VISITORS to the Zhengzhou Zoo in central China's Henan province who do not enjoy passive smoking, let alone being spat on, had better avoid the monkey cage, state media reported. Thirteen-year-old chimpanzee Feili has turned to smoking, begging cigarettes from visitors and spitting on them when they do not comply, the Xinhua news agency reported.
"Gimme a smoke!"
"It's bad fer yer health!"
"So's this bad for yours! Thhhhppppp!"
Her fierce behavior is in reaction to being paired with a male, 28 years her senior, who seems to lack either the interest or the capability to satisfy her sexual demands, the agency said.
"Gimme a smoke!"
"I don't smoke!"
"Then gimme some gin!"
"I don't drink!"
"Sex toys?"
"Ummmm... No."
"Ever make it with a chimpanzee?"
Although Feili's behavior may seem outrageous, it is no more so than that of the people outside the cage, since she only took up her new habits after observing the visitors to the zoo, according to Xinhua.
A giant catfish is suspected of having eaten a dog in a German lake near the Polish border. The estimated 1.5 metre catfish has been making waves in the small lake near Gueldendorf for several years, the Berliner Kurier newspaper reported.
1.5 meters, they call that giant? Hell, we use ones that small for bait down here in Texas!
Catfish are generally scavengers that feed on plants and animals on the beds of lakes and rivers. They can on rare occasions grow up to 4.5 metres and weigh up to 300 kilos. But the giant fish has developed other tastes and is emptying the lake of all the other fish. Now a small dachshund dog is believed to have been pulled under and eaten, said the report.
"Fritzy, he ate Fritzy!"
Lutz Affedlt, head of the Gueldendorfer Fisherman's Club, says the fish was probably planted in the lake by someone. Several club members say they have had the phantom fish on their lines but that it has always broken off.
Yeah, that's what they all say. Need to use heavier line, wire leader and a surface plug shaped like a puppy.
Attempts to net the giant catfish and to use electroshocks to stun it have so far failed.
A advertisement in a fishing magazine would help the local tourist trade, and solve your problem.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2004 9:43:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Largest freshwater fish caught in Calif history was a 101 pound blue catfish at San Vicente res. in Lakeside Ca. What is the Texas record ?
#2
the Florida largemouth bass was also caught in nearby Poway Lake, I believe, by Dave Zimmerlee - 20lbs (+/-) IIRC
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 10:15 Comments ||
Top||
#3
121.5 pounds, picture here: Inland Fisheries Director Phil Durocher presents a state record award to Cody Mullenix while "Splash," the 121.5-pound blue catfish, swims in the Dive Theater Aquarium at Texas Freshwater Fisheries Center. Mullennix caught the giant blue from Lake Texoma January 16 and donated it to TFFC.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2004 10:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
June 2003 Jed Dickerson of Carlsbad caught a 21 lb. 11.2 Oz. hawg. Dixon has proven to be an incubator for big bass.
#6
CH - when I was a kid growing up older in Chula Vista, we used to ride bikes out to Upper Otay at night and poach fish even tho' it was closed - HUGE fish in there
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#7
I remember when I was on the Mekong Delta between Vietnam and Cambodia. I caught a catfish the size of a pony using discarded shell casings for bait. We ate that fish seared -- seared! -- with hush puppies and coleslaw. -- John F. Kerry
#9
Frank-My sons used to sneak into Barret years ago.I fish San V. mostly,but it is tough now.My biggest bass 8.7Lbs San V. 1987. (12 inch mister twister)
That Texas Catfish is a world record,I think.
#15
I think the big Mississippi river Cats around southern Missouri used to regularly hit 6' and 200+ lbs in the ol' days. But I don't believe they get that big anymore since the Army Corps of Engineers channelled the river to control flooding.
#19
I caught a catfish once from a rental boat,and when it got to the surface,one eye was on the left side of the bow,and the other was on the right side.I cut the line.Seared,mind you,seared !!!
Ok I was bored... Put these lyrics to "We are Family".
We are a culture of death
Everybody take your last breath
We are a culture of death
72 Virgins and Sex
Everyone better be Wahabbi
As we walk on by
Or we will seethe and take your liberty
I'm not telling no lie
All infidiels around us to slay
We will be that close
Just let me state for the record
We're giving death in a family dose, yeah
CHORUS
We are a culture of death
Everybody take your last breath
We are a culture of death
72 Virgins and Sex
Living life is done and we've just begun
To get our share of the heaven's delights
Jihad we have for the future
And our goal's in sight
No we don't get depressed
Here's what we call our golden rule
Convert or die you, and your family too
You won't go wrong, oh no
Let us start of with the Jews, yeah
CHORUS
Posted by: Ol_Dirty_American ||
08/30/2004 8:26:02 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This is lame and in any case it was Sister Sledge
#4
Sister Sledge it is! I remember that it was the theme song for the 1979 Pittsburg Pirates, the year they won the World Series. The memory is seared - seared! in me.
Posted by: Bill C ||
08/30/2004 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Pointer Sisters did a remake.
If this is true, then the end of civilization has got to be near. My memories aren't crystal clear, but I seem to remember the Pointer Sisters' time at the top of their game was about the same as that of Sister Sledge, so why they'd want to do a remake of that song is beyond me...
The leftist F.A.R.C. (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) guerrillas of Colombia have accepted Luis C. Restrepo as a go between for prisoner exchange & peace negotiations & they assure that they won't negotiate using the Internet. Using the Internet was apparently proposed.
This is the response of the guerrilla leader Raúl Reyes to the latest declarations from the High Commission for Peace about the so-called humanitarian exchange.(as they've taken to calling the proposed prisoner exchange between the leftist F.A.R.C. guerrillas & the Colombian government.)
The F.A.R.C. said that Restrepo would be an acceptable interlocutor for the matter, (as he called it) but he warned that the F.A.R.C. wouldn't negotiate via the Internet, as the official had proposed. On the other hand he insisted that the F.A.R.C. needed a demilitarized zone to facilitate a face-to-face meeting. That's what it could boil down to, according to them. The agreement would free the F.A.R.C.'s hostages in exchange for jailed F.A.R.C. guerrillas.
Continued on Page 49
In one of those meetings he put some big maps on my office desk in Washington. While he gesticulated over the maps he told me that he had a plan to designate a small part of Colombia-the size of Switzerland-as a demilitarized zone in which the rebels would be able to move around without fear of arrest. Once he invited them to the negotiating table, he said the negotiations would start and the conflict would end. When he finished his presentation I asked him: And what is your "plan B?" Unfortunately he didn't have a "plan B," says Hastert in his book.
According to the Speaker, "Pastrana didn't seem to understand that the rebels that fill their pockets every year with hundreds of millions of dollars in drug money would never go to the negotiating table if they weren't militarily pressured." These revelations are relevant because they show that Washington never had much faith in the peace process with the F.A.R.C. Indeed in spite of the fact that Europeans, Asians & Latin Americans supported the plan from the beginning, Washington, Colombia's main ally, seemed slow to accept the plan & remained distant.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Kentucky Beef ||
08/30/2004 3:48:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think "Plan B" in Columbia involves lot's of cash and a plane ticket to Miami.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2004 16:38 Comments ||
Top||
Colombian Congressmen say there is a plot to assasssinate the country's leftist leaders. The assassinations would be part of a an plan dubbed "Operation Dragon," which would also target unions & members of human rights organizations. House Representative Alexäder López today confirmed in the Capitol that military intelligence documents discovered by the Technical Investigation Body in MedellÃn & Cali reveal the plot. He indicated in a press conference that "members of the Colombian military are involved," in the operation.
According the Representative Wilson Borja the Justice Department is aware of the plot, yet has failed to take the necessary security precautions. "The hit list is long," says Borja, who himself escaped an assassination attempt on December 15th, 2000. He added "if anything happens we will not only hold the Colombian President responsible, but all Colombian authorities." Leftists senators & congressmen appear on the supposed list of leaders to be assassinated, which include Lucho Garzón, Mayor of Bogotä, Apolinar Salcedo, Mayor of Cali & Angelino Garzón, Governor of the Colombian Department of Cauca Valley (Valle del Cauca.) "The intelligence report names important members of the country, the entire Democratic Pole leadership & other members of unions & human rights organizations," says López. Others named on the hit list include Senator Carlos Gaviria (I think he used to be President of Colombia) & Congressman Wilson Borja of the Democratic Alternative Party. According to the congressmen "Operation Dragon" would have begun with assassination of López & a human rights leader of Cauca Valley (Valle del Cauca.)
Via El Tiempo
Posted by: Kentucky Beef ||
08/30/2004 2:57:53 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The war between right-wing paramilitaries, known as the "paras," and leftist guerrillas in Colombia has left more than 100 dead along the San Juan River. Over the last two months the war for control of the coca trade has divided the river valley into two areas: upstream & downstream. Paramilitaries pay 2.5 million Colombian Pesos ($910 U.S.) per kilo of coca & the F.A.R.C. guerrillas, or Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia,) pay 3.6 million Colombian Pesos ($1,311 U.S.) per kilo.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Kentucky Beef ||
08/30/2004 1:51:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A former White House counter-terrorism adviser says the Australian election campaign is at more risk of an al-Qaeda terrorist attack than the United States presidential election. Richard Clarke, an adviser to four presidents, said Labor leader Mark Latham's pledge to bring Australian troops home from Iraq by Christmas meant there were differences in policy between the two sides of politics which al-Qaeda could seek to exploit.
Mr Clarke said it was unlikely that al-Qaeda would attempt to influence the US election in November because it was unclear what effect a terror attack would have on voters or candidates. But he said the Australian election a month earlier could be an attractive target. "Australia is a bit more like the Spanish case, where you do have one party saying get out and another party staying the course, and the party in power is the one wanting to stay the course," Mr Clarke told ABC television's Lateline program. "That's much closer to the situation that we saw in Spain and so you could understand how al-Qaeda or some terrorist group related to al-Qaeda might think it could affect the outcome. It opens the possibility of some terrorist group related to al-Qaeda wanting to do something which otherwise wouldn't be the case in the Australian election. So oddly enough, I'm saying I don't think al-Qaeda will try to affect the US election, but because the Australian election is so similar to what happened in Spain, I would think the possibility does exist there."
Treasurer Peter Costello has warned that Australians could be at an increased risk of terrorism during the election campaign. "The only thing you can say is this, in Spain during an election there was a terrorist incident, so we have to be careful in Australia," Mr Costello said. Mr Clarke said he took seriously an internet threat earlier this year by Islamic extremists to launch a series of car bomb attacks in Australia unless it pulled out of Iraq. "Australian forces in law enforcement and intelligence are probably the greatest threat to the Jihadist network in this part of the world," he said. "So I would expect the Jihadist network to try to do something against Australia in some way."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
08/30/2004 7:14:31 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Aren't this guy's 15 minutes up?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 20:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I liked the ad for Emirates Airline, Melbourne to Christ Church. Surprised they haven't asked to have the name changed to Prophet's Port. Clark, Helen, would probably do it.
And who is dumber to think a terrorist attack would make the Aussies leave, Clark or Osama? If you want to see the Ozzies mad, blow up a car there. I triple dog dare you, Osama.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 20:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Interesting thought. Perhaps it's because Bush's reaction to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan was so unforseen, they have no REAL idea how we'll vote if they do it again?
I am of the opinion that the Aussie's midset is much more like ours than the Spansh. A terrorist attack would piss them off, not cower them, and Howard would win by a bigger margin. . .
There Clark goes blasting gas from a lower orafice again. . .
MADRID - Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero will host informal summit talks with French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder in Madrid on 13 September, his office said Monday. A spokesman said the talks were expected to focus on international questions but added that Zapatero had no ambition to create "a Paris-Berlin-Madrid axis" in place of the "Paris-Berlin axis which is the driving force of the European Union".
He'd like too, but they won't give up the reins of power.
Zapatero said after coming to power in an unexpected election victory in March that his government would seek closer ties with its EU partners, in contrast to the pro-US foreign policy of its conservative predecessor. He has said Spain will hold a referendum early next year to ratify the new EU constitution.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2004 10:00:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They needed a third for whist. Putin was busy.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/30/2004 10:50 Comments ||
Top||
#2
What's on the agenda, white flag waving techniques?
#7
Everybody including Zappy himself is giving him to much credit.
True. I mean, how much in the way of talking can Zappy do while driving Chirac and Schroeder back and forth from their hotel to the meeting (hence the 'informal')?
Turkey's powerful military Monday marked the anniversary of a 1922 victory that helped bring the country's secular system to power by warning that it is prepared to counter any upswing in activity by Islamic extremists. The staunchly secular military is suspicious of the Islamic-rooted governing party of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and of attempts to raise the profile of Islam in this predominantly Muslim but secular country. "The risks and threats that we face today ... force our armed forces to be even more vigilant and powerful ... especially at a time when certain circles are frequently questioning our national values and the patience and resolution of the Turkish Armed Forces is being tested," military chief of staff Gen. Hilmi Ozkok said. "The Turkish Armed Forces, with its full-hearted commitment to the Turkish Republic's pillars, play an important role in protecting the Turkish Republic's peace and stability," Ozkok said in his message to mark the 82nd anniversary of the country's victory over the invading forces of France, Britain, Italy and Greece.
That would be a reminder to the current government.
The military, the self-appointed guarantor of Turkey's secular regime, has staged three coups in the last four decades. In 1997, the military also pressured a pro-Islamic government out of power and has staunchly opposed any rise in radical Islam since then. Celebrations for "Victory Day" were held under tight security. In downtown Diyarbakir, the largest city in the Kurdish-dominated southeast, police defused a remote-controlled bomb believed to be planted by autonomy-seeking Kurdish rebels on a street used by local military and government officials, the governor's office said.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2004 9:20:44 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
France, Britain, Italy and Greece.
I can't figure out why the Great Satan wasn't involved in this undertaking.
#2
The Great Satan did not declare war on Turkey. The bigger question is how Australia got left off the list. Perhaps the whole Commonwealth is subsumed under Britain when the Great is dropped.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 9:43 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Iâve been hearing about how the Turkish Military will put an end to this Islamic nonsense since I started reading rantburg. I do have to admit that this is the first time Iâve heard the Turkish military rattle its own sabre. Hopefully, thatâs a good sign â but Iâll believe it when I see it.
Iâd like to remind everyone that Iâve been noting that Yippy was a tool of the Islamists long before they backstabbed us. Everyone was telling me how ignorant I was...ha! The Military didnât stop him back then. Not sure what is so much different today for the abrupt change of heart.
Posted by: B ||
08/30/2004 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#1
Can you iamgine a U.S. president going on TV and carrying on like this? Thats right it would never happen. Le Worm indeed. Shows how weak France actually is. Weak and spineless.
#5
This is too funny. Didn't Chirac and his cronies believe in their own principles strongly enough to have issued an outright refusal at the outset, without having to "stiffen" their posture??
#6
Laughing boy, why don't you actually check the article, instead of mocking the title that .com chose? You really are ridiculous, trying so desperately to find something to mock and utterly failing in the attempt.
#7
Aris, I was about to agree with you... before I read this:
"France ensures equality, the respect and protection of the free practicing of all religions," a solemn-looking Chirac said in a televised address. "These values of respect and tolerance inspire our actions everywhere in the world ... They also inspired France's policy in Iraq."
When Max Liebermann, a famous German painter in the 20s and 30s, was asked his comment about the Nazis, he said.
"I just can't eat the amount I want to puke."
Ditto here.
Btw congrats for the Olympics. I liked the party atmosphere in the closing ceremony.
In the midst of the controversy between the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and Kerry campaign representatives about Kerry's service in Vietnam, new questions have arisen. The Kerry campaign has repeatedly stated that the official naval records prove the truth of Kerry's assertions about his service.
They keep saying it, but won't release the full records.
But the official records on Kerry's Web site only add to the confusion. The DD214 form, an official Defense Department document summarizing Kerry's military career posted on johnkerry.com, includes a "Silver Star with combat V." But according to a U.S. Navy spokesman, "Kerry's record is incorrect. The Navy has never issued a 'combat V' to anyone for a Silver Star." Naval regulations do not allow for the use of a "combat V" for the Silver Star, the third-highest decoration the Navy awards. None of the other services has ever granted a Silver Star "combat V," either.
Oops!
If I remember correctly, the "V" went with the Bronze Star, which could be awarded either for valor or meritorious service in support of combat operations. A separate Meritorious Service Medal, ranking just behind the Bronze Star in precedence, was introduced in 1971 or 1972.
B.G. Burkett, a Vietnam veteran himself, received the highest award the Army gives to a civilian, the Distinguished Civilian Service Award, for his book Stolen Valor. Burkett pored through thousands of military service records, uncovering phony claims of awards and fake claims of military service. "I've run across several claims for Silver Stars with combat V's, but they were all in fake records," he said. Burkett recently filed a complaint that led last month to the sentencing of Navy Capt. Roger D. Edwards to 115 days in the brig for falsification of his records.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2004 10:25:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
...And to think that poor Jerry Boorda killed himself over less..
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
08/30/2004 10:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Kerry, who should have been discharged from the Navy about the same time -- July 1, 1972 -- wasn't given the discharge he has on his campaign Web site until July 13, 1978. What delayed the discharge for six years?
I read or heard the answer to that one the other day. Kerry's request was to retire from active duty into the reserves. Yes, that means he was a Reserve Officer while he was dishonoring our country. The source also noted that Kerry never drilled and may have been removed in 1978 for failure to meet his committments. I think its possibe that he was in the IRR as I was and didn't need to drill, but I sure the truth will out.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/30/2004 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Kerry's comments on Boorda are disgusting, given the facts that have come out on JF'nK hissownself
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#4
SH
Was Kerry AWOL? That's a serious charge to the MSM.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 10:59 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The source also noted that Kerry never drilled and may have been removed in 1978 for failure to meet his committments
#6
In the final report on Adm Boorda, I believe they found that he not only rated the "V" device, but also two additional awards that he wasn't wearing.
As an aside, following the Boordaâs suicide, several senior officers began research on the decorations they were wearing, noting they indeed were in the same fix as Boorda. Often, a general notice (ALNAV/ALMAR) is issued listing criterion for the award and a unit clerk will insert the proper entryâ¦sometimes in error. Shit happens!
In this case, Kerry is holding the shitty end of the stick.
