A bomb exploded at the house of a senior government official in eastern Afghanistan early Tuesday, but there were no casualties, police said. The explosive device was planted on the roof of the home of Malik Mohammed Nazeer, the senior bureaucrat in the government of Nangarhar province, deputy police chief Lala Khan told The Associated Press. The home was slightly damaged. The good bombers must have all been bumped off. Everyone knows if you want to blow up a house, you put the explosives under it, not on the roof.
Police did not know who carried out the bomb attack, and no arrests had been made, but authorities blamed members of al-Qaida and Taliban fugitives for the assault. Deputy Commander of Security Zulmy Khan said attackers had planted four bombs at Nazeer's house, but only one exploded. The remaining three were defused by security officials. See, shoddy workmanship.
The explosion occurred at dawn as Nazeer's family was sleeping, Lala Khan said. The latest explosion occurred three days after a blast ripped through the Governor's House in Jalalabad, shattering window panes and damaging the building's southern wall. "Enemies of Afghanistan are responsible for the explosion at my house," Nazeer told AP, adding that he has no personal enemies that might have targeted his home. I didn't know you could be a senior Afghan official without making personnel enemies.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/18/2003 08:45 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah in Jeddah on Tuesday deplored accusing the Muslims of the unjust charge of terrorism. Oh, cert'nly not! I mean when have Muslims ever killed people in the name of their religion?
In a meeting with Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi, the Crown Prince underscored the need for consultations among the Islamic nations to safeguard dignity of Islam. Kharrazi and Saudi Crown Prince said that strong relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia will serve the interests of the entire Islamic nations. You certainly don't get much more Islamic than Soddy Arabia and Iran...
Crown Prince Abdullah conveyed warm greetings to the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei and President Mohammad Khatami and said that the strong Iran makes Muslim World stronger. Kharrazi said that the plight of Palestinians has been forgotten due to the disunity of the Muslim nations and that the Zionist regime is taking maximum advantage of the current Iraqi crisis with intensified military attacks against the defenseless Palestinians. He's talking about those guys who explode at every opportunity...
"Now, that the diplomacy has been brought to end, the international community should make its efforts to minimize the losses," Kharrazi said. Bet that doesn't mean they're going to mend their ways...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 03:47 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think that he is suffering from WSTBNS (We're Soon to Be Next Syndrome). The cure, which is radical, consists of a top overhaul, as we say in the aircraft engine vernacular....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2003 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think the Iranian population might have something to say about the desirability of a government based on Islam, soon as they get that boot off their neck. I really have to question whether the Soddy populace can do the same. The persians were an educated and independent-thinking group as a whole and knew the value of an economy and free trade. The Soddy public, however, has been living in a Michael Jackson-like Neverland, where filipinos and pakis do their bidding while the oil welfare state paid their bills. I don't think they have a work ethic or entrepreneurial (sp?) class...to paraphrase an old American phrase: too many chiefs (princelings) and not enough indians (middle class business owners)
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Prince Abdullah is absolutely correct. We all know it's really those damn Episcopalians that've been responsible for terrorism the last 30 years. Finally, at long last, it's so refreshing to see a Muslim step forward and deny any connection between Islam and terrorism. I didn't think I'd live to see the day.
Posted by: Mark ||
03/18/2003 18:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
C'mon Fred, it isn't terrorism if you're killing infidels!
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Shouldn't this be filed under "strange bedfellows"?
#6
My, my, my, those Iranians are busy little beavers, aren't they? Syria was visiting in the last couple of days. Just saw it on worldlink tv's round up of the ME.
How much do you need build the bombs faster so we can make a strong Iran?
An explosion in a house in the Saudi capital Tuesday killed one person, the Interior Ministry said. The blast, caused by an explosive device, occurred in the al-Jazirah neighborhood in the eastern part of Riyadh. Police investigating the blast found an arsenal of rifles, guns, hand grenades and explosives in the house where it occurred. The statement, carried by the official Saudi Press Agency, quoted an unidentified official at the ministry as saying the victim was not carrying any identification. Prob'ly an alk runner, or one of them Zionists...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 12:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think those "alcohol smugglers" are going to get into a full blown turf war over the next few weeks.
An American, a Canadian and a Yemeni employed at a Western oil firm in Yemen have been shot dead in Sanaa. The attacker wounded another Westerner before turning his gun on himself. An official told Reuters that the attack occurred in the oil-rich province of Marib, about 170 kilometres (105 miles) east of Sanaa. Opposition to the US has been widespread in Arab countries over the coming American-led war on Iraq. The Yemeni official said the gunman was a carpenter working on the premises of the oil firm. It is believed to be the US company Hunt Oil, the only western oil firm in Marib. The nationality of the wounded foreigner is not known. Still developing, might be a terror attack, a work related incident, or just a nut case. The fact that he shot himself makes me believe more in a nut case. A Islamo would either shoot it out with the cops or run.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/18/2003 10:07 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sensitive mode off...
Top jokes the taliban are telling to keep their spirits up:
An American, a Canadian and a Yemeni employed at a Western oil firm in Yemen - walk into a bar and are shot by mustafa here...
The Prime Minister told a hushed Commons this afternoon that his Government now faced a "stark choice" — to stand down the thousands of troops now hours away from war, or to hold firm to the course they have set. And he declared "I believe we must hold firm." He went on to paint a graphic picture of the consequences of retreat, the United Nations reduced to "a talking shop"; Saddam Hussein triumphant; other tyrants encouraged — and the Iraqi people condemned to continued oppression. And he demanded bluntly: "Who will celebrate and who will weep if we take our troops back from the Gulf now?"
He went on: "If we do act, we should do so with a clear conscience and a strong heart. Our fault has not been impatience. The truth is that our patience should have been exhausted weeks and months and even years ago. Back away from this confrontation now and future conflicts will be infinitely worse and more devastating." And he said that to retreat now, he believed, "would put at hazard all that we hold dearest ... tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment they need our determination, that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a cause." With the Tories officially backing him there was no real doubt that Mr Blair would gain the paper majority he needs in the vote at 10 tonight.
But the fear at Downing Street was that the Labour revolt — 121 strong last time — could rise beyond the 200 mark, forcing the Prime Minister to rely on Conservative votes. That, some at Westminster believed, would amount to a virtual "No" and make his position impossible. The hours leading up to the debate saw two more ministers resign, John Denham from the Home Office and Lord Hunt from the Health Department, following Robin Cook's departure from the Cabinet yesterday, and the resignation of four Parliamentary Private Secretaries, ministerial aides. But International Development Secretary Clare Short, after a night of doubt, announced that contrary to her earlier threat she would stay on, and there was growing hope in the Blair camp that the resignations would be a trickle rather than a flood. Ms Short announced that it would be "cowardly" to step down from the Cabinet because there is work to be done to aid and rebuild Iraq after the war. But she coupled her promise with stinging criticism of the way the Prime Minister had handled the crisis, after having earlier condemned his policy as " reckless", in a fresh attack that looks likely to leave a legacy of bitterness.
Lord Hunt, had rung the BBC to declare that he could not accept Britain's involvement in a war without UN authority. John Denham, a middle-ranking minister had previously been one of Mr Blair's most reliable supporters. Ms Short's decision, however, limited the damage in the Cabinet and, at a packed meeting of Labour backbenchers, the mood also appeared to be turning Mr Blair's way. The Prime Minister used the private meeting at the Commons to deliver a passionate appeal to his MPs to rally round. His 18-minute speech won long and loud applause and afterwards even some of his critics described it as "very persuasive". Of the 20 MPs who spoke, 15 backed the Government line and those who spoke against were said to have been "subdued".
Everything, however, depended on the result of the vote following this afternoon's Commons debate, a test on which Mr Blair's leadership could yet stand or fall. Senior ministers, the party whips and Mr Blair himself, in a series of meetings, were doing their utmost to woo the doubters and, where possible, win over the rebels. But even some of the Prime Minister's closest aides said, as the debate got under way, that they were unable to predict the result, with much hanging on Mr Blair's performance in the Commons and the effectiveness of the rebel arguments.
Lord Hunt's move caught Downing Street on the hop — and triggered a furious and extraordinary put-down from Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott. Told of the resignation on the BBC's Today programme he claimed not to know who his former Government colleague was and said he would have to look his name up. The insult, in the fevered atmosphere at Westminster with many still undecided as to which way they will vote tonight, was instantly seen as a serious misjudgment, likely to harden the resolve of the rebels.
Ms Short acknowledged that she had laid herself open to attack after stating categorically only days ago that she would quit. "I know I will be heavily criticised for my decision and many people will feel I have let them down," she said. "But I am doing what I think is right in the circumstances which we are now in. I remain very critical of the way the Iraq crisis has been handled. I think the UK could have exerted more leverage and the approach to the Security Council should have been more respectful and less dominated by US timelines
... but we are where we are, and we must decide how we can best take things forward."
She pointed to two key factors which had swayed her: the clear view of the Government's law officer, the Attorney General, that military action would be legal under international law and the pledge from President Bush that Iraq, after conflict, would be rebuilt under the UN umbrella. She went on: "There are, of course, grave risks in military action, but I am confident that targeting will be as careful as possible and that our military will take very seriously their humanitarian duties under the Geneva and Hague Conventions. I believe the real test we are about to face is our commitment to care for the people of Iraq and to mobilise the will of the international community to help them rebuild their country. The second test will be the full implementation of the roadmap to Palestinian statehood. This is, I think, how history will judge us." Party managers were hoping those arguments would persuade other waverers.
Posted by: James Joyner ||
03/18/2003 11:35 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Built under the UN umbrella?? Does she read the WSJ??
#2
"[Retreat would] tell our allies that at the very moment of action, at the very moment they need our determination, that Britain faltered. I will not be party to such a cause."
I love how this man speaks! He is such an impressive speaker. I do wish President Bush had half his ability to speak as eloquently.
Another one of my favorites shortly after 9/11: "If they [terrorists] could have murdered not 7,000 but 70,000 does anyone doubt they would have done so and rejoiced in it? There is no compromise possible with such people, no meeting of minds, no point of understanding with such terror. Just a choice: defeat it or be defeated by it. And defeat it we must."
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/18/2003 12:14 Comments ||
Top||
#3
With the Tories officially backing him there was no real doubt that Mr Blair would gain the paper majority he needs in the vote at 10 tonight. But the was that the Labour revolt - 121 strong last time - could rise beyond the 200 mark, forcing the Prime Minister to rely on Conservative votes. That, some at Westminster believed, would amount to a virtual "No" and make his position impossible.
What exactly is a "virtual no"? Who are these "some people in Westminister" that believe this and what are the reasons they think this? And exactly what position would be made impossible; his position on the war? His position on future issues? or his position as PM? And if he quits...does that mean he just quits his party or does it mean he's unemployed? Can he switch a la Jeffords and become a Tory? That would be a kick. Sigh, I just don't understand.
#4
Hi Becky, Putting my neck out, I'd say the Labour revolt will be about 150, or less. Can't see it being worse. I think 164 is the critical number - half the Labour MPs in parliament, so more than that figure would be a "virtual no" from his own party, a vote of no confidence if you like. Obviously if this happened he couldn't claim to represent the Labour party, the party which won the outright majority at the last election, and so his position as Prime Minister would be untenable - he'd be compelled to resign (hence his "back me or sack me" threat. If he quits, he quits his post as PM, and he'd be demoted to the status of an ordinary backbench MP, out of gevernment and on the decision-making sidelines. I'm sure the Tory party would be more than happy to accept him if he wanted to "cross the floor". It's happened before, although I think only Churchill has done it twice (Tory-Liberal-Tory)
There was a poll on TV this evening which I caught out of the corner of my eye which I think suggested 49% of Brits support Tony's war stance now, with 40-something percent against. I'll post that news when and if I find it online.
#5
OK, Labour party actually have 410 MPs, so 205 would be half. Any abstentions would be considered by critics and impartial observers to be de facto "no"s. I still think he'll see 150 or less...
#10
2 different votes, that's why the discrepancy - growler's right on the vote supporting, the 396-217 was opposing a vote against the war
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#11
What I'd like to see is what the figures on the _previous_ vote were, that is, the first one a couple of weeks ago. I may be misremembering but I think the Government had a bigger margin of victory on the motion authorizing war this time around.
Posted by: Joe ||
03/18/2003 17:29 Comments ||
Top||
Tony Blair has been hit by another resignation from his Government over the looming war against Iraq, with Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, junior health minister, announcing he is stepping down. Lord Hunt? Must resist name jokes... The Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, on Radio 4 this morning asked "Who's Hunt?". He's been in the cabinet for four years, but even the Deputy PM hadn't noticed him till now...
Later today the Prime Minister will face another major backbench revolt when MPs are given the chance to vote on war with Iraq. This could be the biggie revolt. Up to half the Labour backbenchers might rebel, and Blair could be reliant on the Tories for a Commons majority supporting his stance on Iraq. He doesn't need a commons vote to go to war, but politically his prospects hang in the balance... Clare Short, International Development Secretary, said this morning she would also be making a statement later about her future after spending the night reflecting on her position. It is expected that she will now stay in Government. And she will.
Ms Short said last week that military action against Iraq without a second UN resolution would be "reckless". But not half as reckless as openly insulting your boss, the Prime Minister, only to realise within 24 hrs that it wasn't such a good idea.
Mr Blair is facing probably the largest backbench rebellion of his premiership tonight, with up to 120 MPs queuing to sign an anti-war motion tabled late last night. This morning, after handing in his resignation, Lord Hunt said: "I'm under no illusion about the nature of the regime led by Saddam Hussein. I recognise the tremendous efforts made by the Prime Minister and other ministers to try and secure a second resolution. "But I do not feel we are justified in taking pre-emptive action without broad international support, or the clear support of the British people. "I'm also concerned about the long-term consequences for international stability of such pre-emptive action." "No! Don't challenge the status quo! I'm frightened, mummy..."
Also speaking this morning, Robin Cook, who resigned yesterday as Leader of the House of Commons, said that it was "very much" in Britain's interests that it was part of an international community governed by rules. Rule no. 1: Become a homicidal tyrant if you want long-term job security.
Mr Cook, whose powerful resignation statement won him a rare round of applause from MPs last night, said: "We are not a superpower. We cannot go it alone. We need to have alliances but it is also very much important to British domestic opinion. British domestic opinion wants to make sure that it does have a broad coalition behind it. What saddens me most when I look back over the past year — a year ago we had a broad international coalition much wider than I would ever have dared hope for to fight international terrorism. I think it is a tragedy, a mistake that we have allowed that great coalition to fall apart." So, the world according to Robin: The UK is weak and impotent, but nevertheless we need powerful superpower allies, preferably not the US. The anti-terror coalition has boiled down to a few genuinely comitted states because the US has actually followed through on its stated objectives whereas other allies considered lip service after 9/11 to be quite sufficient, thak you very much. Thank God Tony pulled him out of the Foreign Office in 2001.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
03/18/2003 10:23 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If anyone wants an English version of the last comment, it should be:
So, the world according to Robin: The UK is weak and impotent, but nevertheless we need powerful superpower allies, preferably not the US. The anti-terror coalition has boiled down to a few genuinely committed states because the US has actually followed through on its stated objectives, whereas other allies considered lip service after 9/11 to be quite sufficient, thank you very much. Thank God Tony pulled him out of the Foreign Office in 2001.
#2
Make that three, Blair lost three of his ministers. How many ministers are there?
Posted by: Murat ||
03/18/2003 6:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Actually, since Lord Hunt was a junior minister, he was not in the Cabinet. There are three levels in the Government in Britain. The lowest are the Parliamentary Private Secretaries. They are unpaid aides to ministers; whilst the job is unpaid, it is the first stepping stone into the Government. The middle level are the junior ministers. They are actually paid for their troubles, but are not in the Cabinet. The Cabinet ministers are the most senior.
In wartime, there is often a fourth tier. That is a War Cabinet, comprised of senior Cabinet ministers. A War Cabinet will almost certainly be formed when things kick off later this week.
Posted by: David Newton ||
03/18/2003 6:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yep, sorry David, my bad. One step down from the actual cabinet. Even more of a nobody.
Murat: there are 25 cabinet ministers, including the PM. You can kee track of them here.
#5
I realize it creates a temporary broo-ha-ha and allows the ex plenty of spare time to grind his axe for the next election - but in terms of governing - it seems like a GOOD thing that openly hostile ministers exit stage left. Tony has proved himself a leader, not just a politician. I bet once the sting wears off he'll be happy to be rid of the undermining sob.
#6
Blair looks safe (watching live on CNN). The Conservatives are staying solid on the war issue, even passing up opportunities to heap shit on the gov't.
I just wish the opposition here in Australia was as honourable. As Winston Churchill once remarked, no war takes precedence over party politics in Canberra (well, he put it differently, but that's what he meant).
It occurs to me that both Britain and Australia have been lucky in their leaders during this crisis.
#7
A pretty minor flap. Really, considering the leftish bent of most Labourites, I'm surprised Blair has held his party together as well as he has. I'm a bit confused about the "unpaid" bit. Are the junior cabinet members not also MPs?
Posted by: James Joyner ||
03/18/2003 10:29 Comments ||
Top||
#8
James, They're all MPs (Members of Parliament)- backbenchers, PPSs, junior ministers, cabinet ministers, all the way to the PM. They're all MPs. When David said the PPSs weren't paid, he meant they receive no supplement to their basic MP's salary, unlike the junior ministers-upwards.
#9
Bulldog--Gotcha. I thought that was the case, but wasn't sure.
Posted by: James Joyner ||
03/18/2003 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#10
BTW, Clinton, writing in al-Guardian, basically said "trust Tony Blair" Wow! He managed to, on the one hand, resolve his fencesitting by coming out squarely for war, while at the same time basically slapping Bush in the face by focusing on his (Clintons's) trust for a foreign leader. Masterful Clintonism, I must say.
