Hi there, !
Today Sat 03/15/2003 Fri 03/14/2003 Thu 03/13/2003 Wed 03/12/2003 Tue 03/11/2003 Mon 03/10/2003 Sun 03/09/2003 Archives
Rantburg
531686 articles and 1855967 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 40 articles and 148 comments as of 9:31.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area:                    
Inspectors Pull Out?
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 1: WoT Operations
0 [1] 
4 00:00 Peter [] 
2 00:00 Anonymous [] 
0 [1] 
0 [1] 
1 00:00 tu3031 [1] 
1 00:00 tu3031 [1] 
0 [1] 
1 00:00 Crescend [1] 
1 00:00 liberalhawk [1] 
1 00:00 tu3031 [1] 
1 00:00 Rifle308 [1] 
0 [1] 
1 00:00 Frank G [1] 
1 00:00 Tom [1] 
2 00:00 tu3031 [1] 
3 00:00 Rex Mundi [1] 
4 00:00 g wiz [1] 
4 00:00 Alaska Paul [1] 
0 [] 
7 00:00 Steve White [1] 
0 [2] 
1 00:00 g wiz [] 
10 00:00 Frank G [1] 
7 00:00 grilllmaster Celissa [] 
9 00:00 Frank Martin [] 
2 00:00 tcc [] 
2 00:00 Anonymous [] 
9 00:00 Ben [] 
3 00:00 Bill [] 
6 00:00 Anonymous [] 
0 [] 
13 00:00 JDB [] 
2 00:00 Brian [] 
10 00:00 raptor [] 
16 00:00 Tom [] 
1 00:00 liberalhawk [] 
2 00:00 Steve [] 
11 00:00 The Marmot [] 
10 00:00 Jonesy [] 
Afghanistan
Afghan Blast Kills 3 Councilors, Wounds 5
Source: Afgha
Three members of a local council were killed and five wounded in an explosion in the southern Afghan province of Kandahar on Monday, a witness and a hospital doctor said. The victims were coming out of a meeting in Zale Dasht district, about 19 miles west of Kandahar city, when the blast occurred, a witness told Reuters. He did not know what caused the explosion. More than 20 people have been killed in various explosions in the last five weeks in Kandahar province, once the power base of the fundamentalist Taliban.
... and now a place where they're taking Dire Revenge®...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 06:13 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  thanks...hek? if we didn't need more reason to remain focussed - you provided it
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 18:15 Comments || Top||


Arabia
Yemen transfers "Faithful Youth" from general prison
Sa’ada governorate security authorities transferred prisoners calling themselves 'the Faithful Youth' from the Political and General Security prison to an area called Arozaimat and Manshour. They were arrested after they were found red-handed in distributing leaflets in the governorate by some of their supporters accusing the governor Brigadier General Yahya al-Omari of being a secret agent for the US. Sources in Sa’ada told the Yemen Times that detention of those activists was carried out when they wrote anti-US slogans in the governorate’s streets and distributed leaflets in the same context. The sources said that the detainees were not al-Qaeda supporters and it is probable that they belong to the Shiite Islamic Movement.
So they're loons, but not dangerous loons...
Sa’ada is one of the significant governorates in the republic where the Islamic movement is founded. In addition, it has one of the largest Salafi Islamic Movement centers in Yemen, known as Dar al-Hadeeth House Center in Dammaj. Meanwhile, the governorate of Sa’ada celebrated last week the Day of Ghadeer, the day on which Imam Ali bin Abi Taleb assumed the Caliphate of the Muslim state.
Damn. And I forget to send a present...
On the other hand, informed sources added that Ali bin Abdulmajeed Azzandani, the son of the Sheikh Abdulmajeed visited Dammaj religious center last week and held meetings with the religious Salafi scholars at the center. According to sources in the region, the visit’s objective is basically to support the Brothers Muslims Movement (Al-Ikhwan Al-Muslimoon) during the upcoming parliamentary elections which are to be held on April 27, 2003.
The Muslim Brotherhood functions as a funnel organization, matching young turbans with jihadi controllers. It also serves as an international organization for like-minded Muslim supremacists, with rousing intellectual discussions occasionally ending in fatwahs or gunfights...
In addition to this, the visit also aims at unifying visions where the Islamic movement has undergone crisis due the current international developments. Sources said that the Salafia religious leaders will not participate in the elections, but it was not clear whether they will support religious candidates. It is to be mentioned here that the Salafi Movement has about 100 religious centers and institutions. Thousands of students from different countries in the world enroll in those centers to enhance their knowledge in Islam and Quran.
... and small arms and explosives handling.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 07:21 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  this brings up an interesting point re: yemen. IIRC Yemen is historically a major Shia center. While AQ seems able on occasion to make common cause with Iran and Hezbollah, generally Salafists dont get on too well with Shia (eg Pakistan) Anyone know what the situation is in Yemen, as far as rivalry between Shia and Wahabi camps there?
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/12/2003 22:23 Comments || Top||


Al-Qaeda suspect receives treatment
The injured Mohammed Ali Azaidi has been taken last Thursday to Dhana valley, to a house of a relative to receive treatment. This has come after reaching an agreement with the authorities to withdraw the military vehicles. Azaidi has been suspected of having links to al-Qaeda organization. Mohammed Ali Azaidi’s family accused the authorities of making Azaidi’s health conditions worse. Health reports indicated that Azaidi has a hemiplegia as a result of being injured in the spinal column.
Oh, good. Even if they let him off, he won't be running around shooting people anymore...
He was injured in the backbone and now his family is attempting to take him abroad for treatment. Azaidi came back from Afghanistan five years ago. He stayed in Afghanistan for about two years. He is accused of kidnapping a German commercial attachè in 2001. Azaidi was injured by Brigade 25 in a shoot-out.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 07:10 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Does this make him an honorary mullah? Aren't they all missing various body parts?
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 20:34 Comments || Top||


Girl shot dead, 7 wounded in Yemen gunfight
A young girl was shot dead and seven people were wounded Monday in factional fighting in the Yemeni province of Dhamar, 100 kilometres (63 miles) south of Sanaa. "A 10-year-old girl was killed and seven people were wounded in a shootout between supporters of the ruling General People's Congress (GPC) and the opposition Islamist Justice Party," one resident told AFP. Another witness said the armed clash was triggered by a dispute among rival clans over candidacies by the two parties for legislative elections slated for April 27. "Security forces intervened ... and arrested 10 people from both sides," he said. Clashes between tribes, or between security forces and armed groups, are common and often bloody in Yemen, a country with a tribal structure where the number of firearms held by civilians is officially estimated at more than 60 million, an average of more than three per inhabitant.
Now, I'm not what you'd call a gun control enthusiast, but there's such a thing as too much of a good thing...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 07:03 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  As usual it comes down to a nation's, or a community's, culture as to how much a threat to peace and order the ownership of guns are. Yemenis (Is that a correct plural?) are not the Swiss or the Americans. Or the Germans for that matter.
Posted by: Rifle308 || 03/12/2003 20:13 Comments || Top||


Saudi Arabia Vows To Boost Oil Output In Event of War
Saudi Arabia pledged today to raise its oil production to cover any shortfall in supplies resulting from a military conflict in Iraq and predicted that prices will drop once "the drums of war" are silenced.
And Iraqi oil is flowing.
"We will make sure the market has enough oil. We will not allow a shortage to emerge," Saudi Oil Minister Ali Nuaimi said at a meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries in Vienna.
Mighty nice of him. Wonder what prompted this: pressure, generosity, or the realization that Soddi investments in the West don't do well when the Western economies tank?
Nuaimi issued the guarantee even as OPEC backed away from a Saudi-backed proposal to declare that, in case of war, the group would abolish output quotas and leave members free to boost production. Iran objected to the plan on grounds that it would seem to endorse a U.S.-led war against OPEC member Iraq. Instead, OPEC ministers issued a statement that merely noted "increasing geopolitical tensions" and reiterated "OPEC's determination to ensure that the market remains stable and well supplied." The political jockeying within OPEC was not nearly as important as the Saudi position. Saudi Arabia is the only OPEC member with significant spare production capacity and thus the ability to have an impact on world supplies. "I don't care what Iran does or Iraq does. It matters what Saudi Arabia does," said Fadel Gheit, senior energy analyst at Fahnestock & Co. in New York. The Saudis officially favor oil prices of $22 to $28 a barrel, instead of above $35 as at present, because they want to avoid hurting the world economy and thus reducing demand for their oil. Gheit said they also have a political incentive to keep oil flowing, to assuage American anger arising from the fact that most of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Saudi citizens.
They've noticed that we haven't forgotten.
The Saudi promise came at a particularly tense time in world oil markets. Prices have approached all-time highs in recent weeks, and a war could quickly shut down Iraqi output. Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members say that there is no shortage of oil in the market and that prices have risen only because of fear of war. "If you eliminate the drums of war, we will see oil prices fall to more acceptable levels," Nuaimi said. It isn't clear how long it would take Saudi Arabia to fully offset a sudden loss of Iraq's output of about 2 million barrels a day. John C. Felmy, chief economist at the American Petroleum Institute in Washington, said he believes it would take the Saudis about 30 days to raise production by 1 million barrels a day from about 9 million at present. "They have the ability over the longer term to produce more than that," Felmy said.

Even if the Saudis needed time to make up all the shortfall, however, many market analysts predict that major shortages won't develop in the event of war. They note that world oil demand drops at this time of year, after the winter heating season, typically by about 2 million barrels a day. In addition, the United States and other industrialized countries have large, government-controlled oil stockpiles that could be tapped, as they were in 1991 at the start of the Persian Gulf War. At that time, oil prices immediately fell by $10 a barrel on news that the stockpiles were being made available and that the American-led war on Iraq was succeeding at the start. U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, in Vienna for a meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said that the United States was "prepared to act very quickly" to release oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, "but only if we believe a severe disruption of supply exists.
Sounds like Energy is on the ball.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/12/2003 02:19 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  saudi knows their the next target, but not in the sense that some ultra-hawks think. We will putting political and economic pressure on them to reform - to resist that pressure they need to be as strong as possible economically - it makes more sense for them to do things in their own economic interests - like shipping a lot of oil while prices are high - and win brownie points to boot - rather than try to undermine us now.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/12/2003 8:45 Comments || Top||


Britain
PM stakes all on US alliance -- UK forces will join war regardless of UN
Tony Blair the Lion yesterday took the political gamble of his life when he signalled that British forces will join an imminent US-led military invasion to disarm Saddam Hussein, even if a majority of the security council fails to endorse such action in a second UN resolution. The prime minister moved to end the sense of deep crisis that engulfed Downing Street over the previous 48 hours, quelling doubts about his resolve to fight alongside the US.
I'm going to go learn the words to "God Save the Queen", and then I'm going to pay a visit to the British Consulate and enterain them.
He stressed that there was sufficient justification for war in UN resolution 1441, passed last November. While the immediate battle to secure a fresh resolution would continue, there would be no turning back. The prime minister told the Commons: "We hold firm to the course we have set out."

After what appeared a day of frayed nerves inside Downing Street on Tuesday, and increasing diplomatic division between London and Washington, Mr Blair made his decision to fight, even though it could prompt a wave of resignations from his government.
"Bye, Clare, see ya around somethime ... not."
He told MPs: "The reason why I believe it is important that we hold firm ... is because what is at stake here isn't whether the US goes alone or not. It is whether the international community is prepared to back up the clear instruction it gave to Saddam Hussein with the necessary action."

With the French almost certain to veto any second resolution, Downing Street said Britain remained focused on winning over five of the six swing states on the security council. If they vote for the British resolution, Mr Blair would have the political protection of claiming the backing of a majority of security council states.
This would really help him, and Mr. Howard in Australia as well.
In a bid to win over the waverers, Britain proposed six tests by which the UN could judge whether President Saddam is complying with the UN's demand that he disarm. One of the tests requires him to give a televised confession that he has stocks of illegal weapons.
Roll tape! This is clever; it would make the first time in his evil life that Saddam ever personally confessed to anything. It would destroy him; he'd be overthrown in days to weeks. Which is why he'll never do it, and Tony will then have his protection. Clever, clever.
Failure to win the wavering security council votes will leave Downing Street endorsing a war without solid Labour or public backing.
Andy Sullivan says Labour will be solid enough.
If the resolution falls, the US could invade Iraq as early as next week after allowing the UN inspectors and any journalists to leave Baghdad. If the resolution was to go through, the war option would be delayed a little longer to allow President Saddam time to comply with the six tests.

The US state department was last night claiming to be confident that it had secured four of the six wavering votes.
Mexico, Chile, who else? Or are they trying to rattle Dominique a little?
The plan is to table the new resolution the minute it wins over a fifth swing vote that would give the required majority of nine. That could mean a vote as early as today or any time up to Sunday. But the British government played down the chances of success. The Foreign Office was gloomy, insisting that it had failed to win over any of the waverers.

The Spanish government, joint sponsors with the US and Britain of the resolution, went further by suggesting it might be preferable not to hold the vote at all.
No, no, we want the weasels on record.
Mr Blair and the US president, George Bush, telephoned leaders of the waverers last night to try to swing their votes. Mr Bush spoke with the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, and the leaders of Mexico, Chile and Pakistan.

The British government, in response to pressure from the waverers, offered Iraq disarmament tests. These included:

· President Saddam admitting in Arabic he had had weapons of mass destruction but would get rid of them or explain what happened to them;
"The dog ate them. You know how we Arabs hate dogs! This is why!"
· Iraq's permission for 30 weapons scientists to travel to Cyprus to be interviewed by UN weapons inspectors;
"I, Saddam, grant them permission to go. I've also preserved the livers of their loved ones in these jars here."
· the destruction forthwith of 10,000 litres of anthrax and other chemical and biological weapons Iraq is suspected of holding.
I just told you, the dog ate them!
Iraqi sources indicated that five of the six tests might be out of the question but we'll lie about it for a while acceptable but the television address was impossible problematic. There could be a way round this if the address was limited to President Saddam giving a commitment to the false appearance of disarmament, without any suggestion that he had been lying.

The tests could store up new problems for the US and Britain should President Saddam go some way to meeting them and further sowing division in the UN.

The White House tried to undo the mess caused by the remarks of the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that the US was prepared to go to war without Britain.
I still think this was planned and deliberate, and it worked: Tony had to decide, and he did.
The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, went out of his way to praise Mr Blair, saying: "The president values the counsel of prime minister Blair, and this remains a diplomatic issue that the president is discussing with the United Kingdom as well as other nations."
Bulldog, you and your country are so-o-o-o lucky to have him.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/12/2003 11:52 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:


Labour plotters take first steps to oust Blair
Edited for length.
Labour opponents of war with Iraq took the first steps last night towards launching a leadership challenge if Tony Blair commits British troops to American-led military action without the explicit authority of the United Nations.

