A court jailed Kuwaiti police officer Khalid Messier Al Shimmari for 15 years here yesterday after finding him guilty of wounding two US soldiers last year. "The verdict is unfair," Shimmari shouted out in court before being led away after hearing the ruling. "You can't jug me! I'm a loon!"
His defence lawyer Nawaf Al Mutairi told reporters outside the courtroom, in regard to the two hours it took to reach a decision: "The verdict was too quick." "How long do you need?"
"How about 12 years?"
Shimmari was sentenced to 10 years for attempted murder and another five for unlawful possession of arms. He was also fired from his interior ministry job. "Khalid, you can't go shooting infidels without a license. I'm afraid we're gonna have to let you go..."
This was the first verdict related to a series of shootings involving Americans in Kuwait. Mutairi had maintained throughout the trial that his client was "crazy". Now he can be "crazy" and "locked away"...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 09:38 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A Bahraini father collapsed and died in a police station yesterday, after being allegedly beaten up by a relative. Majeed Al Sameea, who was in his 50s, had gone with his wife to the Sanabis police station, to report the alleged assault. He collapsed in the station and was declared dead at the scene by paramedics. It is understood the incident happened after Mr Al Sameea's daughter refused to marry a cousin. The cousin turned up at the family home in Sanabis yesterday morning and a fight broke out in which Mr Al Sameea was punched repeatedly. I really do think that honor/shame thing is connected with marrying close relatives...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 09:15 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Two hundred and fifty lashes down, 50 to go, was how Melbourne man Robert Thomas last night described his ordeal of imprisonment and flogging in a Saudi Arabian jail for a crime he says he did not commit. Mr Thomas has been caned on his back in batches of 50. The next caning could come at any time. Mr Thomas, 56, from Caulfield, told The Age he has not bled so far and has remained conscious during the beatings, which Prime Minister John Howard yesterday described as "appallingly inhumane." Mr Thomas, an anaesthetic technician and chief of department at the Prince Abdullah Bin Abdulaziz hospital in the Saudi city of Bishah, was last year sentenced to 16 months in jail and 300 lashes by a Saudi court. His wife Lorna, a head nurse at the hospital, was charged over the theft of hospital equipment and sentenced to 16 months and 300 lashes.
According to Mr Thomas, who has been working in Saudi Arabia for about 10 years, and previously worked at the Alfred Hospital and Cotham Private Hospital in Kew, the Saudi judge had accepted his not guilty plea. "The judge said that he was sure I did not steal but I must have known (of the crime) as Lorna was my wife and (a) husband always knows what his wife is doing," Mr Thomas wrote in a letter to his daughter Sarah Munro...
I guess in Soddy Arabia the husband isn't the last one to know...
...Before they took Mr Thomas to be beaten, she says prison staff and fellow inmates gave him a chance to lessen the pain by converting to Islam. He refused the offer. Prisoners and guards gathered to see the flogging. "Because he is a non-Muslim, he gets a huge crowd when he is being flogged because everybody wants to see a non-Muslim getting lashed." Lovely place...
the government in canberra is trying to intercede on this guy's behalf, he seems to be dealing with it rather well from what this article portrays.
as for lashing, there are plenty of westerners in saudi arabia, so this would not be something new for them, but the crowd yes, the crowd does like that kind of thing. Remember though, that these people are the equivalent of an american fan of the jerry springer show.
#3
These people are NOT the moral equivalent of a fan of the Jerry Springer show.
And it would be more accurate to say: 'their religion their laws' since it's based on Sharia
People on Springer are there screwing up their lives of their own free will, there is no moral equivalence between people getting a thrill from watching consenting adults to people getting a supremacist thrill from watching those of an 'inferior' religion cop a public beating for a trivial and unproven matter.
There is NO moral equivalence here.
To say 'it is their culture' as a blanket for 'it's ok to be barbaric, brutal and unjust' is the easy way out of cultural relativism. It is an aspect of their culture that they should make efforts to change.
#4
Let this be a lesson to whomever is thinking about going to SA. Do something that runs afoul of their laws, and you will regret it.
Regardless of what anyone outside of SA thinks about their rules, it's still THEIR RULES, and if something happens while you are there that can be legally blamed on you, then that's how the ball bounces. Forget the idea of changing them. If they want to change, then it is up to them to do it. If they won't, then simply stay out of there.
#5
What we have in Saudi Arabia is a society aware of it's own failures, so much so that the act of beating an Australian in public arises a sort of patriotism. When the Saudis beat my fellow Australian it's nothing more than an act of revenge against the west. I am impressed by Mr Thomas' refusal to convert to Islam, the Saudis' must have really hated that!
Posted by: Nick ||
03/05/2003 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'd rather be beaten than to be like them, too...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/05/2003 22:05 Comments ||
Top||
#7
a chance to lessen the pain by converting to Islam
Like what, 200 lashes instead of the 300...
The Spanish PP give Aznar an emphatic vote of confidence...
Spain's Lower House of Parliament has voted in a secret ballot instigated by the opposition calling on parliamentarians to oppose the government's support of military action in Iraq. But the motion has been defeated.
Y viva España!
After over four hours debating and voting the Speaker of the House announced the result. With 184 votes cast against and 163 in support, it was a resounding victory for the government. It appears that every member of the governing Popular Party and one member of the opposition voted to defeat the motion. The Prime Minister was confident that all of his politicians would rally in support. The extra opposition member comes as a pleasant surprise. The government has a majority of 16 in the House, but all opposition parties are against the use of force in Iraq. That meant only nine Popular Party votes were needed to win the vote, which called for more weapons inspectors and opposed military action. The secret ballot, permitted under Spain's law, was an attempt by the opposition to draw out members of the Popular Party with anti-war sentiments. It followed an open vote on the government's stance on the Iraq crisis. That vote held no surprises: All 183 Popular Party members supported the government's policy of force as a last resort; 100 opposition members casting against. But there was considerable expectation that the secret vote could embarrass the government.
And instead was a mild embarrassment to the opposition...
The debate was heated. After a series of interruptions from the floor, Jesus Caldera, from the opposition Socialists, said: "Everyone knows our position â no to war." Gustavo de Aristegui, Popular Party spokesperson, argued that his party does want to disarm Saddam Hussein peacefully. For Prime Minister Aznar the secret ballot has confirmed that his own party is behind him, but the vote has emphasised that his Popular Party is isolated in Spain's parliament. Got the majority though, and a unified party, so what does that matter?
Posted by: Bulldog ||
03/05/2003 08:29 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...Popular Party is isolated ... I suppose this means to win is to lose. Typical blather.......
#4
Reminds of that crap heard from our "unbiased" media that it would be better for the GOP to not win the Senate. They won the Senate, so they lost the political battle? Probably makes sense if you're a brain-dead leftist.
Reuters puts this under "Oddly Enough". How f**ked are these people?
A New Zealand woman said on Wednesday she was willing to be crucified by President Bush if he pledges not to attack Iraq. Mary Grierson said she had emailed the challenge to the White House and as an open letter to leading U.S. newspapers. "Send your troops home and take me instead, on behalf of everyone in the world who does not want war and oppression," she wrote. Lady, as Ann Landers used to say, "I sympathize and recommend you seek phsyciatric help"...
But the deal has a catch — Bush would have to personally hammer in the nails. "I don't think he would have the courage to do it quite frankly, but that is the measure of a man," she told Radio New Zealand. Which is exactly why I'm doing it.
"Can he follow through with this aim of creating more chaos in the world if he had to do it just to one person himself?" It is not the first novel expression of protest in New Zealand against a looming U.S.-led war on Iraq. Another woman spent NZ$2,500 ($1,409) last month on an anti-war newspaper advertisement directed at Bush in the hope it would be seen by the U.S. ambassador to New Zealand and passed on to Washington. Compared to a crucifixion lady, that ain't much...
New Zealand, which refuses entry to its ports for foreign warships that are nuclear powered or carry nuclear weapons, opposes military action against Iraq unless it is backed by the United Nations.
#3
Oh, so to this nutcase, Bush isn't a "man" because he doesn't have the guts to nail her sorry carcass to a cross? Please. The closer we get to H-Hour, the loonier these whack-jobs get. It's really getting hard to stomach.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/05/2003 13:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
What gets me about these people is that they'll support the same war if validated by the UN. This doesn't strike me as being principled non-violence.
While I have no love for the current inhabitant of the White House some people need to get over their irrational hatred. A lot of us probably underestimate the anti-Dubya element of all this.
#6
Gee whiz. How do people think these things up? Do they really think that what Bush wants is to kill somebody, and if she could fulfill his bloodlust, that we could all stand down? Yeesh.
#11
I just wanted to say Gudday from New Zealand and let you all know that many of us Kiwi's beleive this woman is loopy as hell. If I knew where she lived I might be tempted to go and do save Bush the time. Anyways please dont let a mindless individual make you think any less of New Zealand. Many of us here in NZ support the US/UK decision to stop Saddam and put and end to his tyranical regime. Anyways keep up the good work Rantburg you make my day every day.
#12
Kiwi - acknowledged use of common sense - everywhere has their share of nuts...the net allows them to seem over-represented
Love your country - nuts or not
Frank
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/05/2003 20:37 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Kiwi, what is going on down there?? First semi-naked drunk man on a motorised bar stool caught speeding and had flames coming out of his ass (one of his party tricks) and now this!
#15
Thank you,Kiwi
Frank is right we all have to put with our nutjobs.
ex.Wacko Micheal Jackson,Robert Blake(that guy looks grazy},Martin Sheen(washed-up actor looking for free publicity).
Just goes to show you don't need a stage to be entertaining.
Put down your coffee...
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Two red double decker buses and a white London taxi that ferried anti-war activists to Baghdad to serve as "human shields" are stranded in Beirut with their owner short of the $5,500 it costs to ship them home. You didn't really think this all through, did you? (snicker)
"The buses have to be shipped back. It's just not practical to drive them... I am not even really sure how much money I've got, but I'm sure it's not enough," said owner Joe Letts, adding that he would fly to London on Thursday to try to raise cash. "I thought I would let people know it's a problem," he added, sitting in a makeshift kitchen on his bus in central Beirut. "I'm broke. Please give me money"
Letts said about 200 human shields, including many who traveled on his bus, remained in Baghdad when he left. But he said that although he stayed on as a shield for a week, he had no intention of staying in Baghdad for the duration of a war. "I own these buses and they are my livelihood and my family's livelihood. And all along I was there really to take the people down and then come back," he said. Now that's some real dedication to the cause.
"I had promised my wife I would get the buses home," he said. "If I don't get them home, we're absolutely stuck." If his wife is like my wife she'll be filing for divorce within the week.
Posted by: Scooter McGruder ||
03/05/2003 11:21 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Crap, I pasted one sentence twice. Say Fred, how's that editing function coming along? :-)
#3
I think I said before - this farcical sideshow is going to make a great film. He'll be able to buy a fleet of brand spanking new buses when he's sold the film rights. But then he'll probably blow all that on Prozac...
#4
Jeez, can we divert a ro-ro to pick him up? Or, at least a ferry from Bangladesh?
The moron went all the way to Baghdad and never planned how he'd get home? What, he figured we'd pop them in the back of a C-5A and fly them out gratis after we liberate the country?
And... {sputter, sputter} he risked his family's livelihood on this? Well, he can always go on the dole.
#5
Has Mel Brooks been filing these stories? C'mon, Mel. 'Fess up...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/05/2003 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Redefining Stoopid on a daily basis. There's a reality TV show somewhere in all this.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/05/2003 11:25 Comments ||
Top||
#7
And these are the people whose opinions on foreign policy and international relations we are asked to consider; reminds of that saying "he could screw up a one-car funeral"!
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw ||
03/05/2003 11:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
You know, they could alway turn around and park in front of that command and control cen.., I mean, hospital.
No, no, the one on the right. See the laser dot? Park right there...
#9
True German has made an interesting point that I've also seen others make; however, this was in the context of what the UN can do for peace. The UN has numerous workers now in PA territory, feeding terrorists, letting terrorists read bomb manuals, etc. as well as doing genuine humanitarian work. If the UN could assign several thousand people to simply ride the buses in Israel, it would actually do quite a bit to make the world safer.
#13
I've long since learnt to watch the drinks when reading Rantburg.
If the articles don't get you, the comments will.
Posted by: Kathy K ||
03/05/2003 15:50 Comments ||
Top||
#14
This is just hilarious and proves my point, that these people are not capable of thinking anything through: either morally or in this case, logistically. They're critical faculties are totally impaired. Too much weed probably to go along with their peace symbols.
#16
Ah, yes. Human shields on a red double-decker bus. An oddesy from Europe to Baghdad ending on the dock of the bay in Beruit. A source of innocent merriment. I feel a ballad coming on......give me a little creative time.....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/05/2003 22:24 Comments ||
Top||
#17
To qoute the illustrious J.D.Clampet:"Petiful,just plain petifull"
Long walk from Beruit tp London
Michelle sent me this as I was on my way to work. I'm at the disadvantage of having no idea who Chrissie Hynde is â she could be nice to her mother and patient with little children, and just have a fantasy about dating Sean Penn...
SOME MIGHT THINK that by 2003, a Pretenders concert would have evolved into your basic, run-of-the-mill, classic rock show. Well, that tells me she's a singer with the Pretenders. That's a start. Who're they?
That's a good one. Shall I slap my thigh now?
Saturday's show at the Warfield in San Francisco a Pretenders concert, but it was really the in-your-face Chrissie Hynde show in every way, shape and form. Lead singer Hynde was in a razor-tongued mood, whether the topic was war, sports, dancing, her own sex appeal, meat, or what the crowd looks like. She nearly picked a fight and openly coveted love from a biker. And what the heck â since she was there with three guys toting instruments, there was even some music. Nice of her to throw that in...
That part of the show was occasionally inspired, hot, passionate, flawless and sexy. After nearly a quarter-century, Hynde's voice is still a sneer wrapped in cool velvet. Seeing her front and center wearing a black T-shirt, jeans, her trademark black bangs and a Telecaster is like witnessing a rock 'n' roll monument. For lovers of real rock, it's the equivalent of a political junkie standing on the steps of the Capitol. She sounds... fascinating. Sadly, I'm not a lover of "real rock," which I often find juvenile and predictable. My preference is for 20s and 30s jazz, but we won't go into that...
And speaking of politics ... Hynde is a tad anti-war. She's anti lots of stuff, and isn't afraid to growl about them all every time the music stops. "Have we gone to war yet?" she asked sarcastically, early on. "We (expletive) deserve to get bombed. Bring it on." Later she yelled, "Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!" Sounds like one of the Great Minds of the 21st Century at work. Lotsa innalekshul depth there...