#9
That's because ADM Jerry Boorda thought he had dishonored the uniform, service, and country. Some people care about Duty, Honor, and Country. Kerry cares about money, prestige, and power. I found out today that there are three different versions of the Silver Star citation. Sad very sad.
EFL
A John F. Kerry administration would propose to Iran that the Islamic state be allowed to keep its nuclear power plants in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making, Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards said in an interview yesterday.
Yep. Dealt with that problem. Any more of that warm milk?
Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a "great bargain," it would essentially confirm that it is building nuclear weapons under the cover of a supposedly peaceful nuclear power initiative. He said that, if elected, Kerry would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States in levying heavy sanctions if Iran rejected the proposal. "If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Edwards said.
Maybe you do. I'm not at all sure the Euros are. And I'm certainly not...
The French will stand where they always stand.
Edwards's notion of proposing such a bargain with Iran, combined with Kerry's statement in December that he was prepared to explore "areas of mutual interest" with Iran, suggests that Kerry would take a sharply different approach with Iran than has President Bush. The United States has not had diplomatic relations with Iran since its 1979 revolution, and Iran was part of Bush's "axis of evil" that included North Korea and the former government of Iraq. Earlier this month, Bush declared that Iran "must abandon her nuclear ambitions"...
Fair comparison: Bush tells them to get rid of their nuclear ambitions, Kerry would aid and abet them.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 9:59:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
German rearmament in the 1930s got the same response from weak and short-sighted politicians (and the public) - 'they really oughtn't be doing it, but as they are, and as they assure us it's not going to be used against us, it's better to let them get on with it.' The parallels between Nazi Germany and Iran today are strong. The rhetoric's there for all to hear (a true BGO for those willing to listen), the insane, aggressive and dictatorial politico-religious regime's in power, and there's also the fact that the western European powers are rushing to appease.
"Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a 'great bargain,'"
History repeating itself, and here's Kedwards fighting to be the next Chamberlain?
#4
Didn't Jimmy Carter copyright his North Korea plan? What an oversight.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
08/30/2004 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
President Kerry canât be allowed to happen!
I'm a bit more sanguine.
If Kerry doesn't get elected, obviously fine.
If Kerry does get elected, the people will get the consequences that demonstrate the foolishness of their former values and decision.
Either way, the mullahs are heading for a bruising.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"...in exchange for giving up the right to retain the nuclear fuel that could be used for bomb-making..."
Now that would defeat the whole effort, wouldn't it. /sarcasm off/
Did it ever dawn on Mr. Peace In Our Time that they just might change their mind right before the exchange. What would the Moron Who Would Be President propose to do then -- nuke Iran before having time to consult France, or consult France while the Iranians stash the plutonium? Idiot.
Posted by: Tom ||
08/30/2004 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#7
"If Kerry does get elected, the people will get the consequences..." Yeah, that's the part that bothers me. I've raised three kids that I love dearly and I don't want them to be nuked by an Iranian bomb coming up the Hudson River or the Delaware River or the Chesapeake Bay...
Posted by: Tom ||
08/30/2004 11:15 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Bulldog wrote: German rearmament in the 1930s got the same response from weak and short-sighted politicians (and the public) - 'they really oughtn't be doing it, but as they are, and as they assure us it's not going to be used against us, it's better to let them get on with it.' The parallels between Nazi Germany and Iran today are strong.
The Iranians aren't rearming themselves like the Nazis did in the thirties. They claim to be building nuclear facilities for power plants. And how can we trust our own intel when they were clearly wrong with Iraq?
#9
RT: The Iranians aren't rearming themselves like the Nazis did in the thirties. They claim to be building nuclear facilities for power plants. And how can we trust our own intel when they were clearly wrong with Iraq?
Because WMD's don't matter. Iran has long been a thorn in America's side. Even if the intelligence about WMD's is wrong, removing a threat to American security interests that has been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in the past is no sin. Besides, Iran has plenty of oil - there is no reason for it to be opening nuclear power plants, which generate power at far higher costs than can be generated using nuclear fuel.
#10
ZF: Besides, Iran has plenty of oil - there is no reason for it to be opening nuclear power plants, which generate power at far higher costs than can be generated using nuclear fuel.
That should have read:
Besides, Iran has plenty of oil - there is no reason for it to be opening nuclear power plants, which generate power at far higher costs than can be generated using oil-fired plants.
#11
I wouldnt say our own Intel was entirely wrong about Iraq. Saddam was, it turned out, seeking yelowcake in Nigeria. Everyone's intel said that Saddam had WMD at the time. For all we know he might have had WMD at the time - he did use it against the Kurds and Iranians.
And plus I dont think we can trust France and Germany (or, God forbid, the UN) to 'monitor' any agreement -- seeing how they were pretty much 'bought off' with Saddam's oil-for-palaces program.
#12
Edwards said that if Iran failed to take what he called a "great bargain," it would essentially confirm that it is building nuclear weapons under the cover of a supposedly peaceful nuclear power initiative.
#13
North Korea has nuclear weapons. Or at least that's what the CIA believes. And as Beijing has told Washington, they don't want to see our intel because of the Iraq intel fiasco. So, my question is, if we believe that the DPRK actually has nuclear weapons, why would we allow that, but not allow the Iranians to do the same? Perhaps we should actually attack those who actually pose a threat to us...not ones who tried to as President Bush said, "Tried to kill my Dad."
I mean my God, we went to war in Iraq because we claimed they has WMDs, which we've never found! Saddam was a bad guy, but was it okay to bomb Kosovo back in 1999? Should we have sent ground troops into Belgrade to take out Milosevic, who was just as bad as Saddam? If you believe that the war in Iraq was good, then shouldn't the ground troops being placed in Yugoslavia been just the same? So then, why in 1999 was there this massive outrage from the right about the proposal to send ground troops into Belgrade to take Milosevic out?
Sure, there was 9-11, but don't you think that was in a long time coming? Sure, it's a terrible thing and I hope it never happens again. But you know what Osama Bin Laden's biggest grief with the United States was on September 11? That the United States has troops in Saudi Arabia! Ahh! We had troops in Saudi Arabia dating from the first Gulf War...a war we fought for good reason! Saddam invaded Kuwait; with UN support, we kicked him out. There were other planned attacks during the 90s that the Clinton administration broke up, such as the plots to bomb 10 airplanes over the Pacific, the bombing of the Lincoln and Holland tunnels in NYC, and stopping the millenium LAX plot. The devastation of blowing up 10 planes over the Pacific would be devastating! Bombing out the Lincoln and Holland tunnels would produce the same result, as would the LAX plot have.
Meanwhile, we have President Bush. John Kerry, idiot? Maybe. But, he won't lead the United States to become the future axis power of a future WWIII (the US versus the world), like Bush will.
#15
The Iranians aren't rearming themselves like the Nazis did in the thirties.
IrrelevantTopic: Gosh, no they're not, are they? The Nazis had to acquire overwhelmingly powerful conventional forces because nuclear technology wasn't available to them. It's a lot simpler for the Iranians - a small number of nukes are more of a threat than a large number of armoured divisions, and the only tool that could work against Iran's chosen enemies - the US and Israel. And re. your ludicrous belief that Iran want the facilities as power pants -see ZF's response. What kind of gullible fool are you?
#17
Perhaps we should actually attack those who actually pose a threat to us...not ones who tried to as President Bush said, "Tried to kill my Dad."
Uhhh, because attacking a nuclear-armed country is a bit more difficult to do? It's far less difficult (and messy) to stop some rogue nation from going nuclear, than it is to whack someone who already has them.
But, he won't lead the United States to become the future axis power of a future WWIII (the US versus the world), like Bush will.
Oh dear, any credibility you might have had just went out the window. *yawn*
#20
George W Bush is not good for this country. He claims he is, but he's not. He's destroyed our government's surplus that we had. He started a war because as President Bush said, "Tried to kill my Dad."
And the credibility you say that went out the window? WRONG. Unless you want to see our country become the enemy of the world, then fine, vote for Bush.
#21
#8
Following the logic of your intelligence argument will turn us to being a perma reactionary force. I think we have already seen the results of that policy. No thanks.
#13
North Korea is Clinton's fault as he made deals with them, and as it turns out, NK was breaking those deals behind our backs. Kerry's proposal is a regurgitation of Clinton's failed policy with NK. John Kerry, idiot? Yes. This is very recent history which he seemed to have forgotten.
#22
#18 Guess what? That WMD he used, we gave him. Reall DU 'tard aren't you? F-off back to kindergarten you ignorant shit.
Posted by: Bulldog 2004-08-30 11:48:27 AM
#19 Guess what? That WMD he used, we gave him. Wrong answer. We didn't "give" him the WMDs he used. Thank you for playing, and we have some nice parting gifts backstage for you.
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2004-08-30 11:49:30 AM
Oh, so I'm the ignorant one. Show me where you can prove that the US DIDNT GIVE WMDS to Iraq?
#23
But GWB would rather seek revenge than bring justice to the world because he'd rather get the man who as President Bush said, "Tried to kill my Dad," than get the man who's actually proliferating nuclear weapons.
#24
LiberalStrike: I mean my God, we went to war in Iraq because we claimed they has WMDs, which we've never found!
We went to war in Iraq to:
1) remove a dangerous thug who broke his word to us repeatedly
2) remove a dangerous thug who was aiding and abetting terrorism
3) remove a dangerous thug who was scheming to obtain weapons that could harm us
4) remove a dangerous thug who had his hell on the necks of 24 million innocents
5) remove a dangerous thug who greatly complicated our ability to fight the War on Terror properly
6) remove a dangerous thug who had WMD in the past, had not renounced the quest for WMD, and who refused to come clean when challenged to do so by the UN.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2004 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Oh, so I'm the ignorant one. Show me where you can prove that the US DIDNT GIVE WMDS to Iraq?
Will do, when you demonstrate that France never supplied anthrax to al Qaeda. Moron. You prove the US did.
Saddam got most of his chemical WMD components and technology from the Soviet Union/Russia. Ditto for bio WMD, with assistance from France, Germany and China. The ONLY thing the US did there was to sell (via ATCC, a commerical biological supply house that I do business with myself) reference cultures of certain bacteria (e.g., anthrax) that are commonly used in medical laboratories. The Iraqis used these as part of their weaponization program.
As to nuclear WMD, Iraq got virtually all of its components from SU/Russia, France, Germany and the rest of Europe, much of it through disguised purchases of "dual-use" products, or through third-party cut-outs.
Please examine carefully, RT -- of all the arms Iraq had, 57% came from the SU/Russia, 13% from China, and 12% from France. The US sold Iraq less than 0.3% of its arms, and virtually none of its WMD (source: Agency for International Disarmament).
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2004 12:01 Comments ||
Top||
#27
You forgot footnotes!
We went to war in Iraq to:
1) remove a dangerous thug who broke his word to us repeatedly
2) remove a dangerous thug who was aiding and abetting terrorism*
3) remove a dangerous thug who was scheming to obtain weapons that could harm us*
4) remove a dangerous thug who had his hell on the necks of 24 million innocents
5) remove a dangerous thug who greatly complicated our ability to fight the War on Terror properly*
6) remove a dangerous thug who had WMD in the past, had not renounced the quest for WMD, and who refused to come clean when challenged to do so by the UN*.
2*)Hasn't been proven
3*)The yellow cake issue is still iffy
5*)We werent' fighting the WoT in Iraq
6*)Saddam did allow the Inspectors back in, gave thousands of documents that the US called "lies," and the US gave Saddam the WMDs he used in Iraq and Iran. Now a slowly growing number of Kurds want to see US officials on trial for giving the WMDs to Saddam.
#28
Donât bother Steve. The âcompassionate peace crowdâ could care less about the rape rooms, torture chambers and gassing of the Kurds. They just love to hate. Hate-Bush is what they are all about.
If it was 1920 USA â theyâd be the KKK, if it was 1930 Germany, theyâd be the Naziâs. In 40âs, 50âs and 60âs it was the bourgeois they wanted dead. In the 90âs it was the 3Râs â rednecks, republicans and religious people. Now itâs Bush â it doesnâmatter how many die to feed their addiction to hate. Blame and Shame â thatâs the game.
Posted by: B ||
08/30/2004 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#29
#20
Dot com crash destroyed our surplus. Not George Bush. The Iraq war was done primarily to spread democracy.
#30
Oh, so I'm the ignorant one. Show me where you can prove that the US DIDNT GIVE WMDS to Iraq?
Well, moron, while it's impossible to prove a negative, it's easy enough to show that the US did damned little in the way of weapons sales to Iraq:
http://www.command-post.org/archives/002978.html
The closest the US ever came to supplying anything WMD-related to Iraq was a medical research company providing an anthrax culture to Iraq. Apparently Iraqi researchers claimed to be researching animal vaccines, a legitimate use of the cultures.
Stop smoking the Democrat talking points and get yourself educated.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/30/2004 12:06 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Interesting to note you've got no problem with 4), 'Liberal'Strike.
#34
Actually, it's well-established that Saddam was aiding and supporting terrorists:
o Large numbers of the "Black September" group were hosted in Iraq, on Saddam's payroll.
o The last fugitive from the 1993 WTC attack was hosted in Iraq. Saddam claimed the fellow was in prison, but more reliable reports had him living on a Saddam-provided pension in relative comfort.
o Saddam regularly paid bounties to Palestinians who sent their kids to kill Israelis.
He also claimed that the former regime of Saddam Hussein "strictly and directly controlled" members of bin Laden's Al-Qaeda terror network in Iraq before the US invasion, as charged by members of US President George Bush's administration but refuted by other experts.
Hmmm... based on the number of witless trolls we're getting, I wonder if something REALLY, REALLY bad just happened for the Kerry campaign. Perhaps the weekend poll numbers came in?
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/30/2004 12:15 Comments ||
Top||
#79
Fine work Steve and obvious to anyone who knows anything about the history of Iraq'a weapon programs. But that won't get through the heads of our two seeeeensitive visitors. They will still think that Bush directed our military into Iraq "because Saddam tried to kill my dad". I loved the "he blew all the surplus" line too. Gee, a bubble economy bursts and then the country suffers a devastating terrorist attack. Think that might have some effect on government revenues? I don't care for some of the Bush's big spending programs, but those are secondary issues to me. The only issue that matters is the war against radical Islam and Iran is the centerpiece of that war. That is why they cannot get nukes.
China is right next to Korea. If Lil Kim gets too out of line it is the Chinese who will whack him. Iran, on the other hand, is our problem (and the Israelis). We are going to have to whack them sooner or later. They are the centerpoint of world terror and they must not be able to get nuclear weapons. Period!
Posted by: remote man ||
08/30/2004 12:19 Comments ||
Top||
#83
"Hmmm... based on the number of witless trolls we're getting, I wonder if something REALLY, REALLY bad just happened for the Kerry campaign. Perhaps the weekend poll numbers came in?"
Kerry shares on www.intrade.com are circling the drain, while Bush's shares have been rising steadily for the last week. The Iowa Electronic Markets are showing the same movement.
In the betting, at least, the money's on Bush more and more.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/30/2004 12:23 Comments ||
Top||
#84
Grow up, huh? Self-indulgent twat.
Perhaps you should be the one growing up? I thought you were grown up, but appearantly you're not, considering you been doing the name calling.
I don't believe I have done any name calling. Hmm...so who's the grown up person now?
#85
amen Dave. Whenever a troll does that, I reread comments to see if there was a comment that they wanted to push out of sight.
Donât know if thatâs the case here. Poor troll. Mucky â maybe you can help him with his social skills.
Posted by: B ||
08/30/2004 12:26 Comments ||
Top||
#86
Give the references, LiberalStrike, of where the United States gave WMDs to Saddam, since, logically speaking, no one can prove a negative, and YOU know it. That's why, in a court of law, one is innocent until proven guilty, but when it comes to the united states, your statement shows you want it to be assumed guilty until proven innocent.
Everyone agrees we sold Saddam agricultural helicopters that are used to spray herbicides, and which had a dual-use function as WMD delivery systems, which the DoD was fully aware of and warned of, but Commerce chanted, LIKE YOU, that Saddam could be trusted. We imposed sanctions on sales of equipment AFTER Commerce was proven wrong and Saddam gassed the Kurds.
Your moral illiteracy is showing: The accusation IMPLIES that Saddam was incapable of making a moral choice NOT to use WMDs, and thus try to shift the moral onus on the United States. As if devotion to full evil to the extent of being incapable of being good IS AN ACCEPTABLE EXCUSE. It's the usual liberal "IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S FAULT!" excuse when confronted with murderers of all stripes, be they muggers on the street or Stalin in the Kremlin.
So what'll it be? If Saddam WAS capable of a choice, then he's morally culpable, not us, and we were justified in invading him and taking him out of power for daring to abuse our good graces to turn agricultural machines into a WMD delivery system. Doing so would be the manly thing to do to repair the damage we've done, just as our armed forces currently pay Iraquis for any incidental damage done during firefights. If Saddam was NOT capable of a moral choice, then he'd have no compuction to use WMDs, with delivery courtesy of terrorists, and our invasion was fully justified to prevent him doing so, in the same way we arrest and throw drunk drivers in Jail, even though they didn't hurt anyone.
#87
Can our special guests enlighten us as to what Kerry intends to do about Iraq?
Posted by: Matt ||
08/30/2004 12:27 Comments ||
Top||
#88
6*)Saddam did allow the Inspectors back in, gave thousands of documents that the US called "lies," and the US gave Saddam the WMDs he used in Iraq and Iran.
This "Liberal Strike" and Irrelevant Topic must be the same person - they both parrot the same line.
Posted by: B ||
08/30/2004 12:29 Comments ||
Top||
#90
What can Kerry do about Iraq? GWB already screwed it up, so all Kerry can do is bring in more international involvement so US forces can start being withdrawn.
Also, Saddam was being kept in a box. Back in March of 2001, Condi Rice was saying that keeping Saddam in his box was okay.
As far as I know, I'm not Relevant Topic. Perhaps there's more than just one person who believes that the US helped contribute to Saddam's use of WMDs in Iraq and Iran.
#91
Kerry on Iraq: Kerry accused President Bush of misleading the country before the war in Iraq, burning bridges with U.S. allies and having no plan to win peace. But when questioned about saying Thursday in his acceptance speech, "I know what we have to do in Iraq," he would not tip his hand.
