in the northern outskirts of Moscow on Thursday by Russian law enforcement operatives.
"Stick 'em up!"
"I give up, law enforcement operatives!"
Available data indicates that Mr. Iskandarov might belong to an illegal armed band led by the field commander of the former United Tajik opposition Eribek Ibragimov, also known as Sheik. Several years ago, the band operated in the Tadzhikabad district - the native place of Mr. Iskandarov.
It's a very small town. Nobody lives there but him, so who else could it be?
In the end of August, 2004, members of the band assaulted the buildings of the local police headquarters and prosecutor's office. As a result, a police officer was killed and another wounded. On September 2, units of the Tajik Interior Ministry conducted a special operation detaining the Sheik and 20 other members of the band. The operatives also discovered a weapons cache.
"Into the paddy wagon wit' yez! And no lip outta you, Sheikh!"
The cache contained 15 portable anti-tank missile systems, 10 portable anti-aircraft missile systems (Igla), four Kalashnikov machine guns, two submachine guns, 21 anti-tank missiles, 112 air-to-ground rockets, a Grad complex, a BMP gun, and more than 5,000 rounds of various ammunition.
"And what were yez plannin' on doin' with these, Mr. Sheikh?"
"Elk season's coming up..."
During the civil war of 1992-1997, Mr. Iskandarov was one of the influential field commanders of the Islamic opposition. The Sheik was one of his closest aides at the time. Mr. Iskandarov established residence in Moscow in August 2004. In his interviews with the media, in particular, with a newspaper of the Tajik opposition Charogi Ruz published in Moscow, he harshly criticized the policies conducted by current Tajik President Emomali Rakhmonov. The Democratic Party of Tajikistan led by Iskandarov joined the Coalition of Tajik political parties For free and transparent elections organized in April 2004 by Tajik political parties in opposition.
That's what they needed the Grad complex for...
The DPT numbers 4,500 people. It planned to put 22 candidatures on the ballot for the upcoming parliamentary elections. However, one of the DPT leaders stated during a press conference that the arrest of Mr. Iskandarov might hinder the party's participation in the 2005 parliamentary elections in Tajikistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 1:47:13 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
members of the band assaulted the buildings of the local police headquarters and prosecutorâs office.
We're putting the band back together.
Posted by: Elwood Blues ||
12/12/2004 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Lemme guess, Elwood...you're on a mission from God.
December 11, 2004: South Korea is going on a high tech spending spree, to provide itself with modern military capabilities, and cut its dependence on the United States for support in this area. This means increasing their defense budget an average of eleven percent each year between now and 2008. That adds up to over $92 billion in spending. While much of this goes to maintain the current armed forces, South Korea will also be buying airborne early warning systems aircraft, Patriot anti-missile missiles, Aegis (radar system) equipped destroyers and reconnaissance satellites. Next years defense budget will be $19.5 billion, an increase of 12.6 percent over this years. For decades, South Korea has felt militarily dependant on the United States. For the last two decades, the United States has been trying to convince South Korea that it was able to dispense with that dependency and take care of itself. The South Koreans have finally got the message. Nothing like withdrawing 2 of 3 combat brigades to sharpen the South Korean's focus
Posted by: ed ||
12/12/2004 10:31:59 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
At this point our country is facing a period of terror. After the murder of Theo van Gogh in Amsterdam by a radical Muslim, the Netherlands is falling in to a period of hate-crimes. Churches are being burned, bombs are being placed near schools and politicians and opinion makers are being threatened to death. This morning three officers were wounded by a hand grenade during a raid on a home in The Hague in which possible terrorist were hiding. At this point they are still there and are keeping the home occupied. The are probably armed.
After years of preaching of multiculturalism and tolerance by the liberal elites, we are now facing the consequences of not paying attention to the growing influence of the Islam in the Netherlands. I doubt that the situation will ever return to normal. It's reached the point that we fight or we will lose our country. And fight we did. Gusty, Gutsy move.
#1
I hope this has woken up the Dutch. It certainly is a much lower body count in their wakeup lesson than we had in ours in NY and DC and that field in PA.
#2
While Islamists so often abuse the religious tolerance shown them, I wonder if they ever appreciate what happens when open societies get their fill of deception and perfidy.
Don't expect a once open culture to suddenly clamp down on all of its members' freedoms in order to avoid selective enforcement against a dangerous and violent minority. The Dutch aren't going to be hauling in saffron-robed Tibetan lamas because of a crackdown on newly arrived religious types. Call it profiling if you must but Muslim radicals had better understand that their atrocities relfect directly upon the entire Islamic church and it alone.
#3
I hope this has woken up the Dutch. It certainly is a much lower body count in their wakeup lesson than we had in ours in NY and DC and that field in PA.
#4
I hope this has woken up the Dutch. It certainly is a much lower body count in their wakeup lesson than we had in ours in NY and DC and that field in PA.
The row over America's failure to send enough military vehicles to Iraq took a new twist yesterday when the company that manufactures them said it could deliver 1,200 more a year, but has had no request from the Pentagon. Two days earlier, Donald Rumsfeld, was bluntly confronted by an Iraq-bound National Guardsman at what was meant to be a pep rally with the Defence Secretary at a US staging base in Kuwait. Instead, Mr Rumsfeld was hit by a barrage of pointed questions, first about the extended tours of duty driving down the morale of service personnel in Iraq, then over the lack of properly armoured Humvees to protect them from the roadside bombs that are the insurgents' weapon of choice.
Hours after President George Bush reiterated that soldiers in Iraq would get everything they needed, Congress released a report showing that only 6,000 of the near-20,000 Humvees in service in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait were fully protected. The House Armed Services Committee said most of the transport trucks that carried fuel, food and ammunition to dangerous parts of Iraq were unarmoured. That shortcoming has been seized on the guerrillas who have killed more than 1,000 US soldiers and marines since Mr Bush prematurely declared an end to the conflict in May, 2003. Thousands more have been maimed and wounded.
Bush didn't declare an end to the conflict in May, 2003, prematurely or maturely. He pronounced that part of the mission accomplished. I love watching propaganda memes evolve. I'd also point out that there's no army in the world that has a fully armored inventory, and add that the thrust is toward lighter, more mobile vehicles, like the Humvee. And changing the weight that the vehicles lug around also changes fuel consumption, lubrication requirements, parts wear lives, and probably a few dozen other things that aren't occurring to me off the top of my head. Money's got to be allocated to cover those things, too. Armoring everything, to include POL trucks, the cook truck, and the Colonel's jeep, is a pretty significant — not to mention expensive — move.
A spokesman for Armor Holdings, which makes the fully protected Humvees, said: "We have always said, 'Tell us how much you want and we'll build them'." The company had even proposed setting up new assembly lines to produce more, he added. Armor Holdings makes 450 such vehicles a month, but the spokesman said they could easily turn out 550. The cost of an extra 100 Humvees a month, it adds, would be $150m (£78m) a year. The Pentagon's budget for fiscal 2005 is $400bn, with $150bn of extra spending for Iraq. But the wider complaint is that the Pentagon has still not fully adjusted to the changed nature of the war in Iraq. Mr Rumsfeld insisted the military was "breaking its neck" to get enough fully armoured vehicles, and that "it's a matter of physics, not money". But critics say the problem runs deeper, the latest manifestation of a mindset that began before the war when the Pentagon's civilian leadership refused to heed military commanders who said "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed. The present US force is 138,000, soon to be 150,000.
What would we ever do without critics to tell us what we should have done?
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 7:23:35 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
LOL! From The Independent... from who or what, they don't specify. Perhaps from common sense or good taste or, and this one rings true, a combination we could call good sense, heh.
The #1 spectator / backseat driver / worthless wanker / onanistic sport on the planet is telling the US what it should do - usually because of its status as "superpower". Of course, if we were so stupid as to listen to any of these feckless fools, we would not be a"super" anything - we'd have squandered our future for a pocketfull of socialist fuckwit programs...
No thanks, world. We'll muddle along with what brought us here: American Good Sense (mostly, heh). Piss off, now, we have things to do.
I hear this from so many in the service- it is the same old tune being played - I think all we can do is supportthose who are defending our country at this time- this is what I call American good sense. Our soldier's are over there fighting w/o proper clothing i.e. sweat socks, hygiene item's. If we can't take care of our soldier's personal needs- do you think the equipment will be appropriate to suit the needs??
The answer is obvious*_LOL.
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: ANdrea ||
12/12/2004 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
hear that a lot from so many in the service, d'ya Andrea? I support your sending hygiene items, very thoughtful
thx
Frank
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2004 21:44 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Powell was neither conservative nor liberal. He was the ultimate Washington insider in the post-Vietnam era. He parlayed the post-Vietnam military's wish to be viewed as respectable by the politicians and the politicians' wish to be viewed as serious by the military into lofty and unassailable career posts that straddled the two camps.
I don't see any strong beliefs or great ideas or vision to the man beyond a loyal soldier's deep dedication to preserving the reputation and morale of the military. Hugely valuable during the 1980s and early 1990s but not really relevant today. Move along, Colin. Your era has passed. There's a war on now.
#2
If Powell really was so loyal to Bush, why didn't he push the admin's policies agressively in Europe? Why did he travel so little? Why in the past year did he keep winking at the NY Times editors, signalling his disagreements with the Bush admin and furnishing the Times' editors with ammo and encouragement for anti-Bush editorials on Iraq?
Bernard Kerik told President Bush yesterday he was sorry, saying the questionable tax filings and nanny that prompted him to withdraw as the nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security were "my mistake," not the White House's. Mr. Bush has yet to name another nominee to replace outgoing Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, although numerous candidates were mentioned in congressional circles and news reports yesterday. A White House spokeswoman said the administration "certainly will work to name somebody as quickly as possible."
Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, said two "terrific choices" would be Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat, or Homeland Security Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 1:28:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Neither Asa (RINO) nor Lieberman (Democrat/RINO facsimile) would be suitable. I want someone would protect our nation without genuflecting at the altar of big business or La Raza. Offer the job to Representative Tom Tancredo or ex-Solicitor General Ted Olsen. Forget about the 2 spineless guys who use pugnacious words but who would lie like a rug after the first angry call from the jerks at the ACLU.
#2
I didn't think Kerik was the greatest thing since titties and beer. I am very suspicous of ex NYPD or any north eastern law enforcement type. I have one reason, gun control. When was the last time you saw a NYPD type that stood for the second amendement? What about any north eastern law enforcement type? I don't trust them with the second or the fourth. Liberman is a gun banner too.
Yes it is that important an issue to me. No gun banners or persons with soft or weak interpretations of the second amandment need apply.
#3
I told y'all this thing was fishy from the start. Kerik was a bizarre choice. There's some kind of political two-step taking place here between the Bush admin and Giuliani.
THe appropriate choice for DHS is a ruthless, hardened inside the beltway operator at the end of a long career spanning positions on the Hill and in the Executive Branch and security agencies. Cheney would be ideal.
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has been approached to become the next head of the United Nation's nuclear watchdog, according to the the Washington Post. The newspaper says the Bush administration wants the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohamed El Baradei, to step down. The article says the US asked Mr Downer several months ago if he would consider the job but he apparently refused to challenge Dr El Baradei. The Post reports that the US has bugged Dr El Baradei's phone calls with Iranian officials in its bid to push him out of the job.
Hardliners within the Bush administration think Dr El Baradei is too soft on Iran but Democrat Senator Joe Biden is concerned. "It's a very slippery, dangerous slope as we're trying to re-establish ourselves as a player in the international community," he said. "I'd be very careful if I were them." "I agree with the administration, [Dr El Baradei] is going a little too slow with Iran but this is really a dangerous and slippery slope."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 7:34:13 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Today George Will proclaimed Biden a rare responsible voice within his party on foreign affairs.
In this article we learn that Biden is mildly worried about Iranian nukes, but that calling for the replacement of a corrupt, ineffectual UN bureaucrat who tried to interfere in a US presidential election is 'really dangerous.'
I don't know what's scarier: that, compared to Michael Moore or Al Gore, Biden is in fact more responsible or that their party got 48% of the vote.
#2
"weâre trying to re-establish ourselves as a player in the international community"
WTF? Biden isn't some rational mildly liberal Dhimmidonk, he's a Moron who's pandering to whom he realizes runs (owns? lol!) the Dhimmidonk Party. If he had only half Lieberman's integrity... Oh, yeah, he's also a Chia Pet.
US President George W. Bush's administration has listened in on phone calls between Mohamed ElBaradei and Iranian diplomats, seeking ammunition to oust ElBaradei as head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, the Washington Post said on Sunday. "The intercepted calls have not produced any evidence of nefarious conduct by ElBaradei," the Post said, quoting three unnamed US officials who had read the transcripts.
Since this is a rather sensitive item, I'd guess that's why the Post is reporting on it.
"Some people think he sounds way too soft on the Iranians, but that's about it," one official was quoted as saying. The United States wants the UN International Atomic Energy Agency, which ElBaradei heads, to report Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions over what Washington says is a covert nuclear weapons program. But ElBaradei says the "jury is still out" on whether Tehran's program is peaceful or not. The Egyptian diplomat, 62, also earned the ire of Washington by questioning US intelligence on Iraq. The Bush administration opposes his winning a third term in 2005 as IAEA chief. The official US position is that heads of international organizations should not serve more than two terms, as ElBaradei will have done by next year.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 4:28:04 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would be spying on him because I don't trust him. I would make it obvious too. Move all the socks out of their drawer and put them in the underware drawer. Make sure a shit load of calls to 900 pr0n places end up on his bill. Send flowers to his wife expressing symathy for he loss. Turn a few snakes loose in his car. Do little stuff like that until he goes stark raving bonkers.
Oh yea no 3rd term. He is as useless as Blix. He has stopped zero non nuclear nations from becoming nuclear and it actually looks like he is helping Iran.