When a crowd member responded to that inflammatory statement, Hynde stormed the mic, roaring, "Shut your face!" Glaring, she held out the mic toward the fan as longtime drummer Martin Chambers stood up behind her, ready to rumble. "You come up to the mic and say something, smart guy," she snarled. "What do you want to talk about?" Oh, how intimidating! They pay her to do that, of course...
The music nearly became an afterthought for Hynde's issues. ("Did I tell you why I hate sports? Because I hate winners and people who have to win all the time.") Sounds like she's a lo-o-o-o-oser.
But remember, Hynde cut her musical teeth in a place where anger and music easily mix. To see a swaggering 51-year-old woman still unfazed by anything in a male-dominated music world is a wonderful thing, whether you agree or not. Hynde's credibility is genuine and rooted firmly in experience (she witnessed the Kent State protest killings in 1970 and later immersed herself in the mid-1970s London musical uprising that helped birth punk rock). And this is supposed to matter because...?
So fans, even the ones Hynde wanted to beat up, probably should have expected her to be charged up these days. That passion gave the classics a shot of adrenaline Saturday night. I get it. Her passion for seeing her country destroyed translates into passion in her music, right?
Though there were great moments from the newest record, "Loose Screw," especially the ode to junkies, "You Know Who Your Friends Are," the intensity grew with the back catalog. For all her independence, Hynde clearly knows what still brings out the fans. "We're gonna play everything you came to hear," she promised before kicking off "Talk of the Town." Melancholy Baby? Miss Otis Regrets? How about Paper Moon? Ooh! Ooh! I know! How about Isle of Capri?
Her voice sounded great, as did the band. Guitarist Adam Seymour shined [sic]during "My City Was Gone," with extended and intense leads doing real justice to former guitarist Robbie McIntosh. Yet it was Hynde getting all the attention. She stopped the band during "Don't Get me Wrong," smiled and said, "See, I can do whatever I (expletive) want to up here." This came only moments after looking along the front row and smirking, "It's not often that we have an audience that's uglier than we are," before kicking into "Back on the Chain Gang." Or maybe it's just that the band and the audience looked alike, with the audience being slightly more numerous...
People expect bad girl talk from Hynde, though calling the crowd ugly might even be a reach for her. Even if they weren't so forgiving, the music soothed things over. Once Hynde shut up, the show gained sudden momentum, like a big rig losing brakes halfway down the mountain. There were charged versions of "Kid," "Night in my Veins," and "Precious," then the energy peaked during an absolutely wrenching "Mystery Achievement," during which Seymour coolly channeled the frantic brilliance of late guitarist James Honeyman-Scott. Hynde wound down with show-ender "Brass in Pocket," putting a period on the point that for all her entertaining swagger and mouthiness, the Pretenders are best when Hynde lets the music do the talking. Okay. Now I know all about Chrissie Hynde. She's a pretentious loud-mouth, kinda Don Rickles with a guitar. She doesn't really hope that the Muslims win because she's not even sure who they are or what they've done, but her schtick is being truculent and stoopid, so she says things like that to tick people off. And I should give a hairy ratzass about her opinion because...?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 10:40 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hynde was always an overrated poseur. She may "hope the Muslims win", without realizing how that would effect her career as a female who sings in public.
On the other hand, Joan Jett entertained the troops in Afghanistan.
#4
She hopes we get bombed? Uh, hey Hynde....9/11 ring a bell? How many more Americans have to die to assuage your pathetic, pretend guilt? Take the pipe ya dried out hag.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/05/2003 11:18 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Robert - That's true. I do a disservice to Don Rickles. Reword that to read "kinda Don Rickles with a guitar but without the talent".
Posted by: Fred ||
03/05/2003 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Being a sexless, worn-out, old, raggedy road-whore would make anyone testy. "Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents!
But isn't capitalism what made you rich you ignorant piece of trash?
#11
I am not sure who wins: the bus guy in Beirut, the chick who wants Bush to crucify her, the woman who suggested that polisci students should make being human shields a class project (http://poliblogblog.blogspot.com/2003_03_02_poliblogblog_archive.html#90071560), or Hynde. It is hard to choose, I must admit.
#12
If memory serves me correctly, The pretenders have lost numerous members of the band to drug and booze overdose's , come on Chrissy lean in and take one for the team , you nasal voiced wiper of other peoples bottoms!
#13
Sorry Mike, I stand corrected, I just rememember Ohio in the refrain and the dominant bass line. I can only think of three Pretenders songs worth listening to anyway.
#14
OK -I'll bite - 2 good songs off top of my head: 1) 2000 Miles - sentimental family song; and 2) Space Invaders - ending credit soundtrack for a cheech and chong flick with the actual space invader vid game sounds - good bass beat, but song is hard to find - unless if you use bearshare (hint hint)
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/05/2003 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Quite a few members of Hynde's aptly name "Pretenders" are pushing up daisies because of drugs and suicides. Prolly not coincidental considering the hostile work environment Hynde fosters. And now she's got an "ode to junkies?" Perfect!
I also particularly like how she handled the heckler. Really bugged her how someone stood up to her bullshit, didn't it? As long as everybody nods their heads, it's cool, eh Chrissie? Hurts when someone disagrees, does it?
Chrissy Hind is WAAAAAY over the hill, has been since at least '87. I have a Pretenders "greatest hits" and it's basically got three decent songs on it. She hasn't done squat for years and about the only air time she gets is from Rush's show (haha!)
Another weird thing about this story is how the writer totally buried the lead.
Everyone in the media was talking about Hynde calling for a Muslim victory. This story was EVERYWHERE today. The Hynde rant was the obvious lead for the story, yet he runs it in the fourth graf and was almost casual about it. I can guess why: Chrissie'd get pissed if Mr. Weakass Reviewer had reported this story properly.
Hynde and others in the entertainment industry are going to pay a heavy price for their unpatriotic words and deeds. Martin Sheen says he's feeling the heat, and the Screen Actors Guild today put out a plea that there be no blacklist for anti-war entertainers. (Hah! It's the conservative entertainers who are at real risk of being blacklisted...)
There is not going to be any blacklisting by the industry, it's going to be from the public.
We aren't going to easily forget who said what.
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
03/06/2003 1:02 Comments ||
Top||
#16
we're the people who can make Chrissy disappear..........matter of fact we already did but, it was because she started to suck years ago. HEY CHRISSY, WELCOME TO, "WOULD YOU LIKE A HOT APPLE PIE WITH THAT"
Prime Minister Mir Zafar Ullah Khan Jamali Tuesday confirmed that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and another Arabic speaking (Somali national) have been arrested from the house of Dr. Abdul Quduse Khan, an activist of Jamaat-e-Islami. "I think one should have courage to face realities and reality is that both of these al-Qaeda activists have been arrested with Ahmed Abdul Quduse from a house of JI local leader," the Prime Minister said while addressing a seminar "International crises and role of Pakistan" organized by Mir Khalil-ur-Rehman Memorial Society. Sounds fascinating. Sorry I missed it...
In his typical indirect style of speech, he was addressing the seminar after hearing a speech of Liaquat Baloch, leader of Muttahada Majlas-e-AamalâMMA and Deputy Chief of Jamaat-e-Islami. Baloch has denied the claims that one of the most wanted al-Qaeda man by the United States, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad and his other Arab origin comrade were arrested from a house of local Nazim of JI in Westridge, Rawalpindi Cantt. Earlier Qazi Hussein Ahmed has also vowed that no one else other than Ahmed Abdul Quduse was arrested from the house and none of al-Qaeda activists has been apprehended from the same house. Prime Minister Jamali while talking very clearly has rejected the claims made by JI leader Liaquat Baloch and while hearing him Baloch did not react. Don't you hate it when you lie through your teeth and somebody has da noive — da noive! — to call you a goddamned liar?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 12:48 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat has Tuesday said the United States had given no instructions on the Jamaat-e-Islami, neither we would follow American dictations in this regard. Talking to reporters here at the National Police Academy the interior minister opined the Jamaat may have links with al-Qaeda as some of the key members of this terror network were arrested from the housed of those affiliated with JI. Pretty obvious, isn't it?
The minister rejected the statements of some of the US senators suggesting that Osama bin Laden was somewhere in Pakistan. "If they (US senators) had any proof of bin Laden's presence in Pakistan then they should provide it to us." If we knew where he was for sure, we'd probably go get him ourselves...
To a question, the minister said Khalid Sheikh was the third in al-Qaeda ranking, and he was arrested by Pakistani agencies, not the FBI. The minister, referring to a query on JI's alleged ties with al-Qaeda, said, "this was a serious matter and JI must clear its position on this issue. We would follow the law of land in this regard." The law of the land appears to require a lot of puffing and blowing and making faces, a few accusations of insidious international plots, and nothing of substance...
The minister questioned why the Jamaat office-holders were giving sheltering al-Qaeda activists as their guests. "Illegally giving shelter to illegal foreigners was a breach of the law, and we would take action against this violation." "No teevee for a week, young man!"
The minister asked whether the MMA leaders could enter any of the Middle Eastern country with valid visa or travel documents. "If they could go, then they should demonstrate." The interior minister queried why the chief of MMA and his Saudi-born wife were not allowed to enter Saudi Arabia. "Press should ask this question from the MMA top leader." Nourani's not allowed in Soddy Arabia? I didn't know that... Very interesting!
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 12:29 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
U.S. and coalition warplanes are flying two to three times the number of missions they have been flying over southern Iraq, military sources say. The missions have focused on mobile missile systems being moved into the area, sources said. As many as 750 missions a day are now being flown.
Military sources said the change is in response to the Iraqis moving mobile surface-to-surface missiles, mobile surface-to-air missiles, early warning radars and anti-ship missiles into the southern no-fly zone. 750 missions a day? holy moly!
#1
Wow--mission increase, abandonment of the Turkey front, shift of psyops paradigm, and, of course, the reports of special forces deployed in Iraq already...
I'm thinking it's begun!
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/05/2003 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The Bush administration has abandoned the hope that Turkey will serve as a major front in the planned U.S.-led war against Iraq. Officials said the Defense Department has ordered U.S. Central Command to begin preparations to execute a contingency plan for a one-front war against Iraq. That front would be Kuwait and Central Command has been informed to prepare for the arrival of at least two additional divisions meant for deployment in Turkey. "The Pentagon has written off Turkey as a second front," an official said. "There is the prospect that U.S. special forces could eventually enter Iraq from Turkish territory. But this will not comprise the second front that we had been planning." Officials said the Pentagon has launched negotiations with Kuwait for the arrival of tens of thousands of additional U.S. troops. They said Kuwait has agreed in principle, but raised unspecified guarantees. I think we've all been expecting that...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 10:30 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has made no strategic or political decision to disarm and new intelligence data shows he is making new attempts to deceive UN weapons inspectors, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said last night. Powell said that the US was prepared to move quickly if the crisis came to war, but said Saddam has "one last opportunity" to disarm peacefully. One more last opportunity, he means...
Two days before a crucial Security Council meeting on a new US-British-Spanish resolution which argues that Iraq has failed to disarm, Powell laid out a dramatic new charge-sheet against Baghdad. He accused the regime of moving weapons of mass destruction around to escape detection and of producing new missiles, even as it publicly destroys old stocks of the Al Samound 2 rocket. Taking aim at an audience outside Washington, Powell also warned fellow members of the Security Council that international divisions over how to force Iraq to disarm were encouraging Saddam to continue on the path of deception. Save your breath, Colin...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 09:18 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Uh huh.
This probably makes it the eighth or ninth "last chance". I lost count several last chances ago.
#2
Remember the photos of the missile test beds shown at the UN? These missiles were tested on the old one, the new one looks at least four times as large. I don't think it was so they could test four engines at a time...
Posted by: John Anderson ||
03/05/2003 23:17 Comments ||
Top||
The United States Central Command quietly shifted its psychological operations (psyop) broadcasts from the Iraqi military based in Southern Iraq to the Iraqi public. The shift, which went unreported by the mainstream press, signals a major development in military strategy that underscores the resolve of the Bush administration in seeking Baghdad's disarmament.
Information Radio, which is broadcast from the EC-130E Commando Solo aircraft, now targets the general public of Iraq. Approximately 360,000 newly redesigned leaflets advertising the program and its broadcast schedule, according to the Central Command, were dropped over the cities of An Nasiriyah, Rumaylah, and Al Basrah on March 1. The cities are located south of Baghdad within the southern "No Fly Zone" enforced by U.S. and U.K. coalition jets.
"In times of crisis," one of the new leaflets states, "Tune into 'Information Radio' for important news and information. Coalition Forces Support the Iraqi people in their desire to remove Saddam and his Regime. The Coalition wishes no harm to the innocent Iraqi civilians."
Says another, "The Coalition stands with the Iraqi people against Saddam. For your safety stay in your homes away from military targets. The Coalition does not target civilians. Listen to Information Radio for more information."
Information Radio broadcasts, which began in mid-December 2002, previously aired messages urging Iraqi soldiers to "make the decision" and support efforts to halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Its broadcasts, CRW has noted, were not intended for a civilian audience.
Listeners can monitor Information Radio on the following frequencies:
*1500-2000* 756, 693, 9715, 11292 kHz, 100.4 MHz.
Say, Is that a ballon going up?
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/05/2003 06:57 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
from the Associated Press; edited for length
BAGHDAD, Iraq - Demonstrators clad in white pledged Wednesday to become martyrs for Iraq, parading through the capital as Saddam Hussein sought to show he had his people's support against a possible U.S.-led war to oust his regime. The US Department of Defense is happy to help you realize your martyrdom ambitions.
Chanting "long live the leader," thousands of policemen, firefighters and civil defense forces joined the march with the 60-member contingent of mind-numbed robots "martyrdom seekers," who would launch suicide attacks against U.S. troops if they invade Iraq. "Banzai!"
Saddam has repeatedly said in recent weeks that foreign invaders would meet "suicide" at the gates of the Iraqi capital. Sounds more like a Monty Python skit than a military strategy.
Interior Minister Mahmoud Diab al-Ahmed told reporters that they had chosen martyrdom "for the sake of the nation's glory and dignity and for the sake of humiliating the invaders." That long black JDAM's comin' down
Feel I'm knockin' on heaven's door . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
03/05/2003 02:17 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't ridicule them too much. Maybe many of them just wanted to avoid instant martyrdom inflicted by Saddam's thugs.