#93
The last time Kerry made a suggestion about Iraq, which was going back to the UN and trying to get some sort of Security Council recognition of the war, a week later, Bush did exactly that. Perhaps this time, Kerry figured he'd keep his plans for his administration away from Bush so Bush won't steal it and call it his own idea.
#94
Bulldog is right. Provide the evidence of your claim or hit the highway. Substantial evidence has been provided in this thread to refute your idiotic claim about the US supplying WMD's to Iraq, yet you continue to cling to your position. Why, when you apparently have no evidence?
Posted by: remote man ||
08/30/2004 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#95
How can we allow a theocracy to have nukes? If Allan tells 'em to use nukes, they will. Absolute f*cking madness - the sooner we bomb that power plant, the better. and do it now while we're on two of their borders. Bulldog: Absolutely spot on concerning Chamberlain - this has an awfully familiar feel about it...
Posted by: Howard UK ||
08/30/2004 12:39 Comments ||
Top||
#96
yeah! why is chainey always steal poor kerrys ideas!?! good post ls.
#98
As far as I know, I'm not Relevant Topic. Perhaps there's more than just one person who believes that the US helped contribute to Saddam's use of WMDs in Iraq and Iran.
"US gave Saddam the WMDs! US gave Saddam the WMDs!! *SQUAWK!!*"
Sorry pal, but that old leftist US-armed-Saddam-with-WMDs crap doesn't fly anymore. Only someone with their head planted firmly up their anal cavity would be dumb enough to go down that route again.
You seem to have the mystical power to read Kerry's mind. Get out your Ouija board and give us details of Kerry's plan, and we promise not to let Bush take credit for it. But it would really be helpful to know before we make our decisions in November.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 12:46 Comments ||
Top||
#108
LS: The last time Kerry made a suggestion about Iraq, which was going back to the UN and trying to get some sort of Security Council recognition of the war, a week later, Bush did exactly that. Perhaps this time, Kerry figured he'd keep his plans for his administration away from Bush so Bush won't steal it and call it his own idea.
Bush did not "steal" that idea. He reluctantly went to the UN in response to an attempt by Kerry to undermine public support for the campaign in Iraq. He did it just to show that he had gone the extra step to give Saddam time to come clean with his WMD programs.
The bottom line is this - the CIA was wrong about WMD's and it was wrong about 9/11. Being wrong about WMD's wasn't particularly important - we would have gone to war whether or not Saddam had WMD's. The liberal media has focused on it because it was one item put forth for the war that has since proven inconclusive. Our casualties (1,000) in Iraq would have happened with or without the WMD intelligence. Bad intelligence on 9/11 caused 3,000 American dead and tens of billions of dollars of destroyed infrastructure. Intelligence will never be perfect. If we do not act on Iran, the next terrorist attack could see us counting our civilian dead in the hundreds of thousands, or even millions.
#110
Bulldog didn't prove it himself. I'm researching as we speak
I was asked to prove a negative. Twat, if you had a brain that could process logic you'd know that's impossible. But you're a Liberal, so although you're thick as mince, you think you're clever. A crippling combination, so I don't expect you to understand. DU talking point threads don't coinstitute 'evidence' btw. OK? Start again...
#111
#100-105 Heh, including LiberalStrike AND yourself?
LiberalStrike, another observation about your moral illiteracy: The right to judge requires impartiality, but failure to condemn France, the Soviet Union, china, and even BRAZIL, for arming Saddam MORE SO than the United States, shows how abysmally unqualified you are to judge anyone.
And to prove it, here's a PDF summarizing Arms sales to Iraq. the Czechs and Poles sold more than the USA, but they were part of the Warsaw Pact for the bulk of the time, so their sales should be credited to the former USSR. (By the way, if they STILL DEMAND PAYMENT FOR ARMS SALES, aren't they admitting moral culpability for ARMING A DICTATOR????)
#106 BMN: ALL LIBERALS claim the mysical power to read EVERYONE'S mind. Leastways, that's what they claim when they say Bush et. al. REALLY invaded Iraq because of the OOOOOOIIIILLLLL!, Are really racists, are really hard-hearted, are really uncompassionate, blah, blah, blah. Fucking pretenders.
#112
"LiberalStrike," "RelevantTopic" and "Rantburg" have been "assigned" to www.rantburg.com for the rest of the election season. Expect more of the same . . . ad nauseum. They're not here for discussion--they're just here to stump for Kerry.
"Kerry would ensure that European allies were prepared to join the United States (how would he do that, again? Oh yeah--I forgot for a minute: with Kerry leading the country, EVERY other country will kiss US ass) in levying heavy sanctions if Iran rejected the proposal ("hey, you mullah-guys: quit it, or we won't sell you stuff--I mean it").
"If we are engaging with Iranians in an effort to reach this great bargain and if in fact this is a bluff that they are trying to develop nuclear weapons capability, then we know that our European friends will stand with us," Edwards said (they're gonna stand with us and say "boo-hiss, you baddies . . ."--we just know they will--mostly just our Bildeberger buddies, but we just know it, cuz we know things, cuz we're, we're . . . . we're us!).
This kind of foreign policy arrogance/ignorance is just one more reason NOT to vote for Kerry. Those who want to weaken and eventually destroy America are alive and kickin'!
#113
LiberalStrike: What can Kerry do about Iraq? GWB already screwed it up, so all Kerry can do is bring in more international involvement so US forces can start being withdrawn.
Please explain how that's going to happen when the French, Belgians and Germans have already said that they will NOT contribute forces to an international peace-keeping unit in Iraq even if Mr. Kerry is President. In this they are being consistent, they've NEVER been willing to contribute.
If you honestly think Mr. Kerry can rally an international force, please explain 1) who might contribute and 2) why would they contribute if the express purpose of this is to let Mr. Kerry withdraw American units.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2004 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#114
OK, Liberal Strike, here's your chance to persuade people to your point of view. Kerry is going to bring in "international involvement", huh?
Explain how Kerry would get "international involvement". Please be specific and please do so without sinking into Utopia Wishland that the argument is so commonly made from. Practical & specific, please.
If you remember correctly, years and years of UN resolutions were passed against Saddam's Iraq. What were the issues in those resolutions? Did the resolutions deter Saddam from illegal actions, such as possession of illegal weapons?
Whose governments are the primary culprits in the Oil For Food theft that went on UNDER THE UN's noses?
The answers to these questions should demonstrate that Saddam was a threat, that the UN was an appeasing international body, and that the US was completely justified in taking action to depose Saddam and hang the UN up for all the world to see how far it has strayed from its purpose and vision.
Kerry's claim to get international support is boastful and reckless, and gives us a great birds' eye view of just how far he would sell out the US to be liked by the world.
#115
Oi. So many troll comments... I suppose they think this proves they're clever? All of us poor benighted people with actual jobs, who don't have time to flood forums full of people we disagree with...
Posted by: Phil Fraering ||
08/30/2004 13:06 Comments ||
Top||
#116
#97: I'm researching as we speak.
WTF!!??? What kind of half-assed, lame excuse IS THAT? Do you realize that you've just admitted that you shot your mouth off without having the facts to prove your accusation at hand? It took me all of TWO MINUTES to pull up the link I posted in #111, and you know why? BECAUSE I USED IT IN A POST WHERE I WANTED TO PROVE MY POINT. Because I DID MY F*CKING HOMEWORK!
Lissin up Toto: you ain't in DU any more, where you're graded by the eloquence or humor of your denunciations of Bush without regard to the facts.
NEXT time, put brain in gear before engaging mouth, "Einstein".
#117
Surprising level of mythological thinking and naivete from the liberal posters. Kerry and Iraq: Kerry will not bring in UN/Euro troops to replace Americans in Iraq, because:
1) They will never agree to it.
2) Even he knows that if he does, they will screw it up.
The reason we are on the ground in the Middle East is because in the long run if we want to defeat the terrorists, we have to eliminate them from ALL the countries in the ME. That includes non-cooperative countries like Iraq, Syria, and Iran, and semi-cooperative countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. Kerry knows this. He's probably hoping he can stall for 4 or 8 years and put off the moment of truth until after his term.
#118
He's destroyed our government's surplus that we had.
Ignorance abounds. Our poor public schools...
1)There was never truly a surplus of any kind. Rather there was a projection of a surplus IF everyone stayed fat, dumb and happy. Well as was mentioned earlier, the DotCom bubble burst, then there were the events of 9/11 which damn near killed the whole US airline industry.
Yet now, we are crawling out of that mess, thanks in large part to the American people. The economy isn't something to be "run"... we all participate daily.
#119
Hey folks, letâs not confuse the U.S. providing Iraq dual use chemicals in the 80âs as equaling providing them with WMDâs. If that were the case, anyone weâve sold chicken shit to has a WMD capability.
There is credible info that we, the French, Germans and probably a few others provided Iraq crowd control agents (tear gas, etc) and pesticides. While the then Soviet Union is known to have provided Tabun and Sarin gas.
During the Iran/Iraq War, Iraq found that even their rudimentary chemical resources provided a force multiplier capability against both the Iranians and Kurds. Therefore, Iraqâs successful CW effort during the war led to the Iraqiâs establishing a sizable and sophisticated infrastructure for R&D, production, testing and storage of CW. When the U.S. and other Western nations began controlling sales of key precursor chemicals, Iraq began developing an indigenous production capability, thought to continue right up to the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.
The whereabouts of these stockpiles are currently unknown but may well be buried in the desert, or already transported to Syria.
#120
"...a war we fought for good reason! Saddam invaded Kuwait; with UN support, we kicked him out."
And then Saddam signed a UN ceasefire agreement that saved his ass. How many times before the current Iraqi campaign did one hear how we should have got saddam during the First Gulf War. But we didn't because he had that ceasefire agreement.
saddam did not live up to the provisions of that agreement, Liberstrike and releventTopic. They fired on US and British aircraft that were inforcing the no-fly zone that was mandated by the UN ceasefire agreement. They didn't allow the weapons inspections unfettered access. They broke the agreement! Oh and yes, saddam tried to assasinate GHBush. But you prolly could care less about that, no? Do you understand so far? Prolly not, but try to follow along cuz this is all fact.
The Bush Admin went to the UN. Got the Security to sign on to the resolution requireing saddam to live up to the ceasefire agreement, or face dire consequences. Not Dire Straights, the MTV icons you prolly thought they meant.
Liberalstrike, put the bong down and try to follow along, cuz people asses, not yours, were now on the line. American and British, as well as some small numbers of the "Coalition of the Willing" were now literally on the line in Kuwait and on ships awaiting permission by Turkey to deploy along the norther Iraq border. France, Germany, Turkey, and appologist, like you, fretted that war was the last resort and incouraged Bush to go back to the UN to get another "dire resolution". All this while Americans sat on troop ships and our troops were sitting in the dust, an easy target for WMDs, waiting for the word to go. How long they sat in the dirt and on those boats mean nothing to you, or france, or china, or any of the pricks that were doing biz with saddam. (google "oil for food" fool). I know you could have cared less. You were prolly outraged at the tax cut at that time.
WMD? Ever wonder where they did go? Do you even care?
So now we have a theocracy that has labelled your sorry, smoke blowing, ass as part of the "Great Satan" trying to obtain the stuff that will allow them a "First Strike" capability. Got anything to say about that? Do you think that the mullahs chant "death to America" is just a campaign slogan? Say what?
I read your stuff and your an idiotarian appeaser. A fool!
Posted by: ed ||
08/30/2004 13:48 Comments ||
Top||
#122
Good link, ed. I knew that there was a link out there proving the Germans were more involved than the USA was, but I since I didn't have it at hand, I elected not to make an assertion that I couldn't back up.
#123
hmmmm guess liberalstrike and relevant topic are off doing research for their next talking points attempt?
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#124
No way, I'm gonna read all this crap.
But I do want to make a point.
Saddam tried to assassinate a former President of the US. R or D, good or bad, that's an act of war. I'm of the opinion we should have force-fed them a nucular sandwich (Ok, maybe not a nuke, but a military operation that would overthrow saddam)
#125
LiberalStrike,
If you are still here.
In regards to your #93 comment.
There is something specific that bugs me about Kerry and his "secret plan" to (further) internationalise the war. If he really cared about America and our service members, wouldn't he tell Bush what it was and hope that it was stolen thereby saving American lives, fixing all of the problems in Iraq, etc.
He only cares about himself and his future is how it seems to me. I find it disgusting. A real patriotic American would want what is best for this country regardless of who was in office or who got credit.
Posted by: Kelvin Zero ||
08/30/2004 14:12 Comments ||
Top||
#126
News Flash: "Kerry promises to restore eveyone's virginity if they vote for him!"
I'm tempted to say he'd sell his soul for the Oval office, but that was a done deal a LOOOOOONG time ago for a Senate seat.
#127
Kelvin, good point and that bugs me too. A related point is that Kerry is, despite being absent for an high percentage of votes, is a US Senator of considerable rank. I have yet to see anything that Kerry said on the Senate floor or communicated to the executive branch in 2003 about how the war could have been run better or how our WMD intel could have been better analyzed. The fact is that he wanted to remain "positioned" so that he could claim credit for success and avoid blame for failure. Or in other words, he placed his political fortunes well ahead of the country's interests.
Posted by: Matt ||
08/30/2004 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#128
LS: with UN support, we kicked him out.
Actually, we kicked Saddam out of Kuwait with UN window-dressing, not UN support. Bush I got UN agreement so that Saudi Arabia and Japan would pick up the monetary tab. It was a slick maneuver that Bush II tried to replicate but failed, because many countries were leery of America imposing its will in the same way that it did in Grenada and Panama. Too bad for the UN - it's time it feels America's wrath for a while. Cutting America's UN assessments would be a good first step. What's Kofi going to do? Invade us?
#129
It is recomnended that all LLL and Moonbats tape their private parts up so they can be found and used in heaven before engaging Rantburgers in argument. Any fool that thinks Iran with nukes is a good thing it's worth engaging in debate.
#130
one thing worth noting in kerry's internationlize plan - our allies (if you can call them that - allies offer help as well recieve help) do not have the troops available. only Britain has the force projection capabilities required and she is stretched thinner than we are. Germany does not have the forces nor France - just getting their token forces in Afganistan up and running taxed their militaries..How can kerry assume they help relieve us in iraq? Bush has started down the right path - pulling our troops out of europe where the only thing they are protecting arethe pocket books of the euro taxpayers who would have to fork more money (or axe some of their precious solialist programs) over to pay for the defense shield uncle sam has provided..
and to those who would state that the euros are paying our bill for stationing troops..yes to an extent but it would cost billions more to create their own forces to accomplish the same job.
Posted by: Dan ||
08/30/2004 15:59 Comments ||
Top||
#133
nahhhh too many troll droppings. Might be a record for a thread without Gentle or Antibrain
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 16:07 Comments ||
Top||
#134
He's destroyed our government's surplus that we had.
The President of the US isn't the king. To authorize spending, bills must have to be signed into law, which requires a majority from both houses of Congress, reconciled in a conference committee, then on to the President for his signature. If you want to see who blows the treasury of the US, look to the representatives, Senators, and the president. They all share culpability for out of control spending. And don't forget the American people. Our lack of collective outrage over irresponsibile managing of the nation's purse enables the govt's behavior. We have met the enemy and he is us.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
08/30/2004 18:14 Comments ||
Top||
#135
Don't be worried, we have lots of the secret paper
Posted by: Half Working Part Time at the Gob Prinmting Office ||
08/30/2004 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
#136
That's the best tag-team performance we've had.
Since the Carter administration allowed Iran to fall to Hominy's Islamic fanatics in early 1979, Iran has been skilfully utilizing its vast, OPEC, exported oil wealth to finance their ultra-violent brand of Shi'ite Jihad throughout the Middle-East, with the current primary targets being ongoing importation of jihadists into Iraq, the southern Balkans coupled with the mineral rich Caucasus region.
If one reviews a map of the greater Persian Gulf region one shall notice quickly that Iran is directly between (Allied controlled)Afghanistan and (Coalition controlled) Iraq along with the oil rich super-tanker sea lanes of the Gulf & Arabian Sea patrolled by the United Sates Navy, the U.K's and other allied naval forces. Iran is boxed in (except on her northern Caspian Sea border) and that just didn't happen by accident.
Even prior to 9-11 the overall plan was to surround Iran since it was the one rouge Islamic state which was rapidly gaining the definite potential of developing short & medium range nuclear weapons with the assistance of Axis of Evil member North Korea, coupled with Russian 'assistance' among other back door E.U. arms deals for Iranian OPEC oil. Once Iran processes deliverable nukes, Israel, Turkey, Greece, Armenia, Afghanistan, India, Arabia coupled with other European nations will become targets.
The Bush administration should be thanked, in relation to being bashed by the far Left, since we are on the verge of removing the Persian Gulf's number one merchant of jihadic death, coupled with Iran's terrorist proxies of Syria & the Hizballah infested Lebanon.
In 1981 Israel, under the conservative Likud Party leadership of Prime Minister Menachem Begin had the insight to fully grasp the enormous dangers to the Jewish state if Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, was allowed to continue developing nuclear weapons capable of reaching Israeli cities. If production was not permanently halted at Iraq's French constructed Osiraq nuclear weapons plant, Israel would be confronted with a holocaust from Iraqi skies.
The world viciously condemned the brave actions of the Israel jets which reduced the Osiraq nuke plant to a blasted pile of rubble. If Israel did not remove Saddam's nuclear threat the Israelis would have been nuked, plus the first Gulf War and the global economy would have meet with disaster.
Decisive unified action is required to knock out the Iranian threat. In saying that, France, Germany & Russia, the three nations which wanted Saddam's arms for oil deals to continue obviously can not be counted on regarding the Iranian nuke issue.
As soon as President Bush is re-elected the Iranian nuclear weapons dilemma will have to be dealt with in quick order.
Notice I am not allowing for a massive voter hard-Left mistake in November.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/30/2004 18:50 Comments ||
Top||
#138
Mark, no mention of the financing of Hezbollah and Hamas in Lebanon and Gaza?
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
#139
Damn. I'm away for one afternoon ... and the trees get TP'ed. My nose detects the acrid but necessary whiff of user registration in Rantburg's future. Fred's truly hit the big-time.
Posted by: Another Dan ||
08/30/2004 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#140
Oi. So many troll comments... I suppose they think this proves they're clever? All of us poor benighted people with actual jobs, who don't have time to flood forums full of people we disagree with...
Methinks these are the ones who couldn't collect enough soda cans to go to NYC....