#2
Lol - if only WaPoo knew what Dubya has on them, lol! Wotta buncha twitters for being surprised and wotta buncha Luddites for not realizing they're penetrated (and in all the myriad ways that term can be employed, heh), as well.
WaPoo is still digital cage-liner - and only #2 to the NYT who's prolly jealous they didn't "scoop" 'em on this obvious piece of obvious "skeer" fluff.
Saddam Hussein was dead broke, the result of U.N. penalties. Or so it was thought. So where did the Iraqi president find the money to pursue missile technology from North Korea, air defence systems from Belarus and other prohibited military equipment. The CIA's top weapons inspector in Iraq said Saddam carried out much of that trade with proceeds from illegal oil sales to Syria, one of three Iraqi neighbours that bought oil from Baghdad in defiance of the United Nations. Trade with Syria, Jordan and Turkey was the biggest source of illicit funds for Saddam, more so than the much-maligned U.N. oil-for-food program, according to investigations of Saddam's finances. Though considered smuggling, most of the trade took place with the knowledge - and sometimes the tacit consent - of the United States and other nations.
With Republican-led congressional committees investigating allegations of oil-for-food corruption, some Democrats are pressing for answers about why the United States did little to stop the smuggling. The issue is part of a series of broader questions these lawmakers have about what US officials knew about Saddam's overall illicit finances. "I am determined to make some partisan political points see to it that our own government's failures and oversights or mistaken judgments and decisions should also be exposed," said Rep. Tom Lantos, a California Democrat.
Why don't you ask Bill and Al? They were in charge for quite a while ...
Some Republicans are promising to hold hearings on the matter next year. During the dozen years between the two Iraq wars, Saddam's oil sales were supposed to be limited to those under permitted the U.N. oil-for-program. From 1996 to 2003, the $60 billion program allowed Iraq to sell oil and use proceeds to buy food, medicine and other necessities. That program has come under scrutiny because of allegations that Saddam received kickbacks and bribed U.N. and foreign government officials. Besides the congressional inquiries, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has appointed former Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker to head an investigation.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 4:33:41 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The trivial smuggling with Jordan, a time-honored tradition, and Syria, their Ba'athist brothers, does not hold a candle to what the UNSCam OFF program amounted to. Compare the quantity of smuggled oil that can be ferried by truck across the desert (without notice) vs. the UN game... There aren't enough tanker trucks in the entire ME, lol - they would have to be bumber to bumper to both borders to compare to the 10-20% margins the OFF game offered on everything imported into Iraq. Oil is a very visible commodity - and the OFF scam was designed to solve that problem. Pfeh. Drop in the bucket, relatively speaking, and Lantos & Co know it. This is just Lantos and Dhimmidonk grandstanding, again.
#2
The trivial smuggling with Jordan, a time-honored tradition, and Syria, their Ba'athist brothers, does not hold a candle to what the UNSCam OFF program amounted to.
The last time I heard the numbers related to Paul Volcker's investigation, they were that the investigaton covers about $21 billion, of which about $15 billion is the value of the Iraqi oil smuggled to neighboring countries and about $5 billion is the value of the oil sold through the Oil-for-Food program.
Keep in mind that the $15 billion relates to a much longer period of time -- the entire period of the UN's economic sanctions. The $5 is limited only to the last four or so years of the UN sanctions, when the OFF program was established.
It was common knowledge that Iraq was smuggling oil to its neighbors despite the UN sanctions. The OFF program was an attempt to re-enforce the UN sanctions by removing the moral argument that the smuggling was justified by the lack of adequate food and medicine in Iraq.
It will probably be a very long time before the UN cooperates again with the USA's desire for economic sanctions on any country. The UN will basically say, go ahead and apply your own sanctions by yourself and with your friends, and leave the UN out of your effort.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 18:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
And the U.S. will say "go fund yourself" or something very close to that.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/12/2004 19:26 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Funny, that doesn't mesh with what I've read and seen reported since the early 1990's - i.e. value of oil smuggling in the $100M / year range - let's do some rough calculations:
a) Sanctions imposed 1991.
b) Iraq War March 2003
c) Sanction period: 2002 - 1991 = 11 years.
d) $15B / 11 = $1,363,636,363/yr
e) / $25 bbl = 54,545,454 bbls/yr smuggled*
f) x 42 gal/bbl = 2,290,909,091 gals/yr
g) / 365 = 6,276,463 gals/day
h) / 7500 gal tanker volume = 837 tanker loads/day**
i) x approx 18 ft tanker truck length = 15,064 ft
j) / 5280 ft/mile = line of tankers over 2.85 MILES long everyday for 11 years
* generous avg price/bbl of oil during sanctions period
**non-superhighway size I saw in normal use in SA
Nahhh, I don't buy it Mike - I think you have the numbers reversed, or, actually, much worse - Links. I'll buy it if you can prove it - with believable links - no questions asked. Otherwise, this was just a brain fart.
#5
...some Democrats are pressing for answers about why the United States did little to stop the smuggling.
Oh, gee, I don't know...ya suppose something about how the Dems, their media allies, the academic Left, the European Union and Saddam's water-carriers on the Security Council would not have allowed anything substantive to be done about it?
Posted by: Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) ||
12/12/2004 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I love the way liberals like Mikey try to minimize UNSCAM by saying it wasn't $21 billion, it was only $6 billion. That still makes it a huge scandal. And when are we going to learn how much went into Kofi's pocket? And Kojo, and Jacques, and Sevan's and Pooties's and on and on. It's obvious that these guys and half the State Department have been bought off by Saddam or the MK. Let it all out in public now! Stop the stonewall, Kofi. If Spitzer really wants to be President he should indict Kofi now.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/12/2004 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Re #4 (.com)
I think a lot of the oil was "smuggled out" through pipelines that were supposed to be shut down.
I heard those numbers on "The News Hour" in a discussion of the controversy. I had also heard them earlier on the "Charlie Rose Show" in an interview with Paul Volcker. On that occasion, though, I was distracted by some family matters and so missed some key details.
If I do see the numbers in a website, I certainly will provide the link.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 21:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Re #6 (Mrs. Davis) ... liberals like Mikey ....
My parents are still alive, and they have seven children. Out of the nine people in our family, I voted for Bush and the other eight voted for Kerry, very emphatically. All of them consider me to be a right-winger. Many here consider me to be a left-winger.
I suppose I have been well exposed to a wide range of political opinions.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 21:13 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Re #6 (Mrs. Davis) .... it was only $6 billion. That still makes it a huge scandal. And when are we going to learn how much went into Kofi's pocket? And Kojo, and Jacques, and Sevan's and Pooties's and on and on.
It's a huge scandal, but even the $5 billion related to the OFF Program is not all improperly accounted. Most of the money corresponds to oil that was sold for money that was used to buy food and medicine, as intended. Some percent (yet undetermined) of the $5 billion was diverted corruptly.
By the way, for many decades before the UN became involved in monitoring Iraq's oil trade, much of Iraq's oil earnings were diverted corruptly to Saddam Hussein and to his family and favorites. For all we know, such corruption was worse before the UN became involved than after the UN became involved.
And when are we going to learn how much went into Kofi's pocket?
I recently heard Senator Norman Coleman, the senator who has most prominently demand Kofi Annan's resignation, state in an interview that he has no evidence that Kofi Annan personally profited from the OFF program. (Senator Coleman also said in that interview that he wants to strengthen the UN, which is why he has asked Annan to resign.)
And Kojo, and Jacques, and Sevan's and Pooties's and on and on.
I believed Cotecna's published claim that its employment of Kojo Annan had nothing to do with the UN. I now understand that I was misled about that, and I am sorry if I subsequently misled others. It might still turn out that Kojo played practically no role in Cotecna's acquisition of the OFF contract, but I personally am not going to present Cotecna's or Kojo's arguments in the matter.
I have never had or expressed an opinion about Sevan, etc.
It's obvious that .... half the State Department have been bought off
Iraq is a corrupt society, like most other Third-World societies are corrupt societies. When Iraq sells oil, much of the payment is diverted to the ruling clique. These societies are very backward, but they are very clever about such corruption. Officials in the US State Department are not much of a match for this cleverness and so don't have to be paid off for the corruption to succeed.
Not too long ago, many US businesses participated in such corruption. When US businesses sold weapons systems to Saudi Arabia, Iran (during the Shah's regime), Iraq (during the Iran-Iraq War), and to many, many other such countries, then the US businesses participated in schemes to divert money to elites. It's an old problem, and it's a problem that is not limited to officials in organizations like the State Department or the UN.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#10
IOW, it once again occurred and was likely "known" during the Clinton administration but only was discovered during the Bush 2 admin., ergo its Dubya's and only Dubya's fault!? NO surprise here - the Failed Left and Clintonian Commies, as America's Party of Propriety, is still out to "justisfy" domestic/national Regulation, Governmentism, and Bureacratism.
THE Bush administration wants Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer to replace Mohamed ElBaradei as head of the UN nuclear watchdog agency, The Washington Post has reported. Washington believes the International Atomic Energy Agency chief is too soft on Iran's suspected nuclear program, the paper said, and is seeking candidates to replace him.
Its top choice is Mr Downer, but he so far has been unwilling to challenge ElBaradei. The deadline for submitting alternative candidates, December 31, is fast approaching. "Our original strategy was to get Alex Downer to throw his hat in the ring, but we couldn't," a US policy maker told the Post.
"Anyone in politics will tell you that you can't beat somebody with nobody, but we're going to try to disprove that."
Mr Downer recently hosted Mr ElBaradei at a conference on nuclear proliferation in Sydney.
The US wants the IAEA to report Iran to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions over what Washington says is a covert nuclear weapons program. But Mr ElBaradei says the "jury is still out" on whether Tehran's program is peaceful or not. The Egyptian diplomat, 62, also earned the ire of Washington by questioning US intelligence on Iraq.
The Bush administration opposes his winning a third term in 2005 as IAEA chief. The Post also reported that the Bush administration has listened in on phone calls between Mr ElBaradei and Iranian diplomats, seeking ammunition to oust him. "The intercepted calls have not produced any evidence of nefarious conduct by ElBaradei," the Post said, quoting three unnamed US officials who had read the transcripts.
"Some people think he sounds way too soft on the Iranians, but that's about it," one official was quoted as saying.
The official US position is that heads of international organisations should not serve more than two terms, as Mr ElBaradei will have done by next year. Washington has no clear candidate to replace him but is nevertheless "searching for material" to support its argument that he should step down, the Post said. "Anonymous accusations against ElBaradei made by US officials in recent weeks are part of an orchestrated campaign" to oust him, the paper said, quoting "several senior policymakers" who spoke on condition of anonymity.
In Canberra, a spokesman for Mr Downer later said the minister would not comment on the matter.
Posted by: God Save The World ||
12/12/2004 5:16:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, Downer's the candidate's _name_. I thought they meant something else.
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
12/12/2004 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
Eight alleged militants have been beaten up by authorities in a Malaysian detention camp for terror suspects, a day after a clash that left 20 people injured, their lawyer charged yesterday. Twelve inmates and eight wardens at the Kamunting detention center in northern Perak state were injured in a scuffle Wednesday after detainees tried to prevent a spot check which turned up a cache of home-made weapons, officials said. The search was conducted in a block occupied by 12 militants allegedly involved with the Al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) terror network. A day after that fracas, lawyer Edmund Bon said a group of 50 officers armed with shields and tear gas stormed another block occupied by 24 alleged JI members — including ex-army officer Yazid Sufaat who has alleged links to the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers who attacked New York and Washington. "At least eight detainees were beaten up. Yazid was handcuffed, spat at and forced to strip. His head and beard were shaved off," Bon said.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 3:12:33 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
OMG! his head and beeard were shaven off. Then his picture was taken with panties on his head. This is an out rage to our Islamic non-arabness we must protest.
Sounds like a new warden. He has decided that inmate made weapons and teh poession of contriband will not be tolerated and searches will commence. He also decided that he not the imates will take control of the prison.
In other words I am playing "tough shitski" on the worlds smallest violin.
The latest generation of missile technology currently being engineered by Iranian scientists will be able to reach the continental United States, former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. Dore Gold said Saturday.
Asked what Israel would do if Tehran began producing nuclear weapons, Gold told the Fox News Channel's Cal Thomas: "This is not just an Israeli problem. The missiles being developed in Iran have a range that goes well beyond Israel."
"Certainly they have the Shihab-3 missile, with a range of 1,300 kilometers, that can strike Israel," he said. "But they're developing the Shihab-4 for hitting Europe and a Shihab-5, with Russian missile technology, that can strike the Eastern Seaboard of the United States."
Gold called Iran's capacity to launch a nuclear attack on most of the Western world a "global problem [for] which European governments, the United States and Israel have to come up with a solution."
#1
"But theyâre developing the Shihab-4 for hitting Europe and a Shihab-5, with Russian missile technology, that can strike the Eastern Seaboard of the United States."
Gold called Iranâs capacity to launch a nuclear attack on most of the Western world a "global problem [for] which European governments, the United States and Israel have to come up with a solution."
Nothing that several dozen rounds of endless negotiations can't solve.
#2
And helping them out with their economic downturn.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/12/2004 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
One of their missiles might reach the U.S.
I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many of our missiles will reach Iran in return.
They'd better think long and hard about whether they really want to do this. It would be the last goddam thing the mullahs (and unfortunately a lot of other Iranians) would ever do.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/12/2004 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I doubt thinking will accomplish anything: they're probably still convinced the Great Satan is powerless to do anything about their ambitions.
At some point, we're gonna have to do something to drive the message home: Jimmy Carter isn't in charge here anymore.