It's interesting that they were clad in white. They might need the cloth in a few weeks. For waving.
#3
no, white is the color of a burial shroud. this is standard practice in parades like this. OFten the marchers will be wrapped very similarly with how they would be buried. (making concessions for mobility to march ofcourse) Not sure wether there's any kind of purity symbolism there with the color choice, but it's supposed to indicate a preparedness for death.
Fairly soon, Pulver Press is going to be shutting down for a while. Greg Pulver's has something important to do.
Yesterday the Secretary of Defense of the United States of America activated Delta Company, 4th Light Armored Reconnaissance Battallion , 4th Marine Division for deployment to the Persian Gulf. I report at 0800 on Friday at Camp Upshur, Quantico, Virginia. On Tuesday I leave for Camp Lejune, North Carolina to wait for deployment to the Kuwait. Before I leave, I'll post a final farewell address, followed by silence for the next 6 months to a year.
I got this via Tim Blair Julius Strauss was sceptical about the merits of war - but then he met some of Saddam's victims. Strauss apparently writes for Daily Telegraph, but I got this from an Aussie newspaper.
There is something singular about a man who has been severely tortured. Maybe it is the way he struggles against failing eyesight caused by repeated blows to the kidneys. Or his lopsided posture, the result of multiple broken bones that have failed to mend properly. Sometimes there is a tremor in the hands or a twitch, a minuscule outer sign of the torment within. The man who sat opposite me in a small, bare room at the Kurdish border post last week had all the symptoms of a man who had been systematically broken. Slowly, sometimes reluctantly, he relived for me the terror of the 21 months he spent in Saddam Hussein's torture chambers...
When I came to autonomous northern Iraq - which, since 1991, has been protected from Saddam's reach by American and British warplanes â I was intensely sceptical of the wisdom of Washington's insistence on deposing Saddam. Its claims of links between al-Qaeda and Baghdad seemed tenuous. As for the assertion that Saddam will soon have the bomb, well, the evidence was pretty flimsy. Indeed, I could have reeled off a host of counter-arguments. At a time when the Western world is entering a long drawn-out struggle against Islamist terrorism, it made little sense to fritter away resources to oust a man whose regime was weaker than ever. A war also risked alienating tens of millions of moderate Muslims whose support would be essential if the threat of Islamist extremism was to be neutered. I agreed with the quietly spoken Muslim men I met in Pakistan, Afghanistan and central Asia who said a Middle East peace deal was a greater priority than ousting Saddam. As long as Palestinians continued to die in the streets, they said, the fires of Islamist extremism would keep burning. I have not renounced these arguments entirely. But after little more than a week in northern Iraq, my eyes have been opened to the sheer scale of savagery that Saddam has unleashed on his people...
As the drums of war beat ever louder, I am still unsure of the strategic wisdom of opening a second front in the war against terror. But of the moral rectitude of such a course, there can be no doubt. I guess I can forgive this guy the "drums of war" cliche
I'm surprised. Lefties and other True Believers usually seem to have the feeling that "those people don't feel pain like we do." Sympathy's in the abstract, for the Aspirations of the Massesâ¢, rather than for the poor guy who's maimed or killed. Maybe they'll all come around someday. Hitchens' comments in the wake of Gulf War I seem like they could have been written be somebody else entirely. Maybe it's just a function of age â except that Ramsey Clark used to date God's grandmother...
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/05/2003 02:51 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think that human rights in Iraq should have been on the U.N. agenda much earlier. Was there ever a U.N. resolution demanding that Saddam has to stop killing and torturing his people? Resolution 687 (of 1991) talks a lot about weapons and not about human rights.
If we could stop the genocide in Kosovo why can't we stop the mass murder in Iraq?
I know, a human rights case could be made against at least hundred U.N. members. But it would be hard to find a more barbaric regime right now than Saddam's.
The Germans have a say: "Better an end with terror than terror without end."
Deploring also that the Government of Iraq has failed to comply with its commitments pursuant to resolution 687 (1991) with regard to terrorism, pursuant to resolution 688 (1991) to end repression of its civilian population and to provide access by international humanitarian organizations to all those in need of assistance in Iraq, and pursuant to resolutions 686 (1991), 687 (1991), and 1284 (1999) to return or cooperate in accounting for Kuwaiti and third country nationals wrongfully detained by Iraq, or to return Kuwaiti property wrongfully seized by Iraq,
It has been brought up, but seems to be regarded by the UNSC members as, at best, low on the importance scale, or ignored completely. So even with Saddam's WMDs in the bin there'd still be an argument to go in and sort the evil b****** out.
Btw, like the German saying. Don't people use it any more?!
#3
Interesting, must have overlooked that part. How about material breach concerning "repression of its civilian population then?" Or would France, the beacon of civilisation and human rights, veto that too?
The more I think about it, the more I deplore that this issue has been ranking so low in the U.N. After all, it might be a problem to find hidden WMD but to prove ongoing barbarism in Iraq shouldn't be a problem.
Maybe the U.S. should have given this aspect of resolution 688 more thought.
And Bulldog, yes they still say it. But unfortunately don't apply it. At least not when the terror is done to others.
I think many people here (including me) have paid to much attention to the flawed, heavy handed way the U.S. diplomacy handled this affair (and its allies). So we had an easy excuse to ignore the "heart of the matter".
But that "ruffled feathers" would have made my government to side with Moscow against Washington is beyond my understanding.
I know what a dictatorship looks like. As a boy I lived in terror. 1944/45 my family hid in a filthy basement waiting for the Gestapo to knock at the door. It's hard to welcome bombs when you see women and children burnt to charcoal in the streets. But we knew that every bomb brought us closer to freedom. But freedom proved to be an illusion. The Americans conquered the city I lived in, only to leave it to the Soviets a few weeks later.
I hope the Iraqis will get a better deal. I hope the Baathists don't get a second chance like many Nazis got, recycled as Communists or Democrats.
#4
There's a number of leftish British journalists who have come out pro-liberation - they understand the logic that the way to make people safe is to make sure there are no countries that don't have reasonable, workable democracies, and they even see the US's lead as a good thing, in that it almost expiates bad foreign policy moves of the past. They're not exactly gung-ho, but they're definitely not anti-American in the sickening, mechanical way most of the left is. Names like Johann Hari, David Aaronovitch, Nick Cohen, Julie Burchill - and of course there's Hitchens, who seems to have burned his bridges with his leftist affiliation.
To me, it looks like there's a big area where sensible, non-loony left and right wingers can agree, and that area, to me, defines classical liberalism, the pre-socialist form of revolutionary radicalism - for democracy and individual rights, strongly against tyranny, enslavement, dictatorship, etc.
If this is the "middle ground" (it's actually a True Left), then all you have is two "flavours" - one side, the left, preferring to emphasise the importance of social freedom, and wary of economic freedom, the other side, the right, preferring to emphasise the importance of economic freedom, and wary of social freedom; but both of them aware that both social and economic freedom are necessary for a properly functioning society that benefits its citizens. It's sort of what "libertarianism" should have been, but its party political machine fucked up (and it was too much associated with cranky beginnings in the 60s).
Posted by: George Stewart ||
03/05/2003 17:09 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The 'liberate Iraq because of human rights argument is a good one. However, it is too good. It also justifies, maybe even requires, invading other countries. There are at least a dozen regimes that have large scale, severe, continuing and egregious violations of human rights. Loosen the criteria a bit to just large scale and continuing and one of the violators is the PR of China. Anybody thing we should invade them?
#6
Interestingly, that Duke article instapundit linked to mentioned the fact that avoidance of trouble with the PRC is one of the reasons for ousting Saddam, and one of the reasons stability in that whole region generally is urgently required. (The PRC is going to be needing lots and lots of oil very soon to fuel its industrial expansion - if it can't get a steady commercial flow from an unstable middle east, it may try and capture the South China sea potential, and that might cause potential problems there.)
Generally, in terms of spreading all that good stuff like democracy, I think the idea is to scare the shit out of dodgy regimes. Hopefully, they will get the message! The only really troublesome possibility seems to be North Korea - the economic situation in that country appears to be so dire that the regime may feel it has nothing to lose.
Still, you never know what a display of superpower might can do in terms of making people think very, very hard.
Here's hoping for the best outcomes all round!
Posted by: George Stewart ||
03/05/2003 20:33 Comments ||
Top||
Foreign ministers from anti-war powers France, Russia and Germany agreed on Wednesday not to allow a resolution authorizing war in Iraq to be passed in the United Nations Security Council. Did we ask for a resolution authorizing war? I think it just says that Iraq is in breach.
"We will not allow the passage of a planned resolution which would authorize the use of force," he said after a meeting in Paris with his counterparts Igor Ivanov of Russia and Joschka Fischer of Germany. But will you admit they are in breach?
"Russia and France as permanent security council members will fully assume all their responsibilities," he added at a joint news conference with Ivanov and Fischer. What does that mean, Fully assume responsibilities? Yes? No? or Veto?
Asked whether France was ready to use its right of veto to block a U.N. resolution giving the green light for force in Iraq, Villepin added: "We are totally on the same line as Russia." Hmm..still didn't answer the question as to exactly what line they are on AND note he left out Germany.
Ivanov said in London on Tuesday Moscow would not abstain on the resolution, which the United States and Britain may introduce next week, and warned it could use its veto power. Okaaay..so Russia won't abstain, that's clear. As for the veto, they MIGHT use your veto which means they MIGHT not.
Ivanov also said that China, another veto-wielding Security Council member which last month supported a memo by the three anti-war powers urging more inspections, "shares our approach" on the Iraq crisis. Yeah, they share your approach, but like Germany, he's worming around stating how China plans to vote on our proposal.
Villepin said all three would travel to New York for the meeting. "The three foreign ministers want to coordinate their next steps," ... The other two veto powers, the United States and Britain, have drawn up a memo with rotating member Spain to declare Iraq in breach of U.N. resolutions to disarm. See, it doesn't say, "allow a resolution authorizing war in Iraq". Can't these guy's read?
Diplomats in Paris said France, Russia and Germany wanted to ensure they agreed on their common position at a time when Washington seemed to be preparing for an attack and was putting heavy pressure on Security Council members to support its pro-war resolution. Sounds like they are afraid US has the votes to pass the resolution and they joining forces to do damage control. I suspect there is much dissention on what that "common position" is. The wording of the resolution won't change between now and then — so why so much diplospeak?
#3
"Fully assume their responsibilities..."
I've got a proposal now. We can let the French take complete leadership on handling Iraq if:
1) They pick up the tab on our troops staying past the end of March.
2) They assume complete responsibility for the actions of Saddam and his WMDs. Particularly, any use of said WMDs should be treated as an official action of France.
3) They explicitly authorize appropriate response to acts of war by France against the United States and its allies.
This would likely prompt the State Department to warn Americans to leave Paris and avoid French military bases.
#6
I've heard this a couple of times today. Seems to me what they're "saying" is that they're trying not to get the resolution on the table to vote because they and Cameroon, ad nauseum don't want to vote on it at all. Because, with some stories which have been leaking, France will not veto, Russian knows which end is up, Schroeder might do an about face, we do have the votes. This is like one of those marathon dances during the depression, they shoot horses, don't they?
You've gotta hand it to these guys - there's not diplomatic BS here, they cut to the chase...
Leaders of Islamic nations have begun an emergency summit in the Gulf State of Qatar on the crisis in Iraq. Within minutes, a top aide of Saddam Hussein caused uproar when he called a Kuwaiti representative a "monkey" and a "traitor". "Shut up you minion, you [US] agent, you monkey. You are addressing Iraq," said Izzat Ibrahim, the second-in-command of Iraq's Revolutionary Command Council. Kuwait's Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Jabir al-Sabah tried to fight back but his comments could not be heard over the fray, correspondents said. Refreshing to see the pleasantries were kept to a mimimum.
The row began when the Kuwaiti official interrupted Mr Ibrahim's speech which was highly critical of Kuwait and the US, which led a coalition to liberate the Gulf state from Iraqi occupation in 1991. Mr Ibrahim cursed the official's honour at which another Kuwaiti minister jumped up and waved a small Kuwaiti flag which had been on the desk. Hope this will be televised.
The angry exchange was halted when the summit chairman, Qatari Emir Sheikh Hamad Bin-Khalifah al-Thani said the discussion was not relevant to the meeting and moved on to the next speaker. The aim of the summit is to present a unified front from the Muslim world calling for war to be averted. It is the first attempt by the Islamic world as a whole to find a common voice on the Iraq crisis. Heads of state and representatives from 57 members of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference are taking part. The summit at a five-star hotel in Doha is just a short distance from a vast American military base from where the US would control an invasion of Iraq. Wonder if the USAF will be doing any honorary fly-bys.
On the agenda is an initiative put forward by the United Arab Emirates to call on Saddam Hussein to stand down. Kuwait and Bahrain have backed the idea and it has been described as wishful thinking important by the Gulf states.
A BBC correspondent at the meeting, Claire Marshall, [sic] Mr Ibrahim will be keen to try to dismiss any talk of his leader's exile. While there will be a battle to reach a consensus, the bigger task will be to make any resolution count, she adds. The Islamic conference has no power to enforce its decrees. As one Malaysian delegate put it, "If the US President, George W Bush, is prepared to ignore the United Nations, then certainly we will be irrelevant to him. " I think he'll find this a bizarre and entertaining diversion from more important affairs.
#1
Tee hee!
I've been preaching it all along.
The Muslim nations can't unite on what to call their peckers, let alone produce a coherent, cogent statement about a political issue.
Maybe if we just hang around enough, they will kill each other off.
#4
If you need an extra long name to identify who you are, then you have an identity crisis. I personally like the short name, "Rawls" from the novel Wake of the Red Witch.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/05/2003 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Imagine what they'd be like with a coupla drinks in them." tu3031
Thanks, tu3031! Biggest chuckle of the day!
Posted by: Tom ||
03/05/2003 15:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Mr." Ibrahim also said to the Kuwaiti "I curse your mustache" supposedly a real serious slur to the Kiwaiti's manhood in Arabspeak. I guess if he went whole hog and cursed out his friggin' beard also, it would have been dueling jambiyas at twenty paces. You can't make this shit up.
#9
Gee, has it been that long since Libya and Saudi Arabia had the same exhange? And can't these guys think up new insults? "Monkey" is getting kinda tired, even if it is a quote from the Koran.
May I suggest "maggot-ridden get of a syphilitic camel and hydrophobic dog"?