Left-wing MPs will call on the party's ruling National Executive Committee to hold a "special conference" that could trigger a leadership contest if the Prime Minister defies growing pressure in the party not to ignore a UN veto on the use of force. The anti-war sentiment in the Labour Party took a dangerous turn when MPs began talking openly of the possibility of moves to replace Mr Blair. At present they represent a small but vocal minority and there is no sign yet of widespread support for challenging the Prime Minister. But the readiness of rebels to question his future on the eve of a possible war represented the most serious threat to his authority since he became Prime Minister six years ago.

Mr Blair, who looked washed out and exhausted at a Number 10 news conference, yesterday summoned senior ministers and officials to Downing Street to plan the next stage of the government's efforts to bolster support at home and abroad for military action. The group, comprising Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary, Geoff Hoon, Defence Secretary, John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, Chief of the Defence Staff, and Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, will form the core of a War Cabinet.

Lord Goldsmith's role will be crucial because he will advise on the legal status of military action if Mr Blair has to act without UN authority. Mr Blair will face the Commons at noon today for the first Question Time session since Clare Short, the International Development Secretary, issued a dramatic threat to resign from the Cabinet if he takes Britain to war without fresh UN backing. Miss Short's intervention appeared to have encouraged Labour rebels to break cover and exposed the vulnerability of Mr Blair's position, with nearly half the party's backbenchers opposed to his stance.

Tam Dalyell, Senile Old Fart Father of the House of Commons, said if Mr Blair disregarded the UN, Labour constituency parties and trade unions would be asked to back demands for a special party conference. Alice Mahon, the Labour MP for Halifax and a vocal opponent of war, confirmed that a letter had been prepared and would be sent to all MPs if Mr Blair pressed ahead in defiance of his party. The letter calls on MPs to lobby the National Executive to call a special conference. Mrs Mahon said last night: "The party is in deep crisis. It is split down the middle. It is a very serious situation for the Prime Minister."

Yesterday Hilton Dawson, Labour MP for Lancaster and Wyre, became the first backbencher to call publicly on Mr Blair to consider stepping down. He said there was "no case for war without the UN" at this stage and insisted rushing in to military action would be a "colossal mistake". While praising Mr Blair, saying he would go down as a "great Prime Minister", he said he should "consider his position" if he insisted on pursuing a military solution. Lord Healey, the former Labour Chancellor, said Mr Blair was in real danger: "It is quite possible to get a conference called at which he could be replaced."

John Reid, the Labour chairman, described talk of moves to replace Mr Blair as the work of a few "usual suspects". They would be heavily outnumbered on the National Executive Committee which would have to approve any special conference by a majority vote. But Mr Reid confirmed that Labour dissidents were plotting against Mr Blair. "There are a small number of people who, given the choice between getting Saddam Hussein or Tony Blair to lose their job always seem to choose Tony Blair."

Yesterday Mr Blair also met union leaders, most of whom are strongly opposed to war without a second resolution, at Downing Street to discuss Iraq. Their members' votes will be crucial in determining whether the party holds a leadership contest, and its eventual result if one were to take place.
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 03:01 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Saw him on Fox this AM doing his speech, with Jack straw seated behind him - he looked pretty good, and slightly pissed off. It appeared he was on his game
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 8:18 Comments || Top||

#2  Perhaps he Blair should: (i) tell George W. Bush to go on without the UK (ii) Call a national election (iii) Inform the people that the Labor backbenchers have cost England its honor and switch parties to the Tories in time for the election. (iv) Sit back and watch the sparks fly.
Posted by: Yank || 03/12/2003 12:14 Comments || Top||

#3  bulldog -

we have seen poll data on UK suport for war iwth UN (75%) and without (25%) do you have any sense of support if moral majority (9 yes vote but France vetoes, or France and Russia veto0 ???

Also - any possibility of "new Labor" under Blair breaking from Labor (like Soc dems did) and perhaps making coalition with Tories??
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/12/2003 14:42 Comments || Top||

#4  a note to bulldog and other brits here

WE are grateful for support of Blair and strong minded Brits - if the left pulls out rug now we will not hold it against Blair and Britain.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/12/2003 14:44 Comments || Top||

#5  Damn straight, liberalhawk. Blair's leaving it all on the field as we say over here. I, for one, am grateful.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 14:55 Comments || Top||

#6  I second liberalhawk's sentiment: Blair has done his best and proved himself a true ally. The way the British feel is consistent with years of liberal-speak and liberal-press.

Isn't it ironic that the people Blair supported up until this time have created a mindset in the public that has come back to haunt him at a time he needs it the least...
Posted by: Ptah || 03/12/2003 15:15 Comments || Top||

#7  Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.com/, editing buttons at the bottom still don't work on my Mac, Fred) has a different take on this today: he notes that the protesting MPs are so far left that they really aren't a threat to Tony, and that as long as Tony controls the National Executive Committee, he's fine. And he does. Andy also notes how little influence Claire Short has.

Incidentially, the residents of the island of Montserrat are very unhappy with the current British governor, who they feel is ignoring them (they have an active volcano on the island and the governor insists that they move out of the way). They're so angry that they're comparing him to their previous governor who set an all time low for relations with the islanders. Who is that? --

-- Claire Short.

So she's consistent!
Posted by: Steve White || 03/12/2003 16:11 Comments || Top||

#8  Liberhawk - I haven't read any polls gauging public support for war with a UNSC "moral majority", they seem to have asked about "UN approval" - pretty vague, but I suppose you'd have to assume that meant full UNSC sanction with no vetoes. I can't speak for everyone, but I'd say a lot depends on how Tony handles the situation and who and how many MPs speak out against him.

New Labour wouldn't for a coalition with the Tories, which is a shame because they have a lot in common (far more than either would like to admit). Tony can rely on the Tories support here, but a division of the Labour party is very, very unlikely. A few left wingers (the Tam Dalyells, Clare Shorts etc.) could conceivably break away the become "Decrepit Labour", or join the Lib Dems perhaps... Tony's support has actually increased in the Commons in the last couple of days. I think the war mentality has set in already (war with the French, that is) - there's a lot of sympathy for Tony because of the French obstinacy at the UN.

And, appreciate the good will guys - we're in it for the long haul too.
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 16:56 Comments || Top||

#9  Bulldog-- "we're in it for the long haul too", so true, so true. Glad to have you by our side. I fear the world will spend the next couple of decades living the old Chinese curse, "May you live in interesting times". God help us all.
And "God save the Queen!"
Posted by: Rifle308 || 03/12/2003 20:22 Comments || Top||

#10  Just goes to show about family,we may fight on occasion(1776/1812),but stick together in the long run.
I thank God for the British and thier since of right and wrong.
It is good to have you standing by or side,cousin.
Posted by: raptor || 03/13/2003 6:32 Comments || Top||


Europe
Portugal: U.S. 'best way' to have security
Via Joe Katzman, at Winds of Change. How'd we miss this?
Portugal is siding with the United States on Iraq because Washington was "Portugal's best way to ensure national security," a Portuguese Cabinet minister said Monday. Foreign Minister Antonio Martins da Cruz told state radio that if Portugal were attacked, "it would be unlikely France and Germany would come to our rescue."
Picked right up on that, didn't he?
He said: "Let us suppose Portugal, proper or its archipelagos, faced a threat, who would come to our rescue? The European Commission, France, Germany? I think it would be NATO who would come to our rescue, in other words, it would be the U.S., no one else would defend us. For instance, during the 1996 mission in Bosnia, operations took place with the support of 20 satellites, of which only one was European," and the remainder belonged to the U.S. "If we were attacked, is that what they would offer to defend us? How curious is this: in Bosnia, when we were called to send soldiers urgently to that region, the U.S. had C-17 and C-130 planes, and France leased ferry boats, which during the summer are employed in tourist services to Corsica. Is this how we are supposed to project our forces in Europe? Are they planning to defend us with ferry boats? I cannot envisage the European Commission protecting us from an attack in which highly developed weapons were employed."
Hurrah for Portugal! Razzberries are very tasty with a good Bourdeaux, I understand...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 09:05 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  A European realist? I didn't know anymore existed.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 22:17 Comments || Top||

#2  "Defend us with faeries ferries?" Ouch.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 23:39 Comments || Top||


Serbian Prime Minister Is Assassinated
Serbian Prime Minister Zoran Djindjic - a key leader of the revolt that toppled former President Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000 - was assassinated Wednesday by gunmen who ambushed him outside the government complex, police sources said. Djindjic, 50, died in a Belgrade hospital after having been shot in the abdomen and back, the sources told The Associated Press. Two people were arrested and one was injured in the shooting, witnesses said. The government building where Djindjic was ambushed was sealed off by heavy state security, and three ambulances were parked in front. Police stopped traffic in downtown Belgrade, searching through cars and checking passengers.

Djindjic appeared to have been targeted last month, when a truck suddenly cut into the lane in which his motorcade was traveling to Belgrade's airport. The motorcade narrowly avoided a collision, and Djindjic later dismissed the Feb. 21 alleged assassination attempt as a "futile effort" that could not stop democratic reforms. "If someone thinks the law and the reforms can be stopped by eliminating me, then that is a huge delusion," Djindjic was quoted as saying by the Politika newspaper at the time. The assassination of Djindjic heralds turbulent days for Serbia and a bitter power struggle for his successor. Otpor, or Resistance, an independent pro-democracy group, said the shooting means "criminals have won the battle" in Serbia. Djindjic had many enemies because of his pro-reformist and Western stands. He was key in Milosevic's extradition to the U.N. War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, Netherlands. Djindjic, a pro-Western leader, saw Serbia's fate as linked to the West and favored greater cooperation with the U.N. war crimes tribunal, where Milosevic now is standing trial on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity. He was pivotal in arresting and handing Milosevic to the war crimes tribunal in June 2001. For this, he was blasted by Serbian nationalists, including his former ally Vojislav Kostunica, who stepped down as Yugoslav president earlier this month after the formation of a new state, Serbia and Montenegro.
No end of suspects in this killing.
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 08:21 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Assassination - Serbia - anyone else get a feeling of deja vu? (or more precisely, deja phooey)
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 03/12/2003 8:40 Comments || Top||

#2  Yeah, pictures of WW1 flashed before my eyes. Not to worry, I'm sure the UN has a firm hand on the situation.
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 9:21 Comments || Top||

#3  Let the froggies handle it this time.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 10:12 Comments || Top||

#4  Yeah, they'll probably handle it as well as they did in 1914.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 10:41 Comments || Top||

#5  The usual suspects in this case shall be legion.
Posted by: Crescend || 03/12/2003 11:00 Comments || Top||

#6  IIRC, there was about 300 political (read "black market rivals", "ethnic cleasing clogs",...) murders in the last 5 years of the Milosevic era. Apparently, slobo still has a strong following there.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 11:22 Comments || Top||


European Court of human Rights: Turkey’s Ocalan trial ’unfair’
The European Court of Human Rights has condemned Turkey for violating the human rights of jailed Kurdish rebel leader Abdullah Ocalan. The court ruled that Ocalan did not receive a fair trial. He is currently serving a life sentence as the sole inmate on the prison island of Imrali. Ocalan was originally sentenced to death in June 1999 for his role in a 16-year guerrilla war against the Turkish authorities. In October last year the death sentence was commuted to life in prison, with no chance of parole. The court in Strasbourg ruled that Ocalan was "not tried by an independent and impartial tribunal". But on other complaints lodged by Ocalan's lawyers, the court ruled in Turkey's favour. It rejected charges that Ocalan's conditions of detention were inhumane or that he had been illegally detained. Both sides have three months to lodge an appeal. Turkey abolished capital punishment as part of reforms aimed at boosting its chances of joining the European Union.
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 01:29 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  They will not let Turkey into the EU. ALl of the Turkish effort in that direction has been totally wasted. Turkey should: (i) restore the death penalty, (ii) whack the murderous bastard (iii) appeal to become a member of NAFTA (iv) Push the somewhat reasonable SUFI Islam throughout the Islamic world as an alternative to Wahhabism and peacefully reassert their leadership in the Islamic world.
Posted by: Yank || 03/12/2003 12:18 Comments || Top||

#2  Let them appeal. I'd like them to come and sit down next to Vicente Fox, begging the United States for access to our ports and facilities for the purpose of trade.

I can tell you now Yank where that will be going.
Posted by: Brian || 03/12/2003 16:28 Comments || Top||


Fifth Column
Moran sez Jews manipulating Bush
Congressman James P. Moran Jr. of Virginia said that "American Jews are responsible for pushing the country to war with Iraq" and that powerful and influential Zionist leaders are manipulating Bush. Congressman Moran made the remarks at an anti-war forum in Reston, Virginia that was held at St. Anne's Episcopal Church on March 3. "If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this," Congressman Moran said. Congressman James P. Moran is a seven-term Democratic incumbent.
Alright! All you Zionists! Stop that this instant!
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 06:05 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Yes, Virginia, there is a Satan cause.

Yoo hoo! Virginia! Wake up!
Posted by: Tom || 03/12/2003 19:54 Comments || Top||


College to Apologize for Anti-War Credit
A college speech instructor was placed on leave for giving extra credit to students who wrote letters to President Bush opposing a war with Iraq but declining any bonus to students who support war.
Uhhhhhhhh, like, no oil for blood. I mean like, no blood for oil. Yeah, that's it. Can I have my extra thing now, teach?
Louis Zellers, president of Citrus College in suburban Glendora, said adjunct speech professor Rosalyn Kahn was placed on administrative leave with pay starting this week, pending a review.
Ooooohhhhhh....Citrus College! Oh, Rosalyn must've really been in demand in academia world.
"That's inappropriate and we're not going to tolerate it," Zellers said.
Especially since it appears to have made the national news.
Zellers said he would send a letter of apology to the White House.
Mighty big of him, I think.
Kahn did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment. Adjunct Faculty United, the professors' union, promised to support Kahn.
....and there it is!
"We do not believe that the instructor was given due process," said Jean Culp, the union' co-president.
Maybe you could take it up with the new International World Court or whatever they call it? Wait, strike that. You'd probably win.
College officials said Kahn also offered students extra credit if they wrote letters to a state senator protesting state budget cuts that would reduce the number of adjunct faculty positions and eliminate some college classes.
Think Rosalyn might've been on the cut list? Conflict of interest maybe?
"This just demonstrates the level of self-interest involved in the assignment," said Samuel T. Lee, associate dean of language arts and foreign languages at the two-year community college.
Looks like Dean Lee might agree.
Lee believes four to six letters were sent to Bush and more were delivered to the legislator. College officials said the extra credit awarded by Kahn will be expunged and students will be given alternative extra credit assignments.
I can only imagine what those will be will be.
Kahn's speech class is required for students wanting to transfer to California State University or University of California campuses.
Ahhhhh, Berkeley. I don't know if this helps or hurts her chances of moving on up to lefty nirvana.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 01:33 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  They should apologize for what they're doing to the educational system in general. This stupid letter writing campaign isn't even the tip of the iceberg.
Posted by: g wiz || 03/12/2003 13:26 Comments || Top||


India-Pakistan
Three injured in Pak religious festivities
Sunni and Shiite Muslims clashed at a religious gathering Wednesday, leaving three people injured, including a poice officer. The violence erupted near Bhalwal, 125 miles southwest of the eastern city of Lahore, when Sunni residents objected to the sermon of a Shiite cleric, the officials said.
"Hey! You can't say that!"
"Can, too!"
"Can, not!"