Frankly, I think we shoulda done it on 9/12.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/12/2004 21:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Chirac and the EU wanted international credibility vv IRAN-IAEA and non-American involvement, so how is Chirac and the EU gonna respond to potens Iranian mushrooms over Euro-cities? Clearly Chirac, etal. badly miscalculated in thinking that helping Saddam move and hide his WMD caches in order to discredit America for Socialism/OWG meant FRANCE, etal. was NOT in any danger from Radical Islam. Chirac, like even Radical Islam, has to learn that EVERYONE AND ANYONE IS EXPENDABLE-POL DENIABLE SAVE FOR RUSSIA-CHINA AND COMMUNISM - HELPING DESTROY AND SUBORN AMERICA IS NOT GOING TO SAVE FRANCE, ETAL FROM FUTURE SOVIETIZATION, COMMUNIZATION, STALINIZATION, and ASIANIZATION! The International Lefts has NOT given up on Mackinder's "World Island" concept by a long long LONG SHOT.
Senior Shiite cleric Sayyed Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah criticized political bickering taking place in the country and called for openness leading towards a future that would unify the Lebanese people and abolish sectarianism. "Lebanon is drowning in political bickering that could drift away from the objective focus in studying things rationally ... and ethically in a way that would not harm the system of values in bickering and confrontation," said Fadlallah during Friday prayers.
Fadlallah was referring to the ongoing row between Justice Minister Adnan Addoum and Chouf MP Walid Jumblatt, which broke out after Addoum said last week he would summon Chouf MP Marwan Hamade for questioning after Hamade said that the security apparatus had concealed evidence about the Oct. 1 assassination attempt on his life. Fadlallah said any criticism should be constructive. He denounced sectarianism, saying it "took people into dark tunnels and handed them over to occupation."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 4:01:24 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Iran has been accused of planning an Al Qaida attack on a major oil facility in Saudi Arabia. Egyptian officials said Iran has helped plan and finance attacks on both Egypt and Saudi Arabia over the last year. They said an Iranian diplomat planned the strike on a petrochemical facility in Yanbu, Saudi Arabia in May 2004. The attack resulted in the killing of five Western engineers. The Iranian diplomat has escaped Egypt but would be tried in absentia. Officials said the diplomat employed an Egyptian national who has been captured and would be charged with espionage and terrorist offenses. Egyptian public prosecutor Maher Abdul Wahed identified the Iranian diplomat as Mohammad Reza Hosseindoust. Abdul Wahed said Hosseindoust paid the Egyptian detainee, identified as Mohammed Eid Mohammed Dabbous, who supplied information that facilitated the attack on Yanbu.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 3:24:43 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ooooh! This could put the kabosh on that Muslim First bullshit we saw recently with CP Abdullah making nummy-numm sounds with the Mad Mullahs, heh.
#3
I'm sure that the latest outburst of Saudi/Iranian brotherly love⢠will be relatively short lived. Could there also be the possibility that depending upon the group, Iran could be speaking with a number of voices?
Posted by: Alaska Paul In Nikolaevsk, Alaska ||
12/12/2004 16:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
/warms up the mustache curs-o-matic, just in case.
The U.S. Defense Department was said to have completed simulated war games to determine the feasibility of destroying Iran's nuclear weapons program. The Atlantic Monthly magazine reported in its latest issue that the Pentagon held simulations of a U.S. military strike on Iranian bases and nuclear facilities. The magazine said the recent war games also included a ground invasion of Iran. The simulation envisioned a three-phase war against the Islamic republic. The first phase was composed of air strikes against bases of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, believed to control Iran's nuclear and missile programs. U.S. intelligence sources were quoted as saying that such a strike would require one day and comprised the easiest part of any military campaign.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 3:14:20 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Is this the same simulation posted here on RB a few weeks ago in which the reporter claimed the "Blue Ribbon Panel" said such an attack was not feasible?
#2
I thought that the US would attack Iran this past Nov. Now I believe it will happen the first of March. The Iraqi elections will be over,Ramadan will be over,the more Repub Congress will be seated,the nomination fights should be over and in Feb.,Pres.Bush is visiting Europe,meeting individual leaders as well as group meets,giving him chance to sell the coming attack.
Posted by: Stephen ||
12/12/2004 18:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Rantbugers, you dont know even half of it.
I do not think we will strike preemptively. The Iranians will give us ample overt cause to launch retailitory and punitive strikes.
These raids would cripple the IRG first, then the Mullah's C3I systems, then destroy any threats in the border regions. The results - and remaining campaign - are left as an exercise to the reader.
I doubt this will be "soon", givne the relative advantages and disadvantages over there. But it will eventually happen. The Mullahs cannot tolerate a successful secular (or even Islamic-leaning) democracy next door in Iraq controlling all the holy Shia sites (which Iranians woudl see the prosperity yearly when they do thier pilgrammages). Because if they do, the Iranian middle and lower classes will eventually revolt and hang the Black Turban fitna-inspiring criminals from the lamp posts by their intestines.
#4
It is important to look at any ground incursion as being just that: no effort to *hold* terrain, just to wipe out their nuclear resources and leave, significantly degrading their military, if it resists, in the process. THE DEBATE will be a comparison with Gulf War I, which left Saddam in power, and whether the US can afford to leave the Mullahs in place. Unfortunately, I do not think that we have the resources to force a regime change.
#5
Too bad is was just similated. Better luck next time.
the Iranian middle and lower classes will eventually revolt and hang the Black Turban fitna-inspiring criminals from the lamp posts by their intestines
Sounds messy. Why expose the good Iranian people to bloodborne diseases and mullah-cooties?
I'll be glad to pay for a good supply of rope. Or piano wire. Their choice.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/12/2004 19:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The mullahs would not remain in charge if they and enough of their thugs were dead. Easier to decapitate the government and cut a deal with whomever is left than screw around with the nukes.
But yes, this certainly sounds like a rehash of the Antlantic thing from last month. I guess MENL depends on snail mail.
#7
Why does anyone think attacking the IGRC, known nuke facilities, and regime leadership is enough? The Iranians can close the Persian Gulf at any time. What would be the worldwide effect of sinking a dozen supertankers in the Straits of Hormuz? How many years would it take to clear the blockage?
Posted by: ed ||
12/12/2004 21:23 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Ed - the Iranian strength is not in the gulf, given 20 minutes with the US Navy. The mullahs strength is with the indoctrinated fools who have no formal education, and responsibilities only to enforce th emullah's wishes. I think a cut in the C3 system would make these fools the first casualties in a deserved civil war
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2004 21:53 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Rantbugers, you dont know even half of it.
I do not think we will strike preemptively. The Iranians will give us ample overt cause to launch retailitory and punitive strikes.
These raids would cripple the IRG first, then the Mullah's C3I systems, then destroy any threats in the border regions. The results - and remaining campaign - are left as an exercise to the reader.
I doubt this will be "soon", givne the relative advantages and disadvantages over there. But it will eventually happen. The Mullahs cannot tolerate a successful secular (or even Islamic-leaning) democracy next door in Iraq controlling all the holy Shia sites (which Iranians woudl see the prosperity yearly when they do thier pilgrammages). Because if they do, the Iranian middle and lower classes will eventually revolt and hang the Black Turban fitna-inspiring criminals from the lamp posts by their intestines.
I do not think we will strike preemptively. The Iranians will give us ample overt cause to launch retailitory and punitive strikes.
These raids would cripple the IRG first, then the Mullah's C3I systems, then destroy any threats in the border regions. The results - and remaining campaign - are left as an exercise to the reader.
I doubt this will be "soon", givne the relative advantages and disadvantages over there. But it will eventually happen. The Mullahs cannot tolerate a successful secular (or even Islamic-leaning) democracy next door in Iraq controlling all the holy Shia sites (which Iranians woudl see the prosperity yearly when they do thier pilgrammages). Because if they do, the Iranian middle and lower classes will eventually revolt and hang the Black Turban fitna-inspiring criminals from the lamp posts by their intestines.
Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani warned on Sunday that the Islamic state would quit key talks with the European Union on its nuclear program if it was clear no progress was being made.
That tells me he thinks he's negotiating from a position of strength...
Iran-EU nuke talks, set to begin in Brussels tomorrow, are aimed at reaching an agreement with Iran's to halt all its uranium enrichment-related activities that have stirred the international community's fears that the Islamic republic was seeking to develop nuclear weapons. The negotiations will focus on the implementation of the Paris Agreement, reached between Tehran and the EU on Nov. 7, in which the European big three promised a wholesale of offers on trade and nuclear technology in return for Iran's promise to fully suspend its uranium enrichment activities. "We will continue the negotiations for as long as they are progressing," Mr. Rowhani told the official news agency IRNA before he leaves for the Brussels where the talks will be held. "If at any point that our negotiations are not progressing, we will stop them. The end of these three months of negotiations will indicate to us which point we have reached," added Mr. Rowhani.
"We've reached an 'agreement.' The next step will be to hold talks on the implementation of the 'agreement.' If in this phase of the talks on the 'agreement' the other side doesn't agree to preface each verb in the document with the word 'not', then we simply won't keep the 'agreement,' even though we've already 'agreed.' Simple, huh?"
On the other hand, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid-Reza Asefi said that working groups including officials from Iran and the EU would be formed by next week and positive steps would be taken to settle the remaining issues after the Brussels meeting. "Iran and the three European countries (Britain, France and Germany) are going to set the framework for Iran's future nuclear activities during the talks in Brussels on Monday," Asefi said. Iran agreed on the suspension on Nov. 22 accordingly, and the International Atomic Energy Agency on Nov. 29 said it won't refer Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council and urged Iran and the EU to implement the Paris agreement. The United States claims that Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons, however, Tehran has repetitively rejected those claims, saying that its nuclear program is only used for peaceful purposes. Mr. Rowhani is to meet the British, French and German foreign ministers on Monday in a steering committee conference on the sidelines of an EU ministerial gathering.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 12:06:32 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Can we get a suprise meter here? I think mine is broken -- its not registering anything....
#2
Sometimes a tap on the Suprise Meter will move it to its proper position. More rope-a-dope on the EU-3.
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/12/2004 15:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This is beyond farce. It's obvious now that the whole thing is a sham designed to maintain the illusion that the EU Dwarves are concerned with preventing Iran from going nuclear. In reality, they're on Iran's side. The mutual objective is to contain the US, not Iran.
#4
Paging Mike Sylwester. So, how does this rate in terms of effective progress by Europe in defusing the Iranian situation?
That Iran even presumes to dictate the terms of negotiation sends a resounding message of scorn and disregard for Europe's own demands or threats of economic sanctions.
The mullahs are continuing their development of atomic weapons and Europe deludes itself regarding their ability to halt it. The situation literally demands raising the question of military intervention, yet Europe is content to fiddle while Rome burns.
All that's missing to date are European cries protesting American "unilateralism" when we are finally obliged to intervene and catastrophically disassemble Iran's entire nuclear program.
#6
Again, the US should spell out publicly that any use of nuclear weapons by Iran or "stateless" terrorists against any target in the world except Europe will result in a genocidal US response against NK and Iran.
Using nukes against Europe, however, well, we'll just leave that up to a UN resolution to prevent/retaliate against.
Let the Europeans really put their lives behind these paper aggreements they've been unrolling in the bathroom.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
12/12/2004 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Zenster, you ignorant slut,
It is not surprising that the nuance of the Iranian position has escaped a provincial like you. Iran is clearly demonstrating the weaknesses of the European position as a negotiating ploy to disguise their own desperate economic weakness. Iran will not be able to survive without the contributions the economic powerhouses of Europe will make to its long awaited recovery, Delaying the Iranian announcement of having produced a nuclear weapon by several months is well worth the economic sacrifice the E3 will make to preserve peace in out time.
I hope your tiny American mind now has a glimmer of the sublimity of the E3 and Iranian negotiating positions. Perhaps in time you will be able to ascend such heights of intellectual accomplishment when purchasing a fine European motor vehicle.
Mikey
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/12/2004 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I wonder how long we're going to let this pathetic farce play out, and what event will put an end to it-- the nuking of Tel Aviv? San Francisco?
I have zero faith-- absolutely, utterly NONE-- in the efficacy of negotiations with the Iranians. I doubt the threat of economic sanctions will sway them, or the imposition of sanctions, or the threat of military force.
The only thing that will deter them is being dead.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
12/12/2004 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#1
It is nothing short of remarkable how Europe continues to expect that Iran will operate in good faith on this issue. The Iranian mullahs consistently have lied through their teeth about anything and everything to do with their nuclear program. They have already admitted to procuring some of their technology on the black market. Isn't this admission of clandestine activity sufficient indication that all may not be exactly what it seems in Iran?
In a number of very telling ways, this all boils down to one central issue, namely, Bad Faith.
Europe has failed to assert itself against Iran due to overriding trade concerns and petrochemical supply. This conflict of interest has caused a distinct amount of bad faith interaction between our ostensible allies and American diplomatic interests. Furthermore, Europe continues to be delusional in expecting that Iran will cooperate constructively with respect to their nuclear program. Confronted with clear evidence of Iranian duplicity, Europe pretends that their strategic goals can be attained without clearly delineating punitive measures that Iran must face for noncompliance.
Such nuanced attempts to secure cooperation from a clearly underhanded and hostile entity is the height of stupidity. To believe that any progress is possible without having first made perfectly clear that alternative forms of intervention are just as easily on the table effectively neuters Europe's attempts at mediating this crisis. Be aware that it is not merely European complaisance that is encouraging this dangerous turn of events.
Iran's mullahs physically embody everything that is wrong with Islamism. Be it their long standing war by terrorist proxy against Israel through Hizbullah, the willful violation of international soil in the 1979 embassy takeover, massive human rights abuses or intentionally destabilizing regional security in the name of their religious goals. Again, we are confronted with Bad Faith. In this case, it takes the form of a religion that is completely warped out of recognizable shape by hatred and religious intolerance. Such malign intent is used to justify any and all forms of deceit and treachery.