#11
Bill and the Dixie Chicks seem to save their best lines for overseas.
For Bill to put that editorial in the NYT would be a slap that many Dems would not be able to handle.
Posted by: john ||
03/18/2003 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Bubba is doing what Senator Wifey did. Ride on the war wave to avoid being lumped with the looney left Dems who will be toast after this Iraqi thing is over.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2003 17:38 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Thanks,Bull
That MP thing is where I would get lost.Kinda like calling our Sen/H.ofReps congresspersons(gotta be PC).But the Brits include the executive branch.
PARIS (Reuters) - U.S. citizens have turned on French fries and toast to vent their frustration at France's anti-war stance on Iraq. Now the French have joined in the food war -- with pretzels. I just got the image of John Belushi yelling "FOOD FIGHT!" in Animal House.
A French Web Site is urging people to send pretzels to U.S. President, who fainted and fell off a sofa in January 2002 after gagging on the salty snack.
The Web Site, www.bretzelforbush.com, says the pretzels will be stored at a secret location before being sent to the White House in a historic mass action. Its a "preztel" merde-head. You know, the same shape as the logic you use to "oppose the war, support american people, professing pacifism while building nuclear carriers and ballistic submarines, hate the imperialists war mongering fascists all the while constantly interfering in african affairs by invading it "for peace".
The retaliation follows moves by some in the United States to change the names of French fries and French toast to Freedom fries and Freedom toast.
The pretzels are on sale for seven euros ($7.56) each, with one euro going to a children's charity. So far some 250 euros have been raised for the charity. Do the math..... you know you want to
"We think that to oppose war is not to be against the American people, but simply against the politics of the Bush administration," the Web Site says. Of course, since the french have been paying protection money to the same islamist organizations that slaughtered 3,000 of our people just a short time ago, we fail to understand their postion. We also fail to understand why they think Jerry Lewis is funny(except when hes trying not to be), garden snails are food, bathing is a not a just a good idea,but a necessity in polite society. We have nothing against the French themselves, but we dont particulary like their "uncle fester" leader Mr. Chirac.
After the fainting incident, Bush lamented not heeding his mother's advice to chew pretzels before swallowing and his wife Laura joked he was now "practicing safe snacks."
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/18/2003 11:00 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So the French, decent people that they are, want to send the President pretzels, evidently in the hope that he'll choke on one and die. Lovely people. I suppose we could retaliate and send them some sort of toxic food or other but that would be redundant since the French can already drink French wine whenever the mood strikes them. Real coals-to-Newcastle situation, this.
Posted by: Christopher Johnson ||
03/19/2003 1:19 Comments ||
Top||
#2
England's Sword has some good stuff up about Germany and france.
The worm is turning, Chiraq's plan is being questioned by the press.
Controversial Norwegian humorist Otto Jespersen may have topped his already incendiary career exploits when his closing monologue on a popular comedy discussion show Torsdagsklubben (The Thursday Club) ended with the US flag in flames. [In the skit,] Jespersen The Norwegian Tom Green has not yet noticed that his candle for a war in Iraq has ignited the US flag. You know what a humorist is? a comedian whos no longer funny and has no other talents, so they "humor" people by writing books that hit the remainder rack in record speed. For reference, see Garrison Keillor. Humorists usually sit underneath Charley Weaver on the hollywood squares.
Last year Jespersen's biting satire resulted in death threats after he ridiculed Prime Minister Kjell Magne Bondevik, and the comedian regularly sparks heated debate with his cutting humor which has offended parties from the state church to Crown Princess Mette-Marit's father Sven O. Hoeiby. Jespersen's closing rant, which has become the high point of the program, ended on Thursday with a pro-war tirade. Jespersen then said: "I would like to light a candle for a long and bloody war, and may this flame inspire the USA to turn Baghdad into the world's biggest crematorium." Turning to see that an American flag behind him had caught fire, Jespersen said: "Sorry, sorry, that was a mistake, that wasn't supposed to happen. See you in Baghdad - Let's kick some ass!"
The show's closing had been cleared both by TV2's program director Nils Ketil Andresen and station chief KÃ¥re Valebrokk, newspaper VG reported. According to Norwegian law, Jespersen now risks a prison term for mocking another nation's flag. All it will take for the stunt to become a criminal case is a complaint, but the US embassy in Oslo was not immediately available for comment. Wait a minute, this is an enlightend european country, why do they have a law that would make the evil US right wingers green with envy?
Legal experts agree that the flag-burning is clearly illegal and that precedence exists for jail terms for similar acts. Amanda Batt, a spokeswoman for the US state department in Washington DC, told Norwegian news agency NTB: "Norway is one of our close allies and we are extremely concerned when we hear things like this."
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/18/2003 07:56 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another angle:When the American ambassador a few days ago kindly suggested that Norway's anti-American attitude might "change the relationship" between the two countries(meaning:"We may not kick the Krauts out the next time"),the Norwegian Socialists called it "blackmail".Bjorn Staerk has the whole story (and Fred has the link),go check it out.
Sadly,here in Europe,such attitudes are,except for Eastern Europe,all too common.Even the lefties take American protection for granted,while simultaneously blasting its policies.
Posted by: El Id ||
03/18/2003 18:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Actually, a great Embassy response would be something on the order of: "While we find the burning of the American flag-- even in jest-- deeply disturbing, the right of free expression-- even when offensive-- remains enshrined in American law. It would be the height of arrogance to take advantage of another country's legal system to supress what would be permitted in the United States. Therefore, we are making no complaint."
Good enough?
Posted by: Old Grouch ||
03/18/2003 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Actually, the idea of a peacenik lighting "one candle to bring light and peace into the world" and causing a conflagration that destroys a whole city (e.g., Baghdad) appeals to my sensitive nature. Maybe then the UN could build a new city from the ashes (snicker, snicker).
Posted by: grumpy old man ||
03/18/2003 23:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Grouch, you should send that to the embassy. It's good.
Belgian Prime Minister Guy Verhofstadt said Tuesday he was disappointed by the 48-hour deadline set by US President George W Bush for Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq, but called on Saddam to leave. "Perhaps it would be best if you just left, Sammy..."
However, with the threat of war close, the Belgian premier called on Saddam Hussein to comply with the ultimatum and to leave Iraq for the sake of the country's population, local radio RVI reported. "Think of The Children®..."
Meanwhile, Verhofstadt said Belgium would comply with 'international commitments' over the controversial shipments of US military supplies through the Belgian port of Antwerp. On Monday Belgium was reported as saying it would block the US from transporting military material though the country if President Bush went ahead with an attack on Iraq that had not been sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council. Foreign Minister Louis Michel and Defense Minister Andre Flahaut said they would block the transport of supplies through the port of Antwerp and would cut off Belgium's airspace to the US military if an attack went ahead that was in their opinion outside the rule of international law. Never mind!
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 04:10 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Fred---does complying with international commitments over the shipment of US military supplies through Antwerp mean that they are letting them through? Rotterdam would get alot of business and Antwerp could stand to lose alot if the Belgians screw us. "Please don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I am angry." Paraphrasing the classic movie line.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2003 16:21 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Looks like a complete backdown to me...
Posted by: Fred ||
03/18/2003 16:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
possibly the shippers and dock-workers' unions explained the ramifications? Remember Jimmy Hoffa?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 17:08 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I understand Far Rockaway, NJ has ALSO called on Saddam to abdicate [or whatever it is dictators do].
You wouldn't want to know what Belgians think of and about children. That country was the scene of a shocking, sickening, paediphilia/child murder scandal that many believe reaches into some pretty high levels of government.
Click link above for pic. This is a Danish blog (in English), not a hard news site.
Denmark is contributing naval forces to the US-led coalition as well.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/18/2003 03:39 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What amazed me about the video was a complete lack of security around the PM. And the takedown and submission of the "peace" protestor was very weak...
Edited for brevity.
Guests at Mark and Ali Russell's annual St. Patrick's Day house party were charmed Sunday by 79-year-old Lenora Tomalin, a feisty supporter of President Bush and his take-no-prisoners stance toward Iraq's Saddam Hussein. But they were shocked when Tomalin identified herself -- to the likes of Tim Russert and Maureen Orth, Chris and Kathleen Matthews, and Joe diGenovan and Victoria Toensing -- as the mother of Susan Sarandon. That Susan Sarandon -- who has been leading the charge of the Hollywood left against Bush and the pending military action (claiming it will simply further American imperial designs and appropriate Iraqi oil) and who shares three of Tomalin's 19 grandchildren with actor Tim Robbins. "I am a conservative. I voted for George W. Bush and I simply agree with most everything he has said," Tomalin told us yesterday from the Northern Virginia home of keyboardist John Carroll, her son-in-law, and daughter Meredith Carroll, one of Sarandon's eight siblings. "It's not that I'm pro-war. It's just that I think that I trust my government more than I would empathize with the government of Iraq." The entire article is a hilarious read! The poor dear!
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/18/2003 07:52 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Published on Monday, March 17, 2003 by CommonDreams.org
What Century Are We In?
by Magie Dominic edited for brevity; my comments highlighted (and hopefully not too offensive except to the author)
Modern weapons create the same heartrending images of heartbroken men digging through rubble, searching for home, for family. If Iraq really does have nuclear facilities, why is the U.S. planning to bomb them? The UN has a ban against attacks on nuclear sites. Cruise missiles, once en-route, cannot be recalled. (In 1991, the U.S. bombed Iraqi reactors, exposing the civilian population to radioactive iodine.) The statement made above that the UN bans attacks on nuclear sites is a categoric lie. Please note that the Israeli's bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in the 80's. There is no such ban. In fact, it is outside of the UN's purvue to ban attacks on legitimate military targets which nuclear sites certainly count as. As to the second part of the statement, that the US bombed Iraqi nuclear sites in 1991 and exposed civilians to radioactive iodine, I'd like to see your proof of such allegations. Otherwise, you are categorically lying.
During the six-week assault on Iraq, 84,000 tons of bombs were dropped, the equivalent of five Hiroshimas. I need to repeat that: 84,000 tons of bombs rained down, the equivalent of five Hiroshimas â and children were the largest group of casualties. Many died of hunger and cold. At the Cukurca refugee camp, eighty-six died in three days. So, in your twisted rhetoric, conventional bombs are the equivalent of nuclear weapons, right? Bullshit. In addition, your statement that the largest group of casualties was children is another outrageous lie of the anti-American, anti-Bush, pro-Marxist/Stalinist left. The largest group of casualties in the Gulf War was in the Iraqi military forces.
In Iraq, U.S. forces introduced ammunition made with depleted uranium, a radioactive waste. At least 940,000 of those toxic, armour-piercing rounds were fired. Dr. Eric Hoskins, a medical doctor with fifteen years of experience working in war zones, surveyed Iraq two years after the war as part of a Harvard Study Team. He estimates that 50,000 children died in the first eight months of 1991, many from the effects of spent rounds littering the ground. UN aid workers saw Iraqi children playing with empty radioactive shells. In Basra, a child was seen using them as hand puppets. The reports that spent uranium rounds have contributed to both Iraqi deaths and the so-called Gulf War Syndrome is unproven. Although supported by such notable figures as Col. David Hackworth (USMC, Ret), it remains an unproven allegation and therefore, stated as a fact in the above comment, is another lie.
Today, the U.S. possesses almost three-quarters of a million metric tons of depleted uranium â even though a 1996 UN subcommittee defined arms containing it as weapons of mass destruction.
The mass destruction of Iraqâs water purification facilities hastened the spread of cholera and typhoid, and hastened the deaths of thousands of children. Protocol I of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Article 54 prohibits the destruction of objects indispensable to the survival of a civilian population, including food and drinking water. Near Baghdad, 12-million gallons of raw sewage spewed into the Tigris River hourly. Without access to television, radio or newspapers, families continued to rely on the Tigris for their drinking water. As many as a quarter of a million Iraqi civilians died as a result of the Gulf War. The best estimates of civilian casualties run to about 35 thousand - at the most and this figure is generally considered quite high. Thus the above comment is another lie promulgated by people who would, and have, turned a blind eye to the murders of millions of Iraqi citizens by the ruthless dictator Saddam Hussein and his brutal regime.
Dr. Hoskins recently returned to Canada after another assessment mission to Iraq. His team found that 500,000 Iraqi children are malnourished and the country has only three months of medicine left. Now, with war looming once again, the children are more vulnerable than ever: And this is America's fault why? For over a decade UN sanctions have allowed for food and medical aid to flow to the Iraqi civilian population, but Hussein's regime has instead diverted billions of dollars to reconstruction of his military and his WMD programs.
âWhile it is impossible to predict both the nature of any war and the number of expected deaths and injuries, casualties among children will be in the thousands, probably in the tens of thousands and possibly in the hundreds of thousands ... Iraqâs 13-million children are at grave risk of starvation, disease, death and psychological trauma.â
In 1991, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney â then Secretary of Defence â directed one of the largest and deadliest military campaigns in history. The Washington victory parade alone cost more than $12-million. The attack began late on a clear moonless night, while children were sleeping. Laser bombs work best when itâs clear; they become confused in the clouds.
If any soldier can hear me, if any soldier can read this, in the name of God, realize why you have been called there. You have been called there to kill the children. What century are we living in? What have we become? Oh, this is outrageous bullshit! American soldiers have no more desire to kill children than they do to kill Iraqi soldiers who surrender. They have not and will not intentionally kill unarmed civilians and categorically have no desire to kill innocent children. To state otherwise is to reveal your true duplicitous nature and the depth of your hatred for America and all it stands for. American soldiers are willing to give their lives in defense of their country and in the cause of liberating nearly 25 million people who currently live under a brutal and savage regime that your lies and propaganda support. You are an ignorant lying seditious traitor and I only wish you were in the same room with me right now so I could take some satisfaction in beating you to a pulp for this kind of insult to the brave men and women who don the uniform of America and fight to preserve our way of life.
Magie Dominic is author of The Queen of Peace Room, a personal exploration of violence in the second half of the twentieth century. Another book to cross off my reading list. Die, you ignorant commie slut traitor.
#1
apparently Mugabe's rape rooms, the slave trade, and endless despotic torture chambers do not merit her attention as does America's inability to liberate millions of oppressed Iraqis without accidently killing as few as we possibly can. Nor does she care if another 3,000 innocent Americans are incinerated into dust, other than the fact that her maid never seems to properly wipe it all off her fine furniture.
#4
I prefer the equivalence between nuclear and conventional weapons. W80s for all!
Posted by: Brian ||
03/18/2003 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I suppose that the authoritarian left's pretense of concern for the lives of innocents is the worst and most evil aspect of their long-running effort to preserve brutal dictatorships and promote their own social superiority. This sickening whore lies when it suits her, pretends to care about children when her real objective is genocide, and actually gets a pass from the media for it all. This is about to end. These people have a lot to answer for, and it's time to collect.
#7
This silly scrag's scribblings entomb everthing I loath about the hypocritical handwringing dictator-supporting left. But please, please do not call her 'slut' or 'whore' as this denigrates perfectly self-respecting women who either like to have a lot of sex, or who sell sex for money.
#9
anon1, The answer is c) (for all of them, however many there are). Without Saddam there'd be no b), and hence no a) either. But try explaining that to a leftie...
The Soviet 125mm tank gun, the main gun for the T-64 and T-72 series of tanks have a DU round available to it. It is impossible for me to believe the coalition tanks were the only one launching these projectiles. I don't recall any references to the Soviet APDSFSDU round being fired in this missive, as it undoubtedly was.
Second, you can always tell a polemicist who doesn't have the facts at hand. They use such phrases as "as many as', 'no fewer than' and at least. But my favorite is the phrase 'as many as.' My counter is that the writer also means as few as zero.
Third, for my part, I don't want a woman as wacky as this getting a hold of my root.
#12
I've gotta stick up for Greg - I didn't think it was inappropriate as background info . Fred?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#13
It's appropriate as an example of what the fifth column's hollering about - that's why I left it in.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/18/2003 21:48 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Well, she's full of it concerning 'empty radioactive shells'. DU rounds are solid, meant to penetrate armor not explode.
As for the plea to soldier's 'in the name of God'...the best reply is this from a WWII GI talking to Ambrose:
"Imagine this. In the spring of 1945, around the world, the sight of a twelve man squad of teenage boys, armed and in uniform brought terror to people's hearts. Whether it was a Red Army squad in Berlin or Leipzig, or Warsaw, or a German squad in Holland, or a Japanese squad in Manilla or Seoul or Bejiing, that squad meant rape, pillage, looting, wanton destruction, senseless killing. But there was an exception, a squad of GI's" [and I would add a squad of Tommy's]"a sight that brought the biggest smiles...."
I would go on but you get the picture as this cow never would. The grand sons and grand daughters of these GI's and Tommy's are in the desert even now and would make their fathers and grandfathers proud in every measure. That she so cavalierly demeans them as 'child killers' I can only say SHAME ON YOU Magie Dominic.
Sorry for my long-windedness, but this child-killer shit gets right under my skin....I guess mad-cow Magie is the first to publically state such?
#16
Here's a response that I wrote to articles in the Seattle P-I about the use of DU rounds by the Navy earlier this year:
To the Editor,
I agree with the article's implication that contamination of the ocean with radioactive material would alarm fishermen and consumers alike. However, I hope you will take the time to do further research on the actual level of danger to the public.
The article correctly states that depleted uranium remains radioactive for approximately 4.5 billion years. Basically, the time period you refer to is the radioactive half-life of the material. The half-life for a given radioisotope is the time for half the radioactive nuclei in any sample to undergo radioactive decay. After two half-lives, there will be one fourth the original sample, after three half-lives one eighth the original sample, and so on.