#141
A Dan - This may be the blogosphere's version of the old Native American belief that the greatness of a tribe is measured by its enemies... RB is Big Time when the troll-quotient exceeds the threshold... lol!
#143
Frank, good point. I have stated that numerous previously, plus the majority in here are cognizant of Iran's ruling mullah's ruthless track record for financial support for 7th century mindset psychos, but soon that Iranian oil revenue should be drying up for Hizballah, Hamas sickos and other unstable jihadist outfits.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
08/30/2004 20:01 Comments ||
Top||
#144
"RT" - the onus of proof here belongs to you - YOU are making the assertion abotu us giving WMD to Saddam, so back it up or back off and do what Kerry did about Cambodia - admit you were lying for political gain.
"LiuberalStrike" " Back in March of 2001, Condi Rice was saying that keeping Saddam in his box was okay. "
And then something happened on September 11th, 2001 that changed everything. Seems you've forgotten that. We can no longer wait for an immenent threat to develop - we have to cut this type of activity off before it has a chance to erupt.
Prior to 9/11 flining a few cruise missles at empty terrorist trainign camps is all we could do thanks to faux "conservatives" like Rex, and suicidal peaceniks like you - think of the uproar had Bush or Clinton chosne to go in and take apart Afghanistan to pre-empt he 9/11 strikes, and take out Bin Laden and the Taliban.
So even an empty head like you can truly see the world has changed - and will continue to change. And the old ways lead to death - ours when they strike, and consequently even more of theirs when we retaliate.
#146
Guilliani must read Rantburg. McCain did well but Rudy just said things that I've never, Never heard before other than on Weblogs. I told my son that he just heard one of the greatest speeches in the history of this young republic. Naming names, calling a spade a spade, poking fun at puff daddies. Sheesh god damn!
Second Toy Found In Candy Appears To Depict Osama Bin Laden
MIAMI -- In Miami, a wholesaler has announced that his company will recall 14,000 bags of candy.
MORE IMAGES OF TOY
The bags contain a toy that looks like a plane flying into a building and, we found, a second toy that looks like Osama Bin Laden suspended between the two buildings.
OK paint it black, and call it King Kong.
Eyewitness News broke this story, but, for the first time, we had the chance to speak with a representative from the corporation that distributed the candy.
They've been in hiding?
"Importers did not realize what they were buying. They were buying assortments of toys and they get to people like us trying to sell authentic Mexican candies. Nobody caught it and it went out into the stores," explains Lisy Corporation manager Luis Pardon.
And they say that al-Qaeda are coming across the border and infiltrating the Hispanic community. . .
The manager of Lisy Corporation says the candy was originally purchased sight unseen, but now he'll send back all he's collected.
#1
Lisy corporation should be renamed to Lazy corporation. How could you buy candy untasted. How could you buy toys site unseen. Toys are often recalled because some kid swallowed something. They should have checked. This is pathetic.
Although they've done us a favor by showing how many in China truly feel when they make this sort of garbage.
#2
"Importers did not realize what they were buying. They were buying assortments of toys and they get to people like us trying to sell authentic Mexican candies..."
Wow. I had no idea authentic Mexican candies were such a hot commodity.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 17:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Don't you benighted, semi-literate Americo-fatties understand that the militaristic demonization of this harmless toy is deeply offensive to the deeply-rooted nuances of other, more benign and righteous, cultures?
The figure in the middle is not Osama. No, it is a Mayan representation of Santa Claus. The buildings are not the WTC, they don't have enough windows and the perspective is wrong.
Indeed, it suggests a kind of Hollywood monster movie motif, perhaps an indigenous version of Godzilla striking back at imperialist oppressors.
This connect-the-dots paranoia is frankly just another proof of American ignorance, evil, paranoia, poor physical culture, and, of course, racism and prejudice.
I have spoken, you must believe.
(LLL Goebbelist in full denial mode)
#1
WASHINGTON â With commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, no one disputes that the Army has a lot on its plate. But the consensus collapses when it comes to easing the military's charge.
The disagreement has turned political â John Kerry says the Army needs two more divisions, while President Bush argues such an expansion would be unnecessary.
====
#3
OS: Kerry vs Bush on sze of the Army - Bush vulnerable?
Hard to see how. Kerry wants to increase the size of the army at the expense of more pressing needs like missile defense. Democrats have a real problem with keeping America safe from nuclear attack.
Even if Kerry doesn't touch missile defense, he's not talking about increasing the total military budget. This means he's going to reduce procurement. The choice is pretty clear - when you spend money on unnecessary manpower, years from now, all you have are the paystubs of the people you paid to wear a uniform, whereas when you spend money on equipment - the equipment is there if you need it.
Some people are bemoaning the turnover in the military as a problem. The reality is that this turnover is a healthy thing. It enlarges the pool of trained personnel that the nation can call upon in a national emergency. By encouraging turnover, we enlarge the pool of trained soldiers while increasing our stores of cutting-edge equipment to keep our people alive and destroy the enemy as efficiently as possible.
#4
Kerry might authorize two new divisions, but wouldn't equip them. Kerry is trying to drive down his wuss numbers.
Posted by: Capt America ||
08/30/2004 1:49 Comments ||
Top||
#5
My take:
We need about a division more of troops - and to redesignate and redesign the current active force.
5 elements:
1st - quick reaction forces. The 82nd Airborne and 101st Airmobile and the 2nd Light Cavalry and the 18th Airborne Corps HQ and associated airborne suppor tunits.
Keep them as they are.
2nd - the Light-Mobile forces. Sealiftable, ready to deploy. Keep a Corps of them on each coast, with a forward division and Corps HQ in the P-SWA (Brigade each HQ-Korea/Japan/SWAsia) and E-ME (Brigade each HQ-Germany/E-Europe/ME) on "lilypad" bases. Keep at least two tank battalion teams (2 tank Co, 1 Bradley Inf Co each, + HQ) and one armored cavalry (bradley+tankers+heli) squadron at the Corps level for backbone and heavy urban ops (Tanks are unsurpassed if supported by infantry). Also 1 ranger battalion for each light Corps at the HQ.
3rd - Heavy Corps. Only one active. Ft Hood. 1st Armored Div. 1st Infantry Div (Mech), 1st Cav Div (Armored), 3rd Armored Cav Regiment (Heavy), plus corps artillery (SP), MLRS, Attack Heli Bde, and other heavy Corps elements. One is all we need at the curren trheat levels - and al lthese units are either at Ft Hood or nearby, or else can be pulled in from Europe. These are the linear warfare elements. Only place left to use them is Iran, Korea and maybe Taiwan. Maintian the equipment for two Heavy Corps pre-positioned on RO-Ro ships in pacific and atlantic, rotating the gear to the middle east/sw asia. Keep the "active" equipment at Ft Hood with the Heavy Corps. Kind of liek Reforger -heavy corps leaves its gear int he US for followon elements and mates up with its war gear in theater.
4th - Guard and Reserve: They form the backbone of at least 1 light corps. and 2 heavy corps, and specialty units like Civil Affairs etc. War breaks out - the first reserve heavy corps reports to Ft Hood to train up and pack up, while the regular Army HC grabs the Ro-Ro stuff, and the second Guard/Reserve corps grabs the further away Ro-Ro stuff.
5th - Special Forces. Pretty much expand the Rangers to 2 regiments (double), and the SF to about 50% larger (thats all thats sustainable before you dilute the quality). Maintain 2 reserve SF groups (as opposed to the 1 we have now) and maintain a reserve Ranger regiment.
The active force becomes a lot lighter - units convert from heavy armor and mech and artillery to Stryker Brigades and MP battalions. Adding one more Light Infantry Division to the mix along with the conversion completely releives the stress on units now in the Rock and the Stan.
And don't forget that the Marines (who are not in this discussion) will still have "forced entry" capability that the Army can use to open ports and airfields for the light mobile (Stryker) forces to expand the bridgehead, and the heavy forces to land and follow on off the Ro-Ro.
This gets the Guard/Reserve out of the mix for routine "war on terror" duties, and sets them aside for use in wars where they coudl get to speed quickly - traditional linear heavy warfare is easier to maintain proficiency in part-time than the current mix of insurgency/counterinsurgency that we are fighting now.
Of course, nobody is going to do this - too many people have political stakes to let this happen, and it would require somone to really knock some heads in the Army.
#6
If you dont want to read between the lines above: I agree somewhat with Kerry in that we need more troops, but I'm more along the lines of Bush in that I think we first need to redesign and resturcture our current forces - we are fighting a war on terror with Cold War configured military - which is why its way overstressed - its not configured to do the job it needs to do.
#7
OldSpook.Does the Army have enough Rapid deployment and/or Surge RO RO ships ? I know the Marines are wanting more.Ground up,say 3 years to get a new one.
#8
Um did Kerry ever say how he was going to get thoese extra 2 divisions paid for? Unless hes advocating an even BIGGER defense budget to be spent on payroll for the most part it aint going to happen unless you start cutting funding from other projects and operations. This is exactly what the military doesn't want to do. They would rather have fewer divisions but enough money to not just run them all but also give them top line equipment (alright this doesnt apply well to reserve forces and guard units but thats another policy reform issue), or start even giving even worse equipment that could potentially risk many lives and have an extra 2 divisions.
#9
The Divison is dead. Long live the UEy/UEx/BUA/SUA. Open source stuff, but also shows how out of touch Kerry is. "Give some more of them division thingys." BLUF, we're moving hard and heavy towards UAs. Add the Air Foce, and what you wind up with is heavier MEUs. We're going from about 33 BCTs to 48 UAs. Three formations: Infantry, Armored and (unfourtunately, legacy) Stryker. Killing power is in the BDE, these days. Army Times, AFN, etc are informing soldiers in "legacy" MOSs to reclassify, or be reclassified. All this is below the radar of the "more troops" issue, but very interesting.
#10
It is not the number of bodies in uniform that count, it is the trained formations - battalion, brigade, division/support headquarters that make a cohesive fighting force. You can fill body bags with 90 days of training. If you want to create a viable cohesive military organization it takes two years of development from recruiting, reassignment and training to develop an organization that can operate to standards within the context of contemporary military doctrine. This ain't your pappy's old Army.
Posted by: Don ||
08/30/2004 7:12 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Readiness, readiness, readiness - that old mantra will not die and will dictate everything. You can't be tired and ready for the next deployment either. I say Kerry should give the army some faster 50' boats.
Posted by: Jack is Back ||
08/30/2004 8:04 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The Divison is dead
I respectfully disagree.
The division will be a standard formation long after everyone reaches the conclusion Osama died in 2001 in Tora Bora. And brigading army formations, which the army did sometime around the early 60s was a move intended to increase the operational efficiency for brigade combat formations by providing a larger and more experienced headquarters staff, and to enable the brigade formation to fight independantly from all other 'sister' formations without relying on a single centralized headquaters for its logistics or for combat directives.
Under current US Army doctrine, the divisional headquarters provides limited logistical, but greater combat direction in the field ( such as artillery ), and while in the deployment of a single brigade the division is negated as a factor and has a lesser role to play, in a larger deployment, the division has a critical role in combat.
#14
OS: we are fighting a war on terror with Cold War configured military - which is why its way overstressed - its not configured to do the job it needs to do.
But what does it mean to fight a War on Terror? OS is assuming that the local government will let us in to fight the terrorists. The reality is that local governments are letting us in precisely because of that Cold War-configured military. They can fight off our light infantry, but can't deal with our heavy forces. That Cold War-configured military can bash the door down even if the host government doesn't want to let us in. Note that in Iraq, we are using tanks in urban environments to keep our losses down. The truth is that if we want to keep our men alive, there is no substitute for better equipment. And we won't get that equipment under Kerry, since he will raid the procurement budget to pay for the troops, and may even reduce it beyond levels required to add manpower in order to pay for his expensive social programs.
#15
I meant "reserve" with a little 'r' regarding the current force structure - and I know guys in the 19th. What I want is to move at least those groups the the Army Reserve and out of the Guard - a bit easier to use them without getting a Governer's panties in a twist over federalization. Plus fully staff them and fill them out. I know that some of these are basically small sized and isolated, and seldom if ever exercise above the B level. That needs to change.
Problem is that the Guard budgets are easier to whitewash and pork out, so federalizing a large chunk of these units all at once is a political football that nobody will deal with.
Thanks for the pointer Osc.
Zhang, the problem is that we dont have enough light forces to do the job -and its the light forces that fight the sustained war. One heavy Corps is enough to deal with anything that comes our way, given the Marines can put MEU's ashore and deep inland pretty quickly, and the USAF and Navy can decimate C3I of nearly any enemy within 24-48 hours, rendering heavy forces of the enemy ineffective - they get fixed in place, and can be taken out with PGM. And note that I still maninatin basically a heavy armored brigade task force in each light corps deployed forward.
We simply do not need the number of active heavy divisions we now have - nor the current mix of skill sets. The Army has to be transformed, and the heavy functions need to be pushed to the Guard.
Kerry has a point in that we need more troops. PRoblem is that he has not cuaght on that we actually have a lot of the manpower we already need, its that we have the wrong skillsets for fighting sustained low-intensity wars, like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan now, and Iran, Syria and Pakistan to come.
The question is: how do we pay for it? Kerry has no answer, and Bush is trying to do it too cheaply.
#16
OS: Zhang, the problem is that we dont have enough light forces to do the job -and its the light forces that fight the sustained war.
My point is that artillerymen and tankers can be retrained as light infantry relatively quickly, whereas it's quite a bit more difficult for light infantry to be equipped with and trained up on tanks and artillery. This is the real world - we are not talking about a Democratic proposal that will increase the defense budget. We will pay the price in either missile defense or military equipment (probably both). Kerry's proposal will come at the expense of the equipment that enable our men to survive on the battlefield. Note also that a Cold War military can fight terrorists and big powers like China and Pakistan, but a military composed of light infantry can only fight terrorists.
#17
1. Im not sure slowing procurement is such a bad thing. Who is the big conventional player we're going to face in the next 20 years? The elephant in the living room - PRC. If we have the force, WITH ALLIES, to deter PRC, and we can accommodate them diplomatically where justified, it may be pointless to spend on high tech for 2020 - 2050 is another thing. This depends MUCH on your views of PRC intentions, of your views of alliance diplomacy, of PRCs reliance on trade, etc.
2. Is it the heavy divisions that get us access? Or is it economic, military training, diplomatic, and other pressures? Take Pakistan for example, a country that provides us some access, but really would rather not have done so. Was it fear of our heavy divisions? Or need for economic support, fear of our leaning towards India (with economics, diplomacy, tech, military training - not with Heavy divisions)
3. Nonetheless I agree that Kerry to be serious should be talking about INCREASING the DoD budget, not shifting it around. The traditional Dem source for funds would have been to repeal the ENTIRE tax cut. And increasing taxes has historically been a response to war in the US. But Kerry is pinned politically, and will only talk of not going through with part of the planned tax cuts. Both Kerry and Bush lack appropriate seriousness in this regard. (and could we take another look at Liberty bonds, now that we're back in deficits?)
4. High lethality instead of numbers is great for warfighting. But as even Rummy surely sees by now, war IS politics by other means, and nation building is NOT something you can consistently avoid. I still see a need for a force structure that recognizes this. And Im not sure a highly lethal set of light forces is optimal for this task. I continue to see the need for a dedicated nationbuilding force,with specilized skills. Of course neither candidate proposes such thing, and the military are reluctant.
#18
OS: how do we pay for it? Kerry has no answer, and Bush is trying to do it too cheaply.
Bush is trying to get the economy going again. A big chunk of the economic boom of the 1990's came from the peace dividend. Ramping up defense expenditures, given the wrenching economic changes wrought by outsourcing and commodity price increases, is not a good idea. 3.5% of annual GDP is about right, neither too hot nor too cold. (Remember - equipment we buy today will be around years from now, even if we cut military expenditures later on. Troops we add won't).
Kerry will just tear into the military budget for money to fund his social programs. Don't take my word for it - just look at his votes on equipment procurement even during the Cold War. It was thumbs-down to just about every item we currently have in our inventory. Kerry will say anything to get elected. But his Senate votes speak louder than his words.
#19
The traditional Dem source for funds would have been to repeal the ENTIRE tax cut.
Because taking the working man's money is more important than cutting the number of mouths sucking off the Federal teat.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/30/2004 10:22 Comments ||
Top||
#20
LH: And increasing taxes has historically been a response to war in the US.
Increasing taxes made sense during WWII, when the average American paid no income tax and perhaps a nickel out of every dollar earned in taxes. Today, the average American pays about 35 to 40 cents out of every dollar earned. Because of massive liberal social programs, we have wartime budget deficits without wartime military expenditures (WWII expenditures were 50% of annual GDP - today's are 3.5% of annual GDP). If we increase taxes any more, the economy will crumble.
#22
our standard of living is far higher now than in 1940. Incremental income tax rates are already lower after the first Bush tax cut than at time since 1993, if not before. And the economy was not collapsing in the 90's, though the business cycle certainly wasnt a matter of history. Theres no shortage of resources in the private economy - whether tax increases make sense in the short term given the state of the macroeconomy is something else - but the US DoD budget shouldnt be as resource constrained as it is, despite social insurance costs.
#23
Zhang Fei said: If we increase taxes any more, the economy will crumble.
The economy will not crumble if we raise taxes. The economy was in a recession and is in a fledgling recovery. Raising taxes won't destroy that...GWB's war already is beginning to.
#24
LH: Theres no shortage of resources in the private economy - whether tax increases make sense in the short term given the state of the macroeconomy is something else - but the US DoD budget shouldnt be as resource constrained as it is, despite social insurance costs.
The DoD isn't resource-constrained. We are fighting a minor skirmish and have lost less than 1,000 men in the course of a year. In Vietnam, we lost 8,000 men a year, on average, for 8 years. You might say we were resource-constrained back then, but not today. Journos are peddling the line that we are resource-constrained for a number of reasons: (1) they hope that these "constraints" will prevent the US from acting against its enemies and (2) they hope that these "constraints" can be used as a reason to hike taxes. On point 1, it is political, not military constraints, that prevent a campaign in Iran or North Korea. The kinds of casualties being incurred in Iraq are negligible, in the larger scheme of things. On point 2, it is hard to see how increasing taxes during a time of economic uncertainty, and already high taxation, is the correct course to take at this point. It is time to cut some of the socialist programs that weigh the budget down, not increase taxes.