It is not just in Iran that Islam is being transmuted into a Bad Faith. However, Iran serves as an adequate example and continues to justify all expectations of hostile intent upon their part. At some point, other Islamic countries will need to take a long hard look at how Iran is quite successfully besmirching the name of Islam to all and sundry. The lackluster condemnation of Iran's constant lies by surrounding Arab nations creates nothing but a perception of solidarity with the mullahs.
Such unspoken alignment casts all other putative gestures at fighting terrorism in an extremely dubious light. Even more moderate Arab cultures nonetheless demonstrate Bad Faith by their silent or tacit support for Iran. For them to simultaneously lay claim to religious persecution in the war on terrorism while engaging in this subterfuge is a clear demonstration of Bad Faith. That such dissembling is so frequently justified by the dictates of religious doctrine permanently erodes any legitimacy of their belief structure.
Soon enough, this sort of constant perfidy and sanctimonious abuse of religious freedom or tolerance will come to brand Islam permanently as an ultimately Bad Faith.
#4
Iran is clearly on the highway to hell.
The Europeans care about nothing but their lavish
pensions and the good life and will let nothing
distract them from their lemming ways.
They will gladly sell theirs son's heritage for todays "pot of schmaltz". Unfortunately for the 3E, neither the US nor Israel are fooled by the Mullah's evasive maneuvers.
Depending on the Iraqi situation, I expect some US heavy action within less then a year. I hope the US acts before we (Israel) are forced to act out of desperation.
If Israel is forced to act, it will most probably not be through any diplomatic channel (unless you consider the use of bunker-busters as a sort of extreme diplomacy).
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/12/2004 8:32 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Re #1 (Zenster)
I think you're too harsh and premature with your criticism. Europe has reacted to Iran's nuclear program, and Europe's reaction has caused good results so far. You are furious about your own certainty that eventually in the future Europe will yield and Iran will advance in this dispute.
Iran's economy is in a very bad state. Unemployment is very high. Large enterprises are going bankrupt. In general, Iran's economy is stagnant or even declining. In these circumstances, Europe's threats to restrict trade with Iran over this issue have exerted pressure on Iran quite effectively. I have the impression that Europe is firmly committed to staying its course on this issue.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 9:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Europe's reaction has caused good results so far
show me one friggin good result, UN-boy. Time bought to create a weapon to kill Joooos and Americans? We know where you stand, asshole
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2004 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Iran's economy is in a very bad state. Unemployment is very high. Large enterprises are going bankrupt. In general, Iran's economy is stagnant or even declining. In these circumstances, Europe's threats to restrict trade with Iran over this issue have exerted pressure on Iran quite effectively. I have the impression that Europe is firmly committed to staying its course on this issue.
If their economy is in such a bad state, where is any European condemnation of Iran's significant human rights violations? That the mullahs cheerfully divert their petrodollar wealth (handily supplied by Europe) towards building atomic weapons instead of feeding or employing their own people is essentially a war crime.
Or are you willing to argue that Iran is not actually attempting to build nuclear weapons? If you are not, do you perceive even the least difference between Iran's bait-and-switch stalling tactics and those routinely used by North Korea? Do you deny that both countries are essentially building atomic weapons out of the bones and blood of their citizens?
If you concede that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, then Europe's nuanced negotiating posture is just that, a pose, and a spineless one at that. To believe that negotiations with religious fanatics, which are not backed up by the explicit threat of military intervention, have the least chance of success is flat-out delusional.
Is this the course you suggest that Europe should stay? One of totally ineffective persuasion dedicated to peaceful solutions which their adversary (yes, adversary) has ZERO intention of fulfilling? From all appearances, the only course that Europe is "staying" involves a headlong rush towards becoming Eurabia.
#8
If their economy is in such a bad state, where is any European condemnation of Iran's significant human rights violations?
Is this close enough for you? I know it's not exactly what you want, but I'm sure the Europeans have condemned Iranian human rights violations a zillion times.
That the mullahs cheerfully divert their petrodollar wealth (handily supplied by Europe) towards building atomic weapons instead of feeding or employing their own people is essentially a war crime.
No, it isn't.
Or are you willing to argue that Iran is not actually attempting to build nuclear weapons?
Yes, I think Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons.
Do you deny that both countries (Iran and North Korea) are essentially building atomic weapons out of the bones and blood of their citizens?
I think Iran and North Korea are building atomic weapons at great and wasteful expense to their citizens.
If you concede that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons, then Europe's nuanced negotiating posture is just that, a pose, and a spineless one at that.
That's a non sequitur. That's your own logic, which is faulty. Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise, as you seem to believe.
To believe that negotiations with religious fanatics, which are not backed up by the explicit threat of military intervention, have the least chance of success is flat-out delusional.
These negotiations are backed up by the explicit threat of economic sanctions. They have some chance of success, if Europe persists and if Iran decides that it needs trade with Europe more than it needs nuclear weapons right now.
Success isn't guaranteed. Success isn't guaranteed also if you back up the negotiations with explicit threats of military intervention.
I expect that Europe will persist on this issue because Europe very much wants to prove to the USA that it's able to succeed with its own non-military methods, and because Europe is strongly opposed to nuclear proliferation.
I expect that Iran might eventually yield, because Iran needs trade with Europe more than it needs nuclear weapons.
Time will tell.
From all appearances, the only course that Europe is "staying" involves a headlong rush towards becoming Eurabia.
I don't think so.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
You had to leave yesterday so I'll repost in the spirt of Sunday.
Mike what would be the best way to create a more effective and vital UN? Would more money help? Or would a deep seated conviction be better? Do you think losing the powder puff blue would help? Or is the tradition to strong. Let's talk silver patterns now, I am fond of Stratevari, should the UN cafeteria settle on one or spread out the patterns in hope of spreading good cheer? Do you think UN licesne plates are a good thing Mike? Should I be allowed to buy one?
I'll be around till 3:15 and then back again as necessary.
#11
The nuclear non-proliferation regime is broken and arguably always has been. The sanctions available under the current international regime are not sufficient to stop a state that wants the bomb (and has the resources) getting it. Iran wants the bomb and will get it, unless and until someone is prepared to go further in stopping in them. Economic santions won't work unless they are backed up with military force and that won't happen unless one or more states decides to take the matter into its own hands and Iran gives them a pretext. I don't think Israel has the wherewithal, and baring something totally unexpected from Russia, this means either the USA takes military action against Iran or they get the bomb.
#12
I think Iran and North Korea are building atomic weapons at great and wasteful expense to their citizens.
Your overly polite assessment does not quite ring true. The starvation in North Korea and general poverty in both Iran and North Korea are a direct and intentional result of their respective governments' obsession with acquiring nuclear weapons.
That people must die because their own government refuses to feed them and instead funds extravagant weapons programs, is a form of intentional slaughter. Since it is done in the name military might, I equate it with a war crime against their own people. Call it a crime against humanity, if you wish. The upshot remains the same.
Iran and North Korea are murdering untold thousands of their citizens through a combination of malign neglect for the common weal and a willingness to risk their country's economic or strategic security. This is done in the name of pursuing a false sense of military ascendancy and is nothing more than tyrannical despotism.
I expect that Iran might eventually yield, because Iran needs trade with Europe more than it needs nuclear weapons.
Your assesment ignores the glaring fact that Iran has already made public pronouncements regarding how pursuit of nuclear technology is a religious duty, right alongside the annihilation of Israel. What sort of economic deterrent is going to avert such fanaticism? How is Europe able to overlook Iran's violent hostility towards its neighbors?
Throughout history, Europe's style of appeasement has never proved functional against such maniacs. Delayed application of military might in suppressing such virulent ambitions has repeatedly cost the lives of untold MILLIONS.
Europe stood idly by while millions died before, and they are once again engaging in diplomatic dilettantism while the danger surrounding them increases. Their negotiating track record is abysmal and shows ZERO promise of averting, or even stalling, Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Given Europe's support for the Intifada and Hamas, it is difficult to avoid the perception that an undercurrent of anti-Semitism pervades their overly friendly tack with Iran. I'd love to be wrong about that, but unless Europe forcefully asserts itself in its dealing with Iran's hostility towards Israel, then they are complicit in seeking the Jewish state's demise.
There is no way to deal economically with an entity that sponsors terrorism whilst simultaneously deluding oneself that sanctions will have any positive effect. When dealing with those who resort to duplicity and deceit, one must do so from a position of strength or simply accept defeat as a given. Europe is negotiating itself into oblivion and endangering both the entire Middle East and America at the same exact time. This is not acceptable.
#13
As the famed Dandy Don Meredith once said, "if wishes and wants were candy and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas."
Posted by: Capt America ||
12/12/2004 15:16 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Re #12 (Zenster): The starvation in North Korea and general poverty in both Iran and North Korea are a direct and intentional result of their respective governments' obsession with acquiring nuclear weapons. That people must die because their own government refuses to feed them and instead funds extravagant weapons programs, is a form of intentional slaughter. Since it is done in the name military might, I equate it with a war crime against their own people.
That's very loose logic. You need to be more careful about assigning intention and about assigning definitions.
I know it's fun to vent your emotions. If you want to convince people who aren't already convinced, though, you will need to argue more logically.
... Iran has already made public pronouncements regarding how pursuit of nuclear technology is a religious duty .... What sort of economic deterrent is going to avert such fanaticism?
Iran has already yielded quite a bit because of Europe's economic threats.
If Iran is so impossibly fanatic, then why do you insist that military threats would make any difference?
Throughout history, Europe's style of appeasement has never proved functional against such maniacs.
A couple weeks ago, we had a thread that discussed Nevile Chamberlain, who applied the policy that he himself called "appeasement." I pointed out that he "appeased" Hitler and that he also drew some lines that Hitler could not cross. Hitler crossed the line anyway, then Chamberlain declared war, to Hitler's great surprise.
If Iran fails to comply with the lines that Europe is drawing on this issue, then Iran might be very surprised to find out that Europe indeed imposes economic sanctions very decisively.
I think something similar might happen in this situation. Time will tell.
Europe stood idly by while millions died
The United Kingdom and France declared war on Germany. Let's not get into an argument about the "...while millions died" part, because that has lots of complications. The essential point here is that the UK and France "appeased" Germany, and then when Germany went too far, then those "appeasing Europeans" declared war.
In the case of Iran's nuclear weapons, Europe is not threatening war, but rather economic sanctions. So far, Europe has been rather firm in its stance, and I expect that Europe will persist. If Iran crosses the lines, then Europe indeed will impose economic sanctions.
Given Europe's support for the Intifada and Hamas
I don't share your impression that Europe supports the Intifada and Hamas.
Europe is negotiating itself into oblivion and endangering both the entire Middle East and America at the same exact time. This is not acceptable.
Apparently it's not acceptable with you. Europe is, however, helping to move Iran in the right direction, away from its nuclear-weapons program.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Here's the acid test for our European "allies": tell us, please, which is a preferable outcome in your view,
A) a nuclear Iran which does substantial trade with Europe and which menaces Israel and the new Iraqi government, or
B) a non-nuclear Iran boxed in by aggressive US military pressure including sanctions and a blockade?
Is there really any doubt which outcome the Euro Dwarves prefer? If so, then why continue the pretense that they're "negotiating" with Iran?
#16
What do you think, Mike S? Do you truly believe that the Europeans would support, under any reasonable scenario, the application of any kind of meaningful pressure on the Iranians in order to prevent their getting nukes?
#17
Re #9 (Shipman) Mike what would be the best way to create a more effective and vital UN? ....
I did read your comment the other day, but after midnight and too late to respond then.
I don't have a simple solution to the UN's problems or to the world's problems.
I don't blame the world's problems on the UN. When I see an extremely difficult problem (e.g. Palestine, Darfur, Rwanda), I don't reflexively blame the UN, as so many people here do.
The UN is a very inclusive organization, which includes good and bad states, good and bad societies, good and bad people -- and all those inbetween. We the good can rage and complain about the bad. We the good can rage and complain that they the bad are dragging us down. I think, though, that we the good are also pulling the bad up.
I think the USA is the most advanced country and society in the world. The other countries trail us by decades and centuries. Some other countries are even moving backward.
So, we should be patient. We should keep trying. We should continue to participate in the UN (which we the USA basically created) with the resigned understanding that we are making only very, very slow progress -- and that sometimes we are even moving one step backward and two steps forward.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 15:46 Comments ||
Top||
#18
That's very loose logic. You need to be more careful about assigning intention and about assigning definitions.
In the case of North Korea, at least, it's not loose logic. It's the result of a deliberate and publicly stated policy to keep the country out of the global economic system. The result is that the only income for North Korea (beyond aid, which they demand brazenly) is the development and sale of weaponry and nuclear technology.
The starvation in that country AND the nuclear proliferation are directly choices by the leadership.
#19
So, we should be patient. We should keep trying.
Getting back to the Iranian nightmare, we don't have much time left. Which do you think the Three Dwarves prefer, Mike? Containment of Iran by an aggressive US, or containment of the US in the Persian Gulf via new EU-Iran links and influence?
... which is a preferable outcome in your view, A) a nuclear Iran which does substantial trade with Europe and which menaces Israel and the new Iraqi government, or B) a non-nuclear Iran boxed in by aggressive US military pressure including sanctions and a blockade?
I don't prefer A at all. If Europe's economic pressure succeeds in moving Iran away from its nuclear-weapons program, then I would be happy about that.
I don't think the USA will exert any more military pressure on Iran than it has been doing for the past quarter century. President Bush isn't going to attack Iran any more than Europe is going to attack Iran.
Do you truly believe that the Europeans would support .... any kind of meaningful pressure on the Iranians in order to prevent their getting nukes?