Both sides threw stones and fired guns. The three injured people, including two Shiites, were treated at a hospital.
"Heretic!"
"Hypocrite!"
"Apostate!"
"Infidel! Take that!"
"Yee-haw! Ain't we devout! Ow!"

Pakistan put police on alert this week to prevent religiously motivated violence against the minority Shiites during the Islamic holy month of Muharram. Muharram is the mourning month for Shiites, when they recall the seventh-century death in battle of Hussein, grandson of Islam's prophet, Mohammed. The Bhalwal clash occurred during the leadup to Friday's observance of Ashoura, the blackest day for Shiite Muslims, who comprise about 10 percent of the world's estimated 1 billion Muslims.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 08:19 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Yep, I know when I go to mass on Sunday (or a wedding), the first thing I do is make sure I got a fresh clip in the old AK. With all due respect to the cultural differences, these people are f**ked.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 22:27 Comments || Top||


Man Accused Of 30 Acts Of Violence Arrested
Source: NNI
Pakistani authorities have apprehended a terrorist of a banned jehadi gruop who killed nine in an Imambargah (Shia Mosque) at Karachi when they were offering evening prayers. "Jamil son of Mohammad Aslam, has been arrested on last Friday (March 7) in North Karachi when he was fleeing after killing Mohammad Ambar, an activist of banned jehadi outfit," Karachi police official confirmed.
At least they waited until he killed Mohammad. That's a comfort — kinda like getting two for the price of one...
The accused who belongs to a banned jehadi outfit (Police wants to keep secret name of the banned outfit) has tried for at least three days of hiding his real identification and projecting his name as Abdul Wahab alias Afghani. However on yesterday (Monday), he revealed his real identification. According to the initial investigative report, he has committed his involvement in 30 various acts of terrorists of sectarian natured. The most recent acts of terrorism committed by him including firing at the Imambargah in Alflah area where Shia Muslims were offering evening prayer with his two other comrades known as Asif Chotoo and Javed. He has also committed an attempt of suicide attack on a police official Farooq Awan but the later escaped hardly as the motorcycle fitted with explosives was blown away just before the official get on it.
Betcha Farooq kissed his own gennies after that close shave...
On Friday, the terrorist killed Mohammad Ambar after the Friday prayers in the noon and tried to escape from the scene when the general people around the mosque in North Karachi in Nazimabad, nabbed him and handed over to the authorities. His arrest was kept in secret with a purpose to further book his other comrades wanted in various terrorist activities including a bombing of a restaurant last year in which two Iranian were killed. The police arrested as many as 23 people who are suspected part of the banned jehadi outfit and believed in getting vital information from them to bust the terrorist network engaged in sectarian and other terrorism in the port city of Pakistan.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 06:53 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:


U.S. Says No News on Bin Laden Capture Claim
The U.S. government said on Wednesday it had no information to substantiate an Iranian Radio report that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden had been captured in Pakistan. "We have no information to substantiate that claim," said a spokesman for the U.S. administration, whose view was echoed by two other U.S. officials and Pakistan's information minister.
Iranian Radio, monitored by the British Broadcasting Corp., reported bin Laden was being held by Pakistani Inter-Intelligence Services and that U.S. troops were present. "There is nothing to substantiate this rumor," another U.S. official said of the report. The State Department also told Reuters it did not have any information to either confirm or deny the report. "We have not heard anything," a department spokeswoman said.
State would be on my list as last to know anything
Pakistan's Interior Minister Faisal Saleh Hayat also discounted the report of bin Laden's reported capture. "This is absolutely unfounded and absolutely baseless," Hayat told Reuters.
There's an lot of denying going on.
The report of bin Laden's arrest follows the high-profile capture in Pakistan on March 1 of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Pakistan's intelligence agency said this week that Mohammed's arrest had resulted in information helping them close in on the al Qaeda leader. A senior Pakistani intelligence officer said Mohammed had told them he met bin Laden in December, a claim the official said had not yet been confirmed.
Other reporting from the area suggest a massive search operation is going on with reports of hundreds of Taliban and al-Qaeda being rounded up.
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 01:37 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Just capture his head. It'll make for a good photo op.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 9:55 Comments || Top||

#2  It'd make a better bookend for the desk in the Oval Office heh heh
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 10:29 Comments || Top||

#3  "Methinks they protest too much!"

I think they may really have him. Too many denials, and it kinda makes sense not to publicize the capture so as not to alert other rats who they still want to catch.
Posted by: Scooter McGruder || 03/12/2003 11:11 Comments || Top||

#4  Scooter: it totally makes sense to try to keep it under wraps, not only to avoid alerting the other rats but because announcing OBL's capture would generate *immense* worldwide pressure to declare victory in the GWoT and go home. And we're a long, long way from being done, Osama or no Osama.
Posted by: jrosevear || 03/12/2003 11:41 Comments || Top||

#5  Capture the head and dump the body in Baghdad as a message.
Posted by: Yank || 03/12/2003 12:19 Comments || Top||

#6  I think he's already dead but if he isn't I hope that he dies very quietly.
Posted by: Canaveral Dan || 03/12/2003 12:21 Comments || Top||

#7  I want agree with Scooter - too many stories flying around all of a sudden. It'll be exciting to see what unfolds in the next few weeks.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam || 03/12/2003 16:39 Comments || Top||

#8  A Hoffa style burial on a certain parcel in lower Manhattan? Years from now, there can be rumors of what became of him.
Posted by: Dishman || 03/12/2003 22:23 Comments || Top||

#9  If he was captured, interesting that the Iranians were some of the first to find out, no? Buddies are the first to notice when buddies go missing.

If he was captured, and this is being kept under wraps (a likelihood), then expect the news of his capture to be released at a politically convenient time, like the day before the Iraq war starts, or the same day it starts, to boost everyone's morale. If that happens, it'll be a good bet they captured him earlier.
Posted by: Ben || 03/13/2003 0:43 Comments || Top||


Iraq
Turks Add A Hurdle To U.S. War Plans
Hardening their position, Turkey's leaders insist they need further assurances about post-war Iraq before they allow U.S. troops to deploy along the border for an attack. In a new complication, they also are refusing to let the Pentagon use Turkish airspace without approval from parliament.
This just isn't going to work.
"The United States and Turkey have reached an agreement, but the missing piece is a counterpart agreement between the United States and the Iraqi Kurds," he said. "Turkey says it wants assurances from Washington, but what would really help are assurances from the Iraqi Kurds."
Bottom line is that most Turks oppose attacking Iraq and their new PM is not looking to spend any more political capital on an unpopular issue.
Posted by: JAB || 03/12/2003 10:29 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Where is Murat? He had a few good points. If we're going to try and push democracy in the region maybe it's better to been respecting the choices of the Turkish parliament.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 23:35 Comments || Top||

#2  Rummy should simply explain to them what the consequences of a misguided M.O.A.B in downtown Istanbul.

Aside from that, F the Turks. We do not need them. They will prove to be a bigger headache then they are worth!
Posted by: g wiz || 03/12/2003 23:55 Comments || Top||

#3  The Turks have served their purpose. The Iraqi army has been deploying and redeploying back and forth for the past 4 moths to the northern provinces, seeing how the Iraqi army doesnt believe in silly little things like basic maintenance on their heavy gear, Id have to assume they are all pretty worn out by now. I think we should give the 36 billion we were going to give to Turkey to Afghanistan and Hamid Karzai.

The turks are free to vote as the please, but they are well advised to remember the famous American Phrase " Payback is a bitch"
Posted by: Frank Martin || 03/13/2003 0:13 Comments || Top||

#4  It's getting worse by the day. Now they're refusing their airspace too. This means that even airborne operations through Turkey are no longer possible. Is Turkey now an official member of the Axis of Evil ?
Posted by: Peter || 03/13/2003 5:02 Comments || Top||


9 Seconds - that’s all you have....
THE moment their instructor shouts 'gas, gas, gas', the soldiers have to don their gas masks — chin in first and straps on tight — in just one second. Within the next eight, they have to strap on the rest of their gear, comprising heavy rubber gloves, baggy protective pants, hooded jackets and big sloppy boots. In this war game, the enemies are unseen: VX nerve gas, blister agents, ricin, anthrax, botulism and smallpox.

Nuclear, biological and chemical training has been incorporated into virtually every aspect of training at United States bases in Kuwait. In simulated chemical warfare attacks, for instance, US troops practise getting their vehicles and equipment sluiced down at decontamination centres in the event of an attack, which is described here as 'getting slimed'.

That threat is very real. During the 1990-91 Gulf War, the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein came close to using such weapons against the US-led coalition, according to former Central Intelligence Agency analyst and White House national security aide Kenneth Pollack. In his book, The Threatening Storm: The Case For Invading Iraq, he disclosed that Mr Saddam gave orders that any attack on Baghdad should be met with chemical and biological artillery strikes. But American troops stopped short of storming Baghdad then.

Washington now believes that Mr Saddam is arming his missiles with chemicals that he is ready to fire against Israeli and US troops if Iraq comes under attack. Commenting on troop preparations, Pentagon spokesman David Lapan told The Straits Times: 'Our soldiers have extensive training and are prepared to deal with any challenge.'

They are required to carry or have within reach masks and suits for NBC (nuclear, biological and chemical) protection, and they frequently practise donning and clearing the masks on order. All the exercises build upon the training the forces receive at various points in their careers, starting in recruit training.

But some believe that more could be done. The congressional report recently criticised the military for not giving chemical and biological warfare protection a higher priority. It noted that the Pentagon had acquired 1.5 million lighter, more durable protective suits since the Gulf War, but still had three million of the older ones. The military's sensor technology had also improved since the last Gulf War. In exercises, special detection vehicles identified airborne poisonous chemicals within seconds of their release, and other gear could spot poison gas plumes in the distance. Biological attacks, however, were still hard to identify. In the face of such concerns, more than 500,000 soldiers have received anthrax jabs.

The US Special Forces have also been tasked to locate and disarm biological, chemical and nuclear weapons. Given the difficulty of tracking down all of the weapons, American war strategy is aimed at disrupting the chain of command carrying out the orders to use them. Observers said these might go some way to reducing the size and effectiveness of the weapons, but it will not eliminate the threat. The key will lie in the durability of the American gas mask - and the ability to put it on in nine seconds.
For once, I've got nothing to add... godspeed
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 07:50 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  How could this be? Blix hasn't found any of this stuff and Chirac said that the Inspections are working, and so did Martin Sheen for that matter.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 19:32 Comments || Top||

#2  ...and Martin Sheen IS the President. Well, isn't he?
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 20:26 Comments || Top||


Surrender Talks
This is a part of a larger article
Surrender talks
U.S. officials said Wednesday that surrender negotiations have secretly begun with key Iraqi military officials in hopes that some military units will not fight in a possible war. One senior official said that some parts of the Iraqi military already may have agreed not to fight. These efforts underscore assessments by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency that the leadership around Saddam Hussein is brittle. Officials have been making that view somewhat public as part of an effort to publicize what they say is Saddam's vulnerability. The officials said they could not give specifics, citing concern that Saddam would enact retribution.
Posted by: JDR || 03/12/2003 05:55 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Smells a bit like disinformation, to sow fear and confusion before the shooting starts. Or: Maybe we are talking to some Iraqi generals, and we've let the cat peek out of the bag to encourage a coup before the shooting starts. That is, some generals may get afraid that Saddam suspects them, and given his Stalin-esque way of thinking, they know they're dead if he does. So they get him before he gets them. We can only hope....
Posted by: DougS || 03/12/2003 17:16 Comments || Top||

#2  Special forces "buying out" local forces like Afghanistan (only without the heavy briefcases?)

Bring it on!!! War done the common sense way. Are we dropping pre-fab PoW camps?
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 17:19 Comments || Top||

#3  Bwa-ha-ha-ha! Falafel eating surrender donkeys! But hey, if I was in their shorts facing down the business end of and M1-A1, I'd do the same thing.
Posted by: Rex Mundi || 03/12/2003 17:59 Comments || Top||


Straw: UN resolution bid may be abandoned before war
Following up Spain's hints earlier...
Jack Straw has acknowledged that Britain may have to abandon hopes of securing a new United Nations resolution before going to war with Iraq. At a news conference at the Foreign Office, he repeatedly refused to say whether the draft resolution tabled by Britain, the US and Spain would be put to a vote in the Security Council.

Earlier, his Spanish counterpart Ana Palacio openly accepted that the resolution may be withdrawn, citing the threat by President Jacques Chirac to wield the French veto "whatever the circumstances". The acceptance that the resolution may have to be dropped will have come as a blow to Tony Blair, who desperately needs a new UN mandate for war if he is to avoid a split in the Labour Party. Earlier, at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Blair had assured Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith that he still intended to put the resolution to a vote in the Security Council. He even announced a series of six "benchmarks" against which Iraqi compliance with UN demands to disarm could be judged in a final attempt to win round the undecided council members. But just five hours later, Mr Straw refused to guarantee that there would be a vote on a new resolution before military action was launched. "What I guarantee is that we are working as hard as we possibly can to secure a second resolution," he said. "We are having to do so in circumstances in which one of the the permanent members of the Security Council has said, whatever the circumstances, they will veto a resolution, so that is not easy. He added that they were in a "very fast moving situation".
A UN showdown would have been nice, but it seems the talking really is over. BBC news this evening were predicting war by Monday, and the British military still set to go :).
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 04:30 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  So, the British press is implying that Blair will go without any paper whatsoever from the UN? If so, I am quite surprised based on what we've read in the American press.
Posted by: JAB || 03/12/2003 16:39 Comments || Top||

#2  I DO like it - it actually puts the onus on the French for their overt expressions of a veto, while leaving others in the murky grey. We were always going to war, whether the Frogs wanted to or not..now the best thing that could happen is to expose the "contribuions" the french have made to sammy's war machine (bio, chem, nuke - they're all there)
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 17:21 Comments || Top||

#3  JAB: "very fast moving situation" I think that should be translated from Strawspeak as "What we said a few hours ago about going for the second [sic] resolution: nah! Stuff the frogs, we're going unilaterally [sic]"

it looks like the French and Russians have actually done us a favour by guaranteeing vetoes, as it seems the moral majority is out of our grasp too. We can avoid a potential humiliation (4 to 11), and the blame the French for rendering the UNSC irrelevant (like Frank says)!
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 17:31 Comments || Top||

#4  Yeah I'm starting to come around to not forcing a vote on the 18th resolution. Fuck it. Stop holding things up and just go.
Posted by: g wiz || 03/12/2003 21:10 Comments || Top||


EU Threat To Iraq Reconstruction
European Union could withhold help in rebuilding Iraq after a war if the conflict did not have U.N. approval, a senior EU commissioner has said. Chris Patten, EU commissioner
former Hong Kong administrator and all around arrogant ass
for external relations, warned on Wednesday that without proper authority the EU might find it difficult to release cash from its external relations budget.
As opposed to the funds they release to Arafat's PA which have never seen the light of day other than Swiss and French bank accounts for the Arafat thugs
The Iraq crisis has seen disagreements at the EU similar to those at NATO and the United Nations and has exposed the difficulties for the bloc in developing common foreign policies. On one side is France and Germany, which are leading the anti-war campaign and are often considered the driving force of EU development
riggghhhtt - remember the postings regarding Germany's sick economy?.
On the other is Britain and Spain, which are backing the U.S. hardline stance against Iraq at the U.N. Security Council. Patten told the EU parliament in Strasbourg: "It will be very difficult in any circumstances to launch massive new programs in Iraq and in the neighborhood of Iraq.
Especially when the 'Merkins won't let us in
"But it will be that much more difficult for the EU to cooperate fully and on a large scale also in the longer-term reconstruction process if events unfold without proper U.N. cover and if the member states remain divided.
Proper U.N. ass-covering should have nothing to do with the EU's "cooperation"
"If it comes to war, it will be very much easier to persuade you to be generous if there is no dispute about the legitimacy of the military action that has taken place; about the new political order that emerges thereafter; or about who is in charge of the reconstruction process." The EU already has set aside 15 million euros for aid programs in and around Iraq, but Patten said extra cash may be needed from the budget's emergency reserve.
"We've already expended our Palestinean Refugee Camp Human Rights Explosives Budget™"
In a debate marked by French and Shroeder hostility to war against Iraq, especially without U.N. legitimacy, Patten said he was not issuing a threat of non-cooperation with the United States but simply making an observation of fact. "It is in the interests of the whole world that power should be constrained by global rules, and used only with international agreement,
right America? Why don't you listen to Nobel Peace Prize Winner, former President Jimmy Carter?.
What other source of international legitimacy but the U.N. exists for military intervention?"
Ummm the U.S. 3rd Armored?
Patten also challenged U.S. President George W. Bush's argument that a war to overthrow Iraqi President Saddam Hussein would combat terrorism and spread democracy in the Middle East. "As a general rule, are wars not more likely to recruit terrorists than to deter them?
Not if the combatants die horrible, smoking deaths
It is hard to build communism democracy at the barrel of a gun, when history suggests it is more usually the product of long internal development in a society," he said.

Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou, whose country holds the EU's rotating presidency, said the Iraq crisis had caused serious tensions in U.S.-EU relations and posed a danger to multilateral diplomacy. He said: "We fully support U.N. endeavors. The European Union — the 15 (member states) and indeed the 28 (including 13 candidate countries) — have reaffirmed their belief in the important role which falls to the United Nations. "This is clearly a key element when it comes to any future decisions which are taken in the name of the international community."
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 04:02 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "It is hard to build democracy at the barrel of a gun, when history suggests it is more usually the product of long internal development in a society."
I missed something...
Which democracy was not built at gunpoint?
India is the only one I can think of.
They had such a numeric advantage they didn't need guns.

I suppose he's forgotten the tens of millions who died bringing about the current French and German democracies.
Posted by: Dishman || 03/12/2003 15:42 Comments || Top||

#2  That's not just an empty threat, but a stupidly empty threat. Iraq is a very wealth country thanks to it's oil reserves. Some seed money and technical expertise will be required from us, but ultimately Iraq is wealthy enough to rebuild itself.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips || 03/12/2003 15:47 Comments || Top||

#3  U.N. legitimacy
What an oxymoron.

He said: "We fully support U.N. endeavors. The European Union -- the 15 (member states) and indeed the 28 (including 13 candidate countries) -- have reaffirmed their belief in the important role which falls to the United Nations.

Of course the ringleaders of this little circle-jerk, France and Germany, wouldn't be behind this tripe would they? Seeing as how tweaking the nose of Uncle Sam through the UN is the only power they now possess.

"If it comes to war, it will be very much easier to persuade you to be generous if there is no dispute about the legitimac of the military action that has taken place; about the new political order that emerges thereafter; or about who is in charge of the reconstruction process."

1)Legitimacy: UN Resolution 687 and the 17 others that followed it, stupid.
2)New political order: finally freedom for a brutalized populace that will remember you Euro-weiners didn't have the balls to stand up for what is right.
3)Who is in charge of the reconstruction process: Is he serious? Should I be laughing.

As far as the EU being generous, the only thing they have been genourous with so far is their ignorance, short memories, and utter stupidity.

Sorry guys, looks like it's going to be UK, US, and other allied country businesses getting the fat contracts for rebuilding.
Posted by: grilllmaster Celissa || 03/12/2003 15:53 Comments || Top||

#4  15 million Euros isn't jack s--t when it comes to right-now heavy-duty refugees and human crises which we are going to face in Iraq. Also, Mr. Rotating President Papandreou thinks that he has the 13 candidate countries for the EU in his poke. I would not count them in yet, Georgie boy. Patrick Phillips' comments are right on. Iraq has the resources to get things rebuilt right and big a big middle east player, like she rightly should. She does not need the EUniks, but she will have her work cut out to build a workable political system.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/12/2003 16:49 Comments || Top||


Iraq May Try to Jam Satellite Feeds
Iraq could try to jam U.S. military satellite signals during a possible invasion, but the United States has defenses against such attempts, Pentagon officials said Wednesday. Indonesia reportedly jammed signals from a commercial satellite leased by the Pacific nation of Tonga in 1997, and Iraq could try to do the same thing, said the Air Force's space operations director, Brig.
Jamming a satellite is not all that difficult, you point your earth station antenna at the bird and try to override the official signal by pumping a lot of power at it. Happened to a satellite I was using by accident. However, you are then broadcasting your location. The USAF will then introduce you to Mister HARM and his friend JDAM.
Gen. Franklin Blaisdell. Iraq also reportedly is seeking ways to jam the Global Positioning Satellite signals that help guide U.S. bombs. "Any enemy that would depend on GPS jammers for their livelihood is in grave trouble," Blaisdell said at a Pentagon news conference.
Soon to be in a "grave".
Also Wednesday, Gen. Tommy Franks, who would run the war in Iraq, arrived at the military's command center in Qatar. It was not known whether he would return to the United States, visit other nations in the Persian Gulf region, or stay in Qatar to position himself for the start of military action.
Tommy's back! Tick..tick..
U.S. aircraft dropped 120,000 leaflets over several sites between Baghdad and the southern city of Basra. The messages included a warning to the Iraqi military not to use chemical or biological weapons against U.S. or allied troops, according to U.S. Central Command. The Air Force canceled a combat training exercise scheduled this month at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., citing the likelihood of war soon in Iraq.
Why bother when you are going to have a much bigger live fire exercise in Iraq?
At the Pentagon, Blaisdell and Army Col. Steven Fox promoted what they said was America's dominance of space as a key strength in any future military operations. Satellites allow U.S. commanders to see what is going on in hostile countries, communicate with soldiers and pilots, and guide precision weapons. "I pity anyone who comes up against that kind of power," Blaisdell said. The Army has more than 1,000 transmitters that help it keep track of soldiers and units while a battle is going on, Fox said. Soldiers can carry the transmitters in their packs or on their belts, and equipment such as helicopters or tanks can have the transmitters attached, Fox said.
Hopfully this will cut down on friendly fire deaths.
As it did during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the Defense Department is buying access to commercial communications satellites to help serve the massive bandwidth needed to connect all the high-tech gear, Blaisdell said. The military also successfully launched a broadband communications satellite on Monday, he said.
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 02:48 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Inspectors Pull Out?
Short item from the Australian ABC
The United Nations says it has pulled out more than 30 weapons inspectors throughout Iraq. But the UN is refusing to confirm if the pull-out is part of an evacuation plan ahead of possible war. The UN says about 70 weapons inspectors remain in Iraq, down from a high of more than 100. It is understood the UN is ready to evacuate its remaining weapons inspectors within three hours of being ordered to pull out of Baghdad.
I am tempted to say, 'It is ballooon!', but I don't know how significant this is.
Posted by: Angie Schultz || 03/12/2003 01:45 pm || Comments || Link || [2 views] Top|| File under:


Five Would-Be ’Human Shields’ Leave Iraq
Five volunteers who went to Iraq to serve as "human shields," including two Americans, were forced out of the country because they were critical of the government's choice of sites to protect, the head of the group said Wednesday.
The thought of JDAMs raining down in a few days has a sobering effect
They had chosen locations "essential to the civilian population," such as food storage warehouses and water and electricity facilities, said Ken O'Keefe, of Haleiwa, Hawaii. But the Iraqi government wanted the shields in more sensitive locations, he said. He did not elaborate, but some earlier activists have also left Iraq, reportedly after being told they would be posted at potentially strategic targets, such as oil refineries and power plants.
"Oh My God — you mean I may really be a shield in harms way.??!! The brochure said I'd be safe!"
"They removed us from the sites we had chosen because we were critical of the integrity and the autonomy of the Iraqi authorities," said O'Keefe, 33. "I was escorted by Iraqi intelligence officers to the border, because I say what I believe and the Iraqi government wants submissive easy robots."
G'bye, Ken. Don't come back. Say hello to your Mom for us...
The other four deported with O'Keefe were American John Ross, Eva Mern from Slovenia, Gordan Sloan from Australia, and Tolga Temugi from Turkey. "The Iraqi government was acting absolutely very stupid," O'Keefe said, dressed in a long Arabic dishdasha robes while talking to The Associated Press at a small hotel in downtown Amman. "If they had only cooperated and let us do part of what we wanted to do, we could have worked with them also to protect these sites and we would have brought in more people to stay."
O'Keefe, being a nut, was under the impression they were something other than propaganda toys...
"I certainly have no great admiration for Saddam Hussein, I was only going to help the people," he said, blaming the plight of the Iraqis on the previous American governments that supported Saddam.
"And now I'm even more cheesed at him. See if I send him a Christmas card this year!"
Seven more would-be human shields from the Iraq Peace Team, a project of the activist group Voices in the Wilderness is set to leave Amman for Baghdad on Thursday to join other IPT members. "This delegation may be the last IPT team to get into Baghdad prior to full-scale war," said the head of the delegation, Shane Claiborne, 27, from Philadelphia. About 17 Egyptian doctors, pharmacists and lawyers who arrived in Amman on Wednesday will be leaving in few days to Baghdad to serve as human shields, visit hospitals to assess their medicine storage and offer other support.
And attend Sammy's Suicide Training Camp
A group of 14 Jordanian unionists of different professions will also join the mission.
Posted by: JDR || 03/12/2003 01:52 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "such as oil refineries". Those would be the oil refineries Saddam is preparing to blow up himself? Part of the plan becomes clear, Saddams part. The human shields are just monkeys aping human behavior. It is our intellect that seperates us from the primates. Willful refusal to use that intellect is akin to wilfull turning back evolution.

O'Keefe should not be arrested as a traitor, he should be sent to the Bronx zoo and put on display.
Posted by: Yank || 03/12/2003 12:33 Comments || Top||

#2  So long, A-holes! What really peeves me about the Human Shills is that their intention of shielding schools and hospitals is an implicit accusation that that is what we will be targeting - that the evil US just can't wait to slaughter civilians. Any shill who is an American citizen and tries to reenter the country should be immediately arrested and thrown in the iron bar hotel.
It's time to make these idiots understand that actions carry consequences.
Posted by: Rex Mundi || 03/12/2003 12:38 Comments || Top||

#3  O'Keefe should not be arrested as a traitor, he should be sent to the Bronx zoo and put on display.

absolutely. give the monkeys something to point at.
Posted by: g wiz || 03/12/2003 12:54 Comments || Top||

#4  O' Keefe publicly renounced his American citizenship - he lives in the UK, London, if I remember correcly
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 12:57 Comments || Top||

#5  "They removed us from the sites we had chosen because we were critical of the integrity and the autonomy of the Iraqi authorities," said O'Keefe, 33. "I was escorted by Iraqi intelligence officers to the border, because I say what I believe and the Iraqi government wants submissive easy robots."

No s**t, Sherlock. I find it hard to believe that this idiot can manage to tie his shoes without strangling himself.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips || 03/12/2003 13:00 Comments || Top||

#6  "I was escorted by Iraqi intelligence officers to the border, because I say what I believe and the Iraqi government wants submissive easy robots."

You mean like their citizens? The ones we're trying to liberate? They should've hung you on a smokestack with a neon sign flashing "IDIOT" so some F-18 zoomie could put you out of your misery.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 13:09 Comments || Top||

#7  ROFL..
It would be nice if he kept ranting.
Nobody else speaks quite like a spurned lover.
Posted by: Dishman || 03/12/2003 13:40 Comments || Top||

#8  "O'Keefe publicly renounced his American citizenship - he lives in the UK, London, if I remember correcly"

Yeah, and maybe they'll even let him back in with his "Citizen of da Woild" passport, hand made using a photocopier and cardboard....
Posted by: mojo || 03/12/2003 16:02 Comments || Top||

#9  "They removed us from the sites we had chosen because we were critical of the integrity and the autonomy of the Iraqi authorities," said O'Keefe, 33. "I was escorted by Iraqi intelligence officers to the border, because I say what I believe and the Iraqi government wants submissive easy robots."

So, you weren't free to say what you wanted in Iraq!
Quelle surprise! They want submissive easy robots?
OMG... NO WAY! GET OUT!

And then he says:

"I certainly have no great admiration for Saddam Hussein, I was only going to help the people," he said, blaming the plight of the Iraqis on the previous American governments that supported Saddam.

So, you don't support him, but you want to be a human shield for his regime...
The same regime that wouldn't let you speak your mind, or camp out in front of an orphanage that you know and Saddam knows will not be targeted by US bombs...
And it's America's fault that Saddam is an evil, psychotic, wanker with no conscience?
Wow...
What powers of deduction you have, Grasshopper!

You know, stupid people shouldn't breed.

Posted by: grilllmaster Celissa || 03/12/2003 16:04 Comments || Top||

#10  c'mon mojo - if you're gonna quote me at least clean up my typos? lol
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 21:57 Comments || Top||


Iraq resolution may not go before Security Council
Spain has announced the British-Spanish-US resolution on Iraq may be withdrawn because of France's veto threat. Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio spoke after talks with her French counterpart Dominique de Villepin and other government officials. The resolution is being co-sponsored by the US, Britain and Spain and sets a deadline for Iraq to prove it has ridded itself of arms of mass destruction. France, Russia and China have said they will oppose any resolution endorsing war against Iraq. Palacio said that if there is a vote she expects it by Friday at the latest, but that conceivably there might not be one. "Clearly, not putting it to a vote is a possibility which is being considered," Palacio said. "We are considering it, above all in view of the already absolute and emphatic affirmation by France of a veto, because a veto is undoubtedly something which has consequences for the United Nations system," she said.
That's why we want to see a veto! Please!!!
Palacio said withdrawal of the resolution was a possibility even if it had garnered the nine votes necessary for passage by the 15 member UN Security Council. Before her meeting in Paris, Palacio said Spain is open to changes to the resolution on Iraq, but the measure must ensure the "total disarmament" of Saddam Hussein. Back in Madrid, Palacio said Spain is willing to extend the disarmament deadline by a "a few days" but no more.
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 01:54 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  This is such a bummer. The worst news I've heard all week. The UN deserves to be exposed. It's all bullshit.
Posted by: g wiz || 03/12/2003 11:57 Comments || Top||

#2  This is absurd. Push it through, take the vote, and get it on record who supports us and who doesn't.