Posted by: John Anderson ||
03/05/2003 23:40 Comments ||
Top||
WASHINGTON: "Turkish support is assured", declared deputy Pentagon chief Paul Wolfowitz triumphantly after a meeting with top military and government officials in Ankara in early December. He was referring, of course, to the US plan to deploy tens of thousands of troops to bases in southwestern Turkey from which they would open a second, northern front in their invasion of Iraq and quickly secure control of strategic oil fields around Kirkuk while racing south to Baghdad and Tikrit.
Sounds like somebody made him a promise they couldn't keep...
The bluff certainty with which Wolfowitz, leader of the neo- conservative faction in the administration of President George W. Bush, declared his confidence was characteristic of the way Washington's hawks have approached the impending war with Iraq and their broader imperial ambitions. And while Wolfowitz praised Turkish democracy, a senior US diplomat told reporters who travelled with the delegation that they should not worry that Turkey's constitution gives the nation's parliament exclusive authority to approve the deployment of foreign troops on Turkish soil. Democracy is such a foul thing.
"Most of the US requests likely will be decided by Turkey's national security council, which includes the military's politically powerful general staff, along with senior elected officials", the Washington Postquoted a ubiquitous "Western diplomat" as saying. Oh my god, they still don't understand what the job of the National security council is, it is a sort of thinktank who can only give advice on national policy, they have no authority for decisions you bozo
So it came as a rude shock this weekend when the Turkish parliament did, after all, reject the US plan, along with some $15 billion in economic aid and approval for tens of thousands of Turkish troops to enter northern Iraq with US forces to secure Turkish national interests in the region. That's what you get if you keep up twisting democracy, it's however striking to see how many prefer to believe in fairythales of a junta-run Turkish republic.
Most of us don't have any liking for rule by tin hats, anymore than we have a liking for rule by mullahs or by the Vanguard of the Proletariatâ¢. People who count on the military to control Turkey aren't thinking things all the way through. But at the same time, not all decisions, arrived at through the democratic process, are good decisions.
While officials here are hoping that the Turks will accede to pressure â exerted by both Washington and investors who brought down the average share price on the Turkish stock exchange on Monday by 12 per cent â to arrange a second vote, the setback suggests that administration hawks who have led the charge for war may be relying on a whole range of assumptions â about their power, their tactics, and the way they are perceived by others, especially in democratic states where governments must be at least somewhat responsive to their electorates â that may not correspond to reality. Yeah, sad but true
"The ideologues in Washington think that the invasion can't go wrong, but their moral certitude is going to clash with realities on the ground," Raad al-Kadiri of the Washington-based Petroleum Finance Co. told the Wall Street Journal last week. The Turkish vote may also indicate that the imperial worldview that comes with such moral certitude" makes it impossible for hawks to understand and appreciate the sensitivities of foreign public opinion, particularly in countries with democratic institutions. It was telling that during the same weekend that the Turks rejected Washington's military plans, half a world away the Philippines government was forced to disavow another Pentagon plan to send 3,000 US troops on a joint "operation" against Abu Sayyaf, a self-described religious group that specializes in kidnapping in the predominantly Muslim southern part of the country. While the government of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo apparently went along with the Pentagon's scheme to involve US forces directly in hostilities, according to a detailed Post account on Monday, the Pentagon publicly framed the operation in a way that made clear it would violate a constitutional ban on combat operations by foreign forces in the Philippines. "The Pentagon had failed to grasp the political and cultural sensitivities in the Philippines, a former US colony in which nationalist sentiment led to the closure of two US military bases a decade ago", the Post explained. The results: Washington's hopes of stepping up the US military presence in East Asia â a major strategic goal of the hawks â have been set back primarily as a result of public opinion in a democratic state.
Inconvenient for us. But because they're a democracy, they also have to live with the consequences of their democratic decision-making process...
Ditto for South Korea, where Washington's adamant refusal to agree to bilateral talks with North Korea appears to be adding to growing popular anger whose latest expression began last fall when a military court acquitted two of the 37,000 servicemen based in the South for accidentally crushing two Korean schoolgirls with their armoured personnel carriers. What could have been fixed with a straightforward apology by Bush to the South Korean people and an updating of its Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Seoul has mushroomed into a much broader questioning of the future of a 50-year military alliance that some experts here believe may be doomed unless Washington changes tack urgently. But, seemingly oblivious to or contemptuous of South Korean public opinion, the hawks appear to be digging in their heels.
These observations are a bit out of date, given recent events. The phrasing also seems to assume we want to keep troops in South Korea, spending lots of money to ensure the security of a country that's become a major economic power and should be able to defend itself by now...
Indeed, the failure to grasp political and cultural sensitivities of foreign governments, especially those that have democratic institutions, has, if anything, been the Achilles heel of the hawks, according even to its supporters. "As Turks offered explanations on Sunday for this stinging defiance of their strongest ally, tales of American insensitivity were high on the list,"wrote a US daily. There is, of course, an enormous irony in this, if only because the neo-conservatives are trying to persuade the world that Washington is only trying to spread democracy in the Muslim world. "The essence of what we believe in â we in the United States â is that people should be free to determine their own future," Wolfowitz told Turkish reporters last July. "Turkey is proof that democracy can work for Muslims."
The fact that it's a democracy doesn't ensure that we'll always agree with it. But it does ensure we'll treat the decisions it makes with respect...
But, "In the end, the greatest and most enduring challenge to American primacy may come not from our current or traditional antagonists â but from democracy itself," warned Donald Emmerson, Stanford University political scientist in a Times column in January. Irony indeed, could it be that hawks are getting slowly an aversion against democracy?
No, we're not getting an aversion to democracy. But we can disagree with another democracy, and we feel free to tell them when we think they're wrong, just as they â and also every tin-hat dictator, "People's Republic" and mullocracy â feels free to tell us when they think we're wrong. The U.S. has a history of being overly polite when it comes to that sort of criticism, but I think we're reaching the point where we're reacting about like everyone else. Evereyone else doesn't seem to like it...
Posted by: Murat ||
03/05/2003 11:57 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It is actually both laughable and sad to read people associate the US with imperialism. If anything our problem is our deep latent isolationism. We didn't get troops into Bosnia at all (just air strikes) even though it would have saved lives, simply because we hate the thought of US boots on foreign soil. Similarly, we should have had more troops in Afganistan but didn't because of the same thought. Similarly, we didn't intervene in Haiti, in Zimbabwe, in Ruanda, even though we could have prevented human catastrophe, simply because of our distaste for foreign involvement.
#2
Murat, if the US were half the imperialists you make them out to be, Turkey would be a US slave state and you'd be sitting in a re-education camp contemplating your dinner bowl of maggot-and-rat-feces stew. But you're not, and we're not, so kindly stop the hyperbole, ok?
#3
Please, if the US were truly imperial we would care not a whit how the Turkish parliament voted. As it is the US will respect Turkey's decision and work around them rather than roll over them.
For the war planners Turkey's decision is at worst a speed bump. In time the decision will be understood to be far worse for the Turks than for the Americans; they will bear all the costs of conflict without the support they would have received. They will also have much less clout when the post-war restructuring gets underway. Democracy includes the right to make poor choices.
#4
Gkarp- Whether Turkey supports it or not it will cost anyway, thatâs not the real point. I took this piece from Jim Lobe because it is describing very well how hawks regard some allies as a cat in the bag that can be rented for a few lousy dollars. If this is not an imperial view, then what is? Even the UN and legality are completely ignored by the hawks, which IMO are not really good moral values in world opinion and are degenerating the just cause. It could be translated as failure of US foreign policy.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/05/2003 4:11 Comments ||
Top||
#5
To me, it seems the US gvt is a bit pissed about Turkey's national policy diverging from its own foreign interests. Nothing imperial here, quite the contrary, just a long-time US ally demonstrating its sovereignty, and another example of the vacuity of the "hyper power" spooky tales. Btw, Murat, nobody accused Turkey of not being a real democracy, and, yes, there is some irony here.
South Korea isn't that good of an example of American disrespect for local democracy. The anti-American demonstrations in South Korea vanished very quickly once the South Koreans began to hear Americans saying that we would be perfectly happy to leave. And in fact, most of the "O.K., let's pick up and go" talk was coming from the "hawks".
As for the Turkey's decision not to support a US invasion of Iraq -- well, obviously, the US will give Turkey a chance to reconsider, and then will accept its ultimate decision. Of course, there will be a definite downside to that decision for Turkey. I noticed an almost audible sigh of relief from many commentators here in the US when negotiations feel through with Turkey. There was a real and growing worry that a deal with Turkey would be at the expense of the Kurds, for whom their is considerable -- and growing -- sympathy.
I'll close by saying that I really respect your faith in democracy and the right of self-determination. I just wish you were willing to extend it to allowing the Iraqi people the opportunity to enjoy the same.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/05/2003 4:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
There is something odd about US foreign policy, I mean if you want something you take care about public relations. I bet when Bush or Powell had visited Turkey and gave a small speech in the parliament things would have gone pretty much different. Instead we see Powell lifting up his phone and dictating they are in a hurry and need an answer within 24hours. One should ask whatâs wrong here, I personally think the US foreign policy shows a real poor performance and thatâs maybe the main reason the US is starting to feel so much reluctance by allies.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/05/2003 4:58 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"Even the UN and legality are completely ignored by the hawks, which IMO are not really good moral values in world opinion and are degenerating the just cause."
Guess I've been halllucinating every time I think I've seen the US representatives at the UN over the past few months, then. If you're talking legal technicalities, Murat, there's nothing stopping the US, or anybody, taking military action against Iraq for its continual failure to disarm as was stipulated as part of the UN-brokered ceasefire conditions at the end of GW1 (Iraq is in material breach of resolution 687 (resolution 1441)). It would be great if more countries were as willing to enforce UN resolutions as the US. Please let's stick to the facts and not start throwing ludicrously false accusations around.
#9
Bulldog- read "hawks", I was talking about hawks, of course there are US representatives at the UN
Posted by: Murat ||
03/05/2003 5:16 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Don't you regard the Bush admin as hawks then? They seem to have given the UN a fair chance to put its "resolutions" into action. If you're talking about more extreme hawks, why? There's always a spectrum of opinion where opinions are allowed.
Let's face it, the UN is a seriously flawed organisation, a club ostensibly for the betterment of humanity, yet which allows any murdering dictatorship have a voice in its forum. I don't consider myself to be a bird of any particular variety, I'm a realist. If the UN is failing to improve the world situation because it can be held to ransom by corrupt and/or cynical elements acting with selfish motives, what's the good of it?
#11
"If this is not an imperial view, then what is?"
An empire does not rent its vassel states.
One thing I think Murat is missing is that the UN, legality, and democracy, are all means to an end, not an end unto itself. Each of these have serious flaws, and can be perverted toward other ends. The seizing of a house, or the torture of a suspect can be completely legal, yet still immoral. It can be voted upon and approved by a majority, and even come with the UN approval. None of that makes it moral, or assures that it will accomplish the goals desired.
Once the means are no longer working toward the desired goal, to stick with such means is rather silly. A majority can be just as wrong as a minority. And both the US and Turkey will do what is in their own percieved best interests, as equals on the world stage. You don't want to help, fine, don't. But don't stop us from helping ourselves.
You talk about hurt feelings, we're talking about removing a threat to our lives. When we succeed, you can live long enough to get over it, or hold a grudge. Your choice.
Posted by: Ben ||
03/05/2003 5:29 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I think a major problem here is that US foreign policy is in the hands of the last of the Cold Warriors. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, the problem is that one did have the simplicity of dealing with an obviously threatening situation in those days and it was an easier "sell" to get action from a given government.
If we're returning to pre-Cold War diplomatic norms, it's time to cultivate a little more sophistication and not pretend that brute force will carry all before it.
Give this to our critics, the administration is larded with people who find it hard to believe that culture and history are meaningful topics and who are indifferent to appearences.
#13
Murat it seems to me that The U.N.'s reluctince to enforce it's own resolutions has already doomed it's existance.If the U.N can not/will not enforce it's resolutions then strict adherence to"International Law"is pointless.
If Turkey does not change it's mind,then it has no right to any say as to what happens in post- Saddam Iraq.Nor do they have any right to say what happens in Kurdish Iraq.
#14
Good points Hiryu, but as a non-American I think someimes you could be forgiven for not recgnising the value of the American can-do attitude, confusing it with reckless impetuosity. There are parts of the globe that would really benefit from a vigorous shake-up and an injection of fresh ideas. Islamic terrorism is a manifestation of a culture railing against the changing world and refusing to adapt, and there are many people who could do with taking a more relaxed view of history and culture.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/05/2003 7:13 Comments ||
Top||
#16
It is actually both laughable and sad to read people associate the US with imperialism. If anything our problem is our deep latent isolationism. We didn't get troops into Bosnia at all (just air strikes) even though it would have saved lives, simply because we hate the thought of US boots on foreign soil. Similarly, we should have had more troops in Afganistan but didn't because of the same thought. Similarly, we didn't intervene in Haiti, in Zimbabwe, in Ruanda, even though we could have prevented human catastrophe, simply because of our distaste for foreign involvement.
#17
Murat - deja vu? Another article whose main thread, along with your commentary, is that the no vote by the Turkish parliament is due to US ineptitude, pressure, imperialism, arrogance, etc. The US is not imperialistic - it will abide by Turkey's decision if it votes no again. As noted above the UN has become a useless organization (think of the Senate in Star Wars which forms commitees while planets are being blown up). And your 24hr demand comment is refuted by the article itself which notes that Wolfewitz was talking to Turkey about troops in December while the vote was taken in March - Turkey must have known the US would need a definitive answer at some point. As for the Koreas, as noted above SK changed their tune very quickly when the US hawks said the US might pull out. For NK Bush is simply not following the appeasement approach of Clinton which obviously worked so well.
As I said the other day I consider Turkey an ally and the US will abide by Turkey's decision but to blame Turkey's very short-sighted decision on the US just doesn't cut it.
#18
"Indeed, the failure to grasp political and cultural sensitivities of foreign governments.. "
Apparently that's preferable to the failure to grasp the reality posed by WMD in the hands of Sadaam. This article makes clear the view of those who believe it is preferable to allow the horrific repression of the Iraqi people and eventual WMD blackmail than for the US to inadequately kiss the hind flank of our "allies" as we ask for their help.