Europe's threat of economic sanctions is meaningful pressure, in my opinion, because I think Europe actually would impose them and because I think they would be devastating to Iran's economy.
I don't think Europe would support US military action against Iran until the economic sanctions are imposed and fail. But that's also why I think that Europe really would impose the economic sanctions. Europe perceives that Europe itself must put up or shut up this time on this issue.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 16:01 Comments ||
Top||
#21
Some other countries are even moving backward.
So, we should be patient.
Sometimes patience is not a virtue. Patiently sitting on some railroad tracks is essentially a form of suicide.
Patiently hoping for reform in countries that are actively regressing into barbarism (even whilst they seek the most modern weapons), goes beyond stupid.
We are not obliged to be patient with those who express open hostility towards us and then go about acquiring the weapons to carry out that selfsame aggression. Confronted with tyrants who seek our demise, a most impatient attitude is required instead.
The world has shown Iran endless patience and its reward is the sponsorship of terrorism, violation of international soil, human rights abuses, institutionalized misogyny, vicious repression of political dissidents, institutionalized anti-Semitism and government-sanctioned religious intolerance. In addition, we are now confronted with their destabilization of the entire Middle East and the threat of nuclear war.
Pray tell how such a retrogressive regime has anything to contribute towards this planet's progress in the third millenium? Some make this world a better place by their arrival, others by their departure.
The Iranian mullahs cannot exit the global scene quickly enough. Furthermore, I vote that they be given every assistance in their departure, from their governmental positions and even off of this mortal coil.
#22
If Iran is so impossibly fanatic, then why do you insist that military threats would make any difference?
At this point in time, self-preservation is the only instinct that has the remotest chance of overriding the mullahs quest for atomic weapons. The threat of military intervention also makes clear that continued pursuit of nuclear capability is not on the table in any way, shape or form. Not even for use in electrical power generation.
This is what Iran ignores, Europe fails to recognize the need for and, yet, remains a critical component for neutralizing the Islamists dreams of military ascendancy in the Middle East region. It is absolutely impossible to ignore or deny that Iran's gaining possesion of nuclear weapons quite possibly would represent the most dire strategic blunder of this entire new century.
#23
Mike S, my problem with the UN (and I have been a critic for a very long time) is not that international cooperation to solve problems is not a good thing - It is manifestly an excellent thing. Nor is it that the UN frequently fails. It is trying to solve hard problems and failure is to be expected. My problem with the UN is its an ossified bureacracy incapable of doing anything and that's not the UN's fault. It is the inevitable end state of any organization that is not subject to a competetative market or under the control of elected officials. The UN is broken and is incapable of fixing itself. We have no alternative except to get rid of it and start again. Its happened once already (with the Leaugue of Nations). There is no reason why we can't have a third attempt at an international order that works.
#24
Mike, the mullahs don't give a damn about the economic health of their nation. If they did, they would not personally have looted it as they have done, brazenly and rapaciously, for the last two decades. The mullahs like all authoritarians care solely about preserving and extending their power. Unless your EU sanctions-- which I don't believe for a second the Dwarves have the slightest intention of ever imposing-- are accompanied by a wide-ranging program of political destabilization and support for indigenous democratic forces, they will have no effect on the mullahs' calculations.
I seriously doubt that the Dwarves are in favor of democracy promotion and mullah destabilization in Iran. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.
#25
Re #22 (Zenster) At this point in time, self-preservation is the only instinct that has the remotest chance of overriding the mullahs quest for atomic weapons. The threat of military intervention also makes clear that continued pursuit of nuclear capability is not on the table in any way, shape or form. ...
So far, the current Bush Administration doesn't seem to share your panic, fury and resolve about Iran's nuclear-weapons program. The Bush Administration is responding primarily through a combination of diplomatic and economic means, applied firmly and patiently along with Europe.
The only practical difference between the USA's response and Europe's response is that the USA has little economic leverage, because we ceased our trade with Iran 25 years ago. Europe can still exert economic leverage and so is exerting it.
Your idea that Europe is somehow preventing the USA from a real intention to intervene militarily in Iran to stop Iran's nuclear-weapons program is just your own personal fantasy. The USA isn't going to intervene militarily any more than Europe is going to intervene militarily.
The USA as a government recognizes the limits of its options in this situation, even if you yourself don't.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 16:33 Comments ||
Top||
#26
Sometimes people are willfully dense.
Dubya is doing what he should do: Check The Boxes.
When all the boxes have been checked (he's played the multi-culti pissant toothless apologist game out to it's typically ineffectual conclusion) and the Mad Mullahs still pursue the course of acquiring missiles, guidance, and nuke warheads, then we shall see, won't we? Indeed, time will tell.
#28
Mike S, the USA will act militarily against Iran. However, a number of things have to happen first. One of them is the Euro/UN efforts to stop Iran getting the bomb have provably failed.
#29
Re #24 (lex): the mullahs don't give a damn about the economic health of their nation.
Demonizing your opponents is lots of fun, but you're just preaching to the choir.
I can do even better. I say the mullahs torture little children to death and then drink their blood. I say the mullahs intend to kill everyone in the entire world in order to protect their own power. So, just because I say so, are you convinced?
Unless your EU sanctions .... are accompanied by a wide-ranging program of political destabilization and support for indigenous democratic forces, they will have no effect on the mullahs' calculations.
Even if EU sanctions were indeed accompanied by such programs, they might have no effect on the mullahs' calculations. Some dictators are maniacs who won't respond to reason or threats.
Chamberlain told Hitler that if Hitler invaded Poland, then Chamberlain would declare war on Hitler. Nevertheless, Hitler invaded Poland, and Chamberlain declared war on Hitler. The threat of military war on Hitler didn't have any more effect on Hitler in 1939 than a threat of military war would have on the mullahs in 2004.
What's important right now in this situation is that Europe seems to be drawing some strict lines and telling Iran not to cross them. Iran might indeed cross those lines, but if so, then I think Europe will impose economic sanctions that will hurt Iran very seriously. The sanctions would hurt Europe too, but I think Europe will impose the sanctions anyway.
Maybe I'm wrong about that. It sure wouldn't be the first time I've been wrong. Maybe you're wrong that threats of military intervention would be any more effective.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 17:00 Comments ||
Top||
#30
Mike, the mullahs are kleptocrats on a grand scale and theocrats second. Nowhere in their hierarchy of concerns are to be found issues like "expand economic opportunity" or "make Iran a first rate technology and export-oriented economic power." They couldn't care less about sanctions beyond what those might signify for their sense of national pride. Ie, a minor irritant, nothing more. Again, if they truly cared about economic progress they would not have compiled a two-decade long record of spectacular theft and mismanagement.
#31
The only practical difference between the USA's response and Europe's response is that the USA has little economic leverage, because we ceased our trade with Iran 25 years ago. Europe can still exert economic leverage and so is exerting it.
I rather suspect that Europe's desire for Iran's oil is the real economic pressure here -- and it's not the Europeans who are applying it.
#32
Re #23 (phil-b): The UN is broken and is incapable of fixing itself. We have no alternative except to get rid of it and start again.
That's easier said than done. Few real decision-makers prefer to destroy entire institutions and start again. They prefer to reform the institutions that are established.
Write your idea on a poster and walk around Washington DC for a while and see how many real politicians join your parade. Tell everyone that you think that the destruction of the League of Nations is a good example of how this kind of proposal has worked in the past.
I agree with you that the UN is a bureaucratic, disappointing organization that is incapable of solving many of the world's problems and that the UN provides an annoying public voice to dictatorial governments and to backward societies.
So, what else is new? Those problems are inevitable in any organization like the UN. Even if you create some alternative and restrict its membership to modern democratic countries, you will soon be infuriated almost as much by that restricted membership and its inability to act.
The UN is often useful to the USA, so there continues to be a strong political consensus that the USA should continue to participate in the UN. When Iraq invaded Kuwait, the UN provided strong, united, world-wide support for the USA to throw Iraq out of Kuwait. In the following years the UN imposed economic sanctions on Iraq. The sanctions weren't perfect, but they were pretty good.
The UN tries to enforce a policy of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The attempt has been partially successful, partially unsuccessful. Right now, in particular, the UN is trying to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
We might try to improve the UN's effectiveness in that effort, or we might get rid of the UN and start over. I think the first option is better.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 17:34 Comments ||
Top||
#33
Re #25 (.com) ... and the Mad Mullahs still pursue the course of acquiring missiles, guidance, and nuke warheads, then we shall see, won't we?
Yes. Maybe President Bush will strike Iran militarily. Maybe he won't. Maybe Europe will impose economic sanctions. Maybe Europe won't.
I'm perhaps just as skeptical that Bush will strike Iran militarily as you might be skeptical that Europe will impose economic sanctions.
We might agree fully, though, that Iran might not yield to either threat and that therefore Iran might (or might not) suffer consequences.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 17:40 Comments ||
Top||
#34
So far, the current Bush Administration doesn't seem to share your panic, fury and resolve about Iran's nuclear-weapons program. The Bush Administration is responding primarily through a combination of diplomatic and economic means, applied firmly and patiently along with Europe.
So, where in that "combination of diplomatic and economic means" do you place America's sale of all those bunker busting bombs to Israel?
Do you contend that this sale wasn't an overt signal to Iran of how we were willing to equip their most deadly foe (and declared target of aggression) with non-nuclear weapons capable of neutralizing their weapons program? Are you able to maintain that this was not a clear signal of looming military intervention, either by proxy or direct action?
Finally, Mike, you fully admit that Iran is pursuing atomic weapons, yet steadfastly maintain that economic sanctions are a viable method of forestalling that same capability. It is a diplomatic given that Iran's own declarations are consistently devoid of truth.
How is it then, that you can have the remotest confidence that Europe's economic sanctions will have sufficient effect so as to halt Iran's acquisition of these weapons?
At present, our world has no idea of exactly how close Iran is to completing the assembly of a nuclear device. Their constant lies and deceit effectively prevent any accurate assessment of capability. In turn, this mandates a speedy and satisfactory resolution of these concerns.
That is something which economic sanctions do not promise in the least. We have already had a clear demonstration of just how ineffective economic sanctions are, both in Iraq and North Korea. The long and drawn out agony of sanctions benefited no one except Kim Il Jong and Saddam Hussein.
Eventually, Saddam was deposed by force, not by sanctions. By using the exact same tactics as Iran is now employing, North Korea has potentially assembled atomic weapons and managed to completely stalemate progress on the Korean peninsula. How can you possibly advocate measures that might lead to a similar nuclear standoff in the even more explosive Middle East?
By every indication, Iran is determined to build atomic bombs. There is absolutely no evidence that the imposition of economic santctions would deter them in the least. Iran has declared obtaining nuclear weapons a religious duty, and being a theocratic state, that amounts to a government policy statement. Sanctions will merely give them more time to complete the building of a nuclear bomb. Even if Europe's cash flow into Iran halted, China would think nothing of picking up the slack and, in fact, relish yet another nuclear counterweight (however unstable) to American dominance on the global stage.
Failure by the existing superpowers to neuter Iran's nuclear weapons program represents the worst sort of moral abdication to a most brutal and tyrannical regime. Nowhere does such a blunder make the least sense.
#35
Re #31 (rkb): I rather suspect that Europe's desire for Iran's oil is the real economic pressure here
Europe itself will suffer economically if it imposes economic sanctions on Iran. On the other hand, the situation for Europe to do so is now better now than it has been in many years. The sanctions on Libya and Iraq are ending, and Europe now can buy oil from those two countries instead of from Iran.
This is Europe's best opportunty to demonstrate to the world that Europe's opinions about issues like nuclear proliferation must be respected. It's now or never.
Europe's perspective on Iran and the issue of nuclear proliferation now is much like Chamberlain's perspective on Germany and the issue of established European borders in 1939. The appeasement policy had been exercised to its limit. If this final limit is not enforced peacefully, then there will be no more limits or even influence. That's how I think Europe views this situation.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 17:53 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Re #30 (lex): They [the mullahs] couldn't care less about sanctions beyond what those might signify for their sense of national pride. Ie, a minor irritant, nothing more.
Well, then, they might get sanctions imposed on them. I agree with you that the mullahs might ignore the threat and continue to develop their nuclear-weapons program anyway. Apparently we disagree mostly about whether Europe really would impose the sanctions as threatened.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 17:57 Comments ||
Top||
#37
Mike writes: The only practical difference between the USA's response and Europe's response is that the USA has little economic leverage, because we ceased our trade with Iran 25 years ago. Europe can still exert economic leverage and so is exerting it.
1) I see little evidence that Europe is exerting economic leverage in the sense that they would actually go through with sanctions, etc. I see Europe dangling an economic carrot, praying hoping the Iranians will nibble.
2) I'm persuaded that at least some Europeans are more interested in containing the US than in containing Iran. For some reason they think we're the bigger threat. Sounds kinda stooopid to me, but I'm not a European.
3) There are parts of the UN that work reasonably well for a large, disparate international organization. The Security Council and the Secretary General's office aren't among those parts. While it'd be nice to reform these to the point that they would work, I have my doubts as to whether that's possible.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/12/2004 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#38
Re #34 (Zenster): .... America's sale of all those bunker busting bombs to Israel? Do you contend that this sale wasn't an overt signal to Iran of how we were willing to equip their most deadly foe (and declared target of aggression) with non-nuclear weapons capable of neutralizing their weapons program? Are you able to maintain that this was not a clear signal of looming military intervention, either by proxy or direct action?
I think you are probably right about all that. The USA is signaling Iran along the lines you point out. The signals are, however, only subtle and implicit.
You seem to be much more critical of Europe's subtle, indirect signals to Iran than you are of the USA's subtle, implicit signals to Iran.