For example, Plutonium is one of the most highly radioactive materials on earth--so much so that it is not normally found in nature, but is created by man through atomic fission. Plutonium's half-life is approximately 24,000 years (Knapp, Brian, Nuclear Physics, 1996). The end of the decay process results in a material that is stable, like lead.
In fact, depleted uranium's long half life makes it useful for radiation shielding! Some DU applications include use in medical isotope casks, radioactive source shields, tank armor, and ammunition for the CIWS (AKA Phalanx) and the A-10 aircraft used by the Air Force and National Guard.
The real "danger" of DU is not radioactivity, but toxicity. Uranium is a heavy metal, like arsenic, cadmium, barium, zinc, lead and mercury. Given the small number of rounds fired during the tests you reported, the level of toxic exposure in a given area of the sea is virtually statistically insignificant. Ironically, the lead weights that fishermen use to hold down their baited hooks and nets are much more commonly deposited in the ocean environment than DU. Perhaps your next story can sensationalize that danger?
One of the best articles on the risks of exposure to DU is a recent study by the British Royal Society--the summary is all you need to read.
I've linked to the summary if you need more info.
Posted by: Jim ||
03/19/2003 1:49 Comments ||
Top||
I've heard a lot of rumors lately about the Muslim Student Association â the national organization of Muslim college students that boasts chapters in over a thousand colleges across America and Canada, and is one of the most influential religious organizations around. They've been accused of promoting Islamic fundamentalism and inviting speakers who spew violent anti-American rhetoric. I thought I'd check things out for myself.
I'm Jewish, but thanks to my Middle Eastern features, I can easily pass for an Arab. So, last week, I attended a closed (as in Muslim students only) meeting sponsored by the MSA at Queensborough Community College, just across the bridge from me in Manhattan. The event featured a speech about Iraq by two American-based leaders of Al-Muhajiroun, a well-known Islamic fundamentalist organization that supports the ideology of Osama bin Laden, and whose worldwide leader, Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad, has long been suspected of ties with al-Qaida. About 20 students were in attendance. The president introduced the two speakers â Abu Yousuf and Muhammad Faheed.
Yousuf, 20, clad in black jeans and a gray sweater... was born in America, and became involved with Al-Muhajiroun at age 15. He says he attended a "camp" in Sudan last year, and now leads the New York chapter of the organization. Faheed, 23, stood out a bit more. A freshly grown beard complimented his brown turban, long white robe and a green military sweater with Arabic writing on it. He was born in Pakistan, and says he immigrated to America at age 3 and now assists Yousuf with Al-Muhajiroun in New York. Yousuf explained that the war against Iraq is about oil and Western dominance over Muslim nations under the pretext of disarmament. He argued that President Bush is starting a "Christian crusade to rid the world of Islam," and that after Iraq, America will likely attack the rest of the Arab countries. He said American soldiers [will] "starve, rape and murder our brothers and sisters," and that something must be done if that happens. Well, since it won't then I guess there's not much on their to do list.
"America is hypocritical," he asserts. "Now it says it must 'disarm' Saddam, but they armed him in the first place! And most of the crimes against Saddam's people were committed while America supported him and turned a blind eye to his atrocities." OK..so he tells the kiddies that Sadaam did the crimes thanks to us and they should be upset we are finally stopping him now because....
Yousuf, "America doesn't want Saddam attacking his own people, so what are they going to do to liberate the Iraqis? Attack Saddam's people!" ah... it's ok if Sadaam does it, but America must stop him so we can attack them ourselves.
"Because there is no way to justify this war," Yousuf said, "we must find a solution." He then introduced Brother Faheed to explain just what that solution is. Faheed immediately declared that there is an outright conspiracy against Islam by Christians and Jews, and that as Muslims, "we must not recognize any government authority, or any authority at all besides Allah." "We are not Americans," he shouted. "We are Muslims. [The U.S.] is going to deport and attack us! Heck, why wouldn't we just save the plane fare and attack you here?
"It is us vs. them! Truth against falsehood! The colonizers and masters against the oppressed, and we will burn down the master's house!" Faheed argued that it is against the Koran for Muslims to protest the American government because that would constitute unfaithfully recognizing the authority of a non-Muslim country. "We reject the U.N., reject America, reject all law and order. Don't lobby Congress or protest because we don't recognize Congress! The only relationship you should have with America is to topple it!" Faheed explained that those in attendance should also reject the authority of secular Muslim states such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, "which have been bought out by America ... Mushariff gets $60 Million a month to betray and arrest us."
The main thrust of his presentation — that the proper Muslim response to an American war with Iraq should not be intellectual or to protest against the government, but to join "appropriate" Muslim organizations and prepare for some sort of physical confrontation with America. "Eventually there will be a Muslim in the White House dictating the laws of Shariah."
Faheed then opened the floor to questions, and I immediately asked what it is that people in the room should do, what specific organizations they should join. Al-Qaida? Hamas? Hezbollah? Faheed said that he "already answered that question — you must join true Muslim organizations." But he was nonspecific. I asked for names, details. Yousuf took over and told the students to "use the Koran to divine whether a Muslim organization is true — does it recognize the authority of the West? Does it use true Muslim principles for guidance? You see, there is only one good Muslim organization out of every 73." Well now, that's actually fairly reassuring isn't it... reaffirms my belief that most muslims think these guys are little snot nosed wackos.
He still wouldn't mention specific groups, or even directly promote his own organization. Probably a technicality that helps to prevent him from getting officially labeled a terrorist organization and ruin his lucrative speaking gig.
The students in the room asked basic but complimentary questions like, "How can we support the people in Iraq financially?" and "What kind of rhetoric should we use when we talk with non-Muslims about the situation?" Again reassuring, since they weren't exactly asking how to strap on the suicide belts!
People started to trickle out, and the MSA leader thanked everyone for coming. I had a chance to chat for a few minutes in private with the leaders of Al-Muhajiroun. Yousuf explained that he speaks at many colleges throughout the New York area, and that most of his speeches are arranged by the MSA. In fact, Yousuf invited me to a speech he was giving the very next day being sponsored by the MSA of Marymount College in Manhattan. As I helped Yousuf and Faheed clean up the pizza boxes and empty plates, I wondered how students likely receiving federal aid to attend a public college can agree with speakers who promote the destruction of the very government that is educating them? Whether some of these students would consider joining the kinds of organizations that were being promoted? How such rhetoric can be accepted at an American university? And when I walked out, I realized that those rumors about the MSA had just been confirmed. I edited out parts of this...but I found it overall to be reassuring. Except for the extent of the MSA, it didn't sound like the students were all that fired up and they probably "trickled" out to go do their homework so they could get a good job and get a 4bdrm house and a SUV with 3.5 kids. The recruiting is probably tougher for the Jihadi anarchists since these types of events don't really help you get hot dates with the chicks. But... I suppose they only need to find a few really depressed and suicidal ones to make an lasting impact.
Posted by: becky ||
03/18/2003 11:46 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm curious whether women were allowed in the meeting.
"Drive on the wrong side of the road! Tear the tags off of your mattress! Reproduce games without the express written consent of Major League Baseball!"
#2
The MSA is the largest jihadi operation in the US. In Jan. 2002, their Ohio State cell lost use of university webspace after they advocated jihad against America. Sami Hussayen, the U of Idaho Phd candidate who was arrested a couple of weeks ago for immigration fraud, is President of the UI MSA.
www.webs.uidaho.edu/diversity/Al-Hussayen.htm
In the DOJ indictment (Feb 26) they claim that Hussayen posted the following material on one of his websites: "...the Mujahid (warrior) must kill himself if he knows that this will lead to killing a great number of the enemies, and that he will not be able to kill them without killing himself first, or demolishing a center vital to the enemy or its military force, and so on. This is not possible except by involving the human element in the operation. In this new era, this can be accomplished with the modern means of bombing or bringing down an airplane on an important location that will cause the enemy great losses."
However, the MSA conducts annual conventions jointly with the ICNA and ISNA (the largest organization of American Muslims, and the American front for the Pakistani terrorist entity, Jamaat-i-Islami), and their ISNA patrons are paid consultants to the State Department and associates of the Grover Norquist section of the Republican Party.
#3
You know, when I was in college I attended a few meetings run by Jewish organizations. The worst they ever asked me to do was give money or time to help charitable organizations, or donate money to Israel.
How is it again that what happens in the world is all the fault of us Zionists again?
Edited for brevity.
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix said Tuesday he does not believe Iraq will use chemical or biological weapons during a war, even though it can produce warheads and deadly agents to fill them.
The reason, he said, was world opinion would turn in favor of the United States if Saddam Hussein used weapons of mass destruction.
And even on the brink of defeat, when using such weapons might be a last resort, Saddam's government would still care about public opinion, Blix said. "Some people care about their reputation even after death," he said. What planet is this idiot from? Saddam: "I would rather be thought of as a torturer, a murderous tyrant, and a chemical-weapon-using killer of Kurds and Shi'as, but not a chemical-weapon-using killer of Americans and Brits. I draw the line there!"
During 3 1/2 months of inspections, Blix said, his teams found no evidence of chemical or biological weapons.
Asked whether he believed Saddam would use such weapons, if he has them, Blix said: "I think they would be able if the weapons were there - and I'm not saying they are. And I'm not saying that they have means of delivery - but they could have it. ... But I doubt that they would have the will to do it." Do we need further proof this moron is brain dead? Can we pull the plug?
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/18/2003 09:48 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Gee, thanks Dr. Strangeblix. Now I can sleep at night with your assurance that SH is going to play nice. Nuthin to worry about here.
Psst!-- don't bet on it. Bring your gas mask, just in case. It couldn't hurt.
#3
Blix looks like an older man on TV. Can someone explain to me how such a pollyanna optimist managed to live this long?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Some people care about their reputation even after death." A rather insightful comment. Seems like everyone connected with the UN has "their reputation" to preserve too, however poor it may be. Blixie's brain is a strange mass indeed. The frozen brain of Ted Williams would have done a better job of finding WMD than than this longtime UN hack.
THE first shots of the war have been fired, killing at least one Iraqi during a suspected operation to mine the waters off Kuwait. But that opening skirmish is about to be dwarfed by the most formidable military assault in modern warfare: 250,000 British and American troops â backed by more than 1,000 aircraft, 400 tanks and a 110-strong armada â are poised to unleash their awesome power on Saddam Husseinâs Iraq the moment the order is given. The first clash occurred in the mouth of the Khawr al-Zubayr river, a few miles south of the port of Umm Qasr, when a Kuwaiti gunboat challenged a flotilla of about 25 Iraqi dhows. The boats failed to respond and the Kuwaitis opened fire. It was unclear whether the dhows had laid any mines.
The Royal Navy has four mine counter-measure vessels in the Gulf which were searching the waterway last night. Tensions in the waters off Iraq are running high and coalition ships are alert to the threat of mines and terrorist strikes. A British ship escorting Royal Navy and US minesweepers was threatened yesterday while at anchor in the northern Gulf. A cargo vessel, feared to be on an al-Qaeda suicide mission, came within 800 yards of RFA Sir Bedivere during a tense hour-long stand-off. Crew members trained two machineguns on the 500-tonne ship, The stand-off ended only when it was driven away by the heavily armed USS Ardent.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 09:04 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
first shots fired by the Kuwaiti Navy!!!!!! How about that! Yar, maties, give'em a broadside for Allah and the Al-Sabah's :)
Tony Blair has won Commons backing to send UK forces into battle with Saddam Hussein - but also suffered another major backbench rebellion. Amid dramatic scenes in the Commons on Tuesday night, 217 MPs - as many as 139 of them Labour backbenchers - backed a rebel amendment opposing the government's stance on Iraq, with 396 opposing the motion. There was relief for the government after fears that many more of Labour's backbenchers would oppose Tony Blair's line on Iraq.
But the revolt among Labour MPs was still up on the last vote according to rebels who said 139 backbenchers had opposed Mr Blair compared to 122 at the last vote. Labour rebel Graham Allen said the rebellion was the largest ever against a government and was a very serious message to the prime minister. But don't forget Tony has one of the largest majorities - he can afford it.
But the government immediately rolled out big-hitting ministers to hail victory. Within minutes of the vote being announced, Labour chairman John Reid told BBC News Online: "It is now clear that parliament has voted clearly to support the government in its efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. Now that the democratic decision has been taken it is time for the country and parliament to unite." And Mr Blair's official spokesman echoed the message, saying: "It is now time for all of us in Parliament and in the country to come together and show the support our Armed Forces deserve."
The amendment drawn up by rebel MPs said there is no moral justification for war without a new UN resolution. The vote comes as Mr Blair prepares to send UK forces into battle against Saddam Hussein. It followed eight hours of impassioned debate in the Commons during which the prime minister said Saddam Hussein would be strengthened "beyond measure" if the world fails to make Iraq disarm.
In one of the most important speeches of his career, the prime minister urged MPs "to give a lead, to show we will stand up for what we know to be right". Mr Blair said the only people who would suffer if Saddam is not tackled would be the Iraqi people. "Who will celebrate and who will weep if we pull our troops back now?" he said. [...] Mr Blair told MPs that lifting the threat of force would send a dangerous message to other "tyrants" and leave the Iraqi people in "pitiless terror". "I will not be party to such a course," he told MPs. "This is not the time to falter." Some commentators saw his comments as a hint he would quit rather than pull UK forces out of the Gulf.
But Mr Blair faced opposition from a number of Labour MPs during the debate. The prime minister engaged in a frantic round of meetings with Labour backbenchers privately before the debate in a bid to win enough support for his stance on Iraq. Moving the rebel amendment, former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle called war "illegal, immoral and illogical".
But Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith backed the government's stance, saying Saddam Hussein had "the means, mentality and motive" to threaten Britain's national security.
Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy said he believed the case for war without a second UN resolution had not been made. That did not mean, however, that his party would not give troops put into action "full moral support", he added. Meanwhile, the Tory leadership suffered three more resignations over Iraq after the departure as a whip of John Randall last week. Shadow environment minister Jonathan Sayeed, shadow home affairs minister Humfrey Malins and shadow health minister John Baron all left their posts on Tuesday.
#1
Unless I'm very much mistaken, the margin of victory for the Government was actually wider this time around than the first vote last month, even with the additional Labour rebels. Anyone have the numbers to do a side-by-side comparison?
Posted by: Joe ||
03/18/2003 17:25 Comments ||
Top||
"But the revolt among Labour MPs was still up on the last vote with 140 backbenchers opposing Mr Blair compared to 122 at the last vote... Support for the government motion fell by 22 votes to 412 from 434 when Iraq was last debated."
"The analogy produces an interesting scenario: The two sides here are playing for different objectives."
Chess is a mind game, the objective of which is to checkmate or kill the opposing king. Ultimately that is the only way to win, unless an opponent, staring inevitable defeat in the face, voluntarily opts to resign. It is no surprise that throughout the ages chess has attracted both political and military leaders, including Queen Elizabeth I, her father, Henry VIII, the Russian czars Ivan the Terrible and Peter the Great, and Napoleon.
The Soviet dictator Josef Stalin regularly congratulated his chess champions on their latest victories, while in our own times, the British prime minister and George W. Bush's staunchest ally, Tony Blair, wrote the foreword to the official account of the 2000 World Chess Championship held in London.
During the Cold War, the rivalry between the United States and the Soviet Union often was depicted as a chess battle, and the showdown today between Bush and Saddam Hussein might be viewed the same way. So, what light can the strategy and tactics of chess throw on the Iraq crisis?
First, let us examine how the opposing cultures shape up as chess players. Although the USSR was committed to state support of chess and most of the 14 world champions have been Soviet citizens, the most highly publicized international chess clashes in living memory were both won by America -- the match between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky in 1972 and the match 25 years later between IBM's supercomputer Deep Blue and the reigning Russian world champion, Garry Kasparov.
Iraq's chess roots go back much farther; indeed 1,000 years ago Baghdad was a world capital of science and mathematics as well as being the birthplace of organized competitive chess. However, the Islamic attitude toward chess periodically has grown hostile. Though the game is not specifically proscribed in the Quran, some Muslim lawyers in about A.D. 800 extended its condemnation of dice and images to chess and chess players. Ash-Shafii, a 9th-century Arab jurist, put forward counter arguments, claiming that the game could be played not just for a stake or pure recreation but as a mental exercise for the solution of military tactics. This view has tended to prevail, though when the ayatollahs seized power, chess was banned in Iran.
As every chess strategist knows, achieving checkmate, and thus ultimate victory, depends in the first instance on accumulating a prior set of advantageous conditions. These include gain of material, superior mobility, control of terrain and the ability to make the opponent react to your tempo of operations. Of these, material advantage is nearly always the prime factor. "God is on the side of the big battalions" was a Napoleonic maxim that holds good today.
In the current situation, America enjoys an overwhelming set of advantages, not least in sheer material force, which, in the normal course of events, would lead to a quick and annihilating victory. However, the analogy with chess produces an interesting scenario: The two sides here are playing for different objectives.
The United States is looking for a rapid checkmate that directly takes out the enemy king, Saddam Hussein. Iraq is merely trying to survive on the board, to delay matters indefinitely until, for example, a fresh U.S. presidential election produces a less belligerent executive, as occurred after the Gulf War of 1991 or until the weight of pacifist public opinion in the West renders warlike action impossible.
In that context, Saddam's decision to destroy a handful of his longer range missiles exerts a useful delaying effect. In chess terms, Hussein's goal is to have only his king left, with no possible moves but not checkmated. Sometimes you sacrifice all your mobile pieces to be left only with the immobile king, hence a draw.