That's about all the opposition in France, Turkey and others have come down to. They oppose the processTM - the depth of the bow, the number of kisses, waiting the appropriate time to discuss business after drinking the tea. All of this is more important than the fact that an opposition's 12 year old is being raped before she gets to watch them murder her father. Just a yawn for these folks - "a failure to grasp the cultural sensitivities". It seems the bottom line is we shouldn't help these people - not because we aren't sensitive enough to their suffering, but too insensitive their cultural sensitivities. How sad and void of humanity is that?
#19
How much of the world fails to grasp the political and cultural sensitivity of America? France and Germany certainly have. There is a price to be paid for that insensitivity.
Completely agree, and cannot believe more people do not understand this. So many in the international community pleaded the US to bring their case for war through the UN, or else the UN would lose legitimacy. We did that, we passed a UNANIMOUS security Council resolution, and clearly stated there would be consequences for non-compliance.
Now, Iraq is non-compliant and the UN is balking at doing anything about it. The US continues to bring its case through the UN as best it can, but the UN STILL BALKS!
We gave the UN a chance to prove its relevance, but it squandered it.
#21
Murat, old chap, how many Kurds has your Government killed today?
Posted by: Brian ||
03/05/2003 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I think the statement, "You're either with us or against us," should be amended to read:
You're either with us, against us, or you're for sale.
Turkey is certainly in that last column, and thanks to that creaky, castrating, waffling, bureaucratic bunghole called "the United Nations", Guinea, Cameroon, Chile, and Mexico are as well.
mjh--I agree. The UN squandered its chance to prove its relevance.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/05/2003 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Please tell me why this is a loss for us? The Turks are now limited in extending their influence in Kurdistan, and they have little opportunity to influence the end result when we are done with Iraq. Iraq has now spent the past 3 months staging supplies and troops to answer a threat which appears to no longer exist, and now they have to decamp and redeploy.(maybe, the Iraqis might think its a trick and keep them there anyway, but that is also a good thing)
On the public relations front, the US is seen as respecting the wishes of a brother democracy, no matter how distasteful to the US. Turkey gains in stature in the region, which serves our purposes further down the road.
On the financial front, we save 30 billion dollars, which could go directly to the founding of the 'Independant Republic of Kurdistan".
On the strategy front, How do we know we were really planning on using ground troops from Torkey anyway? Look at a map, the last place I'd want to put heavy ground troops and their supply lines is in that kind of mountainous territory.
Where we end up after all this is with a Turkey dedicated to not going anywhere, not providing a haven for runaway Iraqis, and unwilling to extend its influence over the area. Turkey now has enough to defend itself,so it doesnt feel compelled to take action. They havent denied us use of their airspace, so we can still use it to provide support of a kind if necessary.
I think its a mistake to use the strategy used in the previous gulf war in this one. The idea that we were going to come barreling down in tanks and heavy armament from Turkey, never seemed very likely to me. Airdrops and captured airbridges maybe, but no "Barbarossa II"
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/05/2003 10:09 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Brian, old chap, I think Turkey needs a few thousand years to reach the numbers that the US killed the last few decades.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/05/2003 10:10 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Murat, if the US were half the imperialists you make them out to be, Turkey would be a US slave state and you'd be sitting in a re-education camp contemplating your dinner bowl of maggot-and-rat-feces stew. But you're not, and we're not, so kindly stop the hyperbole, ok?
#26
Jeez - was I ever wrong - I saw the Subject line: "Democracy Pricks.." and thought another Canadian MP had committed a faux pas....
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/05/2003 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#27
I think Murat means it would take Turkey a thousand years to save so many lives as the US has by sacrificing those of their own in the last century.
Never before has there been a country with such overwhelming power and so much restraint as the US. We respected the wishes of the Turkish parliament, and have not and will not roll our tanks over that vote. An Imperialist country would never have offered the incentive package in the first place, nor would they have respected the Turkish parliament.
That the Istanbul Exchange was down 12% on the very same day as that vote seems an odd coincidence. Maybe the forces of moderation (e.g. those who earn an income and have a stake in the Turkish Exchange) are realizing that Turkey is on a decline into Islamist style governance and would like to take their money where enlightened self interest trumps knee-jerk anti-Americanism.
It's a quid pro quo, the US is criticized as an Imperialist for offering the incentive package in return for Turkish assistance. Well, methinks they won't have to worry in the future.
(Note: the US STILL supports NATO upholding its responsibility to defend Turkey from an attack)
Murat, however I feel about your views, I have to give you credit for inspiring discussion.
#28
Actually, this is probably about Turkish imperialism if you want to believe Stratfor. The claim being that Ankara is doing their damdest to avoid having American troops in the north and thus prevent their grab of the oil fields.
What would be amusing is if the current Turkish government manages to tick off Brussels AND Washington sufficiently so as to be diplomatically isolated.
#29
For all the readers except one:
go to Yahoo or whatever and search for
ARMENIANS GENOCIDE
The results will tell you everything you need to know about this noble country called Turkey. They did it again with the Kurds and they will do it again if allowed. BTW, if you search with attention you will find that Hitler was so in love with their methods and so deeply inspired...
It's' strange that we allow these guys to insult us all the time. In two or three thousand years anyway they will become civilized too..
#30
Hitchens, of all people, has an excellent article on the past humanitarian horrors of Turkey and why we should cut them off and let them go. It's here:
#31
An (of course) very naive proposal from an Old European:
The Security Council votes the following:
"Recognizing that Iraq has, apart from minor and insignificant concessions, not yet complied with resolution 687 and 1441 (plus 15 others)
Decides to state a deadline of [insert date] until which Iraq is required to be entirely free of chemical and biological weapons plus missiles exceeding the range of 150 km as required in resolution 687.
Decides that if Iraq fails to meet this deadline all necessary means including immediate military action will be authorized without further resolutions needed
Decides that if UN inspectors declare at any time before said deadline that Iraq is not fully cooperating with UN inspections and continues to mislead inspections or withhold information about the whereabouts of WMD the Security Council automatically declares Iraq to be in material breach of UN resolutions [insert numbers] and authorizes immediate military action."
This resolution should be voted 14:1 (forget the Syrian suckers). All nations pledge financial support for the US forces remaining in the Gulf until that date. If after that deadline military action is necessary, all nation pledge their support for this and the subsequent rebuilding of Iraq.
Every 2 weeks UN inspector Hans Blix should be required to affirm that Iraq is fully cooperating. If we don't hear the word "fully", it's material breach.
This should have been the text of resolution 1441 already of course.
#33
There is something odd about US foreign policy, I mean if you want something you take care about public relations. I bet when Bush or Powell had visited Turkey and gave a small speech in the parliament things would have gone pretty much different. Instead we see Powell lifting up his phone and dictating they are in a hurry and need an answer within 24hours. One should ask whatâs wrong here, I personally think the US foreign policy shows a real poor performance and thatâs maybe the main reason the US is starting to feel so much reluctance by allies.
I didn't realize making a phone call was bad foreign policy.
Is this freakin' kindergarden? Does Turkey want teacher to come over and give them the 30 billion dollar cookie in person?
How about a nice Barney doll stuffed with 15 billion more?
#34
The idea that insufficient attention was paid Turkish sensitivity is a foolish idea. Former Sec of State Warren Christopher believed in the 'show them attention' theory. He visited Syria more often then most grown up men visit their mom. He ended with squat.
#35
I think Murat has a point.
It might have been cheaper and more effective to send Powell or Armitage to address the Turkish Parliament.
I fear our frustration with Chiraq may be spilling over into other relationships. Too much emotion.
While emotion has a central role in deciding what is important, it often gets in the way of actually getting the job done.
"On the strategy front, How do we know we were really planning on using ground troops from Torkey anyway? Look at a map, the last place I'd want to put heavy ground troops and their supply lines is in that kind of mountainous territory"
A strong US force in the north allows for a political blitzkreig strategy. Imagine the US forces racing south from Turkey, and north from Kuwait, swiftly capturing the important oil fields, and liberating the cities of Basra, Mosul, Kirkuk etc. The images of Kurds and Shia celebrating the arrival of the US will be invaluable, politically to the US, and may lead to a coup of sorts against Saddam in the Baghdad area. Such a politico-blitz is much harder without rapid success in the north. Without the US there, in strength, one can imagine a PR debacle as Turkish troops invade the north and start fighting the Kurds for control of Kirkuk amid burning oilwells (set off by retreating Iraqis).
#38
I know I'm out on a limb here, but it just doesnt seem to me that we would have left such a key operational decision undecided before committing to a strategy. I think that the Turkey situation serves us just as well as a feignt as is does an actual invasion.
I think weve already got people on the ground in kurdistan. I dont see us driving into Iraq from Turkey as I do us grabbing an airbase, and using it as an airbridge to ship in troops and supplies, but I also expect it to be over well before the first tank of ours lands in Northern Iraq. Im working under the idea that this is going to be much more like the "Panama/Noriega Operation", than Gulf War II. The target here is Saddam Hussien and about 15 mustacheoed relatives, not capitol cities.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/05/2003 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#39
But Murat, our Parliament, the Congress, approved so much of the murder. I would ask if your Parliament did the same, but the Generals have an unfortunate way of intervening in the Political System. How's the currency trading? Have the French sent over the SDRs to prevent a meltdown yet?
Posted by: Brian ||
03/05/2003 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#40
Many of you have raised valid and well-argued points on this topic. You have completely debunked the irrational idea that the US is an imperialist nation trying to subdue all others to its will using logic and facts.
But Murat is not listening.
Murat does not care about the logic and facts of opposing points of view, Murat will continue to post the same view over and over because Murat only looks for facts that support his view and ignores or underestimates the relevance of the others.
This is called 'confirmation bias'. Everything that confirms Murats views will be actively saught, perhaps undue importance placed on minor facts, and Murat will absorb it all as evidence for his/her view.
Everything contradicting that view will either be ignored, it's relevance undervalued, or it will be as simple as Murat failing to seek information that contradicts his/her position.
Either way, Murat is going to stick to this view no matter what evidence you have. Ditto for most of the appeasement protestors. They have made up their minds often on emotional grounds and will stick to their position now forever.
#41
To True German Ally, your proposal makes sense. My concern is that any attack will have to be made with the troops in MOPP4. Those suits are HOT, so hot that training in those suits was pretty limited during my time at FT Hood. That was just in the Texas heat. I spent 1996, August to mid-Dec., in Kuwait. I will never forget that heat. One of my photos from that deployment is of one of those circular thermometers that only goes up tp 120F. The needle has gone all the way around and is pointing straight down! Another picture is of the tie-dye design covering my brown T-shirt from saltsweat stains.
The longer we wait the hotter it gets. Plus the more dug in are the Rep. Guard troops and the more time Saddam has to prepare a "scorched earth" policy.
Still, your idea is better than what we have now. If it got the US enough political cover for finally getting Saddam it could be worth it.
Bulldog- Completely agree, and cannot believe more people do not understand this. So many in the international community pleaded the US to bring their case for war through the UN, or else the UN would lose legitimacy. We did that, we passed a UNANIMOUS security Council resolution, and clearly stated there would be consequences for non-compliance. Now, Iraq is non-compliant and the UN is balking at doing anything about it. The US continues to bring its case through the UN as best it can, but the UN STILL BALKS! We gave the UN a chance to prove its relevance, but it squandered it. Disclaimer: I am not an expert.
No, but you are completely correct. The U.N. not only gives dictators a platforms of legitimacy, but it stands idly by as tens of thousands are killed (Rwanda) or tortured (Iraq, Libya) or starved to death (N. Korea). The U.N. is completely incapable of making major decisions, let alone enforcing them. It should go the way of the league of nations.
#43
True German Ally,
I suspect that's a lot closer to the one we originally attempted to get passed than the oft-reworded one that did pass.
... And just so you know (regarding a comment in another article). I wasn't alive when my country made the stupid choice about Germany. But I had a sore throat (from cheering) for a week after the Wall came down.
Posted by: Kathy K ||
03/05/2003 18:38 Comments ||
Top||
#44
Rifle, I very much understand the climatic timetable. I think this resolution would just help everyone to "save face".
One major problem is Mr Blix. As long as we continue to let him babble about "Iraq making some progress but must do more" we won't get anywhere.
So instead of proposing a new resolution that seems bound to fail, lets invite Blixie back to the Security Council.
And let him answer one question: "Is Iraq fully complying, YES or NO?"
And if he refuses a clear answer we qualify this as a NO.
This can be accomplished in March. And I guess the next new moon is still cool enough.
#45
Kathy, thanks for the sore throat. Lets hope the Iraqis will enjoy the same soon.
I smelled disaster when I heard that Blix would assume the chief inspector job. I remember his hopeless blunder regarding the Chernobyl catastrophe and his Soviet ass kissing.
He should be sacked for incompetence if he isn't able to give a clear statement.
#46
The ultimate question for Murat is this: Would Mustafa Kemal support the course of action that Erdogan is dictating? Did Ataturk look at the polls when he reformed the language? When he implemented the plethora of Western reforms?
Where is the bravery of statesmanship? That's what hurts so much: Turkey, I'm not prepared to say is lacking the statesmanship, but is unwilling to show the leadership they've shown before. To France it's expectable, to Turkey it is a stab in the back.
Posted by: Brian ||
03/05/2003 22:12 Comments ||
Top||
#47
Later news is that members voted against the US because they thought that is the way the Army wanted the vote to go. The Army has come out in favor of the US staging from Turkey, and a new vote is scheduled.
Posted by: John Anderson ||
03/05/2003 23:45 Comments ||
Top||
#48
Hey,Murat
I seem to recall the Ottoman Empire(Turkey),and it's persecution of Christians and Jews,and what about the Austrian/German/Turk alliance in WW1.
Don'tcry that I'm bringing up ancient history,you brought history into this.
As to your blackmail accusation,not blackmail at all."Great rewards require great risk"if you do not share the risk you get none of the rewards.
Britain delivered a blunt warning to France and Germany last night that they will "reap a whirlwind" if they refuse to sign up to a new Anglo-American resolution paving the way for an attack on Iraq. For starters.
Highlighting Britain's frustration with its fellow European Union members, the foreign secretary, Jack Straw, claimed that Washington would abandon "multilateral" institutions such as the UN and Nato if Europe refuses to fall into line. Actually, it would be the US and NATO that would have abandoned us.
"What I say to France and Germany and all my other EU colleagues is take care, because just as America helps to define and influence our politics, so what we do in Europe helps to define and influence American politics," Mr Straw told MPs on the Commons foreign affairs select committee. "And we will reap a whirlwind if we push the Americans into a unilateralist position in which they are the centre of this unipolar world."