The Bush administration has not declared openly that it will strike Iran militarily if Iran continues to develop nuclear weapons. On the other hand, Europe has declared openly that it will impose economic sanctions.
It is a diplomatic given that Iran's own declarations are consistently devoid of truth. .... our world has no idea of exactly how close Iran is to completing the assembly of a nuclear device. Their constant lies and deceit effectively prevent any accurate assessment of capability. In turn, this mandates a speedy and satisfactory resolution of these concerns. That is something which economic sanctions do not promise .... We have already had a clear demonstration of just how ineffective economic sanctions are, both in Iraq and North Korea.
Iraq did stop manufacturing weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure Iraq intended to resume manufacturing them later, but Iraq did stop while economic sanctions were imposed.
North Korea has submitted to some controls and principles for periods of time. North Korea is wavering. I think North Korea is feeling tremendous pressure. I myself expect that the North Korean regime might collapse rather soon.
Eventually, Saddam was deposed by force, not by sanctions.
Yes. Saddam stopped manufacturing weapons of mass destruction while the sanctions were imposed and while the USA exerted military pressure, but he was not deposed by the sanctions and mere military pressure. That doesn't mean, though, that economic sanctions and mere military pressure were entirely ineffective.
By using the exact same tactics as Iran is now employing, North Korea has potentially assembled atomic weapons and managed to completely stalemate progress on the Korean peninsula.
We have been applying military threats and pressure on North Korea for 50 years. In fact, we even militarily invaded North Korea and militarily occupied North Korean territory for many months. Nevertheless, North Korea remains an outrageous outlaw to this day. Some opponents are incredibly stubborn, no matter what you do short of annihilation.
China would think nothing of picking up the slack and, in fact, relish yet another nuclear counterweight (however unstable) to American dominance on the global stage.
I don't think so.
Failure by the existing superpowers to neuter Iran's nuclear weapons program represents the worst sort of moral abdication to a most brutal and tyrannical regime. Nowhere does such a blunder make the least sense.
The world isn't abdicating on this issue. The world is responding in a manner that you think is too moderate and that you predict won't work. The world thinks your proposed responses are too reckless.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 18:24 Comments ||
Top||
#39
Re #37 (Steve White) I'm persuaded that at least some Europeans are more interested in containing the US than in containing Iran. For some reason they think we're the bigger threat.
I agree. That's one reason I expect Europe to firmly resolve to demonstrate that its alternate response of diplomatic and economic measures can work effectively. This is a rare opportunity and challenge for Europe to show the USA its capability. Europe feels it must put up now or shut up forever with regard to the USA.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 18:29 Comments ||
Top||
#40
You seem to be much more critical of Europe's subtle, indirect signals to Iran than you are of the USA's subtle, implicit signals to Iran.
Why yes, as a matter of fact I am. Murderous terrorists and their sponsors need to be confronted with swift annihilation should they persist in their willingness to commit atrocities. Indirect and subtle measures do not carry enough weight to force the hand of fanatics. The threat of extermination does.
I hardly think that selling Israel the exact weapons needed to quash Iran's nuclear program was anything in the way of "subtle." I would rate it more as a "shot across the bow." Quite effective too, by all measures. Now, more than one country has the capability (and will) to neutralize Iran's atomic weapons program.
The major problem here is that should Iran obtain nuclear weapons, there is every indication that they will use them. The mullahs have in as much announced that even Iran's total obliteration would be a worthy tradeoff in exchange for their having destroyed Israel. This one fact alone is sufficient to warrant regime change in Iran.
#42
Re #40 (Zenster): Murderous terrorists and their sponsors need to be confronted with swift annihilation should they persist in their willingness to commit atrocities. Indirect and subtle measures do not carry enough weight to force the hand of fanatics. The threat of extermination does.
So far, the Bush Administration has not threatened Iran with annihilation and extermination.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 18:59 Comments ||
Top||
#43
IMO - blah,blah,blah, the only thing more weak and useless than the EU is the UN.
I suspect the EU will continue to complain and do absof**kinglutely nothing and let the US clean up the mess AGAIN.
#44
So far, the Bush Administration has not threatened Iran with annihilation and extermination.
I doubt very much that I'm alone here in saying that just maybe this needs to change. An insufficiently high enough price has been attached to participation in terrorist activity.
Only when the cost is prohibitive will those who practice it begin to rethink their strategy. Individual death may not be enough. Massive economic collapse and marginalization of a terrorist's entire home-culture may need to be considered.
This world does not have enough spare time for experimentally verifying what constitutes the minimum amount of force necessary to thwart terrorism. In the time required to determine such finely tuned measures, much more innocent life will be lost.
If other cultures cannot bring themselves to begin aggressively prosecuting the terrorists within their midst, they become accomplices through inaction. More than likely, a few hundred or thousand Iranians will die as they discover that defying international demands to abandon nuclear weapons research comes with a price attached.
The sooner our gloves come off in fighting terrorism, the more quickly the issue will be resolved. Permitting these violent psychotics time to reproduce, indoctrinate and disseminate their warped ideology merely increases the amount of innocent life lost on both sides.
Iran is prime indicator of how crucial decisive action will be in the future. While only a few thousand might die as a result of immediate military intervention, should the mullahs come into possession of nuclear weapons, all of Iran's people could perish.
The opportunity for relaxed decision-making is passing swiftly. A nuclear capable Iran will see the dawn of far more severe and irreversible measures. This is the mullahs' ultimate gift.
#45
Steve W: I'm persuaded that at least some Europeans are more interested in containing the US than in containing Iran. For some reason they think we're the bigger threat.
The simple truth is that Europe is not directly threatened by Iran's (future) nuclear weaponry. The targets will be the US & Israel. The hope within Europe is that a nuclear Iran will force the US to change (soften) its stance not only in the middle east, but all over the world. Any weight loss on the part of the US, will only mean a relative weight gain for the Europeans, since they can't really gain weight on their own (ceteris paribus). Iran acquiring nuclear weapons can only be seen as a good thing by the Europeans. It is not a European problem.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/12/2004 19:55 Comments ||
Top||
#46
Which is exactly why Mike S. is way off base in his hopes and expectations re: Euro action.
Right now, the 2000km range Iran claims for its missiles would hit only Turkey and a few parts of southeastern Europe. Give them a year or two and that range will probably increase by another 1000KM. By the time the Euro 2 really internalize implications of that, it will be way too late to do anything about it.
Israel will have a missile shield by then, if all goes well - although Iran is so close it would be hard to detect and kill missile attacks from there. Europe won't have any, but since it will be mostly Islamic by then it won't matter ... unless they make the mistake of going Sunni rather than Shia, of course.
Posted by: too true ||
12/12/2004 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
#47
FAS.org Iran missile database lists the under development Shahab5 with a range to 4,300km and the Shahab6 with a range out to 8-12,000 km (e.g. an ICBM capable of hitting the US). Also notice all their missiles are North Korean origin and manufactured in Iran. The NK TaeponDong4 is already thought to be able to hit the US west coast from NK.
Better that war is faught before the mullahs, who by definition believe that Islam must rule over the planet, can destroy US cities.
Posted by: ed ||
12/12/2004 21:37 Comments ||
Top||
#48
Re #45 (Rafael): The simple truth is that Europe is not directly threatened by Iran's (future) nuclear weaponry.
That's true, but Europe is also very interested in establishing and enforcing the "rules of the game" in international relations. Europe is interested in a stable world, with stable trade and stable resolution of disputes. Europe does not want backward countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons, even if those weapons don't threated Europe directly.
To continue my Chamberlain analolgy, Nevile Chamberlain didn't care hardly at all whether or not Danzig was assigned to Poland or to Germany. But Chamberlain did care that Germany under Hitler's leadership would not yield to any international controls. And so Chamberlain declared war on Germany.
I think that Europe views the current situation likewise.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 21:50 Comments ||
Top||
#49
MS: To continue my Chamberlain analolgy
truer words were never spoken. Amen
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2004 21:54 Comments ||
Top||
#50
The hope within Europe is that a nuclear Iran will force the US to change (soften) its stance not only in the middle east, but all over the world
Rafael puts it well. The reason that good Eurocop/bad UScop won't work here is that Europe doesn't see Iran as anything more than a misdemeanor perp. Again, the Europeans' containment effort toward Iran is a sham. They're on the same side.
Speaking of which, I rather think it's the mullahs who are dangling economic carrots for the export-hungry Euros, not the other way around. Germany and the other export-oriented Euros, suffering greatly now from their pricey currency, need the Iranian market more than the mullahs need the European market.
#51
Europe is interested in a stable world, with stable trade and stable resolution of disputes.
Well, that certainly explains France holding military maneuvers with communist China and the EU's renewed desire to sell them advanced weapon sytems. Sort of reminiscent or their position with Iran. Sell 'em whatever you can and talk your way around the sticking points.
Mike, you keep mentioning how appeasement has been of use. When did it ever stop a war from happening? So far, in all the examples you cite, war was the final outcome and appeasement routinely proved to be of no real use.
#52
Europe does not want backward countries like Iran to have nuclear weapons, even if those weapons don't threated Europe directly.
That is not at all obvious. I think the position of France, in particular, favors nuclear proliferation to the Muslim countries of the middle east as a counterbalance to the US and Israel, as they saw their own WMD program under de Gaulle and his immediate successors.
Posted by: too true ||
12/12/2004 22:51 Comments ||
Top||
#53
Re #51 (Zenster): When did it [appeasement] ever stop a war from happening? So far, in all the examples you cite, war was the final outcome and appeasement routinely proved to be of no real use.
Sometimes appeasement simply delays the war. Such was the case when Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in relation to the Sudetenland postponed the beginning of World War Two from August 1938 until Sepember 1939. During that interval, the UK continued to prepare for the war that eventually came. The UK was better prepared in 1939 than it had been in 1938, but even in 1939 the UK was not prepared to go on the offensive against Germany. The so-called "phony war" lasted for many months, as UK and French forces were simply assembled along Germany's western border.
Those people who criticize Chamberlain for not beginning the war in 1938 or earlier imagine mistakenly that the UK could somehow have intervened militarily effectively to prevent Germany from seizing the Sudetenland or the Rhineland. Interventions in either case well might have ended in complete fiascos that would have discouraged further military resistance to Germany.
When did appeasement ever stop a war from happening? It happens all the time, whenever some compromise short of war is accepted.
The USA did not intervene militarily when the Soviet Union suppressed the Hungarian Revolution in 1956 or the Prague Spring in 1968. On those occasions, many people complained that the USA was appeasing the Soviet Union and explicitly compared that appeasement to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler with regard to the Sudetenland.
Some people (The John Birch Society) even concluded that President Eisenhower must be a secret agent of the Soviet Union, since he appeased the Soviet Union in the case of Hungary. In fact, though, Eisenhower simply recognized the limitations of the USA's military and political abilities to take stronger actions.
In not every situation is war the wisest response, although you seem to think it always is.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 23:16 Comments ||
Top||
#54
Appeasement is appeasement is appeasement. There is no way of sugar-coating it.
Posted by: Rafael ||
12/12/2004 23:23 Comments ||
Top||
#55
Re #52 (too true) I think the position of France, in particular, favors nuclear proliferation to the Muslim countries of the middle east
That's an excellent argument, especially with regard to the period before Israel bombed Iraq's nuclear reactor. I think France has probably changed its policies since then, but I'm not prepared to argue with you about that.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 23:24 Comments ||
Top||
#56
A final question, Mike. This is, what, the bazillionth round of negotiations that the IAEA and Europe have gone through with Iran? What has changed? What significant progress has been made?
No extensive inspections have been permitted. There is no expectation of transparency from the Iranians. Instead, from all indications, Iran has sanitized certain contaminated sites and begun constructing others that appear to be intended for the R&D of lensing explosives used to detonate a nuclear device. Still other sites were originally constructed with hardened features built in.
None of this signifies the least intention of compliance. Quite the opposite. It seems as though Iran fully anticipates the need to protect its facilities from aerial bombardment and has routinely sought to conceal or disguise their appearance.
How can anyone in their right mind assume that it is possible to constructively engage Iran in terms of ceasing its atomic weapons development program? They have literally designed in non-compliance from the very start.
And in the case of Iran, any delays are intolerable. This is the lesson we must learn from North Korea. Iran is merely stalling for time until they can unveil (or test) a functional nuclear device and then set about destabilizing the entire Middle East.
I do not view war as the ultimate solution to all disagreements.
I most certainly do view war as the correct and proper way of dealing with terrorists. In combating those who would perpetrate mass murder atrocities, appeasement is right out.
#58
The stakes are linked to the lethality involved and in whose hands it will be.
This is not about conventional forces occupying land in an effort to prevent political separation from a sphere of influence. This is about offensive nuclear weapons which can be targeted at anything within range - far outside the sphere of influence of the Iranian regime. The Soviet-Hungarian vs America-Iranian situations have absolutely nothing in common.
The Iranians are the most transparent bunch of power-hungry idiotarians driven by an implacable ideology ever - in my experience. Rafsanjani has spoken clearly and unmistakably on numerous occasions.
Nukes & Mad Mullahs do NOT mix, IMHO. I certainly believe Bush is of the same mind and will do whatever he must do to prevent or end such a combination.
#59
I'll grant Mike one thing: it's not at all clear that the Bush admin would itself launch strikes against the mullahs. My guess is that would be up to the Israelis. What we can and should be doing is what Ledeen's been tirelessly advocating for years already: support the indigenous opposition by every means at our disposal and seek regime change from within. However I'm pessimistic about hte prospects for same, as a large part of our ability there depends on a CIA that is revealing itself to be as decadent and morally corrupt as it is incompetent.
Overall, I'm a pessimist on this one. We're running out of time and have no good options.
#60
Re #54 (Rafael): Appeasement is appeasement is appeasement. There is no way of sugar-coating it.