Actually, 9/11, Afghanistan and Iraq, are a consequence of the liberals' alliance with the jihadis to inflict the punishment upon America that they feel America deserves for what the liberals feel to be America's transgressions. But the liberals will, in the end, lose. The American people will see to it - if liberal backing for the Communists wasn't sufficient to help them win, there is no way that liberal backing for mere Muslims will ensure their victory.
#26
I could be wrong but I'd be trying to shift some folks from the reserves and National Guard into the regular military. Reducing the numbers of part-timers in exchange for a buildup of the regular army numbers. During war I would think a certain number of those in the reserve or in the guard would be willing to take the move.
#27
I've seen some of the stats on young males who might fill the combat arms in a larger army.
Bottom line: unless you are willing to take people who currently are screened out due to drug use, physical limitations or ethical issues (convictions), you do not have a large pool to draw from for a larger army.
You could:
-- put women in combat arms
-- push technology wherever possible (UCAVs being only one example)
-- outsource as much of the combat support functions to civilian contractors as possible
-- decide to optimize with the Army about the size it currently is
Or, you could play politics with the issue:
-- talk breathlessly about an upcoming draft
-- ignore the military itself, which does NOT want an influx of unqualified, unwilling bodies who do not fit into a lean, professional and highly trained / technology-based army
Posted by: too true ||
08/30/2004 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Hey, Old Spook -- I owe you an acknowledgement from a previous thread and this is as good a place to do it as any.
A while back you noted that while the standard service pistol is the 9mm Beretta, 'occasionally' some use a .45. Just wanted to let you know my DH is considering bidding on a Heckler & Koch 23 SOCOM .45 that is up for auction after light use in a training facility.
#30
I continue to see the need for a dedicated nationbuilding force,with specilized skills. Of course neither candidate proposes such thing, and the military are reluctant.
Maybe because it's a DUMB idea. There is no way the majority of Americans are going to buy into that imperialistic dream no matter what clever packaging is used.
In case you haven't noticed living in your Ivory Tower as you do, but War of "Liberation" is a dud-it has no wings. Republican control of the WH[and possibly Congress] hangs in the balance due to GWB being sold that skanky bill of goods by the neocons re: Iraq.
Thanks but no thanks, we don't need anymore "nation-building" wild eyed schemes to totally do a Titanic with the Republican Party.
And no I don't want my taxes to raised by either GWB or Skerry. GWB is just as big a spendthrift as the Democrats. For every buck that is raised by taxes both GWB and Skerry would give 3 bucks to help some illegal alien get free college tuition to get a law degree or send more foreign aid down the sink trap to a communist American hating dictator in an African country. No new taxes. Read my lips.
Cut social expenditures. Throw illegals and their children out of the country unless they want to join the military in combat positions for x number of years. Get welfare recipients to work at MacDonalds or mowing gov't lawns and picking up highway trash-healthy bodies, etc unless there is physical inability. Babies/kids go to onsite day care.
We are not an empire. Democracy is not the best political system for every culture/nation in the world. It is not our right to spread a certain kind of gov't to our liking to other nations. We have a bad rep today because of previous interference in gov'ts of other nations, no matter what good intentions we had, we had no business interfering. Installing democracies is another version of an arrogant nation thinking it knows what's best for the rest of the world. Forget about it.
We don't have a military, volunteer or by conscription, to nation build. People with nation building attitudes should vet their inner ambitions by joining the Peace Corps.
Posted by: rex ||
08/30/2004 13:39 Comments ||
Top||
#31
The Army is moving away from division size elements and going towards Brigade size rapid deployment elements. That way if the mission requires (for example) pure infantry for mountainous regions they deploy one or two brigades and an aviation brigade. Yes, I know 3 Brigades is a division, but if the mission only required 1 or 2 brigades that's how it would supposedly work.
The overall commander would be selected from a pool of officers. At least that's the sketchy poop I've been hearing.
IMO, I think we need 3 to 4 more divisions myself. You can't sell re-enlistment to soldiers when they know they have one year on, one year off combat duty. Who is crazy enough to do that for 20 years? If this IS WW IV then why not bring the strength up to the Cold War Levels. After all, China still has it's eye on Taiwan.(for example) The bad guys aren't just the Islamists you know.
The process doesn't have to be overnight and filled with the "below average placeholders" to make the quota. Prior to the Gulf War draw down when we had ALOT more divisions, and they weren't staffed with "below average" place holders.
I just worry that Rumsfeld's fetish with high tech weapontry (always a crowd pleaser)will forget that the numbers on the paper are more than just numbers.
I know some guys that got back from the Gulf, then PCS'd to 1st CAV division. Not fun.
#32
The DoD isn't resource-constrained. We are fighting a minor skirmish and have lost less than 1,000 men in the course of a year. In Vietnam, we lost 8,000 men a year, on average, for 8 years.
the number of casualties doesnt indicate whether we are resource constrained, but whether all tasks can be accomplished. The vetting, training and arming of the Iraqi forces has gone dismally slowly - its better now than in April, but this is 17 months after we went in. We dont have effective control of the Iranian border, to prevent smuggling of weapons, money, and personnel. We can assemble force enough to take one insurgent city at a time, sorta. Meanwhile the insurgents effectively control Fallujah, Ramadi, and Samarra, and we are only now really dealing with Sadr City after Najaf. And I now of no one who thinks theres really any reserve available for dealing with say Iran, or an emergency in Pakistan, or whereever. The army isnt in dissolution, like the naysayers say, but theres plenty of reasonable people saying its under stress at the current ops tempo.
too true - link? Are you seriously saying that every mentally and physically fit young male in the US signs up? I cant believe that.
#33
If this IS WW IV then why not bring the strength up to the Cold War Levels.
98zulu, read #27. I've SEEN the recruiting pool analysis numbers.
Posted by: too true ||
08/30/2004 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#34
98zulu: IMO, I think we need 3 to 4 more divisions myself. You can't sell re-enlistment to soldiers when they know they have one year on, one year off combat duty. Who is crazy enough to do that for 20 years?
I have the highest respect for the troops, but I don't see troop retention as priority number one. It is better for the country if young single males rotate through the military and get some combat experience before leaving it for the civilian work force. This way, we have a strong nucleus of combat-experienced people available if something really serious does break out.
98zulu: I just worry that Rumsfeld's fetish with high tech weapontry (always a crowd pleaser)will forget that the numbers on the paper are more than just numbers.
High tech weaponry wins wars and keeps our people safe. Depleted uranium armor keeps the folks in our Bradleys and Abrams's safe from RPG's. UAV's and night-vision sensors give our people 24-hour visibility. The operating tempo is tough, but Iraq is almost done.
I predict 3 years at most of sustained guerrilla war before Iraqi guerrillas run out of money, weapons and recruits. Muslims are not exactly clamoring to fight Americans, given the small numbers that are attacking US forces on a daily basis, compared to the Vietcong and the NVA. (You have to read some of the accounts of Vietcong attacks on US military bases - these guys were skilful and uncredibly brave, given the odds against them. Vietnam comparisons are incredibly inapt, Iraqi guerrillas are not fit to lick the boots of their Vietcong counterparts).
#35
I have the highest respect for the troops, but I don't see troop retention as priority number one.
A high tech military means a highly trained military. Not cost effective to keep training new recruits, which is why the military much prefers to hang on the vets. Also you must have a core of noncoms and mid level officers for leadership and training. IIUC there are issues at the major/lt col level.
It is better for the country if young single males rotate through the military and get some combat experience before leaving it for the civilian work force. This way, we have a strong nucleus of combat-experienced people available if something really serious does break out.
Only works if theyre in an organized reserve. IIUC active to reserve recruitment (the proportion of those leaving the active army who joing the NG/R) has been particularly problematic.
#36
LOT to talk about here, and I love the discussion.
1. Bush is already increasing the military. He's doing it slowly, under the radar, and he's doing it quietly. Actually, the US military added 26,000 slots in 2003, and another 30,000 in 2004. Bush plans to add an additional 40,000 slots a year between 2005 and 2010. The majority of those slots will be Army, but all the services benefit. The spread is about 60/30/10 Active/Reserve/Guard, so it's not all for active service. This from a nephew who's a recruiter. Those numbers are considered about the largest that can be handled with current training facilities. I don't have any information about how these troops will be used, except that there seems to be an emphasis on combined arms training and combined service force utilization.
2. Enlarging the military requires some massive planning and pre-thinking: you've got to consider recruiting, training, equipping, and housing each individual; you've got to consider how to deal with the increased demands on the social, cultural, political, religious, medical, and business portions of both the military and local civilian community; you've got to consider the impact of the families and dependents of the larger military; you've got to consider the change in demographics as large numbers of people relocate; you've got to consider the environmental impact of increased training on the local ranges; you've got to consider the level of crowding on military installations as each is tasked to support a larger number of troops, or the cost of reactivating closed installations; and you've got to completely change the focus of the Base Reallignment and Closure Committee. You've also got to dig out the old crystal ball and look 10, 20, 30 years into the future to determine how to best use that larger military, and train them to be able to accomplish the required mission. I'm sure Don Rumsfeld is going through a bottle of aspirin and another bottle of Tums every day.
3. Money to expand the military has to come from somewhere. There's more than enough fat in the current budget to support a doubling of the defense budget, but every single line item in the budget is someone's sacred cow. We're going to have to have a wholesale slaughter. It's not going to happen before the November elections, which is one reason Bush is currently enlarging the military stealthily. There has to be a day of reckoning, and it will have to be soon - early next term. There's going to be a lot of squealing, and a lot of it's going to come from Republicans. Too d$$$$$ bad - it's long overdue. It needs to start with some changes at the Cabinet level, and extend down to the lowest levels of the bureaucracy. Bush needs to cut the size of the civil service force, and make it stick - even if it means using the military to haul some of those useless pieces of s$$$ out and tossing them into the Potomac. That, too, is 60 years overdue.
There's a lot that needs to be done. We'll just have to wait and see if there's a large enough set of cojones in the oval office to get it done.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/30/2004 14:48 Comments ||
Top||
#37
too true - link? Are you seriously saying that every mentally and physically fit young male in the US signs up? I cant believe that.
No link - these were internal Army documents I read.
I'm not saying every fit male joins ... but the pool is smaller than you might imagine. Around 15% of the age group qualify, IIRC.
Posted by: too true ||
08/30/2004 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#38
too true: I'm not saying every fit male joins ... but the pool is smaller than you might imagine. Around 15% of the age group qualify, IIRC.
I can believe it. Not every fit male joins, but the pool of fit males willing to sign up voluntarily is limited. We could cure that problem with a draft that takes in only fit males, but there would be a real backlash.
#39
It needs to start with some changes at the Cabinet level, and extend down to the lowest levels of the bureaucracy
OP, you probably would like (in a grim sort of way) an anecdote from Absolutely American, the idiosyncratic account of West Point from 1999-2002 written by Rolling Stone's David Lipsky. He mentions a conversation he had (circa 1999) with a Pentagon administrator, who complains that West Point is socializing cadets for war-fighting instead of peace-keeping. how unreasonable! how RETRO. After all, as the civilian official notes:
#42
Not every fit male joins, but the pool of fit males willing to sign up voluntarily is limited. We could cure that problem with a draft that takes in only fit males, but there would be a real backlash.
You are totally nuts. What a clever idea - draft the best of our future and send them to die in questionable wars abroad and let the dregs and chickenhawks live safely back home. What kind of male gene pool is our country left with? Duh.
Posted by: rex ||
08/30/2004 16:07 Comments ||
Top||
#43
There's not gonna be a draft under President Bush.
This war isn't "questionable"--the President got approval from Congress TWICE, even for Iraq and the funding for same.
To imply that some of our best men aren't serving now voluntarily is slandering them and to "replenish the gene pool" (a
tasteless expression, BTW), many of our military have had babies here already.
If anyone implemented a draft, it would be a President Kerry (retch!), so that he could work the whole Vietnam angle.
The only folks calling for a draft are Party machine men like Dimocrat Charles Rangel.
#44
rex: You are totally nuts. What a clever idea - draft the best of our future and send them to die in questionable wars abroad and let the dregs and chickenhawks live safely back home. What kind of male gene pool is our country left with? Duh.
To rex, any war that could result in him being drafted is a questionable war. Don't worry, rex - your New York Times-quoting butt probably won't make the cut. I believe there'll be an exemption for physical cowards who foam at the mouth and go into convulsions at the thought of war.
The great thing about a draft is that it pulls the chickens and the hawks alike into serving the national good. Rex naturally objects to having to do anything for Uncle Sam.
#45
Zhang, I must admit, the idea of him being screamed at by Marine drill sargent R.Lee Ermey is a beautiful thing!
"Now, drop and give me 50, you maggot!"
#46
#31 The Army is moving away from division size elements and going towards Brigade size rapid deployment elements.
You are absolutely wrong. The US Army brigaded their divisional formation precisely to enhance the division.
The US 2nd Infantry? Three briagdes? Sure, two are active, and there is a 'roundout' brgade of reserves/guards in the event of war, except the US doctrine calls for four brigade headquarters ** HEADQUARTERS ** not brigade formations. Even the brigade formation itself is modular and changable, composed of manuever units; it is task organized, just like divisions, just like corps.
As dispatched udner the command of a division, do you think a brigade commander wants to worry about artillery? He doesn't because he knows the division organization takes care of those matters for him/her, leaving the brigade commander and his staff worrying about mauevering and movement.
No, the division is indispensible element of warfighting for the US Army and will be so for a long time
Just because subordinate units are being deployed from a division are brigades doesn't deprecate the importance of the division in combat organizations.
#47
I can't speak to overall numbers of appropriate young men, but I do know that in the big-house neighborhoods of my suburban community, several high school lads signed up upon graduation - Annapolis (future Navy Seal), enlisted (from the TaeKwanDo school, I think either army driver or Marines), and so forth. Their parents are still in shock -- they could all have gone to Harvard, you know! But, what I hear from the kids is 9/11 changed things. So I suspect the required enlistees will show up to fill the slots, if DoD can find the funds.
And Rex, from what I've seen civilians marry and have children about a decade later than military folk, so actually the gene pool percentages may well end up going the other way -- breed early and often gets you to the F2 generation while the other guys are still working on F1!
#49
A. To imply that some of our best men aren't serving now voluntarily is slandering them and to "replenish the gene pool"
I did not imply anything of the sort. How did volunteer troops get scrambled in your feeble brain with ZF's draft proposal of leaving unfit young males behind at home and comandeering our nation's cream of the crop to fight his battles while his butt warms a couch stateside?
Listen up, missy. Soldiers who volunteer now do so because they have chosen the military as a career and are motivated to apply themselves to soldiering. Volunteer soldiers are neither dumb or genius. They reflect a cross section of abilities but do meet certain standards. As I understand it specific branches of the military, like Air Force, have recruits who test well above the average IQ. But the key words re: volunteer soldiers are "CHOICE", "MOTIVATION" and "CROSS-SECTION" and "CAREER."
What ZF proposed is hand selecting ONLY the fittest of one age group and one gender in our society and dragging them into combat conditions regardless of their choice for a career in life, regardless of their dreams, because ZF's needs come first...albeit he doesn't need to risk anything himself, which he has admitted, because he himself is neither of draft age nor would anyone in his nuclear family be draftable.
If you don't see something wrong with ZF's totalitarian proposal, I suggest you have no right whatsoever to point your finger at extremist Muslims and call them FASCISTS without looking in the mirror and seeing if that description fits you.
To rex, any war that could result in him being drafted is a questionable war
I have told you countless number of times I am not eligible for the draft. Duh. One does not need to be eligible for the draft to see the obvious flaws of the draft. Why do you think Tommy Franks and Rumsfeld are opponents of the draft, ZF? Let's think, think, think.
The Iraq War is questionable to many people, including Republicans, and more importantly to the undecided voters who could determine the outcome of this election. The Iraq War is GWB's great Achilles Heel. That's whay as disagreeable and flawed a candidate as Skerry is, GWB and him are running neck and neck. GWB could lose the Oval Office for the Republicans because of his misguided decision to invade Iraq based on faulty intelligence-it showed poor judgement. Saddam did not represent the threat to the USA oe our national interests as we were led to believe. Apart from you and your hormonally driven harpie pals, most Americans could give 2 hoots about liberating 25 million Iraqis. And as if the Iraq War isn't a bad enough albatross for the Republican Party you and your band of chickenhawks are dreaming up ways of drafting young males to start wars with Iran and Pakistan, maybe even Sudan. Smart, sheer genius. The political Party whose watch it is that a draft is implemented is the party that will not see control of Congress of the Oval Office for many years. So get off your make war pulpit and grab a clue.
I believe there'll be an exemption for physical cowards who foam at the mouth and go into convulsions at the thought of war
That probably worked for you regarding avoiding the draft in the Vietnam War, ZF. You have a PhD in "foaming at the mouth."
The great thing about a draft is that it pulls the chickens and the hawks alike into serving the national good.
What experience do you have with the draft? You were never drafted. You never even gave of yourself by joining the National Guard. You said you were in the basement of one of the towers during 9/11. Did you stay back long enough to help others to escape? After 9/11 what did you do with your new found chest beating machoman-ness? Did you volunteer to search the rubble for survivors? Did you join the National Guard, or an NGO to help the military help the Afghans? Have you ever sent donations to any of the military related charities?
Posted by: rex ||
08/30/2004 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#50
Ok. Stud farms first, then the draft. Is everyone happy now?
Posted by: ed ||
08/30/2004 18:27 Comments ||
Top||
#51
Shipman: I'm with Rex, the best of the US Army and Marines should be protecting the border against infiltrating gardeners.
Don't knock it - you never know what those gardeners can get up to - those pesticides are what I'd call weapons of mass destruction.
"What experience do you have with the draft? You were never drafted. You never even gave of yourself by joining the National Guard. You said you were in the basement of one of the towers during 9/11. Did you stay back long enough to help others to escape? After 9/11 what did you do with your new found chest beating machoman-ness? Did you volunteer to search the rubble for survivors? Did you join the National Guard, or an NGO to help the military help the Afghans? Have you ever sent donations to any of the military related charities?"
Ah, rex, I suggest you answer these questions first, old boy.
Bush and Kerry *aren't* running "neck and neck"--the Mainstream Media only wishes it were so and believes that if they say this often enough, it will be true.