Kind of puts the whole thing into a nutshell, doesn't it? Historically, we haven't spent all our time puffing and blowing like the tin hat crowd, and a significant part of the world has taken that as a signal to treat us as in international piñata. That fact that we're a mild-mannered bunch doesn't mean we don't have a breaking point, which is just... about... there.
Mr Straw's warning to France and Germany â his toughest since the Iraq crisis erupted â underlined the determination of Britain and the US to prevent Paris from wielding its veto when the new resolution goes to the vote at the UN security council. President Bush is understood to have stepped up the pressure on Jacques Chirac in recent days by warning the French president that he will neither forgive nor forget if France continues to oppose the resolution.
Perhaps, since Bush is a "cowboy", he should be taken at his word. That's an obscure concept for a French president, but he could have somebody research it...
Mr Straw referred to the UN and Nato and said: "It would be very unacceptable if we were to place those institutions at risk." His remarks were echoed by the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, who warned that time was running out. "What we are doing ... is stepping up to the challenge of leadership," he told Channel 4 News. "Either the international community's will has meaning or does not have meaning." "And if you have no nothing, you'd best get out of the way."
In a clear sign that the criticism of France and Germany has the blessing of Downing Street, Peter Mandelson warned last night that the US would behave "like a sheriff and his posse" sorting out the world's problems if Europe refuses to engage with Washington.
And, in my opinion at least, do a better job of it...
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/05/2003 09:28 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Should have read,
"And if you have no meaning, you'd best get out of the way."
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/05/2003 0:34 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Can't you just correct the original post? If you're worried about being accused of fudging original posts, make a note at the bottom that you made some corrections. I reread that sentence several times before I got to your correction! :-)
#3
I don't think there are any options to correct posts from contributors.
What always amazes me is how other countries seem to believe it's okay for them to react to American actions in a way consistent with their own self-interest, and yet bray and scream when Americans react to THEIR ACTIONS in a way consistent with American self-interest.
What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I respect Jack Straw for recognizing that we've got as much right as anyone else to react to anyone else.
#4
Ptah's correct - and there's no preview option on posts, so proofing's difficult...however that doesn't excuse a couple bonehead typos I've done lately ;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/05/2003 9:58 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Cheeze. Is there no end to your demands? Lemme see what I can come up with...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/05/2003 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Chirac, Schroeder:
Please, please, please, don't fall in line.
Help make the UN completely, not just almost completely irrelevant.
I'm tired of our leaders having to have approval from countries where 75% of the population has no indoor plumbing before they can defend my homeland.
#7
I'd have to object to the "mild-mannered" characterization, there Clark Kent. We tend to mind our own buisness as mush as we are allowed to by the neighbors, but I don't think mild-mannered covers it. Polite, maybe. Restrained.
Decides that... the Government of Iraq shall provide to UNMOVIC, the IAEA, and the Council, not later than 30 days from the date of this resolution, a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles... including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment...
Has it? NO
        Â
Decides that false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq at any time to comply with, and cooperate fully in the implementation of, this resolution shall constitute a further material breach of Iraqâs obligations and will be reported to the Council for assessment in accordance with paragraphs 11 and 12 below.
Were they false and had omissions? YES
Decides that Iraq shall provide UNMOVIC and the IAEA immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all, including underground, areas, facilities, buildings, equipment, records, and means of transport which they wish to inspect, as well as immediate, unimpeded, unrestricted, and private access to all officials and other persons whom UNMOVIC or the IAEA wish to interview in the mode or location of UNMOVICâs or the IAEAâs choice pursuant to any aspect of their mandates; further decides that UNMOVIC and the IAEA may at their discretion conduct interviews inside or outside of Iraq, may facilitate the travel of those interviewed and family members outside of Iraq, and that, at the sole discretion of UNMOVIC and the IAEA, such interviews may occur without the presence of observers from the Iraqi Government
Has this happened? NO
I may be German but I do see a material breach when it gets slapped in my face.
What I didn't read in that resolution was that the U.N. would be satisfied with seeing Iraq making "some progress"
#9
True German Ally, I'm repeating myself(see comments above) but again I agree you. Excellent posting.
As an aside, I did enjoy my tour of duty in Germany, 1992-1994, Sullivan Barracks, Kaftaul Ward, near Manheim....and I think I screwed up the spelling of the Germany locations, sorry.... :-(
Rifle308
Iraq times its co-operation with the United Nations weapons inspectors to coincide with the run-up to Security Council meetings, Hans Blix will say in his report this week, according to senior UN sources. "Then again, I'm an old man so what do I know? I think we'll need more inspections."
The report by Mr Blix, the chief weapons inspector, will not give Baghdad a clean bill of health. It is expected to say that the flow of information about its alleged chemical and biological weaponry has varied, depending on whether Security Council meetings were imminent. The UN monitors do not accept that Iraq has been totally candid on its weapons, and they think more information will come out. But they believe the inspection system is working, and should be allowed to continue. Of course they do. Do these guys have a pension plan?
Either that, or they're being paid by the hour...
Mr Blix will meet Dimitri Perricos, the head of Unmovic (the UN Monitoring and Verification Commission), in New York today on his return from Baghdad. The report is not due to be finished until midnight tomorrow and Mr Blix will peruse it overnight before presenting it to the UN on Friday in what is seen as a meeting that will pave the way either for war, or for the inspections to continue. "He is going to be very careful with his words, because he knows that some countries will want to use them to suit their purpose," said the UN source. "There is no doubt that this is a critical week." It's the last week of inspections.
A draft copy of Mr Blix's report, which surfaced last week, said results on Iraq's disarmament had so far been "very limited". It added: "Iraq could have greater efforts to find any remaining proscribed items or provide credible evidence showing the absence of such items."
If they wanted to, which they don't. They're hoping the whole thing will just blow over. At this point, they're just not sure how that'll happen...
Saddam Hussein proclaimed in Baghdad yesterday that Iraq will be "victorious against aggression" and described George Bush as the "despot of this century". In a message read out on Iraqi television to mark the Islamic New Year, President Saddam said: "What does the despot of this century want? What is the right path to defeat him? The despot imagines that he is like God, capable of controlling the universe and doing whatever he wishes, but the devil has pushed him into the abyss of blasphemy. "But enough about me!"
"The tyrant thinks that he is capable of enslaving people and besieging their freedom, their decisions and their legitimate choices." "Who does Bush think he is, me?"
President Saddam's defiant message came a day after six Gulf states urged Arabs and Muslims to consider an initiative calling for President Saddam to step down. The Baghdad government has been cheered by the decision of the Turkish parliament not to allow US troops to use its bases for an invasion of Iraq. One side-effect that makes war more likely.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/05/2003 09:32 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If one reason is that Blix wants to remain in the limelight, he will. There's going to be a lot of ground to test and bits and pieces to clean up.
The army is training the American military to identify British troops so that they do not inadvertently kill them in "friendly fire" incidents in Iraq. Army sources said Britain believed its troops could be in danger because America's identification methods were "sub-standard". The Army's intelligence corps is understood to be briefing the US army and air force on how to spot British tanks, uniforms and battle formations. "They have all the kit but they are useless when it comes to spotting who is on their side," said one army source. "We are showing them how to do it, so our boys aren't hit."
We're always willing to learn. We don't like killing people we like...
In the Gulf War in 1991 nine British soldiers were killed when an American jet attacked British armoured vehicles by mistake, believing they belonged to Iraq. A Ministry of Defence spokesman said yesterday: "It's not simply a question of the specific type of kit, it is about how we operate." Let's all pray for zero friendly fire casualties.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/05/2003 09:33 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And after that unfortunate incident in Afghanistan when we killed those Canadian troops, I'd say this is long overdue.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/05/2003 8:30 Comments ||
Top||
hmmmm, I'm actually very curious about this. Since most of the friendly fire incidents involved either close air support, or attacks on our own armor it's intriguing to think of what the brits will offer the US in the way of instruction. Sighting anything through FLIR is a bit tricky. I wonder if they are just talking about familiarization or some kind of marking scheme.
#4
The UK lost 15 men in the last Gulf War, nine of which to that one A10 friendly fire incident. That's a regrettable statistic. Can't blame the army for trying to reduce the effect of what was the major cause of British casualties last time round.
#5
We lost more peoole over there in GW1 to friendly fire then we did to the Iraqis. Anything that can be done to rectify that situation is worth trying.
#6
I would suggest, also, that the DOD round up some prints of "Gods and Generals", fly them over to Kuwait priority, and have the whole expeditionary force watch the movie, so that they have an object lesson on just how disastrously costly "friendly fire" can actually be.
Posted by: Joe ||
03/05/2003 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#7
This is just intelligent and probably overdue. Combat can be highly confusing, particularly in poor weather and/or night.
And a third, then a fourth ...
Military officials said yesterday they had ordered 60,000 US troops to the Gulf and expected to send between 20,000 and 30,000 in the next few days as part of a second wave of the planned invasion force. The new deployments, including tank divisions from Germany and Fort Hood, Texas, push the number of US troops heading to the region to about 300,000. Britain is also expected to send 6,000 troops in the next few days, to supplement the 20,000 already in position in Kuwait. Kuwait's going to look like a Thanksgiving turkey — stuffed.
The final destination of the American soldiers was not certain because of Turkey's refusal to allow Washington to deploy ground troops there. Pentagon officials said the initial plan was to send the troops and equipment to Turkey, but that they might have to be diverted to Kuwait, where more than half of the American build-up is already stationed.
How about Basra? Is there room in Basra?
General Tommy Franks, the head of US Central Command, was beginning two days of talks in Washington yesterday and the issue of troop deployments and war plans in the light of the Turkish decision was likely to be high on his agenda.
I hope to hell they're in the middle of implementing Plan B, and not writing it...
The call-up notices went out to 26,000 members of the 1st Armoured Division, based in Germany, with 160 of their tanks; 17,000 men from the 1st Cavalry Division in Fort Hood, Texas and 10,000 men from the 2nd Armoured Cavalry Regiment from Fort Polk, Louisiana. The rest were marines and reservists. One official said those men were not expected to arrive in the Gulf for several weeks and would be part of a second wave of any attack. Just in case. Keeps them out of the way of any WMD attack while we get the first wave in.
Others waiting a call-up were 12,500 members of the 4th Infantry Division from Fort Hood, who had expected to go to Turkey. Their final destination has yet to be determined. The United States already has five aircraft carriers in the Gulf and Mediterranean within striking distance of Iraq with a sixth on the way. Britain also has an aircraft carrier there. The first American B-52 bombers arrived at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire on Monday. Other B-52s and B-1 bombers are already in the Gulf area and radar-evading B-2 "stealth" bombers have been told to go to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, which is within striking range of Baghdad. Tick, tick, tick.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/05/2003 09:36 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
One wonders if we're bulking up in anticipation of losing the British troops if we don't get UN disapproval, and Blair falls from a revolt within his own party.
He's doing his damndest to do the right thing, and I have come to admire him for it. The comparisons between him and the incredible PR creature who was the previous occupant of the White House were unfair to him and, to my shame, biased me against him.
Day 1: Send in the bombers. Include white towels as part of bomb load.
Day 2: Send in Marines. All marines must have shovel.
Day 3: Initiate towel for shovel exchange. Sorry, you will have to dig your own latrine.
Day 4: Bring in Sheryl and Chrissy to entertain POWs. Project WOODSTOQ 03.
Day 5: Send in 500 Saddam look-alikes into Bagdad. Invite the 501 Saddam look-alikes to star in new FOX reality show "I Married Saddam"
Day 6: Have Al Gore announces he will not run in Iraqi Presidential Election.
so I'm not Scrappleface. Sorry
Posted by: john ||
03/05/2003 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Good luck, good hunting, and come home safe.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/05/2003 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The German Foreign Ministry warns against travels to Iraq.
Note: That warning has been issued on March 3 only. Before only caution was advised.
Hmmmm could it be that it is really dangerous to travel to Iraq these days? What has happened???
A week ago, Britain, Spain and the United States presented the Security Council with a resolution tersely detailing the failure of Iraq to disarm, thereby opening the path to war. But in those seven days, the mathematics for the text's passage have not become any kinder. But the political skullduggery has become much more interesting.
Maybe nothing can move until Friday, when Hans Blix, the senior weapons monitor, will brief the Council again on the progress of his inspections in Iraq. This weekend will be the moment when the so-called Middle Six in the council will decide on which side of the red-hot poker fence they intend to sit. The weekend will also be the time when Washington and London will begin seriously to consider whether passage of the resolution is likely, or simply doomed. If they reach the conclusion that the latter is the case, they may conclude they would do better not to ask for a vote on the text at all. Oh, no no no, we're going to force a vote. We're going to war regardless; point is to force the French to commit themselves.
Progress has not been helped by news of alleged spying by the United States on other Council members through electronic eavesdropping by the National Security Council [sic] to try to get an early guess on which way the undecided states are leaning. At least one member, Chile, is said to be angry and has asked the British Government to investigate the truth of the report and offer an explanation. "With regrets, the Minister instructs me to inform you that we know nothing about this."
This spying scandal is not critical precisely because Chile is among the swing voters of the Middle Six. The others are Angola, Mexico, Pakistan, Guinea and Cameroon. Pakistan is thought to be edging towards support for the resolution, but it too has been peeved by news that Uncle Sam has been cheating. Really? Got an, er, 'independent' source for that?
"One realises high politics is something that Jihadis, Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts don't engage in," a Pakistani source said. "But for Pakistan, given the level of intelligence sharing with the United States that's going on right now, it means they don't trust what we say behind closed doors. It will not be appreciated." Now there's somebody who understands â darned right we don't trust them. This guy must work in intel.
Oh, I'm sure we trust them. We're just verifying... Heh heh.
The first task for Washington is to line up the nine votes that will be needed for the resolution to pass. Already on side are its two other sponsors  Britain and Spain  as well as Bulgaria. Firmly opposed are China, France, Germany and Russia. America needs five of the six waverers to win passage. I wouldn't put Russia in the 'non' category. In the end, Putin is not going to blow his relationship with George for the sake of Saddam.
But that is just stage one. Assuming they can get those missing votes  and diplomats in Washington appear marginally more optimistic about this than their counterparts in London  they must then deal with the risk that the resolution might yet be shot down by a veto from China, Russia or France. It will be vetoed by the French. We're counting on it.
Igor Ivanov, Russia's Foreign Minister, hinted in London yesterday that his government might be willing to do exactly that, though Western diplomats still hold out the hope that Moscow would not dare risk its ties with America in such a way. France remains the country most likely to use its right of veto. The White House yesterday dampened speculation that President George Bush had already concluded that passage of the resolution was unattainable. Members of the Security Council will get "the opportunity to vote", the President's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told reporters.