Bush's huge buildup of troops in the Persian Gulf is a clear parallel with massing forces around the enemy king prior to delivering the checkmating blow. Usually this succeeds, but I have seen inexperienced players with a huge material advantage but unskilled in king-hunting chase a sole enemy king around the board only to blunder into stalemate.
Another chess term of assistance in this situation is the "consultation game" popular in the 1930s and '40s, in which each side included amateur enthusiasts delighted to participate alongside the grandmaster in decision-making. Naturally the helpers, often wealthy aficionados whose support could further the champions' careers, rarely would come up with any move of value in comparison with the grandmasters' own choices. However, for excellent pecuniary and social reasons, it was vital to avoid alienating or insulting them. A similar dilemma faces Bush in his efforts to enlist the backing of the United Nations. Saddam, on the other hand, enjoys the undisputed advantage of being able to decide all his moves for himself.
The ancient Asian cultures have produced parallel games to chess. They also have produced one of the supreme military thinkers of all time, Sun Tzu, who wrote, "The supreme act of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting." If America can remove Saddam in this fashion, pressuring him to resign, for example, by the massing of troops in overwhelming numbers on his borders, it will have prevented stalemate, satisfied the consultation partners and won the game in one fell swoop.
It seems more likely to me, however, that Saddam's insistence on playing out the endgame in his hope of a stalemate that leaves him in power will unleash an attack that exploits every facet of American material, territorial, mobility and initiative-based advantages.
The author of this opinion is Raymond Keene he is a chess grandmaster. Based on my observations, It's my guess that Saddam has not only never played chess, but hes never played stratego, chinese checkers, go!, poker, old maid or any other primary game of strategy.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/18/2003 03:46 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mr. Keene could use another hobby...
Posted by: El Id ||
03/18/2003 16:08 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Something involving heavy drinking and women of easy virtue I would hope.
Posted by: frank martin ||
03/18/2003 16:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'd like that hobby...where do I sign up?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Give me a break. This is like a game of chess where we have an endless supply of queens on steroids with extra super powers, an endless supply of kings sitting safely off the board and pawns that can move like bishops and are unlikely to be removed from the board even if attacked.
Sadaam is playing with mostly pawns, the majority of which will change color in the opening move, a couple of rooks that also can unexpectedly change color, a queen that might decide to bump off her own king and couple of killer bishops with WMD's....pieces we have but don't use.
While he may be able to run around the board for awhile hiding behind his pawns ..in the hopes that his opponent gets tired and goes home...it's highly unlikely it will happen.
This game is much more like Risk. The article is interesting, but Raymond, Raymond...you need to get out more.
#6
But there's the more-valid saying that "Russians play chess, while Americans play poker." If it's poker, the Iraq runup reminds me of a game in which the player holding the four-ace+king hand keeps running up the pot until he's ready to clean out his opponent.
See also Playing Poker with Korea.
(Preview shows a screwed-up anchor with included HTML, and I couldn't figure out how to make the "Link" button work. (Sigh!) The URL for the referended article is: "http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5367")
Posted by: Old Grouch ||
03/18/2003 21:55 Comments ||
Top||
In his earlier years in power, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was an ardent secularist determined to stamp out any Islamic political thought, especially if it came from the downtrodden Shiite Muslim majority in Iraq. Now, in what could be the last days before a war, Hussein is casting himself as a holy warrior and the coming war as a battle between Muslims and infidels. Weak, Sammy. Very weak...
"They are coming here, the enemy, to destroy Muslims," a preacher bellowed Friday at the Khadamiya mosque, the holiest site for Shiite Muslims in Baghdad. "Here in Iraq it is the beginning and after that, other Muslim areas will be attacked. So in this time we should be beside Islam before everything. And this is our great day to become martyrs. We should stand with President Saddam Hussein, God keep him, in this great day. This is not President Saddam Hussein's war. This is a Muslim war." Sammy's trying to make it one, and Mr Holy Man may find himself explaining his devotion to The Great Man in a week or so...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 01:54 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"explaining his devotion to The Great Man"
"It's hotter in Paradise than I thought! Say, isn't that a pitchfork? Ouch!"
Posted by: Steve ||
03/18/2003 14:22 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"And why do the 72 'virgins' have red skin, horns, and long tails???"
Iraqi opposition groups meeting in Turkey agreed on Tuesday to put their forces under U.S.-led command in the event of war. The decision mainly concerns tens of thousands of Iraqi Kurdish "peshmerga" fighters in the autonomous north of the country, whose representatives attended the meeting in the Turkish capital. United States envoy Zalmay Khalilzad said: "The Iraqi parties present...have committed themselves to fully cooperate with the coalition and to put whatever forces they have under the command and control of the coalition commanders." How does "The Kurdish Legion" sound to you as a working title?
He struggled to hammer out a deal between the opposition groups and neighbouring Turkey on how to work peacefully in any U.S.-led assault on northern Iraq. As war looms, Turkey has yet to formalise how it will cooperate with the United States, its NATO ally, let alone with an array of Kurdish groups it traditionally mistrusts. Khalilzad said the groups were working on a consulting mechanism to avoid clashes that local Iraqi Kurdish leaders say could be possible if Turkey enters the region in force. "We are thinking of the mechanism for Iraqis and Americans and Turkey, so they can remain in touch, to deal with issues as they arise," the envoy told reporters. "It will focus on containing any sources of tension," a Kurdish source added. How about if Turkey just sits this one out?
The main points of tension are the Iraqi cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, the heart of the country's northern oil industry.
Kurds feel the cities are historically theirs and thousands of Kurds expelled from the region by the government of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might return there during a war.
Turkey fears the Kurds may try to seize control of the oil fields, a step toward making their autonomous region in northern Iraq into an independent state. Khalilzad said Iraqi Kurdish groups at the meeting had agreed to hold back their people. "The Iraqi parties agreed to discourage the movement of civilian populations or militias into towns and cities such as Kirkuk and Mosul," he said. "The United States and the coalition will take responsibility for allowing movements of populations." But Kurdish sources at the meeting said Turkey had refused to promise not to act independently in northern Iraq. Bitter experience of armed Kurdish rebellion has taught Ankara that the region is essential to its own security.
U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell has urged Turkey not to act on its own in northern Iraq, where Turkish forces have been stationed for years to crack down on Kurd rebels who base there.
"I don't think the Turks want to go into northern Iraq militarily as an end in itself," Khalilzad said. Anybody want to wager on how soon the Turks will pass that resolution in light of this agreement?
Posted by: Steve ||
03/18/2003 01:43 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"I don't think the Turks want to go into northern Iraq militarily as an end in itself," Khalilzad said.
That's a fairly weak statement. How about using words like, "assured", or "agreed". It's clear they will militarily go in there, but he just doesn't think it will be as "an end in itself". Very, very weak if you ask me.
All U.N. international staffers in Iraq have left the country, a day after Secretary-general Kofi Annan said he was pulling them out for safety reasons, U.N. spokesman Fred Eckhard said on Tuesday. "The last plane has taken off from Baghdad to Larnaca, Cyprus. At the end of the operation, more than 300 international staff will have departed," Eckhard told reporters at U.N. headquarters. Boy, that was fast! They must of had their bags packed.
The evacuation of all foreign U.N. employees was wrapped up less than a day after President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave his country with his sons or face war. Saddam on Tuesday rejected that ultimatum. "The withdrawal is considered temporary, and should there not be military action and some other solution to this crisis be found -- some peaceful solution -- we are ready to go right back to work," Eckhard said. Too late, Fred. Better look for another job.
Those withdrawn from Iraq included weapons inspectors and support staff from the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the spokesman said. Also pulled out were U.N. humanitarian workers including those running the oil-for-food program under which Iraq sells oil and uses the proceeds to buy food and other civilian goods. The United Nations estimates that the program is the sole source of food for more than 60 percent of Iraqis. Annan, acting on the advice of the United States, also authorized the withdrawal from Iraq of the U.N. peacekeeping mission monitoring a demilitarized zone along the Iraq-Kuwait border since the end of the Gulf War in 1991. Bet they'll be hanging around on Cyprus with the UN picking up their bar tab, bitching about how if they just had a few more weeks they could of disarmed Saddam.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/18/2003 01:49 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Bet they'll be hanging around on Cyprus with the UN picking up their bar tab, bitching about how if they just had a few more weeks they could of disarmed Saddam."
actually a saw something serious just like that, i think it was in the BBC. "just one more month" veritaully exactly as you said, minus the bar.
#3
Ah, yes, Cyprus...the island nation divided by Greece and Turkey for over a quarter century. The UN is "working on resolving" this disputed territory between two supposed allies (NATO). Can we imagine how difficult it would be for the UN if the two countries had real enmity? (sarcasm off)
Cyprus is an example of how truly ineffective the UN is and if those inspectors were left in Iraq, they'd be there 25 years from now with squat to show for it!
The former head of Iraq's air defence systems, Shamel Majid, says the army won't defend Saddam Hussein, adding that morale is low and equipment in short supply. The New Zealand-based Majid added that even the elite Republican Guard would cave in swiftly in the face of an attack. That's about what we're expecting, which worries me...
However, he warned that once war broke out, the military would abandon its command and control centres and run operations from city suburbs. I don't imagine there will be many command and control centers left above company level...
Majid, who fled Iraq with his family five years ago, said although he was in favour of a war to topple Saddam, he was concerned at the potential for civilian casualties. "It is a good idea to topple Saddam Hussein, whatever the cost — the important thing for the Iraqi people is to live life free," said Majid, who now works for New Zealand's Refugee and Migrant Service in Napier. But Majid, who has seen Baghdad bombed several times, said any attack should be limited to military targets. "We don't want them to bomb the Iraqi people or what's left of the civilian infrastructure — the water plants, power stations and bridges — like they did last time ... They said they won't attack Iraqi people, and we hope they are honest and serious about this." The objective was different the last time around. This time, it makes more sense to bomb the crap out of military targets...
"The problem is that the Iraqi regime has always hidden weapons in civilian neighbourhoods, that's why civilians are killed by the American bombs," he said. This kind of assessment always bothers me. If you go in expecting the enemy to fall apart and he doesn't, it's a setback. If you go in expecting him to fight like a sonofabitch, using everything from WMDs to barbeque forks, and he doesn't, then it's a nice surprise.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 12:45 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mass surrenders and dancing in the streets of Basrah would be nice - no doubt about that. But it would be foolish to count on it happening.
#3
this whole civilian infrastructure thing forgets the difference between GWI and GWII....
with CENTCOM/USAFI/AFI... commanding baghdad, you can reestablish everything in a very short amount of time: unlimited oil revs, plus army corps of engineers, plus whole crapload of contractors probably able touse US Mil transport... can replace everything that can be broken down to fit in a c-17 in a week... GE should be doing some major sales!
French President Jacques Chirac says there is no justification for a unilateral decision to attack Iraq and that Baghdad presents no immediate threat justifying such a move. Chirac, the strongest anti-war voice in the West, said on Tuesday that the U.S. ultimatum to Iraq would compromise future efforts to deal with crises linked to arms of mass destruction â an apparent reference to North Korea's nuclear programme. The president singled out the United States for giving Baghdad the war ultimatum that France had pledged to veto if it was brought to the United Nations Security Council for a vote. "Whether it concerns the necessary disarmament of Iraq or the desirable change of the regime in this country, there is no justification for a unilateral decision to resort to force," Chirac said in a statement. "Iraq today does not represent an immediate threat that justifies an immediate war. This is a serious decision, while Iraq's disarmament is underway and the inspections have shown that they were a credible alternative for disarming this country." Jacques, we happened to disagree with that position, at first respectfully. Now get out of the way. Go play in Central Africa or something...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 12:02 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
no justification for a unilateral decision to attack Iraq
What is this bull about unilateralism ? US, UK, Spain, Denmark, Kuwait etc, etc This is not a unilateral decision. Quit your damn whinning !
#3
How about this, Jacques: we are making a multinational unilateral decision to attack Saddam and Co. And that's a fact, Jack.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2003 12:55 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Chirac said "...the inspections have shown that they were a credible alternative for disarming this country."
French ambassador Jean-David Levitte said: "If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely..."
Is pot legal in France ? Cause these guys are HIGH.
#5
Jacques: When you are in a hole, the first thing to do is to stop digging.
Posted by: Matt ||
03/18/2003 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
the U.S. ultimatum to Iraq would compromise future efforts to deal with crises linked to arms of mass destruction
Once we take care of Iraq, there won't be many crises because people will know we mean business when we tell them to disarm.
#7
Oprah may need to move her show to a French venue soon, for a more receptive audience, non?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2003 14:44 Comments ||
Top||
#8
When Jacques says, "Iraq today does not represent an immediate threat," he means to French people. The Islamo-Nazis'll blow up Washington not Paris. Iraq's nothing the French need to worry about.
Posted by: Christopher Johnson ||
03/18/2003 16:06 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Domingo, Timespeak: any action that does not have the support of the New York Times and France is by definition unilateral.
Posted by: john ||
03/18/2003 19:51 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Pull up your highchair next to Kimchee, Jackie, and start banging for attention. You're next.
And they think they're going to be in on the rebuilding.
A flotilla of small Iraqi ships sailed into the Gulf on Tuesday in what a U.S. admiral said might be a bid to sneak out explosives to attack U.S. or British warships. Rear Admiral John Kelly, in charge of a battle group led by the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, said a U.S. ultimatum giving Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours to leave or face war had raised U.S. fears that Baghdad might strike first. Kelly said that Iraq forced about 50 dhows, or traditional wooden-hulled cargo boats, to leave southern Iraq overnight, far more than the usual number. Dhows are checked to try to prevent smuggling under U.N. sanctions on Iraq. "If he (Saddam) flushes enough out he may successfully be able to get one by that either has mines or explosives on it," Kelly said. "Iraq would love to be able to damage one of our ships and blame it on a terrorist attack so it doesn't have any fingerprint," he said. He said the dhow captains had been forced to leave the Khor Abadallah waterway at gunpoint. Kelly did not believe the dhows were leaving merely to escape any imminent invasion by 280,000 U.S. and British military personnel. On Monday, President Bush gave Saddam 48 hours to leave Iraq or face war. "Our concern is now with the ultimatum he (Saddam) may be more inclined to act," Kelly said. The Lincoln is one of three U.S. aircraft carriers in the Gulf. All are accompanied by a fleet of frigates, cruisers and destroyers. Nobody is getting a small boat anywhere near a carrier. They might be able to blow up one of the small patrol boats sent to check these Iraqi dhows. Be careful, guys. Alan Massey, the captain of Britain's Ark Royal aircraft carrier in the Gulf, also said there had been a "mass exodus of small Iraqi boats." Massey said that the dhows were being "searched bottom to top and sent on their way as soon as it is determined that there is no threat." He did not mention any suspicious finds. U.S. and British naval commanders fear that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network could make suicide strikes against ships in the Gulf like those against the U.S. warship Cole in October 2000 and the French merchant vessel Limburg last year. In both cases, militants are thought to have approached warships near land on tiny boats and detonated explosives. Seventeen U.S. soldiers were killed on the Cole. Any of these boats that get too close are going to have warning shots fired real close. The second shot goes through the hull.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/18/2003 12:12 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Give me a fast ship, for I intend to go in harm's way."
As the Submarine Service said in WW2: "Sink 'em all!"
Good hunting, and get home safe.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/18/2003 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Some of these may be refugees trying to escape before the axe falls. As the Guys in the White Hats(TM), we need to check 'em before we sink 'em.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/18/2003 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Any suspicious vessels: send over a remotely-controlled dinghy, and make those on board abandon dhow. Then blow it out of the water. If they're reluctant, put some holes in it. Don't risk the life of any allied naval crewmen needlessly.
#5
Oh, and I don't know if anyone actually has a fleet of remote-controlled dinghys for such an eventuality, it was just an idea. Tell me if I'm talking £!*$ (again)...
Did I say "allied"? There's a Freudian slip on the briny deck
Sorry if I'm being thick - could you explain why "allied" is a Freudian slip. There are American, British, Australian, New Zealand and even Danish ships in harms way - I would have thought that it was reasonable to say that they are "allied" in this endeavour.
Posted by: Russell ||
03/18/2003 17:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It's probably me being thick. But aren't the forces out there usually referred to as "coalition", if anything, collectively. If you look at the line-up it does pretty much resemble the "allies" from WWII... It's past my bedtime.
#8
Bulldog---allied is the term of choice, I think. Coalition sounds sort of mushy and UNny. Yes, ALLIES r us. Coalition sounds like a collier that blew up.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2003 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
After months of displaying business-as-usual calm even as legions of U.S. troops assembled within striking distance of Iraq, Baghdad residents showed signs of panic today at the prospect of an imminent U.S. invasion and the lawlessness that it may spark. People cleared stores of bottled water and canned food, converted sacks of Iraqi currency into dollars and waited in long lines for gasoline. Merchants fearful of looting emptied their stores of electronics and designer clothing, while soldiers intensified work on trenches and removed sensitive files from government buildings. People crammed into cars with their household possessions and drove out of the city. Business was brisk at stores selling guns and ammunition as customers hurried in ahead of an expected invasion. Is this Iraq or any place South of the Mason/Dixon line?
Iraqis said publicly that they were arming themselves against the U.S. military, but many said privately that they were preparing themselves for the anarchy that could ensue from a collapse of the government. For months, this city of nearly 6 million people seemed impervious to the prospect of war. Residents boasted that U.S. threats were an everyday occurrence. Many insisted an invasion never would come to pass. Even if it did, they predicted, it would be similar to December 1998, when the United States fired cruise missiles at Baghdad for four nights, destroying several empty government buildings but doing little to affect the normal rhythms of life. People said that, in any case, stores would be stocked with food and filling stations with fuel. That was all under a previous administration, this president actually seems to mean what he says.