Most Americans understand exactly why President Bush had us topple Saddam and invade Iraq and why it's important to turn Iraq into the first Muslim democracry in the Middle East.
You have fun marching with your compadres in New York yesterday?
"Fox News lies. Fox News sucks." LOL!
#53
rex: What experience do you have with the draft? You were never drafted. You never even gave of yourself by joining the National Guard. You said you were in the basement of one of the towers during 9/11. Did you stay back long enough to help others to escape? After 9/11 what did you do with your new found chest beating machoman-ness? Did you volunteer to search the rubble for survivors? Did you join the National Guard, or an NGO to help the military help the Afghans? Have you ever sent donations to any of the military related charities?
What chest-beating machoness? I'm a citizen, not a soldier. When my security is attacked, I call upon our leadership to deploy our armed forces to go to war to destroy the menace that attacked us and establish through action the deterrence that will discourage further attacks. (Rex curls up into a ball and whines "Pleeeze don't draft me").
I haven't signed up for the military because I believe national defense is a shared responsibility. If I risk my life in combat, I want to make sure that people like rex are risking their skins alongside people like me. Like I said, I would dearly love to have a gun pointed at rex's back as he is deserting or joining the enemy. Rex calls this sick - I call it a natural sense of contempt for cowards and traitors. This is why I feel a draft with no exemptions is the best solution to this problem of equity. Note that liberals don't volunteer to pay for social programs exclusively out of their own wallets, so it's ludicrous to ask conservatives risk their lives exclusively for the safety of the nation.
#54
When rex uses the phrase "chest-beating machoness", he's adopting the liberal lexicon to distort what the recent military campaigns are all about in order to conceal his essential physical cowardice. These campaigns were not about chest-beating, but about pest control - killing venomous snakes and wiping out hornets' nests. There's no particular glory to it, but it has to be done. The real goal is to destroy an illusion - the illusion in the hearts of Muslims that American foreign policy can be manipulated to their advantage via the mass killings of Americans.
#55
ZF - rex could have been a contendah, but fate has relegated him to Chicken Little. He's intelligent, which makes the fact that he can't see past his Massive Conspiracy Myopia a real shame. Nothing is ever small, nothing is ever right, nothing is ever good - it's all an evil conspiracy run by a cabal of evil geniuses - Illuminati or whatever - but always ending up as Bush's failure. Sigh. It's a sad thing.
#56
You have fun marching with your compadres in New York yesterday? "Fox News lies. Fox News sucks." LOL!
Did you see me march in NYC? Did I ever criticize Fox News? If not, I suggest you shut your lying harpie pie hole. You still have not offered any proof to support your last baseless insult calling me a "Jew-hater." I'd suggest you get working on your first assignment before you throw out new insults that you cannot support. You will get snowed under with embaressment for being caught in a lie. Lying harpie Jen, that has a nice ring to it, if I do say so myself.
Most Americans understand exactly why President Bush had us topple Saddam and invade Iraq and why it's important to turn Iraq into the first Muslim democracry in the Middle East
Pray tell where are the studies/polls/research that support your airy fairy conclusion re: "most Americans" understand why we needed to go to war in Iraq to turn Iraq into the first democracy in the ME? How does a democracy in Iraq benefit "most Americans?" Who is to say a democracy will work in the ME..experts like you and ZF? It has never been proven that any Iraqis or Iraq supported terrorists were involved in 9/11 or the first Trade Center attack or the attack of the Cole or as a matter of fact any previous terrorism against America. It was my impression that it was Saudi Arabia that gave material support to virulently anti-American madras who are churning out wannabe terrorists. Yet we are told by the WH that Saudi Arabia is our "friend." Yes? How confusing.
Don't knock it - you never know what those gardeners can get up to - those pesticides are what I'd call weapons of mass destruction.
a. I don't call that is a proper response, ZF, to the questions I raised in post #49. Totally non-sequiter.
b. Guess you, ZF, and your smart aleck Rambo friend, ship, have not read the article posted a few days ago that the FBI fears that AQ is using Latin America as their staging area for the next terror attack against America. Guess you two have forgotten about the high level AQ lady captured by chance in Texas who strolled thru the Mexican border with a one way ticket to NYC and a large amount of cash on her person. But I guess you two knowitall chickenhawks have the inside track [like what do the FBI know next to armchair super sleuths like you?] to information that Iran and Pakistan and Sudan are planning attacks on America? No way can the anti-American corrupt regimes south of the border, including Mexico, ever allow terrorists to live in their midst. If all Hispanics are hard working law abiding family people, err...that does not explain why illegal aliens(primarily Hispanics)occupy 30% of US federal jails.
Posted by: rex ||
08/30/2004 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#57
Gee, the Libs are bitter because they know their "arguments" and policy proposals (such as they are) are bullshit...and they know we're right.
I am loving it! LOL!
#58
This was a really great thread up to about 10 posts ago. I learned a lot. Thanks to all (yes, you too Rex.)
Rex, quick question though. If we do identify another nation aiding/abetting terrorists who have or we believe will attack us, how do we respond to that threat? Do we just lob in a nuke? Do we use conventional bombing and level their capital? Do we kill thousands/hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because "nation building" is expensive, dirty business? Or do we just take our licks and look the other way. I'm not baiting, this is a serious question. (Note that I support increased border security, but feel we are in Iraq for the right reasons. We will have a lot better chance of making the needed changes in Iran and SA from there than we would holed up here.)
Posted by: remote man ||
08/30/2004 20:10 Comments ||
Top||
#59
I challenge the contention that the available pool is too small to support an all volunteer force larger than what we have now. Given that the Navy is cutting 70,000 and the Airforce is cutting 30,000 over the next few years, the demands on that pool are dropping even if the Army and Marines expand by 30K and 10K respectively.
As for you Rex, back on your medication - you are beginning to sound like an anti-war liberal with your ad hominem attacks and abuse of language with inflammatory and pejorative terms, and a dearth of facts.
Iraq is the geopolitical center of the region. Thats why Syria and Iran (and Suadi indirectly) are fighting so hard to prevent a secular democracy from being established there. It has gerat oil wealth from which to grow, lies across all the major lines of communication and supply between the terror sponsors (Iran & Syria) and the cash providers in Saudi. WIth US forces there, we have immense political and military leveral throughout the region. Its a smaller fight now to make a bigger fight later unneccesary.
Rex, you are apparently too busy buying your head in the sand and calling others names and wrapping yourself in some warped Buchannonist/LaRouche version of racist/elitist conservatism to even see the facts much less consider them.
Fact is that we are now in Iraq, for better or worse.
Fact is that they deserve a shot a Liberty, in spite of them bein "brown people" or some other inferior group in your view.
Fact is they have oil that is valuable ot the stability of the economy - and the US is dependant upon the world economy no matter how hard you try to deny it.
Fact is that we can change the region. To quote the Liberty Bell:
PROCLAIM LIBERTY THROUGHOUT ALL THE LAND UNTO ALL THE INHABITANTS THEREOF
#60
I'm a citizen, not a soldier.
Then don't nominate other citizens with equal rights to you to be soldiers.
When my security is attacked,
Is it always about you? What about young males ages 18-26? Wasn't their security attacked? Was is it just you? Get your nose out of your navel and look at the world around you.
I call upon our leadership to deploy our armed forces to go to war to destroy the menace
No, you said to commandeer young men to fight foreign wars for no good reason, with no specific enemy nation named, just so you can get a false sense of security for your chickenheart soul.
and establish through action the deterrence that will discourage further attacks
How did invading Iraq, a country which never attacked us, accomplish "deterrence"? In spite of invading Iraq, we still have received orange alerts and various plots have been uncovered to attack us - the NYC subways was the most recent incident. So where is the deterrence as a result of the Iraq invasion? We are now a laughing stock of the world. Iraq is our new Vietnam, moron, but worse because there is no North Vietnam that is the named enemy, moron. Tell me what enemy are we fighting in Iraq??? Answer: mainly Iraqis who fighting our occupation. Very nice, a smooth move the invasion of Iraq.
Btw isn't it terrific that our Republican party is letting an Imam deliver the opening prayer on the first night of the convention? I wonder how the families of the soldiers killed by Muslims in Iraq feel about a Muslim Imam leading our governing party in prayer?? Think about it, chickenhawk.
(Rex curls up into a ball and whines "Pleeeze don't draft me").
When have I ever said that? Find the post, ZF. I am NOT eligible for the draft. Rumsfeld and Franks are against the draft. Are they curled up in a ball in your eyes, chickenhawk?
Like I said, I would dearly love to have a gun pointed at rex's back as he is deserting or joining the enemy. Rex calls this sick - I call it a natural sense of contempt for cowards and traitors
You have a borderline personality and you are also a chickenhawk. Bad combination. Get help.
This is why I feel a draft with no exemptions is the best solution to this problem of equity.
How is it "equity" when a fat middle aged chickenhawk like yourself is calling for a draft of single young men ages 18-26? You call that "no exemtions?" What about the fat chickenhawks like you and jen who fall outside this distinctly small group?
Note that liberals don't volunteer to pay for social programs exclusively out of their own wallets, so it's ludicrous to ask conservatives risk their lives exclusively for the safety of the nation.
Non sequiter, moron. What does drafting one gender in a limited age group to risk their lives for fat mentally unbalanced chickenhawks like you have to do with liberals or conservatives or with non-life threatening social programs?
rex could have been a contendah, but fate has relegated him to Chicken Little. He's intelligent, which makes the fact that he can't see past his Massive Conspiracy Myopia a real shame.
And your contribution to this discussion is what, .com? I suggest you stick to posting video clips of dogs dancing, if you have nothing of substance to post. That I criticize GWB for invading Iraq for no reason troubles you? Quite frankly it troubles me that so-called conservatives like you see nothing wrong for our invading a nation that was not threatening us. Who are you going to invade next? Maybe France because they have been making anti-American jokes? Or maybe Venezuela because they have Chavez who is a loud mouth socialist? When don't you think we can invade countries? Doesn't it trouble you that a "mole" has been allegedly found in the DOD who could have influenced the policy for invading Iraq? You don't think that maybe, just maybe whiz kid geniuses like Feith and Wofowitz should have figured out they had a traitor in their midst? Don't you think that maybe, maybe these 2 geniuses of war should have realized that heir darling of Iraq secret WMD information, Chalabi, was pissing on their heads and passing on on information to Iran? You don't think that we have a ship of fools at the helm of the DOD who are getting us into wars even though they are so stupid they cannot identify 2 traitors sharing the same office space. You think whatever GWB says or does is perfect inspite of these obvious "problems" re: infiltration by other nations? No worries, says.com, as long as he dpoesn't have his butt in Najef-yes? Oh btw, speaking of Najef, did you hear the latest, the guy you diss as "Tater"...yuk, yuk...the guy who was responsible for several GI deaths...err, not only has he got a free pass from arrest for murder [you remember how Bremer got lathered up about the arrest warrent of Tater...yuk, yuk Mr."Tater" has just been "invited" to contribute to the political process in Iraq. Maybe he may eventually run for PM of Iraq. Won't that be swell? Maybe I should not criticize GWB-having a murdering thug in a dirty nightshirt participate in the Iraqi political process is very imaginative, well worth 965 GI lives and $87 Billion. Touche. Too bad, .com. I call a spade a spade. Kerry is pathetic and GWB is just a notch above. A nice guy, but you have got to admit,Iraq is a major, major screw up. And I am very p.o.'d about this latest "mole" thigie in the DOD. Oh I'm sure it is all a big mistake even though the FBI has 1 year's worth of surveillence tapes and wire taps. Big mistake.
Gee, the Libs are bitter because they know their "arguments" and policy proposals (such as they are) are bullshit...and they know we're right. I am loving it! LOL!
Time to get suck down more brain food like estrogen, jen, you are hallucinating. Where are the liberals that you see? No offense but you are wasting precious time with mirages and your Jesus loves me songs. Do your research and find when I posted anything that was "Jew-hating" or when I said "FOX sucks." Get busy, missy holy roller.
If we do identify another nation aiding/abetting terrorists who have or we believe will attack us, how do we respond to that threat? Do we just lob in a nuke? Do we use conventional bombing and level their capital? Do we kill thousands/hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians because "nation building" is expensive, dirty business?
If a nation has attacked us,of course we should respond with overwhelming force. Who cares about killing civilians in the enemy nation? Did we worry about the Japanese or the Germans?
It's not that nation building is expensive or dirty business. It's just that it doesn't work very often according to plan or in a timely fashion and the only nation I am aware of that was reasonably good at nation building, a long time ago, without leaving massive bad feelings afterwards was Britain. And look at the massive social problems Britain has created with its own society by opening the doors to former colonies to come to the Motherland to settle?
But with regards to Muslim nations, nation building is especially daunting especially Muslims have a different culture, deep tribal loyalties, and believe in an ages old religion that says all non-Muslims are to be converted or murdered. It's not a situation that bodes well for the "occupiers."
feel we are in Iraq for the right reasons. We will have a lot better chance of making the needed changes in Iran and SA from there than we would holed up here
We went into Iraq for falsely stated reasons. If GWB told us that we should invade another nation that was no threat to us to liberate and to position ourselves in the ME, there would have been a move to remove him from office-probably led by the Republicans. Are you kidding me? You think we should invade other nations just because we feel our system of gov't is superior or just because we THINK Iran and S.A. may change their ways if we get close to them? That's absurd.
Like it or not we need to depend on our "old" allies [sorry El Salvadore is not a biggie in my books] to help us on curbing the growth of terrorism for intelligence gathering, for nipping financial backing of terrorism in the bud, for military assistence. We will never beat terrorism. We will never end terrorism. We can curb terrorism so it's not a great threat to us. And for that type of battle, we can't blow off France and Canada and Spain and say lookie here, we've got El Salvadore and Poland to help us with idiotic "pre-emptive" wars that get us nothing but egg on our faces. We'd do a heck of alot better in the WOT with French intelligence officers and Canadian snipers than 2000 Polish soldiers [who do what exactly?] or 200 El Salvadorians [who do what exactly?]
What we need to do is relinquish our dependency on fossil fuels. The days of fat soccer moms driving junior to the local park for T ball practice in a Suburban are so OVER. In year 2020 China is going to need more oil than us and guess what the price of Saudi oil will rocket to when China is counter bidding to us? I think Muslims will be viewed like toy soldiers once China comes on the scene as the new bully boy on the block.
Posted by: rex ||
08/30/2004 23:36 Comments ||
Top||
#61
Can't agree w/you on the tax issue, LH, considering we're still paying for the Spanish-American War w/the 3% telecommunication tax.
Al-haj Murad Ebrahim is what you might call an old-school revolutionary. The leader of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front has spent three decades in the jungles of the troubled southern Philippine region of Mindanao, battling to carve out an independent state for its downtrodden Muslim population. But more recently the MILF has tacitly supported terrorist bombings of civilian targets by foreign Islamic jihadists, an unsavory alliance in the post-September 11 world. As he prepares for formal peace talks with the Philippine government, Murad faces a stark choiceeither steer the MILF back to its nationalist roots or drive it into the arms of international terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. "I think he's prepared to have a negotiated settlement with the government," says Silvestre Afable, Manila's chief peace negotiator, "and has decided that the MILF will have nothing to do with terrorists."
The predominantly Roman Catholic Philippines, not to mention the rest of Southeast Asia, can only hope he's right. The MILF has been accused of protecting training camps in its territory run by Jemaah Islamiah, or JIa regional terrorist group linked to Al Qaedafor nearly a decade. According to U.S. and Filipino officials in Manila, the Mindanao camps have been nothing short of a mini-Afghanistan, providing JI a sanctuary within a lawless region to train recruits and plan operations against the United States and its regional allies. Other terrorist organizations, including kidnapping specialists Abu Sayyaf, are also believed to be training there.
Graduates of the camps have been linked to some of the world's worst terrorist attacks since 9/11, including the Bali bombings two years ago that killed 202 people and the suspicious sinking of a ferry near Manila in February that killed 116. Bomb expert Fathur Rohman al-Ghozi, who played a role in several bombings in the Philippines and Indonesia in 2002, is believed to have worked as an instructor in the camps in 1996. (Al-Ghozi was killed by soldiers in Mindanao last October.) Analysts say the camps are giving JIwhich has been battered by hundreds of arrests in Indonesia, Singapore and Malaysia since the Bali attacksa second wind. "As long as JI is able to regenerate new recruits, they will be a threat," says Rohan Gunaratna, a regional terrorism analyst.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
08/30/2004 3:11:34 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States and France are discussing whether to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution insisting that Lebanon be allowed to decide its own future without Syrian interference, a State Department official said Monday. Lebanon's pro-Syrian president, Emile Lahoud, has been seeking a constitutional amendment that would allow him to extend his term in office for another three years. With 20,000 troops in Lebanon, Syria has been the main power broker in the country for years.
In recent days the White House and the State Department have been expressing concern about what they contend is Syria's continuing effort to determine Lebanon's political future.
Syria has been "un-helpful" in this and other matters.
The pro-Syrian Lebanese Parliament is expected to approve a presidential term extension. Lahoud's six-year term expires on Nov. 24.
State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, without mentioning Syria by name, said Monday it is the view of the United States and many in Lebanon that all foreign forces should be removed from Lebanon based on a 15-year old agreement. "We have heard a lot of voices in Lebanon standing up for the established constitution," Boucher said. "And we think the Lebanese people should be allowed to decide without influence from other parties."
Boucher is the guy tasked with delivering bad news.
Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, who heads the State Department's Middle East Bureau, is weighing the possibility of traveling to Damascus next week to deliver the U.S. message to Syrian authorities directly, a State Department official said.
That should be interesting
The United States has been coordinating its Lebanon policy with France and Germany. On Friday, the French Foreign Ministry urged Lebanon to show "strict respect" for its constitution and suggested that no outside country should interfere with Lebanon's electoral process. Also on Friday, German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said during a visit to Beirut that it was "crucial that Lebanon be preserved as an independent and sovereign nation and state, and that all the decisions are based on the constitution and on the free will of your people."
Found a wedge issue that everyone can agree on.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2004 4:07:12 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't be the Frogs aren't playing rope-a-dope. They've did it to Powell on Iraq. Fool me one shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. Colin better make real sure he's not shamed.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 16:45 Comments ||
Top||
#2
s. b. Don't be too sure
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 16:46 Comments ||
Top||
#3
WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States and France are discussing whether to seek a U.N. Security Council resolution insisting that Lebanon be allowed to decide its own future without Syrian interference, a State Department official said Monday.