Yes, everyone will have the chance to go on record. People will be able to look it up for years to come...
Colin Powell, his Secretary of State, said yesterday America would not start any action until after the weapons inspectors reported to the Security Council, though a second resolution was "preferred". But the very notion of Britain and America simply abandoning the quest for a second resolution was already sending diplomatic tremors around the world. That would imply that Washington had determined finally to give up on the UN and go to war with Iraq with any countries ready to join the military effort. That would mean Britain. But without UN cover, Tony Blair would be confronting a political crisis more critical than any he has experienced before. I'm getting more confident that Tony will survive this.
Quick victory, and an aftermath of war crimes trials, will enhance Tony's stats...
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/05/2003 09:42 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yet the froggie papers whisper, "no veto."
As was pointed out here before, "You first. No, YOU first!"
#2
I still think it's going to be 11-4 against military intervention. Most of the world is really eager to humiliate the US, or to be more exact, Bush. They hope to ruin him politically, so as to ensure that a Democrat of the surrender variety wins in 2004. Chirac is very much in favor of regime change, in Washington. He wants a submissive American president, who takes orders from the UN, which in Chirac's imagination means : from France.
It's a pity that Democrat hawks have virtually no chance of winning their party's primaries, because nothing would be so devastating for the EUnuch plans as a hawkish Democrat in the White House. They would have to follow like sheep, just as they did when Clinton found a spine somewhere and decided to bomb the hell out of Milosevic.
Posted by: Peter ||
03/05/2003 3:01 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Bad news, boys and girls, Putin announced tonight he WOULD veto
#4
So France is waffling, and Russia now says they will veto? Not so sure. Besides which, whoever vetos are going to be the ones that killed the UN, after the US and UK take out Saddam. And once word of what France, (and Germany) have been doing during the sanctions is made public, well, it won't be pleasant.
Posted by: Ben ||
03/05/2003 5:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Tony Blair would be confronting a political crisis more critical than any he has experienced before."
Just a point of note, many folks regard Blair to be the best Tory PM since Maggie. I wonder how laughable he would think it to be to jump ship and swim to the Tory boat. It needs a new leader.
#6
interesting points Peter. Well domestic issues and personalities still matter, i think that to a great extent the first Democratic primary will be in Iraq. A successful war gives a big boost to the hawks (Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt) and weakens Dean and even Kerry (Graham looks like far less of an 'expert" after the Khalid Muhammed capture) OTOH a war that goes badly kills any chance of Liberman Edwards or Gephardt being nominated.
#7
It seems to me that a veto may ironically help the cause for war. I believe that UK opinion polls support war in the case of UN approval or an unreasonable veto. Given the case that has been made, any veto may be considered unreasonable, so maybe there are some back channel negotiations or intentional blustering to secure a veto from someone.
#11
It is hard for me to believe that France, Germany or Russia would actually use their veto. They have burned some/most of their political capital already, but why declare all-out diplomatic war on the U.S. when you can't affect the outcome? That would have serious ramifications for these nations. The U.S. is going to war anyway so their votes are practically irrelevant.
What you appear to have here is the U.N. ambassadors talking tough, presenting a united front, but in the end, I bet they will get reeled in and all abstain.
#12
I agree with Jonesy. Nothing the French or Russians say before the vote has any real meaning. Bush is staring them down, and that is going to be almost as important a lesson for the miscreants of the world as what happens to Hussein - the lesson is, don't play poker with this man, unless you can afford to lose.
This is very high stakes poker, and the French, Germans, and Russians have neither cards nor faces. They've been raising and raising to sustain their bluff, but next week, Bush will ask to see their cards, and they will fold.
Posted by: Patrick ||
03/05/2003 21:27 Comments ||
Top||
#13
America works on âMiddle Sixâ in effort to shift UNSC
Why are they even bothering???
The UN has already proven itself totally useless. It's time to get on with the job of vaporizing Saddam and setting Iraq on a new course. Once this is done, then what is left of the UN should be expelled from the U.S., and our sights should then be set on the other members of Terrorists International.
A MAN claiming to be a leader of the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group claimed responsibility yesterday for the bomb attack in Davao that killed 21 people and injured 157, but government and military officials quickly dismissed the claim. âWe will destroy the economy of the country; thatâs why we are targeting the airport,â the man, who identified himself as Hamsiraji Sali, told ABS-CBN in a telephone interview. âIt was not our intention to harm the civilians. We regret that many civilians were killed.â Sali's phone number was on the cell phone that was supposed to set off a bomb in Manila. So was an Iraqi diplomat's — the one Malacañang tossed...
Military and police enforcers meanwhile arrested nine persons for the deadly bomb blast at the Davao International Airport, but declined to identify them or divulge their affiliations. The Defense Public Affairs chief, Lt. Col. Danilo Servando, said the suspects were captured separately hours after an improvised explosive device exploded in a waiting shed in the Davao airport. Defense Secretary Angelo T. Reyes, who flew yesterday to Davao with President Arroyo and other Cabinet officials, quickly dismissed Saliâs claim, saying Davao is not among the places the Abu Sayyaf is known to have operations. Looks like they want to hang this one on MILF...
The Moro Islamic Liberation Front is known to hold operations in Davao, but has denied any involvement in the bombing. The MILF deputy chairman for political affairs, Ghadzali Jaafar, condemned the bombers as âpeople without minds.â "Those people are crazy. And I should know..."
Interviewed on the telephone, Sali said the bombing was part of the MILFâs intensified offensive against civilian targets, including airports, terminals, power pylons and business establishments. He said, however, that civilians are not targets. âThe bombing was supposed to happen at midnight. The plan was just executed prematurely, [killing] many civilians who were not our targets in the first place. We apologize for that,â Sali said in Pilipino. "Oops. My bad!"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 02:38 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We just murdered a bunch of civilians for no good reason - sorry!"
Sali and his buddies are too good for killing. Continuous torture for the rest of their natural lives is all that kind of scum deserve.
#2
âIt was not our intention to harm the civilians. We regret that many civilians were killed.â Sali said the bombing was part of the MILFâs intensified offensive against civilian targets...,
When you explode a bomb against a civilian target, chances are YOU'LL KILL CIVILIANS, S**THEAD!! And they can't even tell time either!
I can really see the populace rising up to support these geniuses.
The Indonesian province of Aceh has inaugurated its first Sharia court. The governor of the province, Abdullah Puteh, said the court would implement Islamic law "in a moderate way and gradually". That means they're only going to cut people's heads halfway off...
He said the province did not want to infringe human rights or gender issues with the arrival of Sharia, which most people non-Muslims sometimes associate with hardline and controversial punishments. But the Jakarta director of the International Crisis Group, Sidney Jones, told the BBC it was unclear how far the implementation of Sharia would go. It will apply to property and family law, and some cases of criminal law, but the exact overlap with the existing district courts was still unknown, Ms Jones said. I think the answer to the question is that it'll go as far as they can push it...
Aceh was granted permission to implement partial Sharia law two years ago, as part of an autonomy deal offered by the central government in Jakarta. The autonomy package formed the basis of a ceasefire signed in December between the government and the pro-independence rebel group GAM (Free Aceh Movement), aimed at bringing an end to almost three decades of civil conflict. Last year they weren't fighting for Islam, they were fighting for independence. At least when the fighting starts up again we know which side to hold our noses and root for...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 10:00 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sharia lite? Sounds like digging half a hole to me.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/05/2003 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was yesterday believed to be under interrogation at a US base in Afghanistan. The White House denied he was being tortured, although there is speculation that a variety of techniques known in the intelligence community as "torture lite" would be used to get information from him. And this is a problem because ... ?
Mohammed, who is said to to be the number three in al-Qaida, was arrested on Saturday in Pakistan, in a joint operation by the CIA and Pakistani police. He was initially interrogated in Pakistan but has now been moved. The US does not comment on individual prisoners held in the wake of September 11, but Pakistani officials said they understood that he was now being held in Afghanistan, reportedly at the Bagram base. I guess Bagram really is lovely this time of year!
The arrest follows last month's capture in Pakistan of Muhammed Abdel Rahman, a son of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, who was convicted in 1995 of conspiring to blow up the UN offices in New York. Pretty soon we'll be hearing about how Bagram is just Gitmo North.
Information provided by Mr Rahman led to the latest arrest, according to a report in the New York Times. Happy, happy, joy, joy. I'd keep these stories coming just to make the remaining al-Qaeda'rs nervous.
There was also speculation that Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was arrested in Pakistan last year, had given information about Mohammed under interrogation. The two had been shacking uphoneymooning in hiding together in Karachi. Qari Abdul Wali, a Taliban military commander in hiding near the Afghan town of Spin Boldak, told Reuters that al-Qaida would remain intact despite the arrest. "Bah! Ees no-thing!"
"The arrest of a few individuals from within al-Qaida's ranks will have no bearing on the organisation's functioning," Mr Wali said looking over his shoulder. "Representatives of al-Qaida and the Taliban keep their communications going, but that doesn't mean we are likely to snitch on each other." "Excuse me, but you're not wearing a wire, are you?"
Interrogators are likely to seek two key pieces of information from Mohammed: plans for attacks on the US or US interests, and the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said in response to questions about the detention of Mohammed: "The standard for any type of interrogation of somebody in American custody is to be humane and to follow all international laws and accords dealing with this type subject. That is precisely what has been happening and exactly what will happen."
By now, he should be "feeling no pain"...
But lawyers for those detained after September 11 believe prisoners held abroad are often subjected to torture. Tisk, tisk.
Randy Hamud, who represents a number of Arabs detained in San Diego, said he believed his clients had been taken to countries where they could be tortured. There have also been reports that police in countries such as Pakistan and Jordan are given prisoners by the US in the knowledge that they will be tortured. Oh, my.
A former member of US navy intelligence said that "torture lite" — sleep deprivation, and placing prisoners in awkward or painful positions for hours at a time — would be used. Personally I'd sit them in the middle of a swine farm for a spell. Nothing like a little hog-farming to clear out the sinuses!
The Democratic senator John Rockefeller suggested at the weekend that the US might consider turning over Mohammed to a country that does not ban torture. He told CNN: "I wouldn't take anything off the table where he is concerned, because this is the man who has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans over the last 10 years." He had since said that he was not condoning torture. Certainly not.
I don't condone torture, either, but if they need somebody to work him over with a claw hammer and Ajax, I'm available. Cheap...
The secretary of homeland security, Tom Ridge, said Mohammed would have significant information but would be hard to interrogate. "We know that these individuals are trained and programmed in the craft of evasion. It will be very, very difficult to extricate information from this guy at this time." Giggle juice and bagpipes.
There was also speculation that Mohammed would be questioned about the murder last year of the Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Now there's something we need to get all the details on. Like for instance, whose hand held the knife.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/05/2003 10:08 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Geez, why did Dustin Hoffman as "Mumbles" from Dick Tracy pop in my head???
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/05/2003 5:22 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This guy is no fundamentalist, so using female intelligence officers to question him is out. We could play Chrissie Hynde really loudly. And feed him grits. Oh, yeah, and one other thing.
Hook him up to a hand cranked generator and let a NYC fireman crank it.
#6
I've said it before:
All it takes is one hour, murdering scum-bag Khalid, some Astroglide, a cattle prod, and 5 quarts of pigs blod.
Minus the Astroglide...
#8
I can think of 3000 good reasons why all the intel this guy has should be extracted by any means necessary.
Posted by: john ||
03/05/2003 19:43 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I wonder if lawyer Randy Hamud's name will come up in one of Khalid's torture lite sessions, or in some of the flotsam and jettsom found in Khalid's safe house.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/05/2003 22:52 Comments ||
Top||
#10
My God, Wills! We *do* have to stay within the Geneva Convention, you know!
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/06/2003 9:10 Comments ||
Top||
LONDON [MENL] -- North Korea has launched the marketing of a more accurate Scud-class missile to Middle East clients. Western industry sources said Pyongyang has been offering such countries as Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and Yemen a more accurate version of the Scud B missile. The sources said the Scud B would maintain the range and payload of the original version but would include technology developed by North Korea. "The idea is to offer new and improved Scud Bs that would replace the aging arsenals of Middle East countries, which first procured the missile in the 1970s," an industry source said. "The idea is to keep the price of the missile cheap." That's all they've got to sell. And that's pretty much all the customers they've got...
South Korea has confirmed the assertion by the industry sources. The Defense Ministry in Seoul said North Korea has been reproducing Soviet-era Scud B missiles. These missiles have a range of 300 kilometers and a payload of one metric ton. Guaranteed to put the payload in the right county three out of five times, or the next one's free...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 10:39 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Warrantee does not cover cases where the shipment is intercepted by the Spanish navy and redirected to another country at the behest of the belligerent, domineering, â¦(flipping through old Korean to English dictionary) felonious Imperialist pirates.
GAZA CITY: The Palestinian Authority condemned yesterday's suicide bombing in the Israeli town of Haifa that killed at least 15 people, charging Israel's army would exploit the attack to carry out new deadly raids. It said the Palestinian leadership "strongly condemns the attack which killed Israeli and Palestinian civilians", in a statement carried by the official news agency Wafa. The Authority rejected "the logic of vengeance against civilians ... which sullies the reputation of our people with the accusation of terrorism". Uhhh... I think it's too late to worry about getting a reputation for terrorism. Paleostinians have been setting the standard for terrorism for 40 years...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 09:41 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Iran yesterday denied a US magazine report that it gave shelter to four of Osama bin Laden's wives and more than 12 of his children in the aftermath of the US attacks on Afghanistan in 2001. The magazine, which quoted Pakistani intelligence sources, said members of Bin Laden's family were in Iran at a time when the US was hunting him down in Afghanistan and in Pakistan. "Nope. Nope. Wudn't us. Nope. Ain't got 'em..."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 09:34 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Bangalore: Every year, tens of thousands of women gather at a Hindu temple in southern India and worship in the nude, despite efforts to stop them. "Here, now! You women, stop that!... Holy smoke! Look at the honkers on that one, Mukkerjee!"
For 17 years, authorities and social reformers have tried to prevent the devotees from disrobing as they bathe in the Bhadra River and roll around the temple of the Hindu goddess Renukamba. And yesterday, officials said they have once again banned nudity during the temple fair from Sunday till Tuesday in the village of Chandragutti in Karnataka state. Many of the devotees are young women who are performing an initiation rite to enter prostitution, while others are fulfilling vows they have made to the goddess. I think we have the makings of a first-class tourist site, here...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 09:33 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
unbelievable!..ok, what days are OK now? Wed thru Saturday? damn... that conflicts with my busy social calendar...yeah, right...