An individual or a society can't always do everything it would like to do to resist evil. Sometimes the opponent is more powerful. Sometimes you are inhibited by other responsibilities or circumstances. Sometimes you feel that you will be able to resist more effectively at a later time than you can resist now.
In the meantime, you take various actions that prepare you to respond more effectively in the future. Life is full of compromises, appeasements, delayed reactions, and postponed gratifications.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 23:41 Comments ||
Top||
#61
"postponed gratifications"
Lol - this one goes over like a lead balloon 'round here! I recall a cartoon from Gulf War I which was as fast and one-sided a "war" as the world had ever seen, yet people still complained quite a bit... the cartoon showed Geo41 wearing an apron and had Saddam stewing in a big pot on the stove... there was a "typical" American family waiting at the dinner table watching "Who's the Boss" on TV and the teeange kid calls back over his shoulder to the kitchen and says, "Can't you like microwave it or something?"
I hear that quite a bit hereabouts regards what seems slow movement by Bush. But he's done what he's said up til now, so... How long we have until the Mad Mullahs are "ready" is unknown to us, but I'll lay odds it's not such a mystery to the admin. The Iranians are not happy with the Black Hats and have tons of relatives - living in the US and abroad. I'll bet serious money we have some very decent hard intel on what's going on inside Iran... enough? timely? sufficient to organize / support a native overthrow? I dunno. But I do have faith that Dubya meant what he said. That will have to be good enough, for me and for now.
#62
Re #56 (Zenster): No extensive inspections have been permitted.
Inspections have been permitted. They just aren't extensive enough to satisfy you. I suspect, though, that no inspections would ever be enough to satisfy you.
.... Iran has sanitized certain contaminated sites and begun constructing others .... None of this signifies the least intention of compliance.
The USA's effort to compel the Soviet Union to comply with inspections took many years of firm persistence. In the meantime, the Soviet Union used many methods to conceal its weapons and deployments. Eventually, though, the Soviet Union did comply with inspections and did destroy all its intermediate-range ballistic missile systems.
In the case of Iran, similar efforts will be difficult and might eventually fail. Or they might eventually succeed.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/12/2004 23:51 Comments ||
Top||
#63
The USA's effort to compel the Soviet Union to comply with inspections took many years of firm persistence.
You're comparing apples to oranges. Iran is not a nuclear armed superpower and it is precisely that status we are attempting to prevent them from obtaining. Dealing with the Soviet Union took a much more strategic approach than is required with Iran.
All efforts should be directed towards denying the mullahs any access to nuclear weapons and to hell with their prestige, image, face, or whatever other humiliating aspect they might find in such actions.
Perhaps you do not regard Iran's possession of nuclear weapons to be the profound disaster that I do, but I'm confident that history would quickly bear out my own suspicions.
Iran has yet to demonstrate any sort of good government or meticulous stewardship of their people's national heritage. I see no reason to believe that they will finally begin doing so once they acquire atomic bombs.
#65
Iran is a terrorist state that has striven for the past 25 years to export its Shia revolution. Iran supports terrorist organizations in Lebanon and Palestine. It has carried out terrorist actions in many countries, as far away as Argentina.
Now Iran is developing nuclear weapons and is threatening to use them against Israel.
On the other hand, Iran has enjoyed little significant success in these efforts. Iran has practically no air force or navy. Iran exerts practically no foreign influence outside of the Shia parts of Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon. Iran is not allied with any foreign states.
Iran's economy is extremely dependent on oil exports. Iran's abilility to export oil is very vulnerable. The US Navy could very easily blockade all Iran's ports. If Europe decides to stop buying Iranian oil, Europe could rather easily find other sources of oil to replace Iranian oil.
When Iran has allowed elections that were relatively free, the elections were won decisively by candiates who advocated reductions of the mullahs' dictatorial powers.
So, let's keep the Iranian threat in a proper perspective.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
12/13/2004 0:14 Comments ||
Top||
The death of Yasser Arafat and the emergence of Egypt as a peace broker between Israel and the Palestinians has prompted Syria to drop its longtime antagonism toward Mr. Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization. The shift was on display last week when Syria welcomed PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and the first official Palestinian delegation to visit Syria since 1996. They met President Bashar Assad, Prime Minister Naji Otri and leaders of Palestinian militant groups based in Damascus. "Syria fears that they will be alone while the Egyptians lead the Palestinians to peace and a homeland," said Palestinian columnist and activist Gaby el-Jammal. "This is why they are desperate to embrace the new PLO leadership and to enter into talks with the Israelis as well," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 1:30:48 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Syria fears that they will be alone while the Egyptians lead the Palestinians to peace and a homeland,"
Afghan President Hamid Karzai said on Sunday that Osama bin Laden is "definitely" in the region and would eventually be caught, even though American and Pakistani generals insist the trail is cold. "It's very difficult to say where he is hiding. He cannot be away from this region. He's definitely in this region," Karzai told CNN's Weekend Edition. "We will get him sooner or later, trust me on that."
Speculation on bin Laden's whereabouts has long focused on the mountains along the frontier between Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Al Qaeda leader slipped away from Afghan and US forces three years ago. Pakistan's army has mounted a series of bloody offensives against foreign fighters near the border this year, and American forces launched a winter-long operation last week against Taleban rebels on the Afghan side. But there has been no indication that they are close to seizing the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks that prompted US President George W. Bush to launch Operation Enduring Freedom with an assault on Afghanistan.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 5:07:59 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
The acting president of the Pakistan Peoples Party-Nawaz, Makhdoom Javed Hashmi, could be from prison soon, according to sources. This speculation follows reports that a deal is being negotiated with major political parties currently in the opposition. Party sources said government representatives are engaged in talks over the release with Hashmi's daughter, Maimoona, a member of the National Assembly. They also hinted Hashmi could be free within weeks. An official indication of the possible freeing of the PML-N leader, jailed since November 2003, and found guilty early this year of sedition and inciting mutiny, came in recent remarks by Information Minister Shaikh Rashid Ahmad. He had said that minor mistakes would be forgiven. He was referring to Javed Hashmi.
This'd be Perv mending some fences with the non-MMA parties. It'll be interesting to see what comes of it, if anything. MMA's been courting the PML-N, too...
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 4:22:11 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Ahmad Al-Jarallah, editor-in-chief of the Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassah recently wrote an editorial in support of President Bush's election victory and what it means for the Arab world. The following is the article:
The World Has Changed, But Not the Arabs
"The world and relations between different countries have changed beyond recognition. In some cases even the countries have changed and a new order is controlling the world. What's more the United Nations is no longer able to control the relations between different countries.
If the UN was able to control the relations between countries, I'd consider that to be a bad thing. What the writer actually means is that the UN is no longer able to mediate among countries or that's what he'd mean if he didn't have the Arab mindset that assumes 'rule', rather than 'govern.'
All this is happening in the outside world while nothing has changed for the Arab World. We are still living in the past steeped in our age old traditions. Our traditions are the source of our concepts, however old. This has always led us to conflicts with the outside world invariably ending in defeat for us. Such defeats in turn draw us back from the path of development. If there is anything which we have to do urgently it is to correct and remedy this situation.
Being backward is not a virtue. But try and convince your fellow Arabs of that...
"We had to give such a lengthy prologue because the U.S. administration - which is responsible for the changes that are sweeping through the world - has started criticizing the Middle East. The United States, which is criticizing the regimes in the region and the living conditions of their people, has succeeded in its efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. This U.S. administration has the strong backing of its people, who recently re-elected President George W. Bush for four more years.
So the Arabs still have two choices: either get on board, or try and wait him out again. Since they've been waiting things out for the past 700 years or so, maybe they should try getting on board for a change, just to see what happens.
We in the Middle East Were Moving Against Development
"Meanwhile, we in the Middle East were moving against the laws of development when the presidential elections in the United States were underway. Our thinking was wrong and we were using our media in the wrong way. We said Bush won't be able to win the elections and claimed Americans won't renew his term in the White House.
Lost that bet, didn't you? Don't feel bad. Jesse Jackson's still refusing to admit he lost...
Our thought process is still being conditioned by our old traditions... Unfortunately, we don't want to admit the truth and accept this fact. We thought President Bush won't win re-election because in our opinion he has led America to another Vietnam-like situation in Iraq. With such an ignorant way of thinking we brought on ourselves new defeats, proving to the whole world we are not from this planet. When Bush won the elections, we retreated to our comfort-zone looking for some new calculations which, we hoped, will be correct and bring back our old glory. We hoped our new calculations would lead the American administration to a bad defeat.
Taking my tongue out of my cheek for a few moments, if the Arab world really wants to regain its 'old glory,' the very best thing for it would be to climb on board the Bush bandwagon wholeheartedly. Arab 'stability' has amounted to stagnation for, lo, these many years. The U.S. is the oldest continuously functioning republic on earth, with the possible exception of Switzerland. Yet it remains vibrant the world's preeminent superpower. There are reasons for its strength: it's a rich country, full of natural resources, which gives it something to build on. But Brazil's just as rich in natural resources, as is Russia. Much more important than the natural resources is our population. We have a continuous movement of people up and down the social and economic ladders. We take in immigrants as fast as they can show up, and sometimes faster than we can absorb them. The names of our leading lights change from generation to generation: first English and Dutch names, then Frenchies, then Irish, then Jewish, then Italian, now Hispanic and, increasingly, South Asian. Most of our citizenry isn't 'pure-blooded' anything most of us are Heinz 57, and those of us who aren't are likely to see our children marry outside our ethnic group. Along with the immigrants, we get a continuous flow of new ideas: while the descendents of the old generations go on to study modern dance, womyn's studies, or journalism, the new guys are going into engineering and medicine. Arabia Major doesn't have this welcoming aspect, and in fact has quite the opposite aspect. You can't become a citizen, and if you don't adhere to the local customs and traditions, no matter how loathesome, they'll cut your head off.
The Arab world will actually get a cultural 'bump' from the WoT, especially if they lose it'll be the best thing that could happen to them. After societies are put to a strain, they're reinvigorated by the influence of their adversaries, by the mother of invention demanding they come up with some serious thinking to preserve themselves. The Germans and the Japanese, their manpower and industry decimated in 1945, got just this kind of 'bump' and used it to good effect. South Korea got the same sort of 'bump' in 1953. They also adapted some of the outside influences to their own culture Japanese teens are even more giddy than American teens, in the menus in Japanese restaurants feature a lot more than sushi and sashimi. They're ready to grab almost anything foreign, examine it, play with it, and, if they like it, keep it. In that respect they're much like Americans; 'American' food includes not only the New England pot roast of our ancestors, but spaghetti, tacos, sushi, 'wieners,' and corned beef and cabbage. But this is the sort of thing that Arabs find most frightening.
America Will Not Retreat
"We claimed President Bush will never be able to defeat Iraq and said the resistance will kick the U.S. forces out of that country. We described terrorism, which is killing innocent people in Iraq, as ' jihad ' and expected it to win in the end because it is supported by God. To support our calculations, we recalled how the U.S. troops were sent packing from Lebanon in the Eighties because of the resistance in that country. We fondly remembered how the Americans had to retreat from Somalia because of the resistance put up by Somalia warlords. By this way of thinking we forgot the United States has changed and the world has changed with it. The present circumstances in the world are not the same as they were during the days of the Cold War, when the U.S.S.R. was a superpower in its own right.
It was also before Islamism declared war on us. Leaving Lebanon and Somalia left us with nothing but a bad taste in our mouths. Losing the WoT will cost us everything we have.
"All of our thoughts have been answered by the second term of President Bush. The mission in Iraq will continue as in Afghanistan. The American administration has stressed it won't pull out of Iraq, unlike in Somalia and Lebanon, until it achieves its objectives and completes its mission in that country.
In fact, there's every chance we'll end up back in Somalia and Lebanon.
Changing the world, strengthening relations with other countries and bringing democracy and freedom to as many countries as possible is the strategic objective of the current American administration because from the perspective of its internal security, especially the 9/11 attacks in Washington and New York, this is more important for the United States.
I just said that.
The Culture and Way of Thinking of Arabs Became a Source of Danger for the U.S.
"Things were easy for the Americans until bin Laden arrived on the scene and threatened it from inside their homeland. But now everything has changed. The culture and way of thinking of Arabs, and [what is happening] in the Middle East have become a source of danger for the United States. If we fail to understand the changed situation of the U.S. administration, what is happening in Iraq will extend in one way or another to other countries in the region until the desired change is imposed. The second priority for President Bush is maintaining peace in Iraq and holding a free and fair general elections in Iraq.
Which'll give us a secure base for expanding freedom into the rest of the Arab and Muslim world. It's going to come one way or the other, so you'd better figure how to salvage what you want to keep before it does.
"Bush considers the January elections very important. If one hopes the US will withdraw from Iraq in the same way as it did from Lebanon and Somalia, we must say it won't happen. The only thing left for Arab regimes, which are out of tune with the rest of the world, is to understand that standing against the United States is no longer the right way to show their patriotism, especially since they are the real enemies of their people and countries. They must understand the American Administration supports their people, for their freedom and human rights.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 3:26:02 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[12 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Only one thing realy stands in the way, and its the same problem faced by university Marxists-- they have to admit that some, or all their fundamental assumptions were wrong. I will make a prediction that it will take some major internal trauma before this happens.
I submit that the culture of the arabs of the future will have about as much in common with the one present as modern japaneese culture has with Tokugawa Shogunate era japan. I just hope that the transition does not require as much killing.
Posted by: N Guard ||
12/12/2004 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#2
They must understand the American Administration supports their people, for their freedom and human rights.
I think that they understand it pretty well. They also know that it is not in THEIR best interest. It is exactly what they fear.