And what if Lebanon ISN'T allowed to decide its own future without Syrian interference? What, if anything, would the UN actually DO about that?
#4
Assistant Secretary of State William Burns, who heads the State Department's Middle East Bureau, is weighing the possibility of traveling to Damascus next week to deliver the U.S. message to Syrian authorities directly, a State Department official said.
What's this guy's story-is he the right person for the job?
via USATODAY - Special Whine Editions - EFL
By Barbara Slavin
The core of President Bush's foreign and national security policy is that he will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to acquire the world's most dangerous weapons. But Iran, a charter member of Bush's "axis of evil," is believed to be only one to three years away from being able to make nuclear weapons, and a growing number of nuclear experts worry that there may be no way to stop it from becoming the world's 10th nuclear weapons state. "We can't stop Iran from developing the technology and reaching the breakout point," says Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think tank in Washington.
"But we can make them wish they hadn't," added Fred Pruitt, a military expert at the Rantburg Center for Strategic and International Studies...
Anxiety about Iran's bomb plans have new prominence because of accusations that a Pentagon official passed an internal memo on U.S. policy toward Iran to a pro-Israel lobbying group and ultimately to Israel. Though the group and the Israeli government both deny any spying, Israel is deeply worried about an Iranian bomb. ...more...
Pfeh.
Posted by: .com ||
08/30/2004 1:58:11 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Man...I'd love to be a fly on the wall, in the knesset; when Iran test detonates they're first yield! Just to count the pails brought in!!
#4
This all works off the assumption that nuclear weapons are the end-all, be-all of weaponry. I wonder what will be going through the minds of the Mullahs when they launch half a dozen missiles at the same time, and EVERY DAMN ONE of them destructs a few hundred feet after launch? And what will the Iranian people do, after every single broadcast heard in the country, overwhelming their local broadcasts, tell them that their leaders just tried to start a nuclear war with the US? As in "Grab a pole and put a mullahs head on it!"
#5
Man...I'd love to be a fly on the wall, in the knesset; when Iran test detonates they're first yield! Just to count the pails brought in!!
Several times in the past Israeli politicans and legislators have felt profoundly threatened by events in the Arab world. Closing the Straits of Tiran. Attacks from the Golan Heights. Movement of an Iraqi brigade through Jordan.
Guess what happened each time?
Think about it, smn: unlike the looney Left, the Israelis have balls.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2004 13:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"But Iran, a charter member of Bushâs "axis of evil," is believed to be only one to three years away from being able to make nuclear weapons." Yeah, and only one to three years from coming face to face with the mother of all daisycutters.
Q: How big a bomb can you put in a B-2?
A: Big enuff.
The warhead of the Iranian Shihab-3 missile has been considerably upgraded, according to photographs published in Iranian newspapers of test launches three weeks ago. It is believed that the improvements will permit slower entry into the atmosphere so the warhead, which may be chemical in nature, will be more durable and its contents will be better protected. It is also believed that the missile's range has been extended.
That's a lot to believe.
A IRBM is a very inefficent method of delivering chemical agents. You need to deliver one hell of a lot to kill very many people.
On the other hand, use of a chemical WMD is a good way to receive a counterattack using another type of WMD...
The operational and technological conclusions from the changes in the missile indicate that the Iranians are not resting on their laurels in developing their surface-to-surface missiles, and have shown a daring approach to their technological planning. It is very likely that the Iranians are being assisted by foreign experts from the former Soviet Union hired by Iran under personal contracts, or by experts from North Korea.
Lot of two-way communication beteen those two.
It is also likely that the Iranian effort is not limited to the Shihab-3, which has a range of about 1,300 kilometers, but also to the Shihab 4, planned with a range of 2,000 kilometers or more. At present the Shihab-3 can already come within range of Turkey, which is a member of NATO, as well as most Saudi Arabian cities and oil fields. On the last test of the Shihab-3 on August 11, the missile did not pass the maximum trajectory that had been determined for it.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Heysenbergmayhavebeenhere ||
08/30/2004 1:51:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Not to worry until
a) they have an effective warhead light enough for their missle to lift at its maximum ranges
or
b) they have enough throw weight and control at those ranges to where they can put their heavy old warheads on it and actually get within 2 miles CEP of their aimpoint.
Given that Israel hasn't attackedd yet, I'd say neither of those conditions have been met yet.
LOS ANGELES (RNS) Actor Alec Baldwin was the main honoree at the Aug. 21 media awards banquet held by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, with the Democratic Party-supporting actor denouncing President Bush and Fox News Channel anchor Bill O'Reilly.
"Voice of Courage", most recently in his outspoken stance on protecting civil liberties. Mr. Baldwin courageously spoke out against the climate of fear and intimidation that curbed free speech at the beginning of the Afghanistan war, saying, "when Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon spokespeople say to you, 'Well this is going to be a long war, we're going to be in it for the long haul,' what the euphemism means is that moratorium on criticizing the government must be extended longer and longer."
As chair and moderator of the "Grassroots America Defends the Bill of Rights" National Conference in Washington, D.C., Mr. Baldwin led efforts to urge Congress to repeal sections of the USA PATRIOT Act, and other post-9/11 policies that threatened civil liberties. As President of The Creative Coalition, Mr. Baldwin led a coalition of artists and entertainers in advocating for better policies on social and political issues, especially those surrounding First Amendment protections.
MPAC honors Mr. Baldwin for maintaining such strong positions on civil liberties at a time when critics and dissenters were labeled unpatriotic.
In its 13th year, the MPAC Media Awards recognizes "Voices of Courage and Conscience." This year's awards will take place at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel on August 21, 2004 at 7:00pm
Many well-intentioned observers assert that we should ignore the antics of the Hollywood Fifth Column.
After all, the Hollyweirdos are less than nobody in terms of political, moral, and intellectual credibility.
Understandable as it is, I believe that this stance is dead wrong. I have long believed that the political left, as we know it today, is primarily about Hollywood and the overall media culture, including advertising and popular culture in general.
For 40 years, aping the left-wing rhetoric of the mass-media elite (including the entertainment media) has been the surest way to associate oneself with the glamor, power, and status of the world's most influential industry.
There are many reasons for the media culture to have embraced left-wing ideology but what it comes down to is the "illusion of rebellion" so necessary to set oneself apart in the hyper-competitive world of big media. It is no accident that this same illusion has also been the top advertising gimmick for the same 40+ years.
In our approach to activism, we should emphasize this connection as much as humanly possible: Lib voters are the slaves of Hollywood and Madison Avenue, the "Left" as we know it today is little more than an advertising gimmick run amok.
For more on the real origin of Hollywood leftyism, see Thomas Frank's landmark cultural history, The Conquest of Cool.
A five-year-old boy and his family will on Wednesday take TUI AG, Europe's largest tourism company, to court in a civil case that, in TUI's own words, has potentially serious consequences for the package tour industry. The boy's family is suing TUI for damages after he was seriously injured in a terrorist attack on the Tunisian holiday island of Djerba in April, 2002. The family was in Djerba on a tour organised by TUI subsidiary 1-2-Fly. Some 21 people, including 14 Germans, were killed when Islamic terrorists exploded a tank truck in front of a famous synagog on the island. The family argues TUI failed to warn its guests of the risks on Djerba following violent anti-tourist demonstrations on the island prior to the blast. It is seeking 100,000 eur in compensation plus an additional 800 eur a month to care for the boy, who was seriously burnt in the attack.
TUI argues there were no warnings that a terrorist attack was imminent, and it cannot be held responsible for unpredictable events. If tour operators are held financially responsible for such events in the courts, this could mean "no less than the end of organised travel", said TUI manager Volker Boettcher. He acknowledged that the lawsuit has put the company in a very uncomfortable position. Any payment by TUI to the family would be seen as an admission of culpability, which could have a devastating effect on a company that takes millions of people on holiday every year, he said. On the other hand, TUI is aware it is facing a five-year-old victim in court and that "emotionally, we can only lose in this dispute," Boettcher said. The case will be heard in the Hanover District Court.
Rape of women and girls and official harassment are still widespread in Sudan's western Darfur region, a senior United Nations official said yesterday, insisting that the government in Khartoum was not doing enough to protect displaced people. "There is a protection crisis in Darfur today, in terms of us not being able to adequately protect the displaced civilian population," the official, Dennis McNamara, told a press conference in Nairobi. "There remains constant regular pressure, sometimes harassment by the authorities in various locations in Darfur, on displaced populations to go back to insecure villages of origin," he explained after a visit to the region. McNamara, the special advisor on displacement to UN Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland, said displaced people were "traumatised" in Darfur, where rebels have been fighting and government troops, backed by militia called Janjaweed, for the past 18 months.
McNamara said "sexual violence and rape against women and girls" were common, adding: "We have an example of a girl as young as seven credibly reported as a rape victim. Most rapes are multiple rapes and done by many men, usually militia," he added. "Attacks, including particulary sexual violence and rape, are undertaken with impunity," he said, explaining that no exact figures are available. Meanwhile, a 155-strong company of Nigerian infantry flew out of Abuja yesterday, heading for the war-torn western Sudanese region of Darfur to join an African Union force protecting ceasefire monitors. "You are going to Sudan purely to assist our brothers and sisters in restoring a hope that is fast diminishing in them," Brigadier General Shekari Biliyok, commander of the Army Headquarters Garrison, told his troops.
WHILE IN LONDON AFTER SURGERY, AYATOLLAH AL-SISTANI HAD A STORMY MEETING WITH AN IRANIAN DELEGATION THAT DEMANDED A ROLE FOR IRAN IN IRAQ. AL-SISTANI CATEGORICALLY DENIED THEM ANY ROLE AND SUBSEQUENTLY PACKED AND LEFT FOR IRAQ WITHOUT CONSULTING HIS HOSTS OR THE IRAQI GOVERNMENT. (AL-HAYAT, LEBANON, 8/27/04)
AN IRAQI DELEGATION HEADED BY DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER BURHAM SALEH IS VISITING IRAN, CARRYING WITH IT SECURITY AND POLITICAL DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO IRANIAN INTERVENTION IN INTERNAL IRAQI AFFAIRS. (AL-ZAMAN, BAGHDAD, 8/29/04)
IRAQ'S NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR DR. MUWAFFAQ AL-RABI'I SAYS THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT MUQTADA AL-SADR HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY FOREIGN ELEMENTS.' (AL-SHARQ AL-AWSAT, LONDON, 8/28/04)
MUQTADA AL-SADR'S AIDE SAID THAT THE AL-MAHDI ARMY WOULD NOT BE DISARMED AND THAT THE NEW AGREEMENT DID NOT REQUIRE DISARMAMENT. HE ALSO SAID THAT NEGOTIATIONS WITH A DELEGATION FROM THE IRAQI INTERIOR MINISTRY AND THE IRAQI PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE ARE UNDERWAY REGARDING THE SITUATION IN OTHER CITIES. (AL-HAYAT, LONDON, 8/29/04)
#1
yep, round 3 and block off the friggin shrine, dammit!
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/30/2004 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Something tells me that Sistani and his allies are not going to allow the shrine to be occupied by the Tater chips again, not at least without a fight.
#6
History shows that an outside enemy, especially and ancient and cultural one, is a common way to unite a nation. And most religions save their highest venom and hatred for heretics and religious sectarian rivals.
Iran is on the losing end of this.
If there is one thing that can bring the Shia and Sunni and Kurds togehter in Iraq, its the the threat of the Persians screwing with them.
This goes way back, centuries.
If they can publicise hard and substantial links between Tater and the Iranians, all bets are off.
EFL: Oil prices dropped sharply Monday, falling below $42 a barrel, as last week's selloff continued despite sabotage of Iraqi oil infrastructure that curbed exports. "It just goes to show you that when the psychology turns, it turns," said Tom Bentz, a trader at BNP Paribas Futures in New York. There were also signs out of Iraq on Monday that a peace deal reached in Najaf, Iraq, last week could spread to other parts of the country. An aide to Muqtada al-Sadr said the rebel Shiite cleric called for his followers across Iraq to end fighting against U.S. and Iraqi forces and that he is planning to join the political process in the coming days.
Light sweet crude for October delivery plunged by $1.21 to $41.97 in afternoon trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange. At that level, crude futures were trading roughly 14 percent below the record settlement high of $48.70 on Aug. 19. Oil markets have been extremely volatile this summer because traders fret there is inadequate excess supply globally in the event of a prolonged output disruption in Iraq, Russia or Venezuela. But with the exception of sporadic dropoffs in Iraqi oil exports due to attacks on industry infrastructure, none of these fears have materialized. Oil-price speculation by institutional investors, including hedge funds, magnified this summer's surge in prices, as well as the latest retreat, traders said.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2004 4:17:12 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oil markets have been extremely volatile this summer because traders fret there is inadequate excess supply globally in the event of a prolonged output disruption in Iraq, Russia or Venezuela. But with the exception of sporadic dropoffs in Iraqi oil exports due to attacks on industry infrastructure, none of these fears have materialized.
Oil-price speculation by institutional investors, including hedge funds, magnified this summer's surge in prices, as well as the latest retreat, traders said.
There ya go. What we've been experiencing (especially here in CA) is the product of a small group of people letting their emotions get the better of them. Few things are worse than allowing emotion to dictate one's actions (and legislation). Democrats, are you paying attention?
#3
JFM: My personal opinion is that Soros and the Saudis have been manipulating oil price in order to torpedo Bush.
I'm not sure Soros would risk his considerable wealth to do this. We are talking about big time dollars here. He has no clue how this is going to end - with the pound, the endgame was predictable.
With respect to the Saudis, I don't really see how they gain from a Kerry administration, which is said to be deeply anti-Saudi. The reality is that Bush will work with them, whereas Kerry might cut them off. I think this price drop may in fact be due to the Saudis opening the spigots to ensure a Bush victory. They want someone who will help them crush any coup attempt by the jihadis within the government. I don't think Kerry can be counted upon to step up to the plate.
#4
Bush's ultimate goal is to destroy the hornest's nest of Islamism through democracy. Whatever the tactical alliances with the Saudis sooner or later Bush's road will lead to confront them.
And in the other side, the Saudis dream is to have the whole world prosternating towards them: they WILL try to come to terms with Al Quaida, and
despite Kerry's words agaisnt them they will favour the weakest candidate in the fight against
Islamo-fascism.
#5
JFM: Bush's ultimate goal is to destroy the hornest's nest of Islamism through democracy. Whatever the tactical alliances with the Saudis sooner or later Bush's road will lead to confront them.
We really have no levers to use against the Saudis short of military force. I think the Saudis are more concerned with whether Uncle Sam will come to their rescue if a military coup is launched by a jihadi faction. Under Bush, intervention is assured, followed by a restoration of the government. With Kerry, even if there was an intervention, it is not clear that the Saudi regime would be restored.
I would love to see the evidence that Bush would restore the House of Saud once deposed. I think no American President has ever restored a King to his throne.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 19:12 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Well, there's the Emir of Kuwait, Jabir Al Sabah... upgraded in 65 from Sheikh, not quite a Kingy Thingy, yet.
#9
Mrs. Davis: I would love to see the evidence that Bush would restore the House of Saud once deposed. I think no American President has ever restored a King to his throne.
The US helped the Shah of Iran regain his throne by ensuring the failure of a coup attempt by the Iranian Prime Minister Mossadegh. I believe it was FDR who laid the foundations of the current relationship with Saudi Arabia - promising to protect it from all external enemies. Kuwait was obviously restored to the Kuwaiti monarchy after its liberation from Iraqi rule. This isn't anything new. The fact is that we deal with the world as it is, not the way we would like it to be. The alternative the Saudi royal family is a Saudi version of Iran, and that doesn't bear thinking about, given Saudi Arabia's vastly greater oil reserves.
#10
Mrs. Davis: I would love to see the evidence that Bush would restore the House of Saud once deposed. I think no American President has ever restored a King to his throne.
My point is pretty much that if we can work with Stalin (during WWII), we can work with these bush league tyrants.
Thanks. I still think it's a lousy idea and I'm not convinced W would do it. The examples given don't show it's a great policy.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Mrs D - Actually I agree with you - apologies if I sounded like I was condoning the idea - the House of Saud has "legitimacy" only in the eyes of their fellow ME tyrants - and the UN, of course. And that's merely a self-preservation ploy. I asked my first Saudi acquantance, a guy named Shaker Al Shaker, why they put up with a King cuz he only takes what belongs to everyone and doles it back out to his favorites, etc. He was dumbfounded - and warned me never to "say this thing" aloud again. This was in '92 and was my initial first-hand glimpse of a police state.
It's one thing to work with 'em, another to restore 'em. Even Roosevelt wouldn't have doen that for Uncle Joe.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 20:05 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Mrs. Davis: It's one thing to work with 'em, another to restore 'em. Even Roosevelt wouldn't have doen that for Uncle Joe.
The practical truth is that the usual alternative to restoration isn't democracy, but another dictatorship - an unfriendly one, for a change, like we encountered in Iran after the Islamic Revolution. Unless we're ready to stick around and duke it out with all contenders for the post of president-for-life, as we're doing in Iraq. In much of the rest of the world, democracy may well have to be imposed - without the imposition of the discipline of good government (much as we may scoff at that phrase) and respect for civilian rule, democracy cannot survive on the barren soil of a history of dictatorial rule since time immemorial. And imposing good government is where our boys in uniform come in.
#15
ZF: The practical truth is that the usual alternative to restoration isn't democracy, but another dictatorship - an unfriendly one, for a change, like we encountered in Iran after the Islamic Revolution.
Jimmy Carter discovered, to his cost, and to the cost of hundreds of Americans killed in terrorist attacks by Iranian-sponsored terrorists, that a pro-American dictatorship wasn't the worst thing in the world. What was worse was the possibility of its replacement by another infinitely crueler dictatorship, but this time an anti-American one where Uncle Sam's entreaties about respecting human rights fell upon deaf ears.
#17
OS: Soros backs quite a few hedge funds. Hedge funds were the ones hosing the markets by screwing with the futures contracts. Conspiracy theory anyone?