Then let's attack and settle this matter, for the good of the Iraqi people and the world, by eliminating Saddam Hussein. We can wave those vetoes and "Nay's" in their faces then when we uncover the full extent of Saddam's facilities and plans, but right now we have more pressing work to do.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg || 03/12/2003 12:10 Comments || Top||

#3  Washington Post columnist Krauthammer had good idea; one sentence resolution, 'Saddam has not immediately and completely disarmed'. Let France veto the obvious truth.
Posted by: mhw || 03/12/2003 12:31 Comments || Top||

#4  Invite Blix on Friday:
One question: Has Iraq fully complied, yes or no?
If he declines to answer, sack him and send him back to Sweden.
Then propose the following resolution:
"Declaring that Iraq has not fully complied"
If the French veto that strip them of their SC seat. (Your mum told you not to lie, right?)
Posted by: tcc || 03/12/2003 12:50 Comments || Top||

#5  What's next, Double Secret Probation? Start the damn war. By the time they get around to voting on the resolutions, it'll probaly be over.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 13:31 Comments || Top||

#6  Better idea:
Let them vote in a month.
Bet Iraq has FULLY disarmed by then???
Even the French will approve..lol
Posted by: tcc || 03/12/2003 13:47 Comments || Top||

#7  Please, please, veto France, Germany, Russia, China...ANY of you.

Please give us the excuse we need to discard you amoral turds...
Posted by: grilllmaster Celissa || 03/12/2003 16:08 Comments || Top||


"Mother Of All Bombs" photos
Use the above link to go to GlobalSecurity.org site for really good pictures. Click on the photos for a full size image. They also have links to the Big BLU penetrator.
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 10:24 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I like the fluorescent flame/orange color... a little psychological intent there?
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 10:45 Comments || Top||

#2  It occurs to me that these weapons look like they could be mounted on the hardpoints on the inner wing, the ones that used to carry "hound dog" missles and external bomb stores, on B-52's. I dont know what they are rated to carry weight-wise, but its a nice thought anyway.

I kind of like the image of a squadron of B-52's dropping two of these each from high altitude.
Posted by: Frank Martin || 03/12/2003 11:07 Comments || Top||

#3  It needs one of them Flying Tiger faces on the nose.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 11:14 Comments || Top||

#4  Having followed the Network TV reports of this device "sending a message to Iraqi troops", my observation is that seeing this bomb detonate at ground level was less awesome than a daisy cutter going off at 1800 ft for shear drama. I actually thought the "flash" was much less than I would have anticipated from 40% more bang power. So here is my take. This weapon test was televised not to startle regular troops, who don't have access to TV anyway... I think it was a personal "palm reading" for saddam and the "lucky elite" chosen to sit in saddam's $100M german built bunkers...This test was publicized as "successful" because I bet there is a smoking hole in the ground down in Florida up to 100 yards deep. So if you have paid your dues in the Repulican guard, and you were planning on watching CNN with uncle saddam during the first days of the war, you might want to think again about which side of the closing steel door you want to be on... I think the real message is bunkers are just as lethal as sitting in a hole on Bagdad Blvd. Oh yeah, Bunker upside- They can be hidden, Bunker downside- they can't be moved!
Posted by: Capsu78 || 03/12/2003 11:14 Comments || Top||

#5  Orange color is used to make the bomb more visable during testing, I've viewed enough video to see it used on a lot of weapons. Operational weapons will be painted O.D. green.
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 11:46 Comments || Top||

#6  Another bunker downside--resupply needs to come from OUTSIDE.

If we can identify all the entrances and exits, we can pave over them all and let Saddam sit in there and rot in his multi-million dollar tomb.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg || 03/12/2003 12:15 Comments || Top||

#7  The nose art on the bombs should be the new UN logo seen earlier in this weblog.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/12/2003 13:10 Comments || Top||

#8  I hope the first one dropped in action has "Zaphod Beeblebrox" painted on it.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/12/2003 14:39 Comments || Top||

#9  "The Best Bang Since The Big One!"

Douglas Adams, We hardly knew ye!
Posted by: Frank Martin || 03/12/2003 22:34 Comments || Top||


Border Gates May Be Invasion Route
Gates cut into the Kuwait-Iraq border fence this month may herald a drive-in US-led invasion or they could be a feint, like a fake frontal attack and amphibious assault on the eve of the 1991 Gulf War.
Heh, heh, heh
It depends on whether there are Iraqi forces ahead of the gates along the demilitarized zone, which are wide enough for tanks to drive through. The demilitarized zone is 15 km wide and straddles the border, giving US forces room to maneuver east or west along it once they are through the gates and still inside Kuwait. But all the same, creating entryways gives Iraqi long-range artillery a point to aim at. That would seem unnecessarily risky, if there is any Iraqi artillery within range.
Being an Iraqi artillery man in range of these gates just became a risky occupation.
The United States Air Force has the run of the southern third of Iraq, over the no-fly zone, plus satellites to detect any major defensive deployments and possibly special forces teams on the ground. So US commanders would know.
They do, right down to the serial numbers on the Iraqi guns.
If there is no significant Iraqi force on the other side, the gates may be just what they seem to be — invasion routes for part of a massive, rapid land attack into the heart of Iraq that can dispense with the element of surprise. But if there are Iraqi artillery and armored forces in the area, these gates may have been cut to wrong-foot the defenders. UN investigators said last week that a commercial contractor was working to cut 35 gates in the fence by March 15.
Some of the "gates" are 25 meters wide.
Kuwait said yesterday it maintained the right to make gates in the fence built to help guard its northern frontier against Iraq. “The gates in the fence were opened on Kuwaiti territory and not on Iraqi territory, which is our right,” the daily Al-Rai Al-Aam quoted First Deputy Premier and Foreign Minister Sheikh Sabah Al-Ahmad Al-Sabah as saying. “Kuwait was the one who built this fence to prevent Iraqi infiltrations, we have the right, from time to time ... to carry out maintenance and repair works on this fence,” he told reporters.
"It's my fence, dammit, and I'll cut holes in it if I want!"
Sheikh Sabah was referring to reports last week that seven wide gaps were spotted in the border fence by the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM). Iraq has filed a complaint with the UN about the holes, which it claimed violate its territory, the newspaper said.
"Hey, stop that!"
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 01:59 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Unless the fence is as sturdy as the Berlin Wall, it's a matter of a few seconds to take any part of it down, either by cutting it free of the posts, or by just running an M-1 OVER it. Gates are nice, but I think they're for show. "Look here... no... look over here... no..."
Posted by: Chuck || 03/12/2003 10:01 Comments || Top||

#2  Fences just keep the surrendering Iraqi army troops at bay until we're ready to process them as POWs.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 10:25 Comments || Top||


Iraq mines Kirkuk oilfields, say travellers
Iraq has mined its northern oilfields of Kirkuk, dug a huge oil-filled trench around the city and sealed off Kurdish districts, travellers arriving in the Kurdish free zone from Kirkuk said yesterday. Their reports could not be independently confirmed. Foreigners cannot enter Iraqi government-held territory, in which Kirkuk, the oil capital of northern Iraq, lies, from the Kurdish free zone to the north. But a steady flow of travellers arriving at the border checkpoint of Qushtapa in the Kurdish area yesterday all told substantially the same story, as did the checkpoint's guards, who get regular updates from travellers.
"My uncle is a worker in the oilfields and he says they have mined all the oilfields around Kirkuk," said a taxi driver who has been plying the route between Kirkuk and Arbil, the largest city in the Kurdish free zone, for several years. Kirkuk, historically Kurdish but from which many Kurds have been expelled in recent years, accounts for around 800,000 barrels per day of Baghdad's total exports under the UN- sponsored oil-for-food deal of some 1.7 million barrels per day. Like all the people Reuters spoke to at Qushtapa, the driver, who lives in Kirkuk and returns there every evening, spoke on condition of anonymity. Others also said they believed the oilfields had been mined. The driver said he had not yet faced any problems crossing the front line between Iraq and the Kurdish area, which has been effectively independent, protected by a U.S. and British patrolled no-fly zone, since the Gulf War.
Another Kirkuk resident, who runs a small transport business and crosses the border every day, said that a series of trenches about 50 metres long, 20 metres wide and four or five metres deep had been dug about 15 days ago all around Kirkuk.
"They are full of black oil," he said.
Multiple sources seem to confirm the report that Sammy plans to light these trenches full of oil to create a smoke screen.
He said he could not confirm rumours of oilfields being mined. He also said he believed that a major bridge on the road between Kirkuk and Mosul, the other main city in government-held northern Iraq, had been mined.
I'd mine it, I'm sure the Iraqis have as well.
A guard at the checkpoint said a barge had been moored nearby for use if the bridge was blown up. The driver who said his uncle worked at the oilfields added that Iraqi police, ruling Baath party officials and other security agents started sealing off Kurdish areas of Kirkuk on Monday night, searching for guns and weapons, and preventing residents from leaving or entering. This was repeated by several others crossing the border.
Sounds about right, worried about the Kurds rising up and taking the city in advance of a US strike.
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 09:06 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Wouldn't oil soak into the ground if you just poured it into trenches?
Posted by: Chuck || 03/12/2003 9:36 Comments || Top||

#2  When I read "Kurdish free zone", I take it I should interpret that as "a relatively free area controlled by Kurds" and not "a zone free of Kurds"?
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg || 03/12/2003 9:43 Comments || Top||

#3  Remember - this is crude oil. The consistancy is closer to tar than the oil you may be thinking of.
Posted by: Bill || 03/12/2003 12:15 Comments || Top||


Chirac’s casual ’no’
Commentary from the International Herald Tribune, heavily edited for length
French leader plays down consequences
Doesn't he always?
On one hand, there was the French president telling his country, with a strong dose of diplomatic disingenuousness, that a French break with the United States would mean little to trans-Atlantic or French-American relations, and hardly deepen the European fractures that have traumatized its hopes for a unified future.
Guess again, Popeye.
On the other, there was Jacques Chirac's calm, almost pleasurable explanation Monday night on national television of France's intent to use its United Nations veto against an American-led war on Saddam Hussein.
Isn't this typically French, to take both sides at the same time?
The reposed manner and Chiracquian bonhommie looked authentic. But the president's assertion that a French veto of an American Security Council resolution enabling the United States to strike the Iraqi dictator "is not an exceptional phenomenon," indeed that "it's in the nature of things," seemed at a vast distance from reality. And it magnified Chirac's attempt to avoid discussion of France's particular responsibility in a process that has brought grave risk to both the integrity of the UN and NATO. "I know the Americans too well to imagine they could use such methods," Chirac said, brushing off a French journalist's question about whether there would be a price to pay for France's stance.
Setting yourself up for a fall, aren't you?
And more: "I'm perhaps one of the people who know best how (Europe) functions" he claimed, and said, "it won't be divided when the crisis is over" — this in reply to another interviewer's observation that brutal new internal disputes over who holds power in the European Union had shaken it since the Iraq dispute began.
"If only those peasants would listen to what I say!"
Chirac's effort at turning a Western institutional confrontation of proportions unknown since de Gaulle's decision to pull France out of NATO in the 1960s into a disagreement among friends went as far as insisting that after Saddam's defeat "France, very obviously, will have its place" as an invited participant in Iraq's reconstruction.
This is almost self-parody. I can't get any snarkier than Chirac is to himself.
If this was wishful thinking, it showed no regard for the State Department's assertions that a veto was "unfriendly" and would have unspecified serious consequences. If it was an attempt to smooth away an international perception that France was embarked on a single-minded campaign to thwart the United States on the tactically favorable terrain of the Security Council, then it did not sway a commentator like Henry Kissinger, who told French television, just after Chirac spoke, that he could not understand how an ally had created agitation throughout the world against America at a "vital period" for the United States. Simply, Chirac seemed to be telling the French the country could continue on its present policy line at odds with the United States at no cost. Both in the interest of diplomacy and perhaps in the nearly extinct hope of a French change of heart before a vote on the resolution, President George W. Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell have spoken — each once — of France's remaining a friend and ally.
Once the hope is gone, watch out.
Still, there were other responses from outside France, none minimizing, in Chirac's manner, the gravity of the circumstances. Tony Blair talked Tuesday about the dangerousness of a veto that would result in "dividing America from Europe." Friedbert Pflueger, the Christian Democrat foreign policy spokesman in the German Bundestag, said a veto would be part of a process splitting Europe apart and making it irrelevant. Chirac and Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, he said, "could already count three victims: NATO, the UN, and a common European foreign policy."
Four: all the people of Iraq.
Perhaps curiously, alongside approval for the threat of a veto, there was a lot less willingness to go along with Chirac's don't-worry-be-happy description of the aftermath of France turning against the United States. This was a step, according to a French parliamentarian, that was likened on Feb. 26 by Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin to firing a bullet in the Americans' back. One of Chirac's interviewers made reference to the phrase on Monday night, but the president did not respond directly. To the contrary, drive-time commuters listening to commentary Tuesday morning on RTL, the radio station with the country's biggest audience, were told that the Chirac's approach presented enormous risks, would change France's relations with its allies, and, concerning the Americans, had elements that went beyond crisis into the realm of psychodrama and a possible divorce.

By contrast, the padded edges of Chirac's approach challenged credibility with less frankness and a more muffled type of excess. What of the 200,000 U.S. soldiers already in place in the Gulf, Chirac asked rhetorically during his 40 television minutes Monday night. "But they've already won!" the president said. "I told that to President Bush not very long ago. It's highly probable if the Americans and the British hadn't deployed these large forces, Iraq would not have produced this more active cooperation that the inspectors demanded and are now getting. So, in reality, you can say that in so far as their strategy for disarming Iraq goes, the Americans have already reached their objective. They've won."
"And so they should stay in the broiling desert forever! Look at me, I was broiled in the Algerian desert as a sub-leftenant, and see how I turned out!"
Posted by: Steve White || 03/12/2003 04:11 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Did you hear that? We won. Let's pack up and leave. How stupid does he think we are? Bastard.
Posted by: RW || 03/12/2003 3:38 Comments || Top||

#2  Iraq owes France a lot of money. If a new Iraq goverment comes to power that dislikes France, how are they going to collect?