OUSTED Iraqi president Saddam Hussein and 11 top leaders of his regime awaiting trial for crimes against humanity have gone on hunger strike in their US detention centre, one of their lawyers said today. "We have reliable information that Saddam Hussein and 11 other prisoners began a hunger strike on Friday to protest ill treatment," the Iraqi lawyer of former deputy prime minister Tareq Aziz said. Saddam was captured a year ago near his home town of Tikrit, north of the Iraqi capital.
Posted by: tipper ||
12/12/2004 11:27:40 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Michael Moore too, it means he has decided to never feel hungry so he eats before.
#5
We are obligated to provide them food, but it's just fine and dandy with me if they refuse to eat it and die.
Posted by: Tom ||
12/12/2004 12:13 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Ill treatment? They don't provide hookers like at Gitmo?
Posted by: Dar ||
12/12/2004 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The cable's out again?
Posted by: Matt ||
12/12/2004 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#8
No boiled dinner for you!
Posted by: The Soup Nazi ||
12/12/2004 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#9
What's the downside to this? :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
12/12/2004 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Pinch me, I'm dreaming. Free Iraqi elections coming up in 45 days?! Mass murderer Saddam Hussein in custody of transitional Iraqi government and going on a hunger strike?!
Where the f*** is the MSM's sense of wonder, awe and gratitude for this sea change?
#1
Yep, that's what a lovely Iraqi/Kurd immigrant told us over dinner last night. He'd just spoken to his siblings back home (his brother wanted to compare the worth of various cars -- he was looking to buy yet another one), and was table-poundingly emphatic that the elections must go off as scheduled (yes, that emphatic!).
#2
The Kurds have been patient and have subsumed their desire for independence to work for a unified Iraq. They may not continue to be team players if this election is postponed -- and I wouldn't blame them.
#4
Stopping an election through violence is a very, very hard thing to pull off. Even if you attack a dozen different (armed) polling stations at the same time, all they have to do to counter it is to extend their hours. And if you manage to terrify a small town into not voting, all you have done is to disenfranchise the tiny number you have intimidated--resulting in a loss of power for your side. The only real way to derail elections is through duplicitous or weak political leaders.
#5
I may have missed it but have the parallels to the US election of 1864 been discussed?
A nation at war with itself, an unpopular President, large portions of the country unfit to hold elections, widespread violence, foreign influence in the form of "invaders" aka immigrants?
It wasn't until Lincoln started achieving significant military wins that the tide turned in his favor, in particular Sherman's victory in Atlanta.
The US in 1864 had seen the deaths of hundreds of thousands in the Civil War and was still at war with itself, and yet American's voted.
And we elected someone I don't think - I could be wrong - the NY Times called "illegitimate".
#6
The violence is more likely to be carried out among the areas where the terriorist can operate/hide. So in effect, those areas which tolerate the butchers are the ones most likely not to get a chance to vote. There's something fitting about that.
Posted by: Don ||
12/12/2004 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
A cleric, Maulana Muhammad Shoaib, was released on Saturday from police custody after he assured a judicial magistrate that he would not harm peace in Peshawar. The cleric, who was thrown out of a mosque in the Shoba Bazaar on Monday for being involved in embezzlement, used threatening language on Thursday saying if his position as a prayer leader was not restored he would 'turn Peshawar into Wana'. He was arrested on Friday. "We took Mr Shoaib into preventive custody following his threat to disturb the public order," Abid Ali, the senior superintendent of police (SSP), told Daily Times on Saturday. He said Mr Shoaib was arrested under 107 section which dealt with public order. The SSP said District Nazim Azam Afridi ordered the police to arrest Mr Shoaib after he addressed a news conference at the Peshawar Press Club on Thursday.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 1:23:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mr Shoaib was disabused of any thought of "turning Peshawar into Wana" by as demonstration of electric shock therapy to the occupant of the cell abutting to his. He promised to be "moving along real soon now" saying also " I hear the weather in Punjab is rellty good this time of year."
A senior Islamic Hamas leader called Saturday on the Palestinian Authority to rebuild the Palestinian security apparatuses and establish a Palestinian army. Isma'eel Haneya told a group of academics, "In order to achieve a social amicability, all security apparatuses should be rebuilt in a frame of an army and become national security apparatuses." The seminar organized by the Palestinian Foundation for Culture, Science and Development in Gaza was held to discuss the future of the Palestinians' political situation after the death of Yasser Arafat. Ibrahim Abrash, a lecturer at al Azahar University in Gaza, said militarizing the Intifada was a mistake and asked about "the benefits of the armed struggle. We should ask ourselves where are we going to," said Abrash. "Was militarizing the Intifada good or bad, and what were the benefits of the armed." Haneya responded that there is a difference between "those who want to evaluate the Palestinian armed resistance and those who are seeking to undermine it."
Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
Posted by: .com ||
12/12/2004 1:22:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I interpret this to mean that a) they are discussing these matters with words rather than automatic weapons, which I think is a good sign, b) they are/were fed up with Yasser's little head games when he would play all the "security services" against each other, which I think is also a good sign.
BUT. Leopards generally don't change their spots, and AFAIK Hamas et al do not yet "love their children more than they hate the Jews."
#2
The only spot that needs to change is for a few more infrared ones to appear on the foreheads of as many Hamas operatives as possible. The only good jew hater is a dead jew hater.
#4
We are running out of patience for Hamas assholes.
IMHO on the first serious Hamas terror operation,
there will be a wholsale butchering of their military and political leaders.
I must say I will not shed any tears for them once this happens.
Posted by: Elder of Zion ||
12/12/2004 8:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Palestinian Foundation for Culture, Science and Development in Gaza?
Bwahahahahaha
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2004 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Perhaps they could get some assistance from the Europeans in this effort. Possibly the Phrawnch. They know how to surrender with style.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
12/12/2004 12:40 Comments ||
Top||
PPP MNAs and MPAs criticised SNF Chairman Mumtaz Bhutto on Saturday for alleging that Asif Ali Zardari was involved in the killing of Murtaza Bhutto. Talking to reporters in Hyderabad on Friday, Mumtaz Bhutto claimed that Asif Zardari was involved in Murtaza Bhutto's killing on September 20, 1996.
In a joint statement, MNAs Fehmida Mirza and Nabil Gabol and MPAs Ayaz Soomro and Rafiq Engineer claimed that Mumtaz Bhutto was trying to get cheap media publicity by blaming Asif Zardari. " The people of Sindh cannot forget Mumtaz Bhutto's role since 1977 to date," they said. They claimed that Mumtaz Bhutto was confused, as he could not stomach Zardari's release on bail after eight years of imprisonment. They claimed that had Mumtaz Bhutto chosen to face jail instead of joining hands with General Ziaul Haq and the army, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto would not have been hanged. They claimed that the people of Sindh could not forget the anti-Bhutto role of Mumtaz Bhutto since General Zia's time to president Farooq Leghari's time. The PPP's MNAs and MPAs claimed that Mumtaz Bhutto's allegation was tantamount to contempt of court. "The inquiry tribunal headed by Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid had absolved Asif Zardari of Murtaza murder case."
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 1:09:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Rafiq Engineer?
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2004 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
The Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) is holding its third public meeting today (Sunday) at Minar-e-Pakistan to exert pressure on President Pervez Musharraf to shed his military uniform by the end of 2004 in accordance with the 17th Amendment in the Constitution. Acting Lahore Nazim Farooq Amjad Mir told Daily Times on Saturday that the district government had granted MMA permission on 20 terms and conditions. These include maintaining law and order, not damaging public and private property, no display of arms, not creating any hurdle in the smooth flow of traffic, holding the meeting within the premises of Minto Park and ending the meeting by 5pm.
Uhuh. I'm sure they'll comply in all particulars...
The supreme council meeting of the religious alliance will be held at Mansoora in the morning at 10am before the leaders leave for Minto Park to attend the rally. They will discuss further strategies to strike President Musharraf at the meeting. Central leaders of the six MMA component parties, except Maulana Samiul Haq of Jamiat Ulema-e-Paistan-Sami (JUP-S), will attend the public meeting. The JUP-S has not been attending any MMA meeting for a long time because of differences with the Jamat-e-Islami and the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam-Fazl.
... which I consider a good thing.
It's a mustache thing. We wouldn't understand.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 1:01:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
President General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz on Saturday reiterated their resolve to bring Balochistan and other underdeveloped areas at par with the rest of the country. Both leaders strongly condemned the bomb blast in Quetta on Friday, saying that such cowardly acts would not deter the government's efforts for progress and development. "They stressed that the government would not be directed by such heinous acts, which are aimed at disturbing peace and harmony," a press release issued after a meeting between the president and the prime minister said. They directed the authorities concerned to step up their efforts to arrest the perpetrators of the blast and to ensure that they are punished.
Posted by: Fred ||
12/12/2004 12:58:58 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
disturbing peace and harmony
I find that term kinda funny, coming out of Pakland and Balochistan.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/12/2004 3:35 Comments ||
Top||
#2
reiterated their resolve to bring Balochistan and other underdeveloped areas at par with the rest of the country.
There's all the motivation anyone could ask for.
NAIROBI — Somalia's parliament passed a no-confidence motion against the country's new prime minister and his cabinet yesterday, sacking a government that was sworn in less than two weeks ago in an attempt to end 13 years of anarchy in the Horn of Africa nation, an official said.
"The sackers who sacked the sacked have now themselves been sacked."
Dalhar Omar, deputy speaker of the 275-member transitional parliament, said 153 members voted against Prime Minister Ali Mohammed Gedi, accusing him of failing to respect power-sharing arrangements reached in complex talks involving warlords and leaders of the main clans.
The arrangements were so complex he couldn't follow them.
Legislators also accused Gedi of violating the constitution by failing to seek a vote of confidence within 30 days after he was appointed to his post by the president, Omar said in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, where the Somali parliament is based because the Somali capital is considered too dangerous. "But it is more than 40 days now and he has not sought a vote of confidence in the government," Omar said. "The parliament has asked the president to nominate a new prime minister, who will appoint a new government."
Somalia's president swore in Gedi's cabinet on December 1. The new government included warlords, clan leaders and technocrats and was expected to establish the first effective central government since 1991.
Hmmm, Dec 1 to today carry the 2 ... timex 14, ... minus 3 toes ... that seems less than 30 days to me. Perhaps they adopted a different calendar.
Somali President Abdulahi Yusuf Ahmed, who himself was elected by the parliament on October 14, had approved the 31-member cabinet.
The Somali presidential spokesman, Yusuf Mohamed Ismail, said Yusuf will reject the surprise vote because it was "flawed."Â "We cannot endorse the vote of no-confidence because all members of parliament who wanted to debate the motion did not get a chance to speak during the session ... and the vote was done after the parliamentary session was declared officially over," he said. "The vote was also wrong because the president and the prime minister were not given notice in time to appear before the legislature." Talks were underway between the president, cabinet and the secretary of the parliament to resolve the political crisis, he added.Â
To be followed shortly by full-contact talks.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/12/2004 12:16:39 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Once you've come to accept anarchy, well, order's just so boring, heh. And where's the profit?
Palestinian Authority secretary general Tayeb Abdel Rahim said Saturday he was resigning to run the election campaign of PLO leader Mahmud Abbas, standing for the organisation's presidency, officials said. Under Palestinian law, Abdel Rahim cannot keep his official position while being involved in campaigning for the election, scheduled for January 9.
Paleo "law"?
Campaigning begins on December 25. Abdel Rahim's resignation will come into effect 24 hours earlier.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/12/2004 12:08:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Paleo "law"?
see: "oxymoron"
Posted by: Frank G ||
12/12/2004 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ir'a Oxy-Moroon, Frank.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
12/12/2004 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
KUWAIT CITY (AP) - About 100 candidates for Iraq's first popular election in decades traveled to Kuwait on Saturday for a seminar about the democratic process. The men and women were bused from the southern Iraqi city of Basra for the two-day event organized by Denmark's government. Two of the candidates are running for the national assembly, while the rest are candidates for local offices.
The candidates will attend lectures by experts from the United Nations and Denmark about Iraq's election law, the role of political parties, campaigning and how the vote will be conducted. ``The Iraqi people are new to democracy, and they are thirsty for it and for freedom,'' said Sayyed Dagher al-Moussawi, one of two men running for an assembly seat in the group. He said the seminar was important because ``freedom came to Iraq with chaos and not gradually.''
The national assembly created by the Jan. 30 elections will pick a new president and two vice presidents, who will then select a prime minister. Its main task is to draw up a constitution, which - if adopted in a referendum next year - would form the legal basis for another general election to be held by Dec. 15, 2005. Iraqis also will elect local officials Jan. 30.
Geography teacher Khadeeja Mishkel Moussawi, running for a seat on the Basra council, said Iraqis wanted a ``legitimate government.'' ``Children, men and women support the elections,'' said Moussawi, dressed in an Iranian-style black robe and head cover that shielded part of her face. ``The (U.S.-appointed) interim government has become an excuse for saboteurs,'' the 37-year-old candidate said.
The jihadis don't need an excuse. But get your country under control and we'll be happy to pull our troops out via Syria.
Posted by: Steve White ||
12/12/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
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.
Kuwait said on Saturday it had put behind it its anger at the Palestinian leadership's perceived backing of the 1990 Iraqi invasion, as it prepared to receive PLO chairman Mahmud Abbas on a landmark visit on Sunday. "We consider the issue of the position of the Palestinian Authority (leadership) towards the Iraqi invasion as over. We welcome the visit of PLO chairman Mahmud Abbas," Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah told reporters.
A local court in Izhevsk (capital of the autonomous republic of Udmurtia bordering with Tatarstan in the south) pressed criminal charges against two members of the 
The Tajik Prosecutor General's Office pressed charges against leader of the 
Senior Shiite cleric Sayyed 
Iran's top nuclear negotiator 