But now, the grim likelihood of an attack has enveloped Baghdad. Although state-run television and newspapers have not emphasized the imminence of war, largely because President Saddam Hussein's government does not want to spark panic and a possible insurrection, many residents have relied on shortwave radios and word of mouth to keep abreast of diplomatic efforts to avert a conflict. By early this morning, the resolve of the United States and Britain to use force, voiced at a summit conference in the Azores on Sunday, had ricocheted around the city. A collective "Oh Sh*t"
"We've heard the news," said Amal Medhi, 32, a mother of two young girls, as she waited on a busy street for her husband to pick her up — along with 18 bottles of water she had purchased. "An attack could happen at any time. Tonight. Tomorrow. So we must be prepared." Stay safe Mrs Medhi
Bottled water appeared to be in short supply. Many shops that used to display ample stock on the sidewalk were stripped bare. Those that still had a few bottles were selling them for as much as three times the normal price. At Baghdad's main downtown market, one distributor hawked six-bottle packages from the back of a pickup truck after being mobbed by purchasers. Shopkeepers who had run out of water said they were not sure whether they would receive additional shipments. "The distributor told me maybe by Thursday," Sahid Abid, the owner of a small food store, said as he loitered on a front stoop normally covered with water bottles. "There's clearly a shortage."
With bottled water in short supply, many residents turned to the next best thing: large plastic jerrycans, which they planned to fill with tap water. "This looks good," a stout, middle-aged woman said as she peered into a blue, five-gallon jug being sold by a sidewalk vendor. She bought two, the first supplies her family had purchased in preparing for war. She and others recalled the months after the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when Baghdad lacked electricity and running water, depriving people of not only lighting and air conditioning but also clean water and sewage treatment. Food production was affected, as was medical care. Outbreaks of cholera and typhoid erupted. "Should I fill my house with these?" she said, holding up two jugs. "There is only so much we can do. The rest is up to God."
People here fear not just another wave of bombing — one that Western military analysts predict will be more intense than anything this city has experienced — but also the bedlam that might result if the government crumbles and U.S. forces do not quickly establish control. There is also a fear that residents of Baghdad's slums will spill into wealthy neighborhoods to loot homes and businesses belonging to people who have grown rich through oil smuggling and their connections to Hussein's government. Anxious shopkeepers hauled expensive merchandise, from refrigerators to wool suits, out of their stores. The owner of a kitchen appliances showroom ordered workmen to build a brick wall in front of his display windows.
A few blocks away, Sami Alwan, the portly manager of an electronics store, watched as a dozen lanky workers wheeled out Chinese-made televisions and portable tape decks. He said they would be stored in his basement until the war ended. He said he feared looting, not by impoverished and angry Iraqis, but by U.S. troops. "They will come and take all of this," Alwan said, pointing to a stack of boomboxes made by a firm called Gosonic, a Panasonic knockoff. Such products are common in Baghdad because U.N. trade sanctions imposed after Iraq's 1990 invasion of Kuwait have restricted the import of Japanese brand-name electronic goods. When it was pointed out that U.S. soldiers have access to better electronic goods back home, Alwan was undeterred. "They are coming to rob Iraq," he growled. "It's not just our oil. They want everything."
Jewelers fearful of robbery have been emptying their shops of gold and selling it to frightened residents who want to convert Iraqi banknotes, which feature a large visage of Hussein, into a medium they believe will hold its value if he is toppled. People with similar goals besieged currency exchange dealers, lugging in satchels of worn Iraqi dinars and leaving with small wads of $100 bills. Fears about a war sent the dinar sinking from about 2,500 to 2,800 to the dollar. "It's much easier to keep your money in dollars," said a man who heaved a burlap sack stuffed with 4 million dinars into the Beneficial Exchange office. He left with 15 $100 bills, neatly folded and tucked into the front pocket of his pants. In the future, he said, "dollars will be very useful." Somehow I'm surprised that $ are available in such supply.
Posted by: Domingo ||
03/18/2003 10:17 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"There is also a fear that residents of Baghdad's slums will spill into wealthy neighborhoods to loot homes and businesses belonging to people who have grown rich through oil smuggling and their connections to Hussein's government."
#4
it is interesting though, that western reporters giving the "mood of bagdad" always seem to be speaking with educated, presumably Sunni residents. They dont seem to make it into the Shiite slums. Not to be too optimistic at this point, but its yet one mroe reason i dont trust press reports relating to public opnion in Bagdad.
....Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist any U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday. "If Saddam Hussein were to use chemical and biological weapons, this would change the situation completely and immediately for the French government," Jean-David Levitte said.... Maybe they could be 'Official Air Quality Smellers'...
Thanks... but no thanks, Frenchy... you've missed your opportunity to be relevant.
Posted by: ----------<<<<-- ||
03/18/2003 10:18 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Since the chickens we were going to use for gas detectors all died, perhaps a different species of chicken would volunteer?
#3
....Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist any U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday.
#5
Read today on a French website that 300 French soldiers are at Bangui Airport, Central Af. Rep. (former French colony) to assist foreigners wanting to evacuate in light of its civil war. I responded for the first time to a French site just to give them hell. Actually, this operation is good and I support it, but the Frogs didn't go to the UN for consultation and since de Villepin is all about respecting the process, I'm shocked, shocked, Ricky! that such disregard for the UN and OAU charters has been carried out.
Remember this is the place whose former man eating emperor gave diamonds to former prez Valery Giscard-d'Estaing. No blood for diamonds!!
Posted by: Michael ||
03/18/2003 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
LOL! Yankee Poodle clean it up! Isn't that just dandy? Stick (white) feathers in his cap and call him ChIraq-Le-Wormy.
#7
Clearly this is a unilateral support of our unilateral invasion. I can't believe the French would do such a thing without international backing and a UN resolution to authorize it.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/18/2003 10:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Why is there still a French ambassador to the United States? He needs to go home for the duration -- or longer.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/18/2003 10:26 Comments ||
Top||
#9
"should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces", the French ambassador to the United States said Tuesday
But of course Iraq destroyed all of those, so this is impossible, right? Stay on message, M. Ambassador!
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 10:34 Comments ||
Top||
#10
I feel a retraction coming on....
Chiraq: "What he meant was....."
#11
If I were GWB, I'd have a 688-class attack sub put a salvo of Mk48s into the Charles DeGaulle as a reprisal. 'Course, it's probably a good thing that I'm not GWB.
I suspect France will get hers . . . not in such a spectacular and immediately gratifying fashion, but probably in a way that's much better for our side in the long term. GWB has been three or four moves ahead of his opponents ever since he took office (see, e.g., Tom Daschle), and he's probably got a few nice little surprises planned for Chiraq.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/18/2003 12:03 Comments ||
Top||
#12
fancypants did get UN approval for the Ivory Coast after the fact. Vote was unanimous.
#13
This is the (inevitable) beginning of the Frency kiss-and-make-up attempt, guys. I'm suspecting that every intel service in the world knows that chem warheads are being distributed to all those artillery units in the south. When the inevitable happens, France will have an excellent excuse to go all sacre bleu and jump right on the war bandwagon. I somehow suspect that W won't respond in the way they expect him to, though, and that'll be a lot of fun to watch. :-)
#14
He's starting to cover his butt: he KNOWS there are chemical weapons there, and he KNOWS dumbbell Blix was not appointed for his brains or tenacity, and so was unlikely to uncover the weapons, for fear of it becoming the "smoking gun".
#15
I pray to God it does not happen, but if one WMD munition is used, certain people will have a lot of 'splaining to do.
Posted by: john ||
03/18/2003 15:06 Comments ||
Top||
#16
The ones I worry most about getting gassed...
are the first units to surrender.
American troops are merely the enemy, and not particularly soft targets. Traitors are another matter.
FIRST REFUGEE INFLOW TO TURKISH BORDER
Refugee inflow started in Northern Iraq toward Turkish border. The first refugee inflow, which started in Kirkuk and Mousul, came to Dahuk. The U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan called on the U.N. personnel in Iraq to be evacuated after the 24-hour ultimatum given to the U.N. The U.N. observers in Kuwaiti border were withdrawn, and embassies in Baghdad are closed down one after the other. Foreigners depart from the country.
TURKISH-U.S. RELATIONS ARE GOING THROUGH AN EXAMINATION
President Ahmet Necdet Sezer said Turkish-U.S. relations, which reached to the level of strategical partnership, were going through an examination, ''proving its strength and force''.
Sezer sent a written message to the Annual Conference of the Turkish-American Council. In his message, Sezer said, ''Turkish-U.S. relations, which are based on mutual values in a rooted and successful alliance, and which reached to the level of strategical partnership in the period after the Cold War, are going through an examination proving its strength and force.''
Sezer in the message stated that Turkey and the United States once again made close cooperation aiming to provide peace and stability in the Middle East. Sezer also said friendship between the people of Turkey and the United States deepened gradually.
HEADLONG MOTION
The government which appears reluctant to do something about the issue of motion on stationing of U.S. troops in Turkey gave up this position upon the United States' ultimatum for Iraq and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement: ''Don't wait for vote of confidence. Pass the motion before the first bomb hits Iraq''. The Council of Ministers which will convene in an extraordinary meeting today is expected to urgently send the motion to the parliament.
''YES'' TO UNITED STATES
Summit of the state began to take action after the United States sent a message calling on Ankara to take a decision to determine its side pertaining to action against Iraq. The United States said, ''think of all the economic and political results of your decision.'' President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan, Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, Chief of General Staff Gen. Hilmi Ozkok, Foreign Ministry Undersecretary Ugur Ziyal, and Deputy Undersecretary responsible for Iraq department Ali Tuygan participated in the summit in Cankaya Palace. The participants agreed to send the motion to Parliament soon, and Erdogan called on the Council of Ministers extraordinarily to convene on Tuesday to discuss motion.
SYRIA HANDS OVER TERRORISTS
Syrian authorities captured Selahattin Canavar, the terrorist of PKK/KADEK responsible for Syria, and Hayri Kaner, the terrorist responsible for Lebanon and handed over the terrorists to Turkey. The Syrian authorities captured the two terrorists and handed them over to Turkey after keeping them under custody for some time. Security officials said Adana Agreement, which had been signed in 1998, began to yield in results gradually. They said, ''recent developments are indications of this. Syrian authorities target full cooperation with Turkey.'' Kurdish terrorists who were causing problems for Syria. Dumping them on the Turks before the war starts. Most likely hoping to stir up trouble between the Turks and Kurds that would strain relations with the US. Clever and devious.
MOTION ON WAR
President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, General Staff Chief General Hilmi Ozkok and Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul signaled the new motion by saying, ''war has reached inevitable level beyond Turkey's will''. Permission to the United States for use of Turkey's airspace and acceptance of foreign soldiers is on the agenda. After extraordinarily busy hours in Ankara, senior state officials came together at the Presidential Palace. Sezer, Erdogan, Ozkok and Gul paved the way for adoption of new motion on deployment of U.S. troops in Turkey. The decision taken at this summit meeting was announced by Presidential Palace spokesman Tacan Ildem: ''apart from Turkey's expectation and will, a process of military intervention has started. There is a consensus that the government should immediately take necessary steps under the National Security Council's recommendations on January 31.'' At this summit meeting, it was also mentioned that new motion might be adopted before the vote of confidence. "Go ahead, we'll get the votes later."
ANKARA AND KURDISH GROUPS ARE CLOSE TO AGREEMENT
Turkey will meet with some Iraqi opposition groups and the United States officials before the war which is getting closer.
It was reported that problems between Ankara and the Kurdish groups were overcome to a great extend in contacts held before the summit. Critical issues like future of Northern Iraq and activities of Turkish soldiers in the region would be discussed at the meeting. A second meeting, in which Shiite and Arab opposition in Iraq will participate, is expected to take place tomorrow.
AK PARTY TO EXPEND FULL SUPPORT TO GOVERNMENT FOR MOTION
Justice and Development Party Central Executive Board decided to expend full support to the government regarded with motion on war which was brought onto the agenda once again.
The board members, who visited Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, gave the message that, ''we will back you whatever decision you take.'' The fix is in this time.
POWELL URGES AKP GOVERNMENT TO ACCEPT US TROOP DEPLOYMENT, REITERATES US COMMITMENT TO IRAQâS TERRITORIAL INTEGRITY
Speaking at a Washington press conference yesterday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell said that negotiations between Turkey and the US on the Iraq issue were still continuing. âWe are in the closest touch with [the new Turkish government] on the possibility of resubmission [of a proposal to deploy US troops in Turkey], and [Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan] has committed to do that at a time that he believes is appropriate,â said Powell. âAnd we have also assured the Turks that in anything the future might hold, we are committed to the territorial integrity of Iraq.â Later Powell made a telephone call to Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul, reportedly telling him that the US administration wanted Parliament to approve the proposals on cooperation with the US military as soon as possible. I'm hopeful now that we'll get permission for overflights and troop deployment. Looks like the Turkish government may allow deployment to begin before a vote. Hope they have time.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/18/2003 10:19 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hmm, EU America EU America
There's a new book coming out by Germans saying that the EU is dying. Surprising, I know --- NOT!
Turkey's parliament might reconsider letting U.S. troops use its territory if war with Iraq breaks out, according to Turkish media reports. Turkish officials, including the president, prime minister, foreign minister and armed forces chief, met Monday to discuss the possible war with Iraq. Is this second thoughts or part of the master deception plan?
After the meeting, a government spokesman said, "Turkey must fulfill its obligations to its allies," setting off a flood of speculation that parliament would vote on allowing U.S. troops to use Turkish bases. Parliament has a regular session scheduled for Tuesday, but it was not known whether the troops issue would be on the agenda. Ankara had been under intense pressure to allow U.S. forces to use its territory to open a northern front against Iraq. Parliament rejected a measure this month that would have let the United States base 62,000 troops in the country. Too little, too late?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 10:24 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Whatever the result of this war may be, it is one of the weirdest wars ever, the US attacking without any proof and UN approval (any other country on earth would have been earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN). I wonder if the UN is going to survive this US torpedoing.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/18/2003 3:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Well,Murat you are a pretty reasonable guy and make some strong,valid points.
Allow me to make some valid points:
(1)The U.S.did try to go the U.N(releiable)way.But with the Franco/German/Russo alliance's lack of resolve in backing up 1441,left us with no choice.
(2)When country's like Lybia(head of the U.N.human right's council.
(3)Iraq(head of U.N.disarmements council)
(4)Syria(known and addmitted supporter of terrorists).
Have an equal voice,then the U.N.is no longer viable.
The"US torpedoing"the U.N. Nope didn't happen the U.N. shot it self in the foot.
The day France said it would veto any resolution authorizing the use of force,gave Saddam Hussien the green light to do anything he wants.
Kinda wonder if another gas attack aginst the Kurds or Sth.Shites would have been enough for France?
No,France said it would"veto ANY resolution authorizing the use of force".
Now explain to me ,what choice did the U.N.leave US.
As side note has anybody realized(my son brought this point to my attention).
Do you realize that the U.S. is being led by
a Bush
a Dick
and a Colin.
#3
Whatever the result of this war may be, it is one of the weirdest wars ever, the US attacking without any proof and UN approval (any other country on earth would have been earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN). I wonder if the UN is going to survive this US torpedoing.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/18/2003 3:09 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Murat, I don't recall anything in the United States Constitution that says the United States requires the approval of the United Nations to go to war. Furthermore, longstanding constitutional law doctrine in the US has it (as well as tne language of the Constitution itself) that international treaties, including the UN Charter, may not contravene the Constitution.
Not to mention that FRANCE has _not_ been "earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN", nor was Tanzania "earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN" when it went in to overthrow Idi Amin, nor was Vietnam "earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN" when it went in to overthrow the Khmer Rouge. In fact, I don't think the U.S. even applied to the UN for permission when it went into Afghanistan in 2001. Conclusion: UN permission is nice to have, but it is NOT necessary.
And there are more than a few of us here who think that the UN was a floating hulk anyway even before this latest fiasco.
Posted by: Joe ||
03/18/2003 4:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
What about Turkey's illegal,unilateral occupation of Northern Cyprus?I don't recall that ever been sanctioned by the UN - or anyone else,for that matter.
Posted by: El Id ||
03/18/2003 5:57 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Well,Murat you are a pretty reasonable guy and make some strong,valid points.
Allow me to make some valid points:
(1)The U.S.did try to go the U.N(releiable)way.But with the Franco/German/Russo alliance's lack of resolve in backing up 1441,left us with no choice.
(2)When country's like Lybia(head of the U.N.human right's council.
(3)Iraq(head of U.N.disarmements council)
(4)Syria(known and addmitted supporter of terrorists).
Have an equal voice,then the U.N.is no longer viable.
The"US torpedoing"the U.N. Nope didn't happen the U.N. shot it self in the foot.
The day France said it would veto any resolution authorizing the use of force,gave Saddam Hussien the green light to do anything he wants.
Kinda wonder if another gas attack aginst the Kurds or Sth.Shites would have been enough for France?
No,France said it would"veto ANY resolution authorizing the use of force".
Now explain to me ,what choice did the U.N.leave US.
As side note has anybody realized(my son brought this point to my attention).
Do you realize that the U.S. is being led by
a Bush
a Dick
and a Colin.
#7
Raptor, you give some nice defensive arguments, but all of them lose validity since the US was set to ignore the UN anyway. The US had set her mind to attack Iraq no matter what, with or without Saddam. Whatâs the explanation of building up troops and trying to legitimize it by bribing the UN member states in the meantime, and if even that doesnât work to walk over the UN. This is explained only in one way the US has called herself as the imperial ruler of the world, in other words Saddam is the dictator of Iraq and the US the dictator of the world.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/18/2003 7:31 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Murat,
Things haven't been nearly as exciting here since you left.