Posted by: bernardz || 03/12/2003 4:17 Comments || Top||

#3  France's largest miscalculation was that Americans, like in the past, wouldn't notice or care about what's going on. But after 9-11 so many Americans took to the net and found so many sources of information that didn't need to go thru the CNN status-quo filter. Americans now are paying so much attention and they won't forget.
Posted by: g wiz || 03/12/2003 9:00 Comments || Top||

#4  GW, make this pompous winbag bastard pay! Make him pay big! F**k France! When a bunch of Muslim scumbags put a plane into the Eiffel Tower, maybe he'll figure out how we feel. But we all know that will never happen. This guy is amongst their best friends.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 9:53 Comments || Top||

#5  tu3031,

About the only consolation I find in this entire sorry state of affairs is that Chirac's "best friends" will one day thank their benefactor by doing something very awful to France. For the islamofascists France is just a means to conquer world domination. They'll deal with it after it served its purposes. Unfortunately, Chirac may not be around anymore when that day comes, since he is already 70 years old.
Posted by: Peter || 03/12/2003 10:26 Comments || Top||

#6  I really don't think NATO is a casualty. It's just being reworked as we "speak." Wonder what the rules are to get booted.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 10:33 Comments || Top||

#7  What goes around comes around. Chiraq has made a major miscalculation and he and his country will pay dearly for that. I am sure that he has the faith and promise of his arab buddies. We 'Mercans will take alot of abuse, ridicule, etc. but there will come a saturation point, which is fast approaching. Chiraq has taken advantage of the UN forum and has milked it for all it is worth. With the promise of a French veto, there is absolutely no space for compromise. One does not negotiate with a gun to ones head. Somebody has to blink, back down, or be standing on the platform while the train pulls away. Bush does not sent a quarter of a million troops and all their equipment and the strain on our economy to the Iraqi theatre for nothing. This show is on the road and will be starting soon. With or without the UN, with or without the UK troops, and definitely without France.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/12/2003 10:44 Comments || Top||

#8  What gets my blood boiling is that they keep saying the inspections are working because of the American & British (& Aussie) troops at Iraq's borders. So where are the French troops??? Practicing surrender tactics at home?
Posted by: RW || 03/12/2003 10:51 Comments || Top||

#9  "France, very obviously, will have its place" as an invited participant in Iraq's reconstruction.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. (Wipes tears from eyes). You really think so, mon ami? And who's going to invite you? If I wasn't so deliriouly looking forward to watching you proven sooooo wrong, I'd like smack that arrogant smile off your smug face.
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 10:52 Comments || Top||

#10  Re: French role in post was Iraq - our quote should be "we will give France all the consideration it deserves" (similar to a put down Spock made to McCoy once
Posted by: mhw || 03/12/2003 11:55 Comments || Top||

#11  Dissidentfrogman has this (partial post)

Be advised that the teacher's book is nothing less than the manual destined to guide the teachers, civil servants of the Ministry of Education, in their duty.

« "We'll demonstrate that there are two camps in the world:
- One is imperialist and antidemocratic (USA)
- The other is anti-imperialist and democratic (USSR),

and we'll precise their goals:
- World domination by crushing the anti-imperialist camp (USA)
- Struggle against imperialism and fascism, reinforcement of democracy (USSR)." »

Don't feel like disgorging yet?

Okay, grab a doggy bag, a toilet bowl or your stepmother's sleeping bag 'cause I'm going to tell you when this book was published.

Ready?

Okay.

1980.

1-9-8-0.

Go get a glass of water, wipe up your mouth. Sorry for the annoyance.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 12:12 Comments || Top||

#12  So where are the French troops???

Not sure about the army, but half of the French navy was in the Carrribean last week. I saw them with my own two eyes.

I guess the Med is too close to the action for them.
Posted by: Parabellum || 03/12/2003 12:15 Comments || Top||

#13  The pure obnoxious and egocentrical way the Frenchies are thumbing their nose at the US is sickening. Even worse is the way Bush has handled the matter "they will still be our friends". Personally, I think Bush should make it extremely clear to the French that there will be hell to pay when this thing is over. But for the Frenchies, there would be no division in the world concerning the stance against Iraq. But the overly calm approach in which Chirac says he will excercise his veto and without US retribution is more than I can take
Posted by: Mustang || 03/12/2003 12:28 Comments || Top||

#14  France has ingeniously shifted their economy over the years in such a way that it is nearly impossible to boycott French products. I looked around my house and couldn't find a single French product. I've been to France, no real desire to see it again. By product garbage for decades they have made themselves immune to my wraith the bastards!
Posted by: Yank || 03/12/2003 12:40 Comments || Top||

#15  "The French are our friends, the Saudis are our friends, Islam is a religion of peace..." Yeah, GW has said all that but do you honestly, HONESTLY, thinks he believes that bullshit? Like it's been said here before, watch the hands not the mouth. Make a list George and when things settle down a bit, start checking it off. Make sure France and Chiraq are at the top.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 13:19 Comments || Top||

#16  Want to know what to boycott to send a message to France? Look here:
http://www.metrospy.com/boycott.htm
Posted by: Tom || 03/12/2003 13:38 Comments || Top||


Saddam ready to kill Iraqis
This is news?

Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein is planning attacks on his own people in the event of a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and his top operative, a general nicknamed "Chemical Ali," has been put in charge of southern Iraq to quell any civilian uprisings, U.S. officials say.
I think this is a re-hash of reports in Rantburg the last couple of days. Sammy will whack his own people and blame us for it.
U.S. military officials say there are increasing indications that Saddam will kill his own people and blame the atrocities on invading American forces. Bush administration officials reported last week that Saddam was planning to dress Iraqi forces in coalition uniforms and order them to kill innocents.
Guess what the Geneva Convention says we can do to any of these scum-bags we catch in the field.
Mr. Rumsfeld suggested yesterday that Saddam is considering shelling civilians with deadly chemical weapons, as he did in 1988, killing up to 100,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. "His regime may be planning to use weapons of mass destruction against its own citizens, and then blame coalition forces," Mr. Rumsfeld said.

He recalled that during the 1991 Persian Gulf war, authorities ordered civilians into military command bunkers. In one instance, on Feb. 13, 1991, the U.S. forces bombed the Amiriyah bunker in Baghdad. Later, the United States discovered that Saddam's deputies had sentenced scores of civilians to their deaths by placing them on the bunker's upper level, above a command center. Baghdad displayed the dead bodies to the international press.
Peaceniks still blame us for that; it was all our fault.
"When his regime begins claiming once again that coalition forces have targeted innocent Iraqi civilians, if that's to be the case, we need to keep his record in mind," Mr. Rumsfeld said. Saddam "will seek to maximize civilian deaths and create the false impression that coalition forces target innocent Iraqis, which, of course, is not the case," the defense secretary said.
Good luck trying to convince the left-Labourites in Britain of this. It will just add to the pressure on Tony.
A U.S. military official said that at least two Republican Guard divisions are believed to be armed at this moment with chemical artillery shells. A sign that Saddam is serious about attacking civilians comes in reports from inside Iraq that Gen. Ali Hassan al Majid, or "Chemical Ali," has been placed in charge of military activities in southern Iraq. Considered appropriately a war criminal by human rights groups, Majid commanded the 1988 chemical weapons attacks on the Kurds.

He also oversaw the brutal occupation of Kuwait in 1990 and 1991. After the 1991 war, he commanded the Republican Guard divisions that brutally put down a rebellion by Shi'ites in Iraq's southern marshlands. "He is a senior adviser to Saddam. He is known as an enforcer for the regime," said a U.S. intelligence official, who asked not to be named. "He is used to put down uprisings and maintain order."
Why not plant a rumor that we've made contact with Chemical Ali so as to ensure his surrender on the first day of the war? That could be fun.
This official said Saddam typically carves up the country into three or four regions during crises and then appoints hard-line lieutenants to maintain order. In Majid, Saddam has a loyal commander and his own blood relation — they are cousins — to watch over the southern oil fields around Basra and stamp out any Shi'ite rebellion.
It's in the blood.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, said the military will install a screening process to determine which Iraqi officers harm civilians. "The vetting process will reveal those who participated in war crimes and those who didn't," Gen. Myers said.
Get their names, all of them.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/12/2003 12:39 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Chemical Ali is in the South, beneath the no-fly-zone perhaps? Wouldn't it be a shame if one of our SF guys found him, lit him up with a laser and one of our patroling planes wasted him from the air before the fighting started. That might send a nice message to the next guy ready to take his place.
Posted by: Yank || 03/12/2003 12:43 Comments || Top||

#2  "Oops, sorry. I could of sworn that was a SAM site."
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 14:00 Comments || Top||


Southeast Asia
Manila Finds Bomb Plot, Links Asian Group to Blast
The Philippines said on Wednesday it uncovered a plan by Muslim rebels to stage reprisal attacks if the United States invades Iraq and suggested a radical Southeast Asian group may be linked to a deadly blast last week. Eight days after 21 people were killed in the southern city of Davao, police said they arrested a man carrying two grenades and a mobile phone with numbers of extremists suspected of hatching a "diabolical plot to sow terror" in Manila. The little-known Raja Solaiman Movement planned bombings "in case the United States and its allies attack Iraq" and to support the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), said Reynaldo Velasco, head of Philippine National Police operations in the capital.
The Raja Solaiman Movement is a new one on me, and on Google. A minigroup, put together for the occasion?
Jemaah Islamiah may have had a hand in the Davao blast, security officials said. "That seems to be the developing assessment," National Bureau of Investigation director Reynaldo Wycoco told reporters. He said there were similarities between the Davao attack and the bombings in Manila that led to the jailing of self-confessed Jemaah Islamiah member Fathur al-Ghozi last year. The Indonesian told Philippine investigators he was helped by MILF rebels. "The modus operandi is the same," Wycoco said.
They're all independent contractors, but they're keen to extend those little professional courtesies...
The army said five soldiers and more than 100 MILF guerrillas had been killed, mostly by howitzer fire and rockets launched by helicopter gunships, over the past two days as the rebels tried to recapture a key stronghold in the town of Pikit. "They kept on advancing like they would not be hit by bullets," military spokesman Major Julieto Ando told Reuters.
US troops saw the same thing when we first occupied the Philipines and fought muslim rebels. That's when we issued the .45 ACP to replace the 38.
The government said on Monday it was offering "the hand of peace" to rebels who renounce violence. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo dispatched former Foreign Minister Roberto Romulo to Malaysia on Wednesday to seek its help in persuading the MILF to resume stalled peace talks. Malaysia is brokering the negotiations but the MILF wants troops out of its base in Pikit before it will talk to Manila.
How about we kill you instead?
"I am calling on the MILF to take clear and specific moves to step out of the boundaries of terrorism," Arroyo told reporters. U.S. troops are now training Philippine units in the jungles near the southern city of Zamboanga and are due to start another series of counter-terrorism exercises soon. The communist New People's Army said on Tuesday U.S. soldiers would be "legitimate targets" if the new exercises were held near its strongholds and that it had forged an alliance with the MILF for mutual support but not joint attacks.
Posted by: Steve || 03/12/2003 02:16 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Middle East
Hamas, Islamic Jihad reject Palestinian PM
Militants yesterday rejected the creation of the post of Palestinian prime minister as a ploy imposed by the United States and Israel and vowed to continue attacks against Israel.
I confess! It's my ploy. I didn't think they'd notice...
The Palestinian parliament on Monday approved appointing a premier nominated by President Yasser Arafat under pressure from international mediators to help defuse the 29-month-old conflict with Israel and revive the peace process. Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) moderate Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, was expected to take the job. He strongly backs renewed peacemaking and has called for an end to militant attacks on Israelis, saying they have set back Palestinian statehood goals. But the leading militant groups, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, dismissed the political change as a ploy imposed by the United States and Israel to crush "resistance to occupation".
Curses! Foiled again!
"We will continue our resistance to the Zionist enemy with all possible means and everywhere and we will not be stopped either by a Palestinian or a Zionist," senior Islamic Jihad official Abdallah Al Shami said.
"Yup. Yup. Resistance is our life! That, and disco..."
Abdel Aziz Al Rantissi, senior political leader in the larger Hamas which wields major influence in the Gaza Strip, reiterated Hamas' rejection of attempts to resume peace talks with Israel and said militancy was the "sole solution."
"Yup. Yup. Nothin'll work but more killings."
"But that ain't worked, either, Abdel Aziz!"
"Mahmoud, shoot him."

Asked whether Hamas would be willing to give Abbas a chance to carry out his programme, Rantissi said: "Hamas does not believe in political negotiations. As long as occupation exists resistance is the sole solution."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 08:44 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:


IDF scrubs West Bank
Israeli forces in the West Bank stepped up operations against suspected Palestinian militants on Wednesday, invading villages, arresting 18 suspects and clashing with gunmen. One militant was killed, along with an Israeli soldier. One of those detained was Mahmoud Hasib, a senior official for Yasser Arafat's Fatah movement. Hasib, arrested in Ramallah, was an assistant to Marwan Barghouti. Israeli security sources said Hasib recruited young Palestinians to carry out attacks against Israelis and was involved in two fatal shootings.
"Here ya go, Mahmoud. This cell will be your home until Doomsday, if not later..."
Five other Palestinians were captured in an Israeli raid on an Islamic Jihad hideout in the northern West Bank village of Saida, the military said. An Israeli soldier and a Palestinian were killed. Twelve Palestinians were detained in other raids. In Qalqiliya, soldiers stopped a suspicious car and found two bombs inside. Two Palestinians in the car were captured after they were wounded trying to escape.
"You'll never take me alive, coppers! Ow!"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 08:24 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:


Caucasus
Chechen gang targeting generals eliminated
A rebel gang that specialized in murdering Russian generals has been neutralized in Chechnya, top republican prosecutor Vladimir Kravchenko reported on Wednesday. The members of the gang are suspected of perpetrating a series of major terrorist attacks against the top brass of Russia’s military. In particular, the official said, the detained rebels had masterminded the murder of General-Lieutenant Igor Shifrin on November 15, 2002, when the car he was travelling in came under fire in the Chechen capital of Grozny. Shifrin sustained fatal wounds and died soon afterwards. Members of the same gang also gunned down a Mi-8 helicopter in Grozny in September 2001, resulting in the three crew and ten officers of the General Staff of the Defence Ministry being killed. ''The group has committed a total of about 50 crimes, mostly heinous crimes. The leader and four members of the criminal group have been detained,'' Kravchenko reported on Wednesday. He said that the leader of the criminal group was detained in January 2003. Shoulder-held missile launchers, Kalashnikov rifles, grenade launchers and fragmentation bombs were discovered during a search of his home. Also, a map indicating checkpoints and military bases was discovered.
Bet they were glad to get him out of circulation...
''The detained rebel leader confessed that he had received orders directly from Shamil Basayev, and had killed Gen. Shifrin and shot down the helicopter at Basayev's order,'' he said. Three other detained members of the criminal group were involved in an attack on an Mi-26 helicopter in August 19, 2002, which resulted in the helicopter crashing near the Khankala military base, killing 119 people. The gang is also suspected of killing Lt. Col. Igor Yevseyev of the Federal Security Service in October 2001. Kravchenko said that criminal charges had been brought against each member of the criminal group. The cases will be investigated and then heard in court.
Get it done before Vanessa gets the hand-wringers mobilized...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 08:10 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Detained...HA! Yeah, for about 50 years.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 22:20 Comments || Top||