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/05/2003 21:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
God love a duck, Fred! Where do you find this stuff....never a dull moment on Rantburg.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/05/2003 22:11 Comments ||
Top||
About a dozen names discovered at the house where al Qaeda operations chief Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was arrested match names of individuals under surveillance in the United States, U.S. government officials told CNN Tuesday. Officials stressed the preliminary nature of the information, and cautioned that the numbers are likely to change — and said the names will require further investigation. One official emphasized that even though some names match, it does not mean arrests are imminent. "There may be intelligence value in continuing the surveillance," the government official said. "Also, just because you find a name that would indicate possible links to al Qaeda doesn't mean you have the sufficient basis for making an arrest." That's true. It's another piece of the puzzle, not the whole puzzle. Some of them could even be people the Bad Guys wanted to bump off. But most aren't...
Officials have said hundreds of names were found in the Rawalpindi, Pakastan, home where Mohammed was captured Saturday. Many were found in a computer, while others were found on pieces of paper. Authorities are investigating to see just how many might be connected to al Qaeda. They're gonna be sitting up late for awhile, generating new identities...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/05/2003 08:52 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I share a name with a former Presidential candidate, but I ain't him. On the other hand, I can't be sure we aren't related somehow...
Posted by: John Anderson ||
03/05/2003 22:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hell. And all this time, I thought you were him...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/05/2003 23:09 Comments ||
Top||
Brothers Travis and Taylor Burnham are both in the Army yet find themselves on opposite sides of a looming conflict with Iraq: one is willing to fight and the other is not.
Travis, 24, is stationed at Fort Drum, N.Y., where he applied for conscientious objector status in January. Taylor, 27, is a combat engineer in Kuwait waiting for a potential invasion of Iraq.
"I know how a mother might have felt in the Civil War having sons on both sides," said their mother, Judith "J.P." Burnham, a social work professor at East Tennessee State University in Johnson City, Tenn.
"I'm very divided. I support both of my sons," she said. She keeps a yellow ribbon on her office door for Taylor and a war protest sign on the wall for Travis.
Travis describes himself as a pacifist. In high school, he was kidded about being not aggressive enough for sports. During basic training, he refused to chant "kill" with the other soldiers. More recently, he marched in anti-war protests and spoke openly about his objections.
"I'm opposed to taking the life of another human being," he said. "I understand there are situations where we react to human instincts and in self-defense, but to aggressively and collectively destroy another human life, my conscience won't allow me to do it."
His mother says older brother Taylor has reservations about the war, too, but understood when he enlisted that doing his duty might mean using violence.
In joining the military, the two men followed the example set by their father, Jeff, and oldest brother, Preston. They enlisted in peacetime to earn money for college, gain discipline and see the world.
Travis joined the Army in 1999 after he dropped out of college and ran out of money while traveling in Europe. He sought help from his father to return home.
"I told him I'd send him $300 if he'd join the Coast Guard," recalled the elder Burnham, an engineer and a member of the Coast Guard in the 1960s. "I think it's a good thing for young men or young women to join the military, learn a skill, get some discipline and contribute to the country's safety."
But the Coast Guard had a 22-month waiting list and Travis was impatient. He signed up for a five-year hitch with the Army and is now assigned to the 10th Mountain Division as a photojournalist.
"It was the Clinton administration, the economy was strong and war didn't seem to be on the horizon," Travis said. "Not once did any of the recruiters I spoke with mention war, enemy, shooting or death." "I thought it'd be like joining the Boy Scouts. Hiking, camping, singing 'Kumbayah'..."
His older brother also joined the Army for direction. He attended college but was uninspired and drifting. He decided to enlist in 1998 after a five-year stint studying environmental biology in Maine.
Now assigned to the 814th Division at Fort Polk, La., Taylor has been in Kuwait since Valentine's Day. Security concerns have kept him from contacting his family since he left the United States.
The Army is investigating his younger brother's conscientious objector application. The process involves 26 steps and usually takes at least 90 days. Travis has already been interviewed by a chaplain and a psychiatrist.
The Army can refuse him, grant him a discharge or move him to a position where he would be unlikely to have to fire on an enemy -- like the position he already has.
"We can't push him much farther back than being a public affairs guy," said Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty of the 10th Mountain Division. "He's a photojournalist. I don't know of any photojournalist in the history of the U.S. Army who has ever killed anybody."
The Army has granted two voluntary discharges to conscientious objectors this fiscal year, according to its records. Last year, it granted 17, and the year before nine. The highest number in recent years was 59 in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War.
As he waits for word, Travis worries about his brother. He met with Taylor in December at Fort Polk and told him how he felt about a war with Iraq and what he planned to do. There were no hard feelings.
"There was no, 'How can you do this to me?"' Travis said. "He pretty well understood and he accepted it."
I don't know about the rest of you, but having a "conscientious objector" in a volunteer army chafes my butt. You don't sign up just for the college money, travel, and opportunities without accepting there's risk, duty, and responsibility on your part as well.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/05/2003 01:41 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
I'm not a military lawyer, but my understanding of CO status is that it is based on religious aversion to taking life, not objection of getting killed. From what's written here, this man is not a CO.
BTW I believe that in WWII, the British used their COs as medics and stretcher bearers, which strikes me as a very fair thing to do.
#7
He's an idiot, not a conscientious objecter. But if the Army's got any sense, they won't put him anywhere near the shooting anyway. They should assign him to take pictures of the Iraqis released from Saddam's torture chambers after we take over.
Education often cures idiocy.
Posted by: Kathy K ||
03/05/2003 16:07 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Good call, Kathy! Let this guy film some of the gaols, torture chambers, acid vats, and all of that to produce a "Why We Fight"-type documentary, and see how badly his conscience troubles him after that.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/05/2003 16:53 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Dar - you're on the money - this A-hole joined when it was cushy and he was out of parental tolerance - now he wants out - he should dig the latrines of those who fight
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/05/2003 16:54 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I'm with all of you on this moron. He should have to view the brutal side of Saddam's regime. Maybe then he can learn that sometimes you have to take life to preserve and protect life and that certain things are worth fighting (and potentially killing for). He's just an individual, micro version of the U.N. and the French: atrocities don't trouble them in the slightest (as long as they are someone else's problem). Freedom from oppression is just an abstraction to all of them. They are the worst kind of shallow, cynical moral thinkers wrapped in a veneer of "moral superiority."
#12
"Not once did any of the recruiters I spoke with mention war, enemy, shooting or death."
And I guess that they forgot to tell you the Spirit of the Bayonet during basic training, too. And you probably thought that all of those man-shaped target silhouettes on the M-16 range were just there by accident.
Just a lying, pathetic weasel. Send him to France. He'd really fit in there.
#13
They should dishonorably discharge the little pile of dog sh#t, then garnish all future earnings until he's paid back all of the training costs and any money for college that the taxpayers have wasted on his sorry, pimpled behind. I wouldn't even wish him on the French!
Posted by: Doug C. ||
03/06/2003 3:15 Comments ||
Top||
#14
don't worry, after the armed forces read about it on Rantburg, he's gonna have a very sorry time of it.
#16
my name is jesse weir and im in the 50 th en co camp laguardia korea.i know taylor and im with him i just wanted to say whats up and rachel,dizzy lou and charlie say hi also.
The General Freedom Federation and other ultra-right conservative organizations in South Korea held "Citizens' Rally for Freedom and Reunification on the Occasion of March 1" in Seoul on March 1 at which they demanded "opposition to the cut down in the U.S. Forces and their redeployment and the north's nuclear development," according to South Korean KBS. The Koreans waged nationwide anti-Japanese resistance calling for the liberation of the country 84 years ago. On this historic day those forces staged the political charade intended to beg for the outside forces' continued presence in South Korea and incite north-south confrontation slandering the fellow countrymen, toeing the U.S. line. How can we "reunify" the country with the Americans there, you ultra right wing conservative maniacs!
This cannot but be an insult to the anti-Japanese patriotic forerunners and a challenge to all the Koreans in their efforts to achieve the independent and peaceful reunification of the country by the efforts of the nation. Yeah, insulting the ancestors. Big, big insult over there.
Such anti-national, sycophantic and treacherous burlesque staged at a time when the South Koreans' anti-Americanism is running high and there is growing awareness of independence among them with GIs' murder of schoolgirls as a momentum only lashes the Korean nation into a great fury. Now is our chance to get rid of them and you're blowing it for us!
The nation is censuring this rowdyism supporting the U.S. reckless moves as a thrice-cursed crime as this was committed at a time when it is deeply concerned about the very dangerous situation prevailing on the Korean Peninsula where a nuclear war may break out any moment due to the U.S. nuclear racket and large-scale joint military exercises. That damn nuclear racket!
What merits a serious attention is that they are beating the outdated drum of "theory of reunification under a liberal system" to vitiate the hard-won atmosphere of reconciliation, cooperation, unity and reunification between the north and the south of Korea after the publication of the historic June 15 Joint Declaration. By "the theory of reunification under a liberal system" they mean, in essence, reunifying the country by armed forces. That's was OUR idea! How dare you steal it!
They are crying out for a fratricidal war, repeating the "theory" which had already been thrown into the garbage ground of history. ...as it didn't work out too well the last time we tried it.
This is nothing but last-ditch efforts of those who have lived out their days. On February 10 they had a confab to prepare a rally on March 1 at which they staged an anti-DPRK smear campaign slandering the political system in the DPRK over its "nuclear issue" and "issue of remittance to the north." What is intolerable is that the motley crew who gathered there let loose a string of vituperations against the dignified political system in the DPRK, saying that "it is developing nuclear weapons against the fellow countrymen" and "it seeks to break South Korea-U.S. alliance by launching an anti-American propaganda campaign." All lies! I can almost see Kimmie's tears on my monitor.
These vituperations are just an echo of the remarks made by the U.S. conservative hardliners, the author of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, in a bid to cover up their criminal intention to isolate and stifle the DPRK, launch a nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula and bring a nuclear holocaust to the Korean nation. ..just the North part of the Korean nation.
This goes to prove that the ultra-right conservative forces in South Korea are just parroting what their American master says. It is the irresistible trend of the times to go in for independence against the U.S. The ultra-right conservative forces in South Korea will have to pay a very high price for their pro-U.S. flunkeyism and anti-reunification treacherous acts and will be compelled to dig their own graves in the long run. Which was what we made you do the last time we tried to "reunify" the country...
Posted by: tu3031 ||
03/05/2003 09:46 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
There was burlesque? Fan dancers and hoochie koochie? Damn, my dad would have loved it.
And, motley crew was there. Burlesque and rock and roll, Can't beat that with a stick.
#2
"The ultra-right.. will be compelled to dig their own graves in the long run". Good News: NK feels threatened enough by these protests to resort to death threats. Bad News: they mean what they say.
#5
"These vituperations are just an echo of the remarks made by the U.S. conservative hardliners..."
Oh my! Did I vituperate? Please excuse me! I didn't even realize it!
Posted by: Tom ||
03/05/2003 12:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Promote the prating prim of the prudent promissor
For the premise of the promise was the primogenitor
Of the primalaceous program
With the presbyoptic door.
---Churchy la Femme (Pogo comic strip character)
Get some protein, NK
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/05/2003 15:11 Comments ||
Top||
A bomb blast has ripped through a bus in the northern Israeli city of Haifa, killing at least 12 people. Dozens of people were wounded in the explosion, which police said was caused by a Palestinian suicide bomber. The bus was reportedly packed with students from a nearby university when the blast happened. It is the first bomb attack in Israel since January, when 22 people were killed in a double suicide attack in Tel Aviv. There was no immediate claim of responsibility for the latest attack.
As of about a half hour ago, Hamas was praising the attack, but not taking credit for it. Al-Aqsa said yesterday that they were stopping attacks within the Green Line, so I guess that'd make them prime suspects on the assumption they prefer lying through their teeth to telling the truth on any subject. But my guess would be Hamas, since Mohammad Taha was arrested a couple days ago, and Dire Revenge® is obviously called for.
Haifa, a mixed Israeli-Arab city close to Israel's border with the West Bank, has frequently been targeted by Palestinian militants in the past. A spokesman for the Israeli ambulance service told the BBC that 12 people were confirmed dead. Deathtoll is now 15+, and at least 30 wounded.
Reports say the bus had stopped on the city's main Moriah Boulevard in the Carmelia district when it blew up. The driver of another bus travelling behind said he saw "the back of the bus fly into the air, and the windows blew out and a great cloud of dust covered the bus". Television footage of the scene showed smoke rising from the burnt and mangled wreckage of the bus, which had lost its roof in the attack. Haifa police chief Yaacov Borovsky said bodies and wreckage were strewn across the street. Shopowner Ronen Levy said: "I suddenly heard a huge explosion and all the lights in my beauty parlour broke. I am still in shock." Some casualties were treated at the scene while others were evacuated.
All the usual horrors. I'm always surprised when the Paleostinians' lips don't fall off when they proclaim that they're not terrorists...
Israeli Government spokesman Ranaan Gissin blamed the Palestinian Authority (PA) for the attack. He said it showed the PA had taken "no action whatsoever to stop terrorism".
But Palestinian cabinet minister Saeb Erekat rejected the Israeli Government's "finger pointing that the Palestinian Authority is responsible".
If you're not responsible, why do you refer to yourselves as an "Authority"? And pick up your lips...
Toldja so...
A suicide bomber set off a powerful explosion that destroyed a suburban bus in the northern Israeli port city of Haifa Wednesday, killing at least 15 Israelis and badly wounding at least 40, Israeli police said. The militant group Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack. Sources inside the Islamic fundamentalist group Hamas told CNN that its military wing, Izzedine al Qassam, was responsible. Hamas spokesman Mahmoud a-Zahar lauded the attack.
#2
speculation on Fox (apparently sourced from Israel) is that it came from a small cell in Jenin - time for another "Massacre in Jenin"⢠? Sharon will crack some heads....and rightfully so
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/05/2003 10:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Beirut to Haifa isn't that far as I remember. Maybe the Human Shields can drive down to help out.....NAAAAAAH.
#4
tu3031---I think that the Humanoid Shields "ain't gonna study wo' no mo'." They have had their fill and need to recover from PTSD (post total stupidity disorder).
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/05/2003 22:39 Comments ||
Top||
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.