I'm eagerly awaiting your response to El Id's post above, regarding the unilateral invasion of Northern Cyprus by Turkey.
Additionally, I'm anticipating that your criticisms of the US will serve as cover for the impending Turkish seizure of territory in Northern Iraq. Something along the lines of "If the US can do it, we can do it too".
In response to your last comment above, if you do not understand that diplomacy is often only effective when consequences are made clear for inaction (such as, say, credible threat of the use of force, maybe?) then you do not understand diplomacy. If you did understand it, then you would understand that France, in its unilateral search for popularity, is the one who undermined the diplomatic process by calling any forthcoming resolution a non-starter...
Of course, I'm just a tool of the dictator of the world, and am no expert.
#9
Murat - OK, I'll play: even Blix admitted that Saddam wouldn't have opened the country to the ineffective inspections or released the recycled hash "documents" without OUR troops poised to apply the serious consequences. To criticize without offering real solutions (more time, more inspections, listen to the U.N.!) is bullshit, and comments such as those should be disregarded as nonserious chatter. The U.S. will provide security for Americans - others will benefit as well - the Iraqis, Kurds - but Turkey has proven it's worth in this alliance, and found lacking IMHO
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 8:00 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Frank, To criticize without offering real solutions (more time, more inspections, listen to the U.N.!) is bullshit,
???? Sorry but did the US realise that after 12 years after Gulf war 1? I really would like to believe those security concerns, but how for heavens sake is it not possible to find the slightest proof of mass destruction weapons. Where is the mighty CIA, these guys have the full cooperation of MOSSAD, MI5, MIT and all the other secret services, where is the proof. If there is one it is not possible to hide them unless Saddam is a magician, the great Houdini.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/18/2003 8:20 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Murat,
You seem to share the common misperception on the purpose of the UN inspections. The burden of proof is not on the UN inspectors (or the intelligence agencies) to prove that Saddam has those weapons, the burden of proof is on Saddam to provide proof of their destruction. The UN inspectors are there simply to verify that the weapons were, indeed, destroyed.
Does Turkey not have an interest in seeing Saddam deprived of all of his nasty weapons? Perhaps not, as Saddam has proven a valuable partner to Turkey in oppressing his Kurdish population...Perhaps also Turkey is realizing that it had better play ball w. the US if they don't want an independent Kurdistan on their doorstep. I think Turkey is scared that US "Imperialism" will result in the self-determination of the Kurdish population spread between Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. (My how imperialism has changed since colonial times) Speaking of Imperialism, it has been reported that the Turkish government is going over treaties from the Ottoman empire to assess whether they will have a claim to territory around kirkuk and other N. Iraq cities...is this true?
You seem to consider yourself an expert on the US motives and interests in the Iraq situation. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to Turkey's true interests here...
(BTW, still waiting on your response to El ID's post above regarding Turkey's own unilateralism)
#12
mjh, exactly. Murat, like many of his kind, is intentionally ignoring the subtlety that it was not up to the inspectors to find anything. Hussein had one last chance, and thanks to Germany,France,Russia (Germancia?), decided he could get away with it, again.
But then again, it could be that Murat genuinely believes Hussein that he does not have WMD.
#13
MJH and RW,
C'mon guys, we have seen Colin Powells proof of a few misty satellite photos, I am sure the CIA can do better than that. WMD weapons are not pocket-sized weapons which you can bury in you backyard. I personally honestly donât believe that Iraq has these weapons (anymore), sure they have used these kind of weapons against Iran and Kurds some 13 â 14 years ago, but thatâs a long time ago.
The burden of proof is not on the UN inspectors (or the intelligence agencies) to prove that Saddam has those weapons, the burden of proof is on Saddam to provide proof of their destruction.
I think the burden of proof should be on Bush (but he has no problem of conscience sending people wrongly to the electrical chair, in this case a whole country without credible proof), he surely lacked the credibility to convince the world (including me)
Posted by: Murat ||
03/18/2003 9:49 Comments ||
Top||
#14
"a few misty satellite photos"
So now you qualify yourself as an intelligence officer, do you? "WMD weapons are not pocket-sized weapons which you can bury in you backyard"
Actually they are. Perhaps bigger than pocket-size, but certainly you can conceal parts in every backyard in Baghdad. "I personally honestly donât believe that Iraq has these weapons"
Well there you go.... that about explains your entire stance. "he surely lacked the credibility to convince the world (including me)"
You couldn't be convinced if a WMD fell on your head, not if the "proof" came from an American source. And don't deny it, doesn't matter if it was Bush, Clinton, Gore, or a green dog dressed in a suit.
#15
You know Murrat,just being Joe Six-pack,I'm not all that bright a guy.
But even I could tell that the U.N didn't have the courage to stand-up to Saddam(if the U.N. had stood-up to it's responsibilities,then it would have to take a long hard look at how it selects members for admitince as well as how it selects countries for leadership roles i.e.UNSC).
As I said above,the day France stated it would veto ANY resolution authorising force,is the day France gutted(like a fish)the U.N.S.C.
The U.N. has done nothing to reign in Dictators,religious fanatics and terrorists,trafficurs and prevaours of WMD.nor has it done much to stop genicide/ethnic cleansing.
Years ago I realized the U.N.is not an orginazation that promotes/protects peace,and freedom.But it's purpose is to protect the status quo.And as such it's usefullness has ended.
#16
Murat,
"I think the burden of proof should be on Bush" Again, didn't you read 1441? Wrong, wrong. Have you been reading Le Monde? BTW, I think I deserve a raise despite what my contract says. Unfair, unfair.
Posted by: Michael ||
03/18/2003 10:21 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Murat: "I wonder if the UN is going to survive this US torpedoing."
Murat, the U.N. Security Council did not enforce its own resolutions for 12 years. It has proven itself irrelevant. It deserves torpedoing, but instead it just withered away slowly. The U.S. is not going to wait 12+ years to address every new threat. [Take note, North Korea. Take note, Iran. The paradigm has changed.]
Posted by: Tom ||
03/18/2003 10:36 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Murat...You're being way too easy on me here. You keep changing the focus of your criticism. First, it was unilateralism/imperialism, then you abandoned that after Turkey was criticized for having unilateralist/imperialist tendencies of its own. Then, you criticize the fact that the US did not ever INTEND to follow the UN even as they pursued diplomacy(In fact, it was the other way around-the UN passed a resolution which they did not intend to ever enforce). Now, you are questioning the quality of our intelligence and ad hominem attacks on W for his stance on capital punishment. (Speaking of Executions...this is an interesting tidbit from the Republic of Turkey's constitution:"The cases of carrying out of death penalties under court sentences, the act of killing in self-defense, the occurrences of death as a result of the use of a weapon permitted by law as a necessary measure in cases of: apprehension, or the execution of warrants of arrest, the prevention of escape of lawfully arrested or convicted persons, the quelling of a riot or insurrection, the execution of the orders of authorized bodies during martial law or state of emergency are outside of the provision of paragraph 1.")
Anyway, setting aside the ad hominem attacks, the quality of the intelligence is immaterial. The reason is that no explanation of either the photgraphs or the recorded conversations were ever forthcoming from the Iraqis, other than to say they were "American lies" or some such thing.
I know I speak for America that we are happy that YOU believe that Iraq does not have those weapons. But, since Iraq is not willing to prove they have destroyed them, we're going to send in 250,000 of our weapons inspectors to have a look ourselves.
#20
11A5S: I'm a bit skeptical if he will, since the unilateral 1974 Turkish invasion of Cyprus, if he defends it, tends to refute his own argument about "earmarked of conducting criminal behavior and sanctioned by the UN".
Posted by: Joe ||
03/18/2003 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I'm also still waiting for Murat to answer me on the Constitutional issue. Again, no statute, article of law or international agreement may contravene or supersede any part of the Constitution, except for a constitutional amendment passed by Congress and duly ratified by the several States of the Union. President Bush made it clear that his authority derives from that granted by the Constitution. So, Murat, I put it to you; does the Constitution of the Turkish Republic contain any provision, explicit or implicit, stating that the United Nations Charter may be held to contravene or supersede that Constitution?
Posted by: Joe ||
03/18/2003 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Murat, you might not think he has them, but fancypants does and has offered to help in case Saddam uses the stuff they and he claim he does't have. Check out cnn europe.
Australia has given all Iraqi embassy staff five days to leave the country in the wake of the Canberra's decision to commit troops to a likely U.S.-led war in Iraq. "The expulsion of staff from the Iraqi embassy will contribute to the security of Australia and Australian forces fighting in Iraq," Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in a statement issued Tuesday. Downer said the diplomats had until midnight March 23 to depart. "And don't come back!"
An official at the Iraqi embassy said he did not know when or whether the diplomats would leave and declined further comment. Earlier this month Canberra expelled an Iraqi diplomat on suspicion of spying. The expulsion came after the United States asked 60 countries to throw out Iraqis believed to work for Baghdad's intelligence services. Several countries heeded Washington's request, but others, like Belgium and Russia, rejected it. Consistency seems to be a strong point amongst the weasels.
Downer said the closure of the Iraqi embassy did not constitute a break in diplomatic relations with Iraq. "Following the conclusion of hostilities, Australia and a new government in Iraq should be able to agree quickly on a resumption of diplomatic representation in Canberra," he said. I'll bet he enjoyed saying that, too.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 10:25 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Wonder if the Hollywood celebs against the war, Michael Moore and Tom Daschle has read this? ... Nah.
âThere was a machine designed for shredding plastic. Men were dropped into it and we were again made to watch. Sometimes they went in head first and died quickly. Sometimes they went in feet first and died screaming. It was horrible. I saw 30 people die like this. Their remains would be placed in plastic bags and we were told they would be used as fish food . . . on one occasion, I saw Qusay [President Saddam Husseinâs youngest son] personally supervise these murders.â
This is one of the many witness statements that were taken by researchers from Indict â the organisation I chair â to provide evidence for legal cases against specific Iraqi individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. This account was taken in the past two weeks.
Another witness told us about practices of the security services towards women: âWomen were suspended by their hair as their families watched; men were forced to watch as their wives were raped . . . women were suspended by their legs while they were menstruating until their periods were over, a procedure designed to cause humiliation.â
The accounts Indict has heard over the past six years are disgusting and horrifying. Our task is not merely passively to record what we are told but to challenge it as well, so that the evidence we produce is of the highest quality. All witnesses swear that their statements are true and sign them.
For these humanitarian reasons alone, it is essential to liberate the people of Iraq from the regime of Saddam. The 17 UN resolutions passed since 1991 on Iraq include Resolution 688, which calls for an end to repression of Iraqi civilians. It has been ignored. Torture, execution and ethnic-cleansing are everyday life in Saddamâs Iraq.
Were it not for the no-fly zones in the south and north of Iraq â which some people still claim are illegal â the Kurds and the Shia would no doubt still be attacked by Iraqi helicopter gunships.
For more than 20 years, senior Iraqi officials have committed genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This list includes far more than the gassing of 5,000 in Halabja and other villages in 1988. It includes serial war crimes during the Iran-Iraq war; the genocidal Anfal campaign against the Iraqi Kurds in 1987-88; the invasion of Kuwait and the killing of more than 1,000 Kuwaiti civilians; the violent suppression, which I witnessed, of the 1991 Kurdish uprising that led to 30,000 or more civilian deaths; the draining of the Southern Marshes during the 1990s, which ethnically cleansed thousands of Shias; and the summary executions of thousands of political opponents.
Many Iraqis wonder why the world applauded the military intervention that eventually rescued the Cambodians from Pol Pot and the Ugandans from Idi Amin when these took place without UN help. They ask why the world has ignored the crimes against them?
All these crimes have been recorded in detail by the UN, the US, Kuwaiti, British, Iranian and other Governments and groups such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty and Indict. Yet the Security Council has failed to set up a war crimes tribunal on Iraq because of opposition from France, China and Russia. Oh, really? Wonder why? Guess we'll just have to dust off the "Four-Power Agreement" that we used at the end of WW II to try the Nazis in Nuremburg.
As a result, no Iraqi official has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. I have said incessantly that I would have preferred such a tribunal to war. But the time for offering Saddam incentives and more time is over.
I do not have a monopoly on wisdom or morality. But I know one thing. This evil, fascist regime must come to an end. With or without the help of the Security Council, and with or without the backing of the Labour Party in the House of Commons tonight. Thank you, Ann Clwyd.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 12:58 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wonder if the Hollywood celebs against the war, Michael Moore and Tom Daschle has read this? ... Nah.
... have read this. Man, I gotta get some sleep.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 1:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Ann Clwyd's a rarity in the Labour Party. A left winger with a moral conscience as well as a socialist ideology. Unlike the majority of her colleagues, she's travelled to Iraq on numerous occasions and has bothered to see for herself Saddam's legacy. Unfortunately, she was the first cabinet member Tony kicked out when he became leader. If Short had gone, my money would have been on Clwyd to replace her. And I bet Short thought so too...
#3
I did a little googling, and it turns out that Indict has a website. The "targets" section is pretty interesting. I'd heard about Saddam's charming sons, but I didn't realize that he had so many suitably murderous half-brothers. I also didn't know that good-old "Chemical Ali" was a cousin of Saddam's.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/18/2003 5:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Yup patrick that's standard operating procedue for the saddam regime and in a lot of arab culture organization. It's sort of like familial version of "you are who you know."
Did you also know that the special republican guard are all from Tikrit? Saddam Hussein's home town.
Hundreds of foreigners â inspectors, diplomats and journalists â began the scramble to leave Baghdad last night, as the United Nations ordered its staff out of Iraq and embassies shut up shop. About half the 300 journalists accredited to Baghdad also packed up and prepared to drive across the desert to Jordan. A week ago, there were 450 foreign journalists in Baghdad. Outta my way, Wolf Blitzer!
Two US television networks, ABC News and NBC News, ordered their teams out, on the advice of Washington. Just hand over the cameras to the human shields. They'll have a birds-eye view of the action.
As well as the 135 United Nations weapons inspectors and their support staff, there are more than 300 UN employees in Iraq, 200 of whom were due to leave the city on a transport carrier last night.
UN inspectors gathered outside the Canal Hotel, their Baghdad headquarters, and packed boxes of personal belongings. Some were seen on the roof of the hotel taking pictures of each other with the city in the background. "Everyone has to be prepared to leave," an inspector said in Baghdad as he loaded a UN car. But the UN spokesman Hiro Ueki said they would stay one more night. "They need a place to sleep tonight," he said. "We may leave sometime tomorrow." Why hurry? You got til Wednesday, unless Sammy orders something especially stupid. Oh wait, maybe you should get out tonight.
Kofi Annan, the UN secretary general, announced that after receiving a warning from Washington he was ordering all UN staff out of Iraq â shortly after the United States, Britain and Spain announced they would not put to a vote their resolution seeking authorisation to use military force against Iraq. The previous time UN weapons inspectors pulled out of Iraq, in December 1998, Washington and London launched military strikes some 12 hours later.
Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, the Iraqi Information Minister, said that while UN inspectors were looking "for a white flag crow", an Arabic expression for something that does not exist, Mr Annan's decision to pull them out was "regrettable".
As Baghdad shopkeepers stashed their merchandise in warehouses to protect them from bomb damage and looting, Asian and Western diplomats closed their embassies.
Germany evacuated three diplomats along with two Arab drivers and six German reporters, in effect shutting down its embassy in the capital. Greece said it expected to have its embassy staff out within a few days, and the Czech Republic announced it was closing its mission. China began evacuating personnel from its embassy, and the official Xinhua news agency in Beijing said six Chinese reporters were leaving. India is keeping its embassy staffed by seven Iraqi employees, the ambassador, BB Tyagi, said after he fled to the Jordanian capital, Amman, with four colleagues. "We are in Jordan temporarily until the situation improves," he said. Bahrain's diplomatic staff quietly pulled out over the weekend. Several other Western and Asian countries have announced plans to withdraw diplomats. So who are the ninnies sticking around?
Despite the crisis, weapons inspectors visited four sites. Mr Ueki confirmed that inspection teams were still operating, but added: "We are ready for any contingency." Practice your English.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 12:49 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I would hope the inspectors get out safely - they were on a futile, thankless assignment. It was never their job to ferret out undisclosed weapons, and I think most of the weasel-supporters either ignore or misunderstand that. Those weapons will, unfortunately, probably make their appearance in about...oh...36 hours now?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"China began evacuating personnel from its embassy, and the official Xinhua news agency in Beijing said six Chinese reporters were leaving."
I hope they've forwarded precise coordinates of the place to the USAF. We'd hate to see a repetition of Belgrade although the Chinese Take Out jokes were funny.
Twelve figures are silhouetted against the sky as the moon casts ambient light and picks them out. Spaced 25 metres apart, they are making their way towards a ridge in what could be their last armoured reconnaissance exercise before they go behind enemy lines. As coalition forces in the Gulf made their last preparations for an imminent war, the men of the Household Cavalry's D squadron spent the night in the desert 40km (25 miles) from the Iraqi border rehearsing drills that they have gone through over and over.
For the Household Cavalry - the country's most senior regiment - has one of the most frontline tasks of all the forces in the Gulf. In the coming days it could be operating at night seeking out the enemy in advance of a rapid bombardment by the 16 Air Assault Brigade. The men's mission often brings them to the enemy's rear so that they might report back to headquarters the movements of Iraqi troops or tanks.