Home Front
Detained Iranian bicyclist given asylum
An Iranian bicyclist arrested when he crossed the U.S.-Mexico border during an international ride for peace was released by immigration authorities Monday after being granted asylum. Reza Baluchi, who fled Iran in 1996 on his bicycle, was detained November 10 when he crossed the border illegally. Since then, he's been held at the Immigration and Naturalization Service detention center in Florence, 50 miles southeast of Phoenix. The 30-year-old wanderer contends he was in Mexico waiting for a visa and got lost while riding near the border. He convinced an immigration judge in February that he would be persecuted for his political views if deported to his native Iran. Baluchi remained in custody while the INS decided whether to appeal. INS spokesman Russell Ahr said last week the INS would not pursue the case.
And should they? I don't think so. Read on...
Baluchi's attorney, Suzannah Maclay, said he was arrested at least three times in Iran for his so-called pro-Western activities. She said he served a year and a half in jail for associating with "counterrevolutionaries" and was hung from a tree by handcuffs for carrying a prohibited movie. Maclay said Baluchi was also publicly flogged for eating a sandwich during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan.
I like this guy. He doesn't sound very bright, but I like him...
Baluchi now plans to complete the last stage of what he says has been a 46,000-mile trek. He has pedaled over six continents and at least 54 countries, clutching newspaper clippings and photographs that document his voyage while pushing for peace, according to his Web site and his attorney. His final destination is Ground Zero in New York. "He wants to become a citizen. He wants to win (an Olympic) medal for the U.S.," Maclay said.
I hope he does. Welcome home, Reza.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 07:57 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:


Iran
Iran recalls envoy to Argentina for arrest warrants
Iran has recalled its charge d'affaires in Buenos Aires for consultations on the decision by Argentine authorities to issue arrest warrants against Iranian officials in connection with a deadly 1994 bombing. Relations have been strained since an Argentine judge on Friday issued the warrants against four Iranian officials suspected of involvement in the bombing of a Jewish charities agency in Buenos Aires which killed 85 people. "We call on the Argentine government to make its positions on the ruling explicitly clear," foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Assefi told IRNA.
Maybe you should think about apologizing, Hamid? Or or are you just going to make faces and call names, hoping the Argies decide to roll over and pretend it never happened?
Posted by: Fred Pruitt || 03/12/2003 07:30 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Cheese! It's the cops! Time to get the hell out of Dodge!"
Posted by: Crescend || 03/12/2003 19:51 Comments || Top||


Korea
Spy Flights to resume - without fighter escorts
via Fox News Broadcast 11:45AM PST
According to Fox the RC-135 and U2 flights will resume. The flights will stay in international airspace as before, but will NOT be escorted by fighter jets. The Pentagon doesn't want to establish precedent by having to protect our legal observation flights in international airspace. Fighters will be on standby in Japan, and was observed previously, F-117A fighters have been sent to SKorea for coordination practice with the current wargames.
How would you like to be the crew assigned to be the next guinea pigs precedent-establishing crew? I understand why they're doing this, but it doesn't make it taste better, and they better have the Hammer of God ready if those NK bastards harm this plane or crew. Fly safely people, and if a NK fighter tips his wings? F&^K 'EM.
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 02:21 pm || Comments || Link || [1 views] Top|| File under:

#1  sorry not wait for a hard link - I was just too pissed off at the State dept-type inflence overriding our people's safety ....AAAArrggghhh
- here's "Reuters":

U.S. Resuming Military Recon Flights Off N.Korea
Wed March 12, 2003 02:37 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is resuming military reconnaissance flights in international air space off North Korea after a delay sparked by the intercept of one of the unarmed aircraft by North Korean fighters this month, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
The officials, who asked not to be identified, told Reuters the big Air Force RC-135 reconnaissance planes would be watched over by AWACS military radar planes and high-tech U.S. Navy warships in information-gathering missions over the Sea of Japan.

The officials did not say whether flights had actually resumed but said there were plans to do so after the aggressive March 2 intercept of an RC-135 by four North Korean fighter jets about 150 miles off the coast of North Korea.
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 14:17 Comments || Top||

#2  influence - DOH!
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 14:18 Comments || Top||

#3  My gut feeling is that we will not be escorting flights, per se, but our fighters will be doing exercises in the vicinity in unrelated movements.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/12/2003 14:23 Comments || Top||

#4  Whoever's flying CAP for the Carl Vinson when they try this better be awake.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 15:25 Comments || Top||

#5  Gee, I sure hope the NKOR radar ops can tell the difference between a RC-135 and a flight of F-14's. Somebody might be in for a real surpise.
Posted by: Frank Martin || 03/12/2003 18:54 Comments || Top||

#6  Has anyone heard how the South Korean president responded to the incident? He called it "predictable," and then warned the US not to go "too far." Later, one of his party members said the US "provoked the incident to some extent." William Saphire called South Korea "neutral," rather than an ally, for good reason. I thank God everyday the Americans are finally pulling out from South Korea - with (appeasing) friends like them, who needs enemies. It's just a shame, because now a wonderful nation is going to have to suffer because of the stupidity of its leaders.

BTW, for commentary on the Korean crisis, written by a long-time American expat living in South Korea, pop by my blog once and a while.
Posted by: The Marmot || 03/12/2003 23:37 Comments || Top||

#7  Isn't the RC-135 involved in the incident one of only a few of its type? Sounds to me like I'd have a couple fighters along just because, even if the NKors weren't challenging it.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/13/2003 0:13 Comments || Top||


Middle East
Iraq Hands Out Another $260,000 to Gaza "Martyrs’" Families
Twenty-six families in the Gaza Strip whose homes were demolished or lost relatives in the uprising, were to receive $260,000 in aid from the Arab Liberation Front today, a Palestinian faction owned by financially backed by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.
Still trying to drag the Paleo-Israeli conflict in, huh, Sammy?
Saddam Hussein has frequently voiced support for the Palestinians in their fighting against Israel and has given money to the families of suicide bombers and Palestinian casualties of the fighting.
Money to keep the splodeydopes coming....wonder if it's enough to replace the family hovels after the IDF whacks them?
The Palestinian Authority publicly embraced Saddam Hussein's cause during the 1991 Gulf War, but has refrained from doing so as the US prepares for another military offensive.
Yasser isn't saying much, he's already on everyone's s%$t list. I bet the fall of Saddam will put a significant kink in the Paleo hopes... and the french "diplomatic" efforts on behalf of the Paleos and Sammy certainly aren't making the U.S. more sympathetic to Arafat and his thugs
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 01:57 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I'd cash that check pretty quick. Your benefactor
many be having account "issues' very soon.
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 11:21 Comments || Top||

#2  Not if he has a French bank account...
Posted by: tcc || 03/12/2003 12:53 Comments || Top||


International
’Illegal war’ could mean soldiers face prosecution
Ministers face the real prospect of waging an illegal war, which could lead to British soldiers being prosecuted by the newly constituted International Criminal Court (ICC).
Do you see the US point of view now Tony ?
The shaky legal grounds upon which Britain and America are expected to launch their military offensive have already been exposed by the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan. But Mr Annan's warning that military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be illegal is being supported by a growing number of senior British lawyers.
So Mr. Annan now determines what UK foreign policy can and cannot do ?
Stephen Solley QC, an international human rights lawyer, said yesterday: "I feel this is a defining moment in our history which our children will want to ask us about. No one has made a legal case for war."
God help us if we need to take action but have to wait for France, Russia, China, and Syria to tell us it is legal.
But he said it was also clear British troops could be the first to face war crimes charges at the ICC. The court, which was formally opened in the Hague yesterday, has the power to bring to trial individual soldiers, commanders and politicians charged with war crimes. International lawyers argue that any military attack that killed Iraqi civilians could lead to British soldiers being prosecuted at the new court. But because America and Iraq are not signatories to the Rome treaty, which created the ICC, their soldiers are immune from prosecution.
Works for me
The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, is known to have advised the Prime Minister on the legal issues surrounding the prospect of war, but it is understood that the risk of soldiers being prosecuted by the ICC is of most concern. Military action in breach of UN resolutions would mean little if the sanction constituted no more than a finding that the UK was in violation of international law. But potential sentences of life imprisonment for soldiers acting on the orders of the Prime Minister will have concentrated the minds of the Government's law officers. Peter Carter QC, chairman of the Bar's human rights committee, said British commanders would have to "adapt a very different attitude to their American colleagues so they can justify every military act of attrition against every target." He said it could cause real difficulties in joint actions between the forces.
Talk about ham-stringing your army!
Mr Solley says British troops will feel "vulnerable" to war crimes charges. "No one thought when they were planning the ICC it would have to consider the consequences of a unilateral invasion by America and Britain of another country."
Whoda thunk it? The US did smarty pants!
James Crawford, a professor at Cambridge University and a member of Cherie Booth's chambers Matrix, said it was important to realise no "criminal charges" could be brought against Britain or America for a use of force that breached UN or international law. But he added that, under the terms of the ICC, British soldiers and commanders could be prosecuted for war crimes. In the past few weeks, legal opinion has become increasingly unified in the belief that the US and its allies cannot rely on the principle of anticipatory self-defence to justify action against Iraq in the absence of a fresh UN resolution. Article 51 of the UN charter allows self-defence only if an armed attack occurs against a member state and, even then, only until the Security Council has taken action.
Ya way! Not!
Posted by: domingo || 03/12/2003 01:42 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Christ, this really smacks of socialism, where everybody gets dragged down to the lowest common denominator and our economic and military strength means squat, or mob rule with a simple majority dictating every issue. I don't like this at all!

Screw the ICC and screw the UN! I could understand NATO, the Warsaw Pact, OPEC, OAS, and other blocs. The UN is worthless and weak.

We need to do what is right, not what's popular.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg || 03/12/2003 7:59 Comments || Top||

#2  As of March 10, 2003, 89 countries have ratified the ICC - here's the list - the UK would be wise to rethink their participation in this sham
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 8:27 Comments || Top||

#3  and what scary army would bring british soldiers or officers or politicians to trial?

Cameroon's? Chile's? France's??

China and Russia weren't dumb enough to sign up either so don't look to them.
Posted by: g wiz || 03/12/2003 8:46 Comments || Top||

#4  G wiz,
The UK signed the treaty I would think that they would be under obligation to deliver any indicted defendant to the world court as long as they resided in UK controlled territory, citizen or not. Hence the idea or surrendering sovereignty to international law.
Posted by: Domingo || 03/12/2003 9:36 Comments || Top||

#5  Ridiculous situation. Whatever Blair says in public now, he must be wishing we were out of UN and all the pointless junk that comes with it. A good outcome of this Iraq fiasco wil be that it has exposed many gaping flaws in the United Nations and its institutions which no one with a scintilla of wit can turn a blind eye to any more. Roll on the Organisation of Democratic States, HQ Baghdad.
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 9:50 Comments || Top||

#6  which no one with a scintilla of wit can turn a blind eye to any more
France ? Russia ? Germany ? UK Labor party members trying to force Tony's resignation ? Liberal Dems in the US ? Hopefully the electorate in these places do have a scintilla of wit.
Posted by: Domingo || 03/12/2003 10:11 Comments || Top||

#7  Kofi is whistling out of his a$$ with his weak threat of legalities. Every nation that participated in the Gulf War 1 has every legal authority to resume hostilities. In fact, as Iraq has violated every provision of the cease fire he signed, we are already technically in a state of hositlities with Iraq.
Posted by: Rex Mundi || 03/12/2003 10:53 Comments || Top||

#8  If a War Crime is suspected and the UK does a real trial into the evidence the iCC should have no jurisdiction, in theory. I suspect we'll see lots of Jenin massacres and claims of coverups as a way for little nations to throw mud at western troops.
Posted by: Yank || 03/12/2003 12:24 Comments || Top||

#9  Jenin Massacre should be in quotes in the comment above, of course, since it wasn't a massacre but instead a bunch of bullocks created by Palestinians and journalists hoping to find evidence against Isreal.
Posted by: Yank || 03/12/2003 12:25 Comments || Top||

#10  Bulldog: It was Robert Conquest who in his 1999 book, Reflections on a Ravaged Century, first put forth that the UK, the US and the ex-Dominions (less Quebec one would assume) should band together politically and economically. This was long before it became popular to speak of the Anglosphere on the Web. When I first read Conquest's proposal, I thought it absolute rubbish. After all, the EU and NAFTA were so successful. We were just becoming one big happy free market. The events of the past four years have made me realize that Conquest is absolutely right and I was utterly wrong. The Continentals and rest of the world share little in common with the Anglosphere. We need stick together to protect our common values.
Posted by: 11A5S || 03/12/2003 14:32 Comments || Top||

#11  "Article 51 of the UN charter allows self-defence only if an armed attack occurs against a member state and, even then, only until the Security Council has taken action"

This is obviously nonsense. For starters, all NATO countries are bound by treaty to come to the defence of (that is, to go to war for) any one of them being attacked. If Germany was attacked by, say, France, Britain would come to Germany's aid, attacking France, even though Britain had not been attacked, and regardless of whether the UNSC liked it or not. Similar things are probably true with other such organizations (e.g., SEATO) - or what good would they be.
Posted by: Patrick || 03/12/2003 16:44 Comments || Top||

#12  11A5S - Something similar already exists, but seems to act primarily as a forum for organising cricket matches - the British Commonwealth. It's a pretty patronising concept really (the Queen does tours and blesses zoos and premieres and stuff), but encompasses most of the anglosphere. Including the likes of Zimbabwe. I'm not sure if language should be the basic criterion for something as serious, but I'm having trouble thinking of some other benchmark that would automatically exclude the French!
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 17:13 Comments || Top||

#13  Any British squadie who finds him or herself under threat of prosecution in the UK ought to be whisked right into the USA as a political refugee. Give 'em the same asylum status we give to other foreign nationals.
Posted by: JDB || 03/12/2003 17:15 Comments || Top||


Korea
North Korea prepares new test of missile
North Korea is preparing another missile test, which would break Pyongyang's moratorium on long-range ballistic missile flights, U.S. intelligence officials said.
Sounds like the T-2 is going to fly.
Meanwhile, a separate test Monday of a new anti-ship cruise missile, the second in two weeks, was a failure, with the 100-mile-range missile failing to fly properly because of a guidance system problem, the officials told The Washington Times.
NKor circuit boards must be made of tree bark etched with a sharp rock.
Recent satellite photographs of a North Korean base showed activity that appeared to be flight-test preparations, said officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "There aren't indications of an imminent launch, but it is something they might well do," one U.S. official said. "It's certainly a possibility."

A second official said the activity is being watched closely and that there are concerns that the flight test, which would be North Korea's third in recent weeks, will be of the Taepo-Dong 2 ballistic missile. A third official at the Pentagon said, "Clearly, the potential is there for a launch with little or no notice."