In the world of finance, Soros plays to win. His previous plays have involved nudging along what eventually would have become reality anyway. The supply of oil isn't particularly strained, and new supplies are brought online all the time. If Soros gets involved in this speculation, there is no way he can get out without losing huge sums of money, because the underlying reality is that there are huge oilfields ready to be tapped. Canada's oil sands are profitable in the $30 range. There is no way Soros would do this - he did not get to be a billionaire by throwing his money away.
In a bizarre move, the Arab League issued a condemnation Tuesday of the Jerusalem municipality's project to turn Israel's capital city into the world's first city with complete wireless internet capability.
In this condemnation, they refer to Jerusalem by the name "al-Kudos". Can some wise Rantburgian give some background on al-Kudos for me?
Ha! Easy one! "al-Kudos" is an alternative misspelling of "al-Quds," which is the Arabic name for Jerusalem. A qud is that thing that qamels chew...
According to SANA, the official Syrian news agency, the Arab League says the project to make Jerusalem wireless fidelity-enabled (WiFi) accessible threatens the free flow of information without mullah-approved firewalls Arab identity of the city. The Arab League issued a statement Tuesday saying, "the project aims at imposing a de facto [sic] on the city in a way that serves the Israeli interests under the pretext of encouraging the foreign investments." The statement added that the WiFi project, along with all of Israel's policies, "contradicts not only the international law and resolutions but also reflect no desire in realizing the just and comprehensive peace in the region."
"It's hard to run a jihad when everyone's off looking at porn..."
The Municipality of Jerusalem, together with Intel and Compumat Computers, is embarking on a project to make Israel's capital the world's first WiFi accessible city, according to a Globes report. The organizers expect that within two years, users in most areas of the city will be able to surf the internet wirelessly. The WiFi connection will be free of charge throughout at least the first year. The unobtrusive WiFi transmitters installed throughout the city will enable an internet connection of up to 54 megabits per second (Mbps) at a distance of 1000-1600 feet.
#1
That popping sound you hear is the sound of narrow Paleo minds exploding all over the city after their first viewing of free, uncensored, un-Islamified information for the first time.
Posted by: Dar ||
08/30/2004 14:43 Comments ||
Top||
#2
From Google:
The name, âAl Kudsâ is a Hebrew name, taken from the Jewish name for Jerusalem âIr Ha Kodeshâ (the Holy city). Ha Kodesh has âHaâ as an article (in English âtheâ) and in Arabic âAlâ and âKodeshâ which means âHolyâ in Hebrew and was adapted as âKudsâ in Arabic. The reason the Arabs adopted the Hebrew name âAl Kudsâ is that the first Khalif after the prophet Mohamad, Abu Bakr Al Saddik, who was a Jewish convert, (Saddik is a Hebrew name which means righteous) ordered Khalid Ibn Al Walid to liberate Jerusalem from the Byzantines at the request of the Jews and thus he called it Al Kuds as he was accustomed to call it in Hebrew.
#3
LOL It's really about access to information. The sad butt wipes in the too tight turbans know to keep the "faithful" on the reservation they got to filter the information. What "international law" does WiFi violate again? Internation Law the refuge of the clueless.
#12
LOL Frank that was good. I don't think this will help or hurt with dupes. They (Paleos) are constantly seeing LLLs from the west and they are the only ones that go there. China's Internet hasn't brought it down and they have complete access (the state blocks some sites). I had a friend that went there recently and they are well informed.
#13
The name, âAl Kudsâ is a Hebrew name, taken from the Jewish name for Jerusalem âIr Ha Kodeshâ (the Holy city). Ha Kodesh has âHaâ as an article (in English âtheâ) and in Arabic âAlâ and âKodeshâ which means âHolyâ in Hebrew and was adapted as âKudsâ in Arabic. The reason the Arabs adopted the Hebrew name âAl Kudsâ is that the first Khalif after the prophet Mohamad, Abu Bakr Al Saddik, who was a Jewish convert, (Saddik is a Hebrew name which means righteous) ordered Khalid Ibn Al Walid to liberate Jerusalem from the Byzantines at the request of the Jews and thus he called it Al Kuds as he was accustomed to call it in Hebrew.
It is correct that kodesh means holy in hebrew, and quds means holy in arabic, but that does NOT validate the rest of the story. Ive never heard that Bakir was a jew - or that he was called Tsaddik (which does mean righteous or just in Hebrew)- he IS associated with the title Saqifah, a kind of hut, where he first converted to Islam - sounds like folk etymology to me. Please give a source - note well, Google is NOT a source, its a search engine that links you to other sites with which Google has no connection.
Posted by: Dar ||
08/30/2004 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#16
dangoor is a journal founded and edited by the grandson of the Chief rabbi of Baghdad. While im sure hes a terrific guy (never met an Iraqi Jew I didnt like :)) but im not sure his status as an authority on islam. The particular item you quoted is sourced to "Professor Heskel M Haddad, New York " - not sure who he is, where hes a prof, etc.
#17
turns out hes a medical doctor, NOT a professor, though he IS published on the history of Jews in Arab countries, especially Iraq, and on the history of their descendants in Israel and the US. No particular expertise in early Islamic history. Just a nice guy, doing a folk etymology, as far as I can see.
From the Guardian Some human interest, how to hide a cell phone, and how not to coordinate disarmament programs. (Pay $300 for a rifle in one country and $600 in a neighboring country...
Posted by: James ||
08/30/2004 1:25:32 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A court in southeastern port city of Chittagong on Sunday sentenced six persons to death for the murder of a Buddhist monk, Gyan Jyoti Mohasthobir. The six to go to the gallows are Azizul Haque, Alais Mohammad alias AR Mohammad, Nurul Islam, Hermitage teacher Putul Barua, Manik and Zahiruddin. While handing down the death penalty Additional District Sessions Judge Belayet Hossain also fined them 10,000 taka each. Putul, Manik and Zahiruddin were tried in absentia as the three have been on the run since the gruesome murder took place in the priest's hermitage on April 21, 2000.
Posted by: TS(vice girl) ||
08/30/2004 11:44:56 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The animals who are part of this guerilla action are Islamists first. They aren't Iraqis or Iranians or Syrians. As Islamists they want Americans out and Sharia in.
Seems pretty simple to me, tell them No. And when the inveitable murderous temper tantrum happens, kill them. Problem solved.
Negotiating with the death cult never works.
This struck me: Allawi said he asked them what would happen if U.S.-led forces abruptly left Iraq. He said they replied with one word: catastrophe.
Maybe somebody should tell Lurch, it might be news to him.
#2
Reports in the mainstream media ( i havent seen the WaPo article that started this) indicate Allawi is trying to divide the insurgents, not make a wholesale surrender to them. Will await further info.
French President Jacques Chirac dispatched his foreign minister to the Middle East yesterday in the face of a terrorist threat to two French citizens that Paris could not readily blame on American foreign policy.
"Surely, M. le President, there must be some way?"
"Alas, Jean-Pierre, I can find none!"
"Sacred blue!"
Kidnappers holding two French journalists in Iraq have demanded that France drop a new law barring the wearing of head scarves by Muslim schoolgirls — who return to classes at state-run schools this week. They set a deadline of midnight tonight. While no specific death threat was made in the ultimatum from the "Islamic Army of Iraq" delivered over the weekend, the same group said last week it had killed Italian journalist Enzo Baldoni. "The lives of two Frenchmen, as well as the values of the republic" are at stake, Mr. Chirac said in a dramatic address yesterday before Foreign Minister Michel Barnier flew to Cairo in an effort to secure the release of the two journalists. "I solemnly demand their liberation," Mr. Chirac said of the two reporters, stressing that "France has always guaranteed religious freedom — the cement of the nation." Although the government of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin announced a "general mobilization at the highest level," its only options appeared to be diplomacy and the intervention of leaders of the Islamic community in France, which generally condemns the kidnappings.
One option would be for the Frenchies to politely ask the permission of Mr. Bush the Iraqi interim gummint to send the Foreign Legion to slaughter all the Islamists it can find in Fallujah. Once the body count reaches 1000 or the reporter is produced alive and unharmed, the Frenchies can depart, to the cheers of their countrymen and the admiration of that part of the world community that still retains testicles. The message sent would be that if one kidnaps French citizens, one can expect to have one's henchmen pulverized in a ratio of 1000:1. We can, of course, calculate the odds of the option being taken...
Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat joined those calling for the release of the journalists, describing Mr. Chirac as "a good friend of the Palestinian people."
"Youse idiots! You're endangering the boodle!"
French Islamic leaders yesterday issued a series of appeals to the "Islamic Army," an al Qaeda-linked group that has claimed responsibility for killing more than a dozen hostages. The two journalists — Christian Chesnot, a freelancer on assignment for Radio France International, and Georges Malbrunot of the Paris daily Le Figaro — were kidnapped nine days ago in Iraq. Late on Saturday, the Qatar-based television station Al Jazeera broadcast a tape showing the two hostages, one of whom said he was "well."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
08/30/2004 2:59:07 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
French Foreign Minister: Hello, I'm from France and I was wondering if the Ministry of Oil was
open for business today?
#2
Zebari implored the European Union and foreign reconstruction firms and aid agencies to increase their efforts to rebuild the country, saying it was crucial to restoring stability. The EU had said in the past it was prepared to do that - but only if the security situation here improves.
Translation: EU altruism card can only be played when other countries take the security risks for us.
The Kremlin's favoured candidate for president of war-battered Chechnya overwhelmingly won an election that opponents claimed was riddled with fraud, Russian news agencies reported today. With 84% of the vote counted, Maj Gen Alu Alkhanov, Chechnya's top policeman, had received nearly 75% of the votes. Although the Kremlin portrayed the voting as a step towards stability, violence shadowed yesterday's balloting. A man blew himself up near a polling station after trying to enter it carrying a suspicious package, officials said. Fears of terrorism were also stoked by the crashes of two Russian passenger jets five days before the election. Officials said traces of explosives were found in the wreckage.
Seven candidates battled to replace the previous Kremlin-backed Chechen president, Akhmad Kadyrov, who was assassinated in May. But Alkhanov was seen as the Kremlin's clear choice and opponents claimed the voting was rigged. Candidate Abdullah Bugayev said he had formally complained to election officials after seeing several breaches, including an Alkhanov campaign worker who ordered people to vote for him at a polling station. A representative of Movsur Khamidov, another candidate, said he found ballot boxes at a polling station stuffed shortly after the station opened.
Israel is suggesting leaving a Gaza settlement intact after its planned pullout next year for Palestinian residents of Gaza to use as a hospital, as well as selling an industrial zone at a crossing point to international bodies, Israeli officials said. Israel and the World Bank concluded a round of discussions about the planned pullout on Sunday, the officials said. Israel said it planned to destroy the houses in all the settlements except one. The bulldozed homes would be replaced by high-rise apartment buildings for Palestinians now living in refugee camps, while the buildings in the remaining settlement, which was not named, would be used as a hospital.
This would require the Paleos to do something constructive, so it ain't gonna happen.
According to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan, Israel is to evacuate all 21 settlements and the Israeli military from Gaza by in 2005. Sharon refuses to coordinate the pullout with the Palestinians and is hoping that international bodies like the World Bank would help in the transition. The World Bank representatives did not express their opinions about the Israeli ideas. In the past, world financial institutions have been hesitant to commit to buying Israeli assets in Gaza as part of the pullout plan.
They don't want to pay more than the scrap value, since that's what the Paleos are best at generating.
Also, over the years Palestinians have frequently turned down Israeli plans to re-house refugees in permanent quarters, maintaining the camps for more than five decades to emphasize their temporary status as the residents, and now their descendants, wait to return to their original homes in Israel.
All their grandfathers owned a big mansion in Haifa, and had a farm in the valley with olives and persimmon trees. Just ask them, they'll tell you.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/30/2004 2:19:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A note about Saudi Arabs - for comparison and contrast. Everyone knows about the Khobar Towers. Well this was a 4-bldg complex of high-rise apartments, built by the Saudi Gov't, supposedly for the Bedu. Really nice bldgs and units... right on the Gulf with only a wide street separating the complex from the greenbelt built along the breakwater. Picnic heaven. There were other identical Towers, in Al Dammam and elsewhere. Funny thing was, no Bedu will sleep with another man's feet above his head - it's a "dirty" thing, a serious insult - you know how whacking something or someone with shoes shows great contempt and insult, right? So the Bedu wouldn't use the apartments - they didn't care for the height of the top floor - and couldn't have anyone above them - so they just wouldn't use them.
Did the Saudi Gov't know this would happen? Sure they did - they all romanticize the Bedu and pretend they'd like to be like them again - as all Saudis once were - but keep to their cities and cars and restaurants and bright white thobes. That Bedu shit is a hard nasty life. But that's the story - and as with all Saudi Public Works stories, there are always insane contradictions, nepotism, and what we would call fraud involved... just normal Saudi bidness, heh.
Back to the Bedu... They pitched their tents on the brand new sod grass lawns - picture the sprinkler systems and such req'd. Big $$$ Waste. They did love the swimming pools, however... for about a week. Then they reverted to diggin ad hoc toilets out in the sand - as they had always done. Then soon they left on their normal nomadic route. Get the picture?
This is why the Khobar Towers were empty and "available" (some cleanup, ahem, was req'd) for the USAF when Gulf Shield / Gulf Storm came along.
Think the Paleos will do much better with nice modern housing? Why?
As for the industrial park, any metal shops in there? I hear the Paleos lost a bunch of their bomb factories playground equipment manufacturing capability recently.
#2
Funnily enough, as Paleolithic as the Paleos are in many respects, there are many skilled and competent Paleo builders and artisans.
This Gaza question is interesting. In the event of Israel leaving houses standing after the withdrawal, there are two scenarios:
ONE:
·The Paleos draw up lists of those most in need of housing.
·They allocate housing to these needy souls.
·Terror groups are not allowed to apply for this housing
·The international community, thrilled by the generous action of the Israeli government, pours millions into a fund to compensate Jews who have lost their houses. The funds are speedily allocated.
·Arafat clamps down on terror and jails terror leaders. As a gesture of goodwill, he replenishes the compensation fund by digging into his embezzled millions.
TWO:
The opposite of the above occurs. The daydream was nice while it lasted
#4
Israel is suggesting leaving a Gaza settlement intact after its planned pullout next year for Palestinian residents of Gaza to use as a hospital,..
Rather nice of the Iraelis to think about giving the Paleos a new facility with which to coordinate their "operations". And I don't mean the surgical kind.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
08/30/2004 19:45 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Wait! *slaps forehead* What about a museum to showcase all of those Islamic scientific advances? Haven't we recently be regaled with stories about how everything from the light bulb to space travel is due to Mohammed's amazing prescience and Islamic scientists and engineers, slaving away, to bring light, wisdom, and progress to Humankind? Sheesh - it's a (I)slam dunk!
Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi has vowed to defeat militiamen who refused to disarm, saying they were "making things more difficult in Iraq". His pledge came after deadly clashes between US troops and Shia militants in a Baghdad suburb and an attack on an oil pipeline in southern Iraq. "The government will not permit private armed groups to operate," he said. "We will confront this with force... It seems that there are some elements in the Mehdi Army that insist on making things more difficult in Iraq outside of Najaf."
'Civilians hit' Note those are Beeb scare quotes...
Mr Allawi's promise follows the end of a three-week standoff between fighters loyal to the radical Iraqi cleric Moqtada Sadr and US-led forces in the city of Najaf. On Saturday, Sadr loyalists had clashed with US forces in the Sadr City district of Baghdad, leaving at least seven people dead. The US military said eight mortar bombs fired at one of their positions had damaged an electricity sub-station and cut power supplies. A spokesman said militants later fired two mortar shells into a group of civilians. The agreement brokered by Shia religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani to end the Najaf crisis had made no mention of the Shia militants' stronghold in Sadr City, or other areas they hold elsewhere in Iraq. Intentional, I'm sure.
Cynic. They'll get to it, sure they will.
State Minister Kassem Daoud has said many of Mr Sadr's followers have not handed over their weapons, as agreed under the ayatollah's plan. Mr Allawi said the turning-in of weapons was of "basic importance" and the government would not back down on the issue. Sunday's pipeline attack occurred in the south Rumaila oil field, near the city of Basra. The damaged pipeline, which transports oil to export terminals in the Faw peninsula, is in the same area where an explosion on Thursday damaged eight pipelines. Since they broke it, is the Najaf deal off? Will he follow through in Sadr City? How about the Sunni Triangle? How many times has Allawi hollered "Wolf!", now?
Posted by: .com ||
08/30/2004 2:10:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
dot com, arent exaggerated threats part of the culture there? Im not sure that his saying "we will kill you all in one mighty raid" and then failing to follow through looks as weak there as it does to us. As long as he steadily kills em in smaller, but still important numbers, which he did in Najaf (with a LOT of help from us, to be sure) and is apparently now doing in Sadr city, and has steadily been doing in Fallujah, I dont see the problem in all the wolf crying.
#2
Regardless of the culture, making threats and failing to make good on them projects a lack of resolve/determination. At some point in time, your adversaries will stop taking you seriously.
At least 16 Awami League (AL) leaders and workers, including two women activists, were killed and over 300 were injured on August 21, 2004, when a group of unidentified persons threw hand-grenades at a mini truck in front of the party's central office in Dhaka from which Sheikh Hasina, the leader of the party and the opposition, was addressing a party rally. Four others, including two police constables, died subsequently of the injuries sustained by them in the attack. The party members, responsible for her security, managed to whisk her away in a jeep. As they were doing so, those with fire-arms fired at the vehicle, including at its tyres, but they managed to take her away. It was the most serious and the most determined attack on her life since the present coalition Government, headed by Begum Khaleda Zia's Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP) and with the active participation of two Islamic fundamentalist parties (the Jamaat-e-Islami (JEI) and the Islami Oikya Jote (IOJ ) came to power after the last elections. The attack would appear to have been mounted with considerable precision, indicating a high level of training for the assailants. It has been estimated that 10 to 13 hand-grenades were thrown at the truck. None of them misfired and none of them was mishandled by the assailants, which might have resulted in their own deaths or injuries to some of them.
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
08/30/2004 1:29:42 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
None of them misfired and none of them was mishandled by the assailants
Well, that rules out Hek's boys.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/30/2004 8:47 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Wasn't there a story about a boat load of Jihadi that arrived in Bangladesh to set up a training camp just after we started cleaning out Afganistan? The story said thay were pretty bold, guns in plain sight and all arabs no locals.
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.