The squadron of 110 men use the Striker tracked guided weapon system and the Scimitar armoured reconnaissance vehicle, but their method is reconnaissance by stealth as opposed to what the regiment says is the US's "reconnaissance by force". This method uses thermal imaging cameras and an image intensifier which works by amplifying any ambient light and produces images that look much like a picture on an old black and white television set. Through the sights of these, vehicles can be seen making their way between the camps, and other members of the squadron can be seen shovelling out their observation posts.
Last night the squadron was digging out observation posts and spying on the enemy. The men can spend up to five days in foxholes watching their foes, taking it in turns to observe, stand guard and sleep.
Captain Edward Hayward, the squadron's second in command, is crouched down, pulling his fingers through the loose desert floor. Stillness and silence are part of the job. He says adjusting to the natural environment - smelling the enemy out, watching for the embers of a cigarette glowing, hearing the mutters - all work together to help pinpoint enemy locations.
"You can see how the enemy moves across the ground. You can see delves in the earth, dust plumes from the tracks of vehicles. Your main movement is done early in the morning or late at night when the dew is down. You look and see the ground and understand where they will put their machine guns, where they will put their anti-tank weapons, where their observation posts will be," he says.
"It's a feeling of being able to put yourself in a dangerous situation but to have the knowledge and the equipment to be able to extract yourself if need be. That feeling of total control and empathy with your environment is very fulfilling."
Captain Julian White, 25, is the leader of the guided weapons troop. He admits it is often a risky task. "It's amazing the survivability we have. You would think we would be dropping off all over the place," he said.
"The aim of the reconnaissance squadron is to supply timely and accurate information. It is the eyes and ears of the commander. The men will use their wit and nous to try to get their information."
After the exercise the squadron is brought together for a last minute "smoker" with alcohol-free beers, burgers and hotdogs - a delight after weeks of stew every night - and told by their squadron leader, Richard Taylor, that theirs is a very important task. "I would like you to take two important lessons from tonight's training," he says. "Firstly, the very basic drills of field craft are fundamental and will ultimately keep you alive in the hostile environment you are about to face.
"Secondly, you must work as a team. Everyone has his own responsibilities. As a team you will win, as an individual you will merely survive." Find them, get them, stay safe.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 12:35 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Thank you! Now I know what to get my mom--who has everything--for her birthday!
"What's this?"
"Household Cavalry, Mom! You know, cavalry for around the home."
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/18/2003 8:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Thank God for these brave souls, maybe when they come home we can give them a little vacation / training exercise in Hollywood...
First, says a senior military adviser to Tony Blair, there will be massive air strikes by US and UK warplanes - bombing, he readily concedes, which "will play badly with the public".
According to leaks believed to come from the Pentagon, 3,000 missiles and precision-guided bombs will be dropped on Iraq, some of them from giant American B-52 Stratofortresses based at Fairford, Gloucestershire, some from B-2 stealth bombers based on Diego Garcia, part of the British Indian Ocean Territory.
RAF Tornado and Harrier bombers are likely to play a part, as will two Royal Navy submarines armed with US Tomahawk cruise missiles.
But British forces will play a relatively minor role in an air bombardment. More significant will be Britain's part in the ground invasion. This is partly the result of delays in deployment of US forces - these, sources said yesterday, meant that on military grounds it has suited President Bush to delay a decision to attack, just as, until now, it has suited Tony Blair on political grounds.
The 120 Challenger 2 tanks of 7 Armoured Brigade, the Desert Rats, represent between a quarter and a third of the number of US tanks. There are some 15,000 combat troops ready to invade Iraq, against 130,000 or so Americans. This, say analysts, is the highest proportion of British troops fighting with the Americans since the second world war.
Diplomatic machinations in the UN have enabled US and British military commanders to refine their plans and further integrate their forces. The British army is "much better equipped, much more capable and integrated" into the American war plans than in the 1991 Gulf war, says General Sir Roger Wheeler, former head of the army. In a symbolic move not seen since the second world war, up to 2,000 US marines are expected to be commanded by the British in a joint operation to take the key southern Iraqi city of Basra.
Under plans being drawn up at the US central command in Qatar, the US 15th marine expeditionary unit will join about 4,000 Royal Marine commandos in an amphibious assault to seize Iraq's only port and protect nearby oil wells.
Edward Luttwak, strategist and fellow of the Washington-based Centre for Strategic and International Studies, this week reinforced the point about the British contribution. "The US marine expeditionary force depends heavily on British armour, while the US army's advance to Baghdad would be much too slow without the advance guard of air-landed forces that includes the British air assault brigade".
Soon after the air strikes, according to plans drawn up by US and British commanders over the past weeks, Royal Marine commandos, supported by the heavy armour of the Desert Rats, will take Basra and seize the oilfields in the Faw peninsular. Soldiers in Britain's 16 Air Assault Brigade, including paratroopers, will be helicoptered in, to seize Iraqi bases and key positions, including bridges, as the main US armoured force races towards Baghdad.
"Basra is a prime target; it would give a clear message to the regime - we've got your oil and commercial centre," says Christopher Langton, defence analyst at the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies. Like Mr Luttwak, he points to the potentially important task of the British helicopter-borne air assault brigade in seizing key points such as bridges and oilfields.
Initially, the US asked Britain for light forces - the SAS, some marine commandos, air-to-air refuelling tankers, minesweepers. But British military chiefs agreed with ministers that Britain's contribution should reflect the risks involved. One senior military source put it: "If there are risks and you want the political benefit, you really must share the burden." I really like these guys.
Britain's special forces are already involved. More than 200 SAS and special boat service (SBS) troops are believed to have been operating inside Iraq from Jordan over the past weeks with American special forces. Their tasks have been to look out for Scud missile sites which could threaten Israel from western Iraq. The SAS has also been gathering intelligence on the ground in Iraq on military bases and other threats that would face invading troops. They have been carrying out reconnaissance and have been reported to have sailed up the Euphrates in dhows, also looking for possible river crossings. "Nigel, bring up the yacht."
"Brittania, sir? Rather large for these waters."
"Don't be a sot, Nigel. The dhow will do nicely."
"Picnic at midday, sir? Perhaps a glimpse of the fair maidens on yonder shore?"
"Nigel ..."
Once the war starts, they can be expected to lead bombers on to targets on the ground. SAS and SBS may already be leading US and British bombers patrolling the southern no-fly zone on to Iraqi targets.
Major-General Sir Patrick Cordingley, commander of the Desert Rats in the 1991 Gulf war, points to a "curious contradiction" between then and now. In 1991 the chances of Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons were slight and coalition forces were not equipped to take adequate precautionary measures, he says.
Now, if British and US forces go in to disarm Iraq, the chances of President Saddam using such weapons are strong, though invading forces are well-prepared for dealing with them. British military commanders hope the regime will collapse soon after a bombing campaign based on America's "shock and awe" tactics. "The last thing we want is industrial warfare," a senior army source said. "We are looking for a political outcome, not primarily a military outcome." He said for a stable post-Saddam Iraq, the bulk of the armed forces should remain in one piece. Stay safe, lads.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 12:28 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I really like these guys.
Ditto, Steve. It's in true times of crisis like this that you discover who your real friends are. God save the Queen!
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/18/2003 8:33 Comments ||
Top||
The United States and Britain walked away from the United Nations yesterday, withdrawing their bid for a nineteenth second resolution, abandoning their pursuit of security council support for war against Iraq and sparking acrimonious exchanges with France and Russia.
Having failed to secure the necessary nine votes, the co-sponsors of the resolution - Britain, the US and Spain - decided not to seek a vote and vowed to attack Iraq without council support if Saddam Hussein fails to disarm, leaving the UN in a well-deserved state of chaos. Go ahead, vote us out.
"Having held further discussions with council members over the weekend and in the last few hours, we have had to conclude that council consensus will not be possible in line with resolution 1441," said Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's UN ambassador. "Colin, I'm afraid the weasels won't keep their word."
"Yes, Jeremy, that's why they call them weasels."
"Quite."
As the UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, questioned the legitimacy of an attack without council backing, Washington and London explicitly blamed France for the collapse of the process, a charge Paris labelled "correct" "absurd."
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, breaking weeks of silence, labelled military action without UN backing "a mistake", while his foreign minister called it "illegal." Pretty mild for Putin. I think he sees it's time to beat a tactical retreat and see what happens.
The dramatic decision to withdraw came as closed-door security council talks on the crisis were due to begin. UN employees were yesterday preparing to leave Baghdad, while countries closed their embassies there and some foreign journalists pulled out. The UN ordered weapons inspectors to leave.
Despite the removal of the inspectors, the chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, published, as promised, a "to do" list of disarmament tasks for Baghdad. Thanks for the list Hans, we'll take it from here.
The list, required under the terms of a 1999 resolution, does not accuse Iraq of possessing illegal arms, but conveys dissatisfaction with the information provided so far and demands information on a range of issues, including VX gas, mustard gas, sarin, smallpox and anthrax. All the stuff Sammy says they don't have anymore.
Although Russia and China were opposed to the resolution, and the so-called "middle six" uncommitted nations had not been won over, the US and UK singled out France deservedly for blame. Because Russia and China wouldn't have been intransigent without France.
"One country in particular has underlined its intention to veto any ultimatum 'no matter what the circumstance'," Sir Jeremy said. "That country rejected our proposed compromise before even the Iraqi government itself."
The US envoy to the UN, John Negroponte, said: "We believe that the vote would have been close ... We regret that in the face of an explicit threat to veto by a soon to be ex-permanent member, the vote counting became a secondary consideration."
France struck back, insisting that Britain, the US and Spain had withdrawn the resolution because the majority of the council was opposed to it. "During the last day, members of the council repeatedly stated - and it is a majority on the council - that it would not be legitimate to authorise the use of force now when the inspections ... are producing derision results," said the French UN ambassador, Jean-Marc de la SabliÚre.
Paris dismissed criticisms in public, but privately French officials were bitter at what they saw as a deliberate spotlighting distortion of France's position in the search for a scapegoat. A French foreign ministry spokesman dismissed the attacks as "absurd" and said Paris would not respond "to the cheap and easy game of polemics when we are dealing with subjects as important as war and peace". Good, we'd hate to rub it in.
Diplomats at the Quai d'Orsay, France's foreign ministry, said it was "utterly false and misleading" to suggest France was against force at any stage. "If the inspectors say they are being prevented from doing their job, the president has often said that we would be open to every option, including the use of force," one said. And then they said that Blixie was the only one who could decide that. And we know Blixie is a professional optimist. So did the French.
In Moscow, Mr Putin said a war without UN approval "would be fraught with the gravest consequences, will result in casualties and destabilise the international situation in general ... We stand for resolving the problem exclu sively through peaceful means. Any other option would be a mistake."
The Kremlin's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, said: "The use of force against Iraq, especially with reference to previous resolutions of the UN security council, has no legal grounds."
In direct contradiction of the advice given by the British attorney general to Downing Street yesterday, he said resolution 1441 "clearly states the security council will convene immediately if the need to ensure the complete observance of the existing resolutions arises." No, it doesn't.
Russia's parliamentary speaker, Gennady Seleznyov, said an attack would cause the world to consider that "the US is a terrorist state that can only be dealt with in the Hague tribunal". US officials said Moscow had declined a Pentagon offer to coordinate postwar issues such as humanitarian aid. Good. And we don't have to ask again.
The Canadian prime minister, Jean Chretien, said his country's military would play no role in a war unsanctioned by the UN.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/18/2003 12:15 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's becoming clear that France, Germany and Russia are going to make a word play for the US being brought up before a Tribunal. It would be funny, considering their own exploits, if such a large percentage of the public weren't such lemmings unable to make the required mental connection.
France and Germany would be wise to remember that Russia will always looking over it's shoulder with more concern to the East, than it ever will to the West. And as such, it will never truly be their ally.
#2
Although Russia and China were opposed to the resolution, and the so-called "middle six" uncommitted nations had not been won over,...
Mexico is one of these "middle six". I would love nothing more than for a whole bunch of workplace roundups and deportations of Mexican illegal aliens to begin sometime soon. Preferably NOW.
#3
Unlike the Cretin to the North, President Fox has not put a knife in our back. Mexico has a 100 year tradition of opposition to involvement in War except for self-defense and you have to respect them for the courage of their convictions. An honorable friend can disagree and still be a friend. Let them stay home and watch our backs - they will do a better job than that clown in Canukistan.
#4
It's becoming clear that France, Germany and Russia are going to make a word play for the US being brought up before a Tribunal. It would be funny, considering their own exploits, if such a large percentage of the public weren't such lemmings unable to make the required mental connection.
France and Germany would be wise to remember that Russia will always looking over it's shoulder with more concern to the East, than it ever will to the West. And as such, it will never truly be their ally.
#5
We're not going to punish mexico or anyone in the middle six. That would contradict our stand that we would have won it hadnt been for French intransigence. I think one of the reasons that we didnt go through with vote was precisely to save the middle 6 from voting - by avoiding a vote we obviate the need to reward yes votes,or punish no votes. We will continue to pursue policies we see in our interests, including maintaining relations with them. The real strain will be with France.
Re:" a tribunal" the only tribunal for judging states is - the UNSC. I am quite sure France will not go there, as they would certainly not even get a majority.
#6
We will surely take advantage of any documents found in Iraq reflecting embargo-busting by French and German companies. These should be made public by a vote in the UNSC....wouldn't that be delicious?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Becky, Russia has been very interested in the west on notable occcasions, and primarily with the French and Germans. Back in the pre-US pre-eminence period when there really were empires, France and Germany invaded Russia, and nearly succeeded, on three occasions. True, Russia has been suspicious of its oriental neighbours since Ghengis Khan's days, but its real nemesis has, in recent history, been European. I suppose the US, being a perceived threat from the west and the east, and the north, must've really given them the willies.
#8
Vincente Fox cannot *possibly* be this dumb. It makes no sense for Mexico to try and shaft the US. They need us one hell of a lot more than we need them. NAFTA, anyone?...
#9
Mexico should not be the issue here. We need to focus all such inclinations into a slap-in-the-face to France. I seriously believe that the French ambassador to the U.S. should be sent home for at least the duration of the war.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/18/2003 10:47 Comments ||
Top||
#10
--In Moscow, Mr Putin said a war without UN approval "would be fraught with the gravest consequences, will result in casualties and destabilise the international situation in general ... We stand for resolving the problem exclusively through peaceful means. Any other option would be a mistake." --
Defense needs to save this for later when they move on Chechnya.
#11
Mr Chretien and his Liberal buddies sold their souls to the United Nations fifty years ago. Since then Canada has become the first country in the world to unilaterally disarm. So not supporting this war just hides this dirty little secret.
Course in the same time period they abdicated total economic sovreignty to the United States. You can see where this juxtaposition might lead? Trust me, the Chretien braintrust never will.
Posted by: john ||
03/18/2003 20:16 Comments ||
Top||
Al Qaida has reported the establishment of a women's suicide division which is being led by a women named Umm Osama, a nomme de guerre that means the mother of Osama, a reference to Al Qaida leader Osama Bin Laden. Mother Of All Bombers? Sorry, that name's taken.
The unit trains women in suicide attacks and is meant to compensate for a shortage of male volunteers. But, I thought that muslims were flocking by the thousands to be martyr's for Islam?
"The idea gathered interest after female suicide missions in Palestine and Chechnya," Umm Osama said in an interview to the London-based Al-Sharq Al Awsat daily on March 12. "We are willing to take any Muslim woman, and we have Chechens, Afghans, Arabs from all countries. We are preparing to carry out operations as our predecessors did in Palestine and Chechnya." The Saudi-owned newspaper, which has maintained contact with Al Qaida, said it conducted the interview via the Internet. Umm Osama said the women are instructed in firing the U.S. M-16, the Russian AK-47 and various pistols. She said the instruction is conducted in several languages. "As a network and oganization, we rely on the Internet for widest distribution," Umm Osama said. "Every person trains in her locality because we can't bring everybody to one location." Teaching marksmanship via the internet, that explains a lot.
Umm Osama said her unit receives instructions from the Al Qaida leadership. She said an Al Qaida figure, Mullah Seif Eddin serves as liasion with the leadership of Al Qaida and Taliban. The women's unit plans to eventually establish a training camp in an unspecified location, Umm Osama said. She said the development of the unit has taken time and overcame Muslim resistance to women fighters. "We have women fighters on Afghan territory who are battling the crusader forces [the United States and allies] and have blown themselves up," Umm Osama said.
"You just never hear about them..."
"We also have women in Afghanistan who carry messages from the leadership." "We are preparing for the new strike announced by our leaders and I declare that it will make America forget the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001," she said. "Our organization is open to all Muslim women wanting to serve the [Islamic] nation, particularly in this very critical phase." The NOW gang will be so proud.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/18/2003 01:20 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Wow--those fundamentalist Islams are smart! Get the women to kill themselves so the men don't have to go to the trouble of beheading them on some trumped up charge. Saves time and effort!
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/18/2003 13:09 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Considering the hell they go through from their own men, they've probably decided blowing themselves up was an attractive alternative...
#4
Joke from Kuwait:
after the first gulf war, journalists noted that while before the conflict women would walk 10 paces behind the men, they were now walking 10 paces ahead of the men. When one of the journalists mentioned how much progress the country had made for women's rights sice the conflict, he was told, "no, it doesn't mean they are equal, it just means the land mines haven't all been cleared out yet."
The Baluch Connection
Is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed tied to Baghdad?
BY LAURIE MYLROIE
Tuesday, March 18, 2003 12:01 a.m. Laurie Mylroie is also the writer making credible Iraqi ties to the OK city bombing and McVeigh
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, is a Pakistani Baluch. So is Ramzi Yousef, who masterminded the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. In 1995, together with a third Baluch, Abdul Hakam Murad, the two collaborated in an unsuccessful plot to bomb 12 U.S. airplanes. Years later, as head of al Qaeda's military committee, Mohammed reportedly planned the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, as well as the bombing of the USS Cole in 2000.