U.S. officials said the missile tested Monday was a North Korean version of the Chinese-made HY-2 Silkworm anti-ship missile that has an estimated range of up to 100 miles. The second flight test of the new missile failed because of problems with the guidance system, U.S. officials said. The missile flew about 80 miles over the East Sea/Sea of Japan.
It hit the Sea of Japan. Must have been a success.
The preparations and the cruise-missile flight tests come amid growing tensions on the Korean Peninsula. The Pentagon is dispatching six F-117 Stealth fighter bombers to South Korea for exercises to begin next week, said Defense Department spokesman Lt. Cmdr. Jeff Davis. It will be the first time since 1993, when the first crisis developed concerning North Korea's nuclear-weapons program, that the radar-evading aircraft are moved to South Korea.
That's sending a message. NKor Air Defence Command must be sleeping less well tonight.
South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun yesterday called for maintaining a strong alliance with the United States. "The staunch Korea-U.S. combined defense arrangement is greatly contributing to our national security," Mr. Roh said in a speech at the Korean Military Academy. "The solid ... alliance should be maintained even more so."
"Please don't leave us!"
North Korea, meanwhile, repeated its call for direct talks with the United States. "If the U.S. turns to a military option in the end, persistently turning down the [NorthÂŽs] lunatic principled proposal for direct talks, it will lead to a catastrophic situation for my country," North Korea's official Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary.

In Tokyo, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi sought to play down the cruise-missile test on Monday, telling reporters that it was "not an emergency." He said Japan would work with the United States to prevent Pyongyang from taking reckless action. Stocks in Tokyo fell to a 20-year low after reports in the Rodong Sinmun that the test was more than a simple military drill.
Step by step, bit by bit, conditioning the Japanese people to accept the need for a Japanese nuclear option.
Defense officials said North Korea's first two missile tests were directed at the United States. Pyongyang is trying without success to force the United States to negotiate directly with its Stalinist communist government, something President Bush has ruled out.

North Korea's government is expected to announce a warning of the next missile test soon, perhaps as early as today, the officials said. Pyongyang released an official notice in advance of the missile tests that happened Feb. 24 and Monday. A major worry among U.S. officials is that the upcoming test, which would be the third in recent weeks, will be a second flight test of its new long-range Taepo-Dong 2 ballistic missile, which was flight-tested for the first time in August 1998.

The CIA said in a report made public in December 2001 that North Korea is improving the Taepo-Dong 2. The missile can carry a warhead weighing several hundred pounds up to 6,200 miles, "sufficient to strike Alaska, Hawaii and parts of the continental United States." If a lighter third stage is used, like the one tested in 1998, the Taepo-Dong 2 could have a range of 9,300 miles. That configuration would be "sufficient to strike all of North America," the CIA said, noting that a future test of the missile could be disguised as a space launch.
Our Aegis cruiser in the area could launch an interceptor disguised as a test of the Ballistic Missile Defense system.
The North Korean government announced after the 1998 launch that it would halt the tests. The Taepo-Dong 2 overflew portions of Japanese airspace and created widespread security panic worries among Japanese defense officials.

The F-117s sent to South Korea are taking part in the annual U.S.-South Korean exercises known as Foal Eagle/RSOI, for reception, staging and onward integration. The maneuvers begin March 19 and will continue through early April, Cmdr. Davis said.
Or longer.
One of the exercises simulates a North Korean special-operations attack on South Korea. Most of the 37,000 troops in South Korea will take part in the exercises, which have been denounced by official North Korean news outlets as preparation for war.
We're always preparing; that's why we've had peace there for about 50 years.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/12/2003 12:26 am || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Krazy Kim is desperate to wrangle concessions before the Iraq war is over.

What the hell are the Chinese thinking? Are they the slightest bit concerned about this mess or is the temptation to watch us and the Japanese squirm too strong for them to resist. They'll think twice when Japan starts to re-arm but that's a high stakes poker game I'd rather avoid playing.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 3:11 Comments || Top||

#2  It's the perfect time to stick it to the US, and China knows it. They're positioning themselves for the ultimate sell: give up Taiwan and you can have a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, perhaps even a unified one. Watch, it will come up at some point in the future.
Posted by: RW || 03/12/2003 3:51 Comments || Top||

#3  I think you got it, RW. But it won't play out that way. We aren't going to allow them to have long-range missiles. Oh sure, we may allow this test, because we have Iraq to deal with now. But in three months, that game will be over, and we'll be turning hard to North Korea.

There's going to be another war in Korea. It's going to happen and North Korea will be toasted. Unfortunately, a lot of Seoul is going to be destroyed too.

But there is NO way we're going to allow this maniac to threaten us with missiles. And no way are we going to trade Taiwan, which isn't ours to trade, for Korea.

This is going to be a rough, rough year.
Posted by: R. McLeod || 03/12/2003 4:18 Comments || Top||

#4  RW, good point, but isn't the Taiwan issue primarily a US/China thing? Assisting the North Koreans to get missile tech and Nukes also risks provoking Japan to go nuclear. How might THAT be in China's interests? Overall, I think we would all say that from China's point of view, a nuclear-armed Japan would be a very bad thing indeed. But what if hard-liners, (and I mean the let's go ram a P-3 crowd here) decided that a nifty way to increase their faction's power within China would be by deliberately provoking Japan to develop nuclear weapons in response to North Korea's program? Faced with a Japanese BOMB, China would of course respond by redirecting vastly more resources to their military.
Posted by: Dave || 03/12/2003 6:04 Comments || Top||

#5  Don't assume the Chinese can control NKor. They have a say, but would have to resort to force to exercise the kind of control a lot of folks think they have. The whole NKor thing is the "Hermit Kingdom" with bombs.

As for the Chinese directing more resources to their military. The Chinese Army has been engaged in a MASSIVE build up for the last decade. All more trade with the West has done is provide the funds to bring their army into the 21st century. And the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army Navy has gone from a coast guard to a real threat in the West Pac.

Janpan's going nuke in the next decade, no matter what. And that should worry us, because their society is just as racist and chauvanistic as it was in the 1930's, and their economy is in the same boat. They're still short of resources, too.
Posted by: Chuck || 03/12/2003 7:54 Comments || Top||

#6  The video test of the MOAB was surely sent to whomever we are cultivating in the NK armed forces. Hint - overthrow the Dear Leader or this may happen to you guys.
Posted by: mhw || 03/12/2003 9:49 Comments || Top||

#7  It's been suggested several times by many here, but think how beneficial a successful Aegis Missile Defense Test against their bigdong-2
would be: 1) They wouldn't necessarily know that we did it, but would have to assume that we did, and could do it again any time we want. 2) It would take the NK's down several notches in the provocation for cash scheme, possibly dragging the policy of ignoring them into a collapse of their regime 3) SKorea and Japan would be our best buddies if we kept Aegis systems around for their defense 4) China would know that their Ballistic missile threats would be seen as hollow, helping Taiwan's defense
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 10:42 Comments || Top||

#8  When NK does any missile test, they cannot hide it in their interior, like China can. All their telemetry data is up for grabs. Their tests give us lots of good intel for us to make decisions on countermeasures and of course retaliation.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/12/2003 10:59 Comments || Top||

#9  I agree with Frank G. The next missle they shot I would shoot it down with the Aegis system. That would end the threatening by the NKors of nuclear war. As I understand the literature, the Aegis testing has been succesfull but, when dealing with ICBM's, the defender missle must be shot near the launch of the offensive ICBM.

And while Im on the subject, why couldnt we develop a land based Aegis that could deal with the Iraqi scud problem.
Posted by: Mustang || 03/12/2003 12:59 Comments || Top||

#10  Maybe the Japanese ARE listening? from the Wash Post:
Japan Deploys a Surveillance Ship
AP -Wednesday, March 12, 2003; 9:01 PM
Japan has sent a battleship to the Sea of Japan, the Defense Agency said Thursday, amid media reports that North Korea could be preparing another missile test.

Defense Agency spokesman Yoshiyuki Ueno said that the Aegis-missile equipped destroyer has top-of-the-line surveillance capabilities.

Ueno refused to say when it was deployed, and described its mission as part of regular patrol activities.

But the dispatch came as two major Japanese newspapers reported North Korea appears to be making final preparations to test-launch its Rodong ballistic missile, possibly around the Sea of Japan, which separates the two nations.

In 1998, North Korea launched a long-range ballistic missile over Japan, demonstrating that it had the capability to reach virtually any city in the country with its warheads.

Tensions have been especially high recently.

On Monday, North Korea test-fired a short-range missile, in an apparent attempt to push the United States into talks over its suspected efforts to develop nuclear weapons.

Analysts have said the widely anticipated launch from a base on North Korea's east coast fit a pattern of unusual military maneuvers in recent weeks that seemed designed to pressure Washington into dialogue.

Japan ruled Korea as a colony from 1910 until its surrender in 1945 ended World War II. The two countries have no diplomatic relations, and North Korea has frequently said the presence of about 50,000 U.S. troops in Japan is a threat to its national security.

Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 20:31 Comments || Top||

#11  While I have to agree with Chuck that there are limits to Chinese leverage in North Korea, the fact remains that they are steadfastly refusing to use the influence they do have. From their (mistaken) point of view, forcing the US to enter into direct negotiations with Pyongyang can only help Beijing; in particular, China is looking for reductions in American troop levels along the Pacific Rim, which in turn would give China greater leverage over Seoul and Tokyo as American influence correspondingly diminishes. The problem with this line of thinking, however, is that it's based on the assumption that Japan will retain its pacifist outlook even after the Yankees go home, and it ignores the fact that in the short to medium term, Japan can project much more power in the region than China. Beijing must come to understand that despite initial appearences, an American withdrawal from the region (which now appears underway, at least from where I sit in South Korea) will not be the boon to Chinese strategic interests that Beijing expects. Taboo is it may be, the Japan card must be played; only then will the Chinese begin to act like the Great Power that they so aspire to be.
Posted by: The Marmot || 03/13/2003 0:01 Comments || Top||


International
America boycotts opening of world court
The United States showed its opposition to the new International Criminal Court (ICC) set up at The Hague to try war crimes by boycotting its inauguration ceremony yesterday. The American ambassador to the Netherlands, Clifford Sobel, refused to attend the gathering, which was hosted at The Hague by Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general.
It's not our party. Why should we attend?
Mr Annan said the ICC, billed as the descendent of the tribunal at Nuremberg set up after the Second World War, was "the embodiment of our collective conscience". But the US, which claims its servicemen could be targeted by politically motivated cases, has signed treaties with more than 20 nations giving its citizens immunity from the ICC. Richard Dicker, director of the international justice programme for Human Rights Watch, accused the US government of trying to create a "two-tier justice system" with one law for US citizens and another for everyone else.
Speaking of two tiers, let's place a bet: who in the following list is most likely to be indicted first by the ICC — George Bush, Ariel Sharon, or Saddam Hussein?

It's a suckers bet.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/12/2003 01:44 pm || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Why are you so cynical? The lofty ideals embodied by this institution would never be subverted to the agenda of petty international politics....(cough)

Can someone do a Nexis seach and find exactly how many European political figures have openly stated that the biggest job for the UN is to 'balance' or contain US power? I think I've read that at least 15 times over the last 2 months.
Posted by: Anonymous || 03/12/2003 2:47 Comments || Top||

#2  Why on earth would anyone want to be judged by a Kangaroo Court? To an increasing number of Euros, anything that a member of the accepted "victim" class says, is patently true. I prefer to rely on John Henry Wigmore's juristic studies of "Evidence," rather than some self-interested reference to a politically motivated "collective conscience."
Posted by: Anonon || 03/12/2003 3:16 Comments || Top||

#3  "Mr Annan said the ICC, billed as the descendent of the tribunal at Nuremberg set up after the Second World War, was "the embodiment of our collective conscience"."

Annan speaks as the man whose only high-profile voiced opinion on Iraq was "don't listen to UN resolutions - they're not meant to be taken seriously" and "hands off Saddam, it's not fair to pick on the poor little man". If the UN actually thinks it can compare itself, in terms of moral rectitude, to the Nuremburg War Trials without having the guts or the resolution to challenge evil (for want of a better word), it needs a to take a good long look at itself in the mirror (or someone's got to tell it)...

An insult to Nuremburg and an insult to justice.
Posted by: Bulldog || 03/12/2003 3:28 Comments || Top||

#4  Fine, one of the first orders of business should be the trial of those UN officials who allowed the slaughter of innocent civilians in Bosnia and Rwanda -- right in front of UN troops.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips || 03/12/2003 5:26 Comments || Top||

#5  ICC first order of buisness indict Saddam.Won't happen though.
Posted by: raptor || 03/12/2003 7:54 Comments || Top||

#6  "Richard Dicker, director of the international justice programme for Human Rights Watch"

the delightfully named Dick Dicker huh? With a name like that you'd think he'd just STFU
Posted by: Frank G || 03/12/2003 8:30 Comments || Top||

#7  Richard Dicker (gotta love that name), director of the international justice programme for Human Rights Watch, accused the US government of trying to create a "two-tier justice system" with one law for US citizens and another for everyone else.

Maybe that's because ours is better???
Posted by: tu3031 || 03/12/2003 10:51 Comments || Top||

#8  I would really like to see a sane Western member of the court, one who does not send peacekeepers out and is therefore somewhat safe from the inevitable retrebution, start indicting the bastards of the world.

Mugabe, Castro, the funky North Korean leader, the heads of China, Saddam, the Iranian leadership. The list of real deserving scumbags could go on, and on, and on.When none of them show up for trial, and it becomes clear that none of them have even signed up for the court, the farcical ICC will fall apart.
Posted by: Yank || 03/12/2003 12:29 Comments || Top||

#9  This ICC is just the beginning of a Kafka novel, so to speak. The court will do what is trendy or what the powers wish it to do. Do you really think that they will take on the hardcases like Bob, Kim, Saddam, and Co? We are in the big battle now folks, and its not just Sammy.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/12/2003 13:04 Comments || Top||

#10  "Mr Annan said the ICC, billed as the descendent of the tribunal at Nuremberg set up after the Second World War, was "the embodiment of our collective conscience"."

The "collective conscience," so ably embodied by Annan and that motley collection silly little U.N. countries sure helped those half-million Rwandans, didn't it?
Posted by: Jonesy || 03/12/2003 18:34 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
40[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Wed 2003-03-12
  Inspectors Pull Out?
Tue 2003-03-11
  U.S. Suspends U-2 Flights Over Iraq
Mon 2003-03-10
  France will use Iraq veto
Sun 2003-03-09
  Iraqis surrender to live fire exercise
Sat 2003-03-08
  UN Withdraws Civilian Staff from Iraq-Kuwait Border
Fri 2003-03-07
  Binny′s kids nabbed?
Thu 2003-03-06
  Russia airlifts out remaining nationals
Wed 2003-03-05
  Human shields stuck in Beirut without bus fare
Tue 2003-03-04
  US hits roadblock in push to war
Mon 2003-03-03
  Human shields catch the bus for home
Sun 2003-03-02
  Iraqi FM calls UAE president a "Zionist agent"
Sat 2003-03-01
  Khalid Sheikh Mohammad nabbed!
Fri 2003-02-28
  Nimitz Battle Group Ordered to Gulf
Thu 2003-02-27
  Sammy changes his mind, will destroy missiles
Wed 2003-02-26
  Sammy sez "no" to exile

Better than the average link...



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.
3.91.43.22
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
(0)    (0)    (0)    (0)    (0)