Why should the Baluch seek to kill Americans? Sunni Muslims, they live in the desert regions of eastern Iran and western Pakistan. The U.S. has little to do with them; there is no evident motive for this murderous obsession. The Baluch do, however, have longstanding ties to Iraqi intelligence, reflecting their militant opposition to the Shiite regime in Tehran. Wafiq Samarrai, former chief of Iraqi military intelligence, explains that Iraqi intelligence worked with the Baluch during the Iran-Iraq war. According to Mr. Samarrai, Iraqi intelligence has well-established contacts with the Baluch in both Iran and Pakistan.
Mohammed, Yousef and Murad, supposedly born and raised in Kuwait, are part of a tight circle. Mohammed is said to be Yousef's maternal uncle; Murad is supposed to be Yousef's childhood friend. The family that bombs together....undergoes interrogation together And U.S. authorities have identified as major al Qaeda figures three other Baluch: two brothers of Yousef and a cousin. The official position is thus that a single family is at the center of almost all the major terrorist attacks against U.S. targets since 1993. The existence of intelligence ties between Iraq and the Baluch is scarcely noted. Indeed, these Baluch terrorists began attacking the U.S. long before al Qaeda did.
Notably, this Baluch "family" is from Kuwait. Their identities are based on documents from Kuwaiti files that predate Kuwait's liberation from Iraqi occupation, and which are therefore unreliable. While in Kuwait, Iraqi intelligence could have tampered with files to create false identities (or "legends") for its agents. So, rather than one family, these terrorists are, quite plausibly, elements of Iraq's Baluch network, given legends by Iraqi intelligence. Worth investigating by interrogation, after all, they should have matching childhood memories/stories
Someone named Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was born in Kuwait to Pakistani parents on April 19, 1965. After high school in Kuwait, he enrolled at Chowan College in North Carolina in January 1984, before transferring to North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, where he received his degree in December 1986. Is the Sept. 11 mastermind the same person as the student? He need not be. Perhaps the real Mohammed died (possibly during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait), and a terrorist assumed his identity.
Mohammed should now be just under 38, but the terrorist's arrest photo, showing graying sideburns and heavy jowls, seems to suggest an older man (admittedly, a subjective judgment). Yet this question can be pursued more reliably. Three sets of information exist regarding Mohammed: information from U.S. sources from the 1980s (INS and college documents, as well as individuals who may remember him); Kuwaiti documents; and information since the liberation of Kuwait (from his arrest, the interrogation of other al Qaeda prisoners, and the investigation into the 1995 plane-bombing plot).
The Kuwaiti documents should be scrutinized for irregularities that suggest tampering. The information about Mohammed from the '80s needs to be compared with the information that has emerged since Kuwait's liberation. The terrorist may prove to be taller (or shorter) than the student. Interrogators might ask him what he remembers of the colleges he is claimed to have attended. Acquaintances--like Gaith Faile, who taught Mohammed at Chowan and who told the Journal, "He wasn't a radical"--should be asked to provide a positive identification.
Along these lines, Kuwait's file on Yousef is telling. Yousef entered the U.S. on an Iraqi passport in the name of Ramzi Yousef, but fled on a passport in the name of Mohammed's supposed nephew, Abdul Basit Karim. But Kuwait's file on Karim was tampered with. The file should contain copies of the front pages of his passport, including picture and signature. They are missing. Extraneous information was inserted--a notation that he and his family left Kuwait on Aug. 26, 1990, traveling from Kuwait to Iraq, entering Iran at Salamcheh on their way to Pakistani Baluchistan. But people do not provide authorities an itinerary when crossing a border. Moreover, there was no Kuwaiti government then. Iraq occupied Kuwait and would have had to put that information into the file.
Karim attended college in Britain. His teachers there strongly doubted that their student was the terrorist mastermind. Most notably, Karim was short, at most 5-foot-8; Yousef is 6 feet tall. Nevertheless, Yousef's fingerprints are in Karim's file. Probably, the fingerprint card in Karim's file was switched, the original replaced by one with Yousef's prints on it. James Fox, who headed the FBI investigation into the 1993 WTC bombing, has been quoted as affirming that Iraqi involvement was the theory "accepted by most of the veteran investigators." Pakistani investigators were likewise convinced that Yousef had close links with the MKO, an anti-Iranian terrorist group run by Iraq, and conducted a bomb attack in Mashhad, Iran, in 1994.
U.S. authorities may unravel the story very quickly if they pursue the question of Mohammed's identity, instead of assuming they know who their captive really is. As for the larger issue of these murderously anti-American Baluch, that matter may become clear soon, once U.S. forces take Baghdad--and take possession of Iraq's intelligence files.
Ms. Mylroie is the author of "The War Against America" (HarperCollins, 2001)
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 08:29 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
With DNA testing, it's relatively simple to determine whether or not he is a Baluch.
It's also possible to bracket his age by counting the telomeres.
The IDF's elite Naval commando unit, Shayetet 13, accompanied by a paratrooper unit, killed a top Hamas leader on Tuesday afternoon in the village of Funduq near the West Bank city of Nablus. Surprise, surprise IDF seals on land...heh heh Nasser Asida, the Hamas commander in the Samaria region, was killed after a brief firefight with troops. The army said Asida was armed with a Kalachnikov rifle. Who doesn't have one in the west bank?...this is the one his mom gave him for his 5th birthday
Israel said that Asida was responsible for the deaths of 26 Israelis in the two attacks on the settlement of Immanuel and the infiltration into the settlement of Elon Moreh.
The IDF on Tuesday killed another very senior Hamas man in a separate West Bank clash, describing him as "the most wanted terrorist" in the West Bank." Ooohhh must've been a big fish
In the early hours of the morning reserve soldiers carrying out searches near Bethlehem clashed with an armed Palestinian, killing him. He was later identified as the IDF's most wanted target in the West Bank, Ali Alian. AKA Illegal Alian
An IDF reserve soldier Sgt.-Maj. Ami Cohen, 27, from Netanya was killed in the gunbattle in the West Bank village of Rabah Marach, south of Bethlehem, near the Jewish settlement of Tekoa. A second soldier was hospitalized with light injuries. According to the army, Alian was the mastermind behind a number of devastating terror attacks including the bombing of buses in Haifa and Jerusalem and a series of Hamas attacks in the Hebron area. In all, Alian was said to be responsible for more than 50 Israeli deaths. Nice catch then...mount his head on a pike
The two soldiers were shot as IDF Troops searched a building. Troops returned fire, killing Alian, but a second gunman successfully fled the scene. "I ran away successfully, while they killed my boss.... whooops, hey, put that down! OW!"
In recent days the IDF has arrested Alian's parents and questioned them on his whereabouts. Security sources said that Alian, a Bethlehem resident had been sent by the Hamas to nearby Hebron to set up a terror infrastructure in the city.
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 07:49 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Beirut MP Adnan Araqji Monday dismissed US Secretary of State Colin Powellâs recent statement accusing Syriaâs troops in Lebanon of occupying the country. âEveryday, the United Stateâs unbridled pride and presumptuousness increases with a view to impose American hegemony on this region and laying its hands on its natural wealth,â the MP said in a statement. That doesn't address the presence of Syrian troops in Lebanon, or Syrian hegemony over Lebanon...
Araqji, a member of Prime Minister Rafik Haririâs parliamentary bloc added that Powellâs statement reinforced His MajestySyrian President Bashar Assadâs opinion that Iraq would be only the beginning and that the Americans would continue from there on to âimpose their control on Arab countries one after the other.â Araqji pointed out that Powellâs claim that Syria was occupying Lebanon was a stark âinterference in this countryâs domestic affairs and an aggressive act against other peopleâs freedom of choice.â "Yeah. We chose to be occupied and treated like one of Syria's po'-relations..."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 05:22 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 03:10 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Or anybody. Would it kill Ms. Dowd to include one line expressing support for the troops, or is she about nothing but party politics?
Posted by: Matt ||
03/18/2003 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I tried reading her column the source is linked from, but about halfway through her vapid ramblings I realized it was just a waste of time and I gave up.
#3
If the NYT did not have this death wish of the liberal agenda, they could get some hot, well reasoned columnists all across the spectrum, which would help to sell papers. Adapt, be flexible, stimulating or die. Basic survival....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2003 15:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Anyone who describes Jacqueline Kennedy as having *both* brains and 'elan' has some serious issues with reality.
#5
The Times had Andrew Sullivan for a while, but Howell Raines apparently banned him from the paper altogether. You can probably read all about it in the archives of AndrewSullivan.com.
As for MoDo, good sense and consistency never kept her from writing what she thought was a good zinger at GWB and the administration. Sometimes she's on-target, sometimes (mostly, even) she's not.
#6
Is there any MoDo column that doesn't refer to Poppy Bush, bushies, Rummy, Pere et Filles, etc. etc.? She must've been entertaining or enlightening or at least good on the casting couch at one time, but who can excuse paying her for this pablum she "phones in" week after week.... makes fisking her like gill netting carp...easy, but....why?
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 16:48 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I guess she didn't see the Frontline special on the history or the whole Iraq mess, in which Colin Powell himself says he urged the president to stop the war because we were slaughtering retreating Republican Guard troops. Nor did she see in that same special that Saddam was shaking in his boots at the time, and we could've easily taken him out.
"Frontline: The Long Road to War" is a gripping program. It's essential viewing. Look for it on your local PBS station. Here in NYC, it's being rebroadcast on Thursday night at 8:00.
(No, I am not a PBS shill. You need to see this, is all.)
#8
She reflects poorly on the NYT. If the NYT was a class act, it would dump her in a minute.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/18/2003 17:58 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The Times tried to hire Steyn, he told the to take a hike.
Posted by: john ||
03/18/2003 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Perhaps Ms. Doud and the NYT deserve each other? The best thing I could say about the times is that it does have value for covering floors when trying to housebreak puppies. They don't read much of what Maureen writes, either.
Yasser Arafat signed legislation Tuesday creating the position of prime minister in a major step toward U.S.-sought reforms. Arafat is expected to offer the job to the No. 2 leader in the PLO, Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas, a moderate who has spoken out against the armed uprising against Israel, is the prime minister favored by the United States and Israel.
Palestinian legislators cast their ballots in a watershed vote that signaled a further weakening of Arafat's influence — a process that began about a year ago amid growing dissatisfaction among Palestinians with his leadership. That was after the Israelis beat the snot out of them and Yesser couldn't do anything about it...
"It's the beginning of a transition — it is certainly a turning point and a qualitative shift in the political culture," legislator Hanan Ashrawi said. "Now we have power-sharing that is clearly spelled out." Arafat has been wrangling with the increasingly assertive parliament over giving some of his sweeping powers to a prime minister. Arafat reluctantly agreed to create the new position under international pressure. But even with the reforms, Arafat will retain control over security forces and peace talks with Israel. Not directly so, on the peace talks. Y'gotta watch those parliaments. Sometimes they lose their rubber stamps...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 01:09 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Tony Blair might be available, is 10:00 tonight too late to get his name on the ballot?
There is almost no expression of support for Saddam Hussein, once lionized in the Arab world as the liberator of Palestinians. Most Arab leaders say they would like to see Saddam relinquish power. But they are apprehensive about the Bush administration's proclaimed mission of bringing democracy to the Arab world, starting with Iraq. "Oh, Gawd! Not that! Oh, please, not that...!"
In Syria, there is anger that an Arab nation is in the firing line. "I don't deny we are afraid of a war on Iraq," says Haitham al-Killani, political columnist and former Syrian ambassador to the United Nations. "There is a view in government that Syria will be next." Such fears are not entirely unfounded, going by remarks made by Richard Perle, chairman of the US Defence Advisory Board. "A lot will be required from Syrian President Bashar Assad not only in terms of reform, but also the closure of the offices of terrorist organizations and the return of Lebanon to the Lebanese," says Perle, who is close to Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. We've already asked. They've already told us to piss off...
Syria, now a member of the United Nations Security Council, is on the US State Department's list of states sponsoring terrorism because it supports Hezbollah. Syria also hosts political leaders from Hamas and Islamic Jihad, along with older secular groups battling Israel. And some battling Turkey... And anybody else who waves a gun and rolls his eyes and hollers "Death to [Fill in name]!"...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/18/2003 12:09 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
No more Iraqi oil to smuggle. That'll put a crimp in there budget.
#3
First Iraq, then France. Heck they should just phone in their surrender.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/18/2003 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Syria will be de facto next. They will lose their financial support when Sammy goes down. The regime will reform or die, and their terrorist clients setting up shop in country will begin to feel the financial heat and the military squeeze very soon.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/18/2003 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Well, the fact that's it's the only other Baa'thist Thugocracy does lend credence. Oh, and the Lebanon thing too, of course. Hey - maybe arming every jew-hating whacko able to drool on himself wasn't the best idea Big Daddy ever had, y'think? Hezbollah ring a bell?
From the Al-Guardian - Edited for brevity
Rape is being used as a political weapon by the youth militia and other groups allied to Zimbabwe's ruling party, according to human rights workers and church groups. Investigations by the Guardian reveal allegations of politically motivated rape against opposition supporters. "Thanks for the moral support, Jacques"
According to victims' testimony, members of President Robert Mugabe's militia are also forcing young women to be their concubines with impunity. Zimbabwe's human rights forum reported seven cases of politically motivated rape in 2002, alongside 58 murders and 1,061 cases of torture. But the reported rapes, verified by medical examinations and interviews, are just the tip of the iceberg, human rights workers say. Tell me why Nelson Mandela and Bishop Desmond Tutu aren't 'soapboxing' the international news media about this? Oh yeah, the Americans and Jeewwsss aren't to blame
"The victims are mostly young females, relatively uneducated, poor, rural, the most vulnerable members of society. Many urgently require anti-retrovirals for HIV infection."
.....
Sithulisiwe says she felt sorry for the young girls, of just 12 and 13, picked out by the camp commander and taken to a nearby hotel to be raped. Her voice is flat and only when she talks to her five-month-old child does her face light up. "I have named her Nokthula, which means peace. I want her to find peace — imagine, I do not even know who her father is."
Sithulisiwe and others were caught trying to escape. She says they were buried up to their necks. "We were beaten and thought we'd be killed, but the camp commander rescued us. They made us roll in mud, then would not let us take a bath."
The camp closed in July 2002. Many of the youths went to government training camps, and Sithulisiwe was sent away. Aided by a church group, she and other women then reported the rapes at Hillside police station near Bulawayo. "Then the doctor gave me a blood test. He told me I was HIV positive."
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 11:38 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Beyond the sick cruelty, how smart is it to rape someone whos got HIV, or to gangrape someone when one of your gang has HIV. That whole rape gang is probably now infected.
#2
I predict by November of this year Martin Sheen and his Hollywood commie friends will put together a telethon to raise money for the starving in Zimbabwe ala the 'We are the World' crowd, ignoring Mugabe's hand in the creation of this famine, his racism, his brutality and his hatred.
But the really hilariously funny part is that those efforts will probably be wildly more successful than the 'We are the World' thing, and we will never find out that the ZAPU will use the proceeds to throw a drunken, whore-mongering party in Libya
Initial euphoria has turned to fear in the Central African Republic where the rebel leader General Francois Bozize has seized control of the country. "The shooting has stopped this morning but there is still looting. Rebels have been shooting the looters dead," a Bangui resident told BBC News Online by telephone. "It's our country now. Nobody loots except us."
"Administrative buildings, shops and schools remain closed. There are very few cars on the streets." The BBC's Joseph Benamse in Bangui says 15 people have died since rebels marched into Bangui on Saturday afternoon. France has sent 300 soldiers to protect foreign citizens in the country and reinforce peacekeepers sent by the Central African Economic Community (Cemac) last year. They always show up after the fact, like buzzards.
Meanwhile, the foreign ministers of Gabon and Congo have arrived in Bangui for talks with General Bozize and the Cemac force, reports the French news agency, AFP. General Bozize has called for more Cemac troops to be sent to Bangui in order to stabilise the station. "Now that I'm in charge, can you help me stay in power?"
A spokesman for the African Union said it was recommending that CAR be suspended from the body. Ousted President Ange-Felix Patasse remains in Cameroon after his plane was fired upon in Bangui as he returned home from a conference in Niger. He has not yet issued a statement. General Bozize, who has declared himself the new president, has suspended the constitution and dissolved both government and parliament. According to local sources, he has met with the head of the army Colonel Antoine Gambi, the head of the police and the para-military gendarmerie, which indicates the military may be willing to back the rebel leader. His check must have cleared.
Meanwhile, locals are wondering whether General Bozize has backing from outside the CAR. Witnesses say there are Arabic-speaking turbaned Chadian nationals among his supporters who are currently patrolling the streets. Uh oh, the turban and automatic weapons set are involved.
The United States has asked France to help protect its citizens and backed a French call for "a real, all-inclusive dialogue" as a necessary step to end the cycle of unrest in the CAR. We must not have any real interest here.
A spokeswoman for the US State Department urged General Bozize "to take steps toward national reconciliation that will lead to a democratically elected government". Being a State Department spokeswomen, I'll bet she really believes it could happen.
Mr Patasse, who was democratically elected in 1993, has weathered numerous coup attempts. Following an outbreak of fighting last October, the country was divided into two - between rebels loyal to Mr Bozize, and government troops.
Government troops regained control of the country this year, but the rebels remained at large in rural areas in the north, and in southern Chad. And now the rebels are the government. Expect a new rebel group to pop up next week.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/18/2003 10:10 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The french are there to reaffirm their business contacts with whoever heads the latest junta. De Villepin: "they all look the same to me anyway"
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/18/2003 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
