Robin Cook has resigned from Tony Blair's cabinet as the build-up to war with Iraq gathers pace.
The decision by the Leader of the House of Commons, one of the highest profile figures in the Labour Party, came as the cabinet held an emergency meeting in Downing Street. So is Tony in trouble or not ?
#2
Tony will survive. Ian Duncan Smith will, for the right price (Deputy Prime) put the 190 Conservative votes behind him. Penultimately, it is the end of New Labour.
Posted by: Brian ||
03/17/2003 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
This one resignation in itself is nothing to worry about. One out of a cabinet of 25! Even Clare Short hasn't quit, as she said she would. Expect a parliamentary rebellion soon, but Tony certainly isn't history tonight...
#4
I think Tony Blair deserves the deepest respect for what he has done and continues to do. Here is a politician who stands up to his beliefs, who is willing to compromise his (once huge) popularity to do the right thing.
Even if he doesn't survive this war he will once be remembered as one of the greatest prime ministers the UK ever had. And as a leader Europe would have needed so much.
A very courageous man - not the sort of man I'd invite to dinner, or trust completely domestically (same as Bush); but for this matter at least (again, like Bush), the right man in the right place at the right time.
No one can sneer at him for careerism - he has taken a great risk (at least, in the eyes of most of the country) and stuck to his guns. This, more than anything else, may have turned the UK public around. If things go well, he will be forgiven by them.
I don't think New Labour is fucked, but I do think socialism as a tendency in UK politics is fucked. New Labour is, and has been for some time, a classical liberal party, which is quite as it should be!
If (as I'm sure we all hope and pray) things go well, I feel that _this_ time people will remember the dire predictions, the drumming up of hysteria (by the media too), etc. - and will now become properly suspicious of a species of thought that can get things so spectacularly wrong.
Posted by: George Stewart ||
03/17/2003 21:05 Comments ||
Top||
The cabinet minister Peter Hain today lays out the price of support for Tony Blair over Iraq: a radical reshaping of New Labour after the looming Gulf war, with a much greater emphasis on the redistribution of wealth. This guy can't be serious!
The Welsh secretary plays down talk of a massive Commons rebellion this week. In an interview with the Guardian, he says: "My instinct is that a lot of people who may still have big reservations about this course of action will not want to destabilise Tony Blair's authority at this critical moment." After the war is over, though, Mr Hain makes clear that the "trajectory of the government" will need to be changed in order to enthuse party activists. "We'll have to make it clearer that we are a party that believes in redistribution of wealth and income." He's serious.
He suggests that part of the reason why so many Labour supporters are not backing Mr Blair over Iraq is that they have become disillusioned with the government. Mr Hain warns fellow ministers against "any triumphalism" after the war, and calls for "lines in the sand" with Washington over other issues, such as the Kyoto protocol. Mr. Hain, you have no idea how quickly Tony is going to marginalize you after the war is over.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 11:11 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
After the war, Mr. Hain will be invited to inspect mine fields.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 0:35 Comments ||
Top||
#3
If this is true, the best thing that can happen is a massive rebellion of those Stalinists from the Labour party (but not massive enough to make the Tory votes in support of Blair insufficient). A coalition government of New Labour (the Blairites) with the Tories is the only way to avert the kind of idiotic policies Mr. Hain advocates.
Posted by: Peter ||
03/17/2003 3:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
After the war, the UK will have some do-or-die choices on how they will want to live their lives. If Mr. Hain has his way, everyone will be on the dole and capital that is needed to make the UK a healthy economy will flee. The parasites will consume the host if left unfettered.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2003 8:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
actually i like this guy, in a funny sort of way. First, he is honest enough to make clear that most of the rebellion against Blair within Labour is not really about Iraq, its about the direction of Labour.
And that its time for his fellow lefties to be just as honest. And, while I dont think this is his intent
, it could lead to the notion of " a land fit for heroes" - i linking of leftist domestic agenda with a strong foreign agende. Now I realize perfectly well that Tony is already pre-social justice (more so than Bush) and that his domestic opponents in Old Labor support unrealistic old policies, but this is still a far cry better than what weve been hearing from the UK Left.
#8
There are the sort of people Tony maginalized to win Labor control of the government. Perhaps the Trotskyites get control back, perhaps not. Victory is always a great antidote to such problems.
Nato member Belgium threatened on Sunday to cut off its airspace and the port of Antwerp to the US military if the United States invades Iraq in violation of international law. The United States has been using Antwerp and the Dutch port of Rotterdam to ship equipment from Germany to the Middle East for possible use in a war against Iraq. Belgium says military action without a second resolution would be unlawful."We would halt the transit if the US were to engage in a move which is outside the rules of international law," Defence Minister Andre Flahaut said on Belgium's RTL television. "I can tell you that I have already alerted the United States (of this)." In an earlier interview with RTBF television he said Belgium would also cut off its airspace, adding "the overflight is part of the same context". Thanks for your support. Let us know if you need anything.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/17/2003 07:43 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
A former Iraqi general under house arrest while Danish prosecutors investigate his alleged role in gas attacks on Kurds has disappeared, his son said Monday. The circumstances around former Gen. Nizar al-Khazraji's disappearance were murky and few details were released. He had been under house arrest in his adopted country of Denmark since November. House arrest, for a war criminal. Nice job, Demark. Prosecutor Birgitte Vestberg is investigating claims that al-Khazraji, a former Iraqi army chief of staff, was responsible for poison gas attacks in northern Iraq in 1988 that killed more than 5,000 Kurds. Al-Khazraji, 63, says Saddam Hussein, not he, controlled the chemical stockpiles, and some Kurdish opposition groups have defended the general. Al-Khazraji â an outspoken critic of Saddam â left Iraq in 1995 and has been living in Denmark since 1999. He has outlined plans for regime change under which the army would take over temporarily until a new government can be elected, and his name has surfaced as one of several potential interim leaders should Saddam be ousted. His son, Mohammad al-Khazraji, told The Associated Press that his father had stepped out of his home in Soroe, 60 miles southwest of the capital, Copenhagen, for an early morning cigarette and didn't return. He stepped out for a cigarette, isn't that a clear violation of the term of his house arrest? Let's ask the UN for a ruling.
"We contacted the police and asked for their help to find him," Mohammed said. "It's a very bad situation and I'm very confused." You are most likely lying, too.
Either that, or Pop's sleeping with the mackerel...
Investigators said they issued a national arrest warrant for al-Khazraji. The Scandinavian country's border points were told to be on the lookout for him. They also were seeking an international warrant. Police said they searched a nearby patch of woods where al-Khazraji typically takes walks.
If he hasn't bugged out, he'll likely be discovered 2500 years from now, pickled for the ages in a peat bog...
Al-Khazraji was placed under house arrest in November after he applied for a passport to travel to Saudi Arabia as a means of getting to Kurdish northern Iraq. The house arrest order meant Al-Khazraji was not allowed to leave his house without permission and was required to report to the police regularly. That worked real well, didn't it?
Vestberg said she was not aware what happened to him and her investigation into his alleged crimes would continue. "He could have gotten ill on his walk and collapsed or he could have been abducted or he could have tried to leave the country on his own," she said. He could also be buried in that forest.
She doesn't sound like she's burning with deep concern...
Al-Khazraji's lawyer, Anders Josefsen, said his main concern was the general's safety. "I was very surprised to hear it, I didn't expect this and I hope he's OK," he told the AP. He's got that lawyer talk down pat, doesn't he?
Under the Geneva Conventions, which calls for countries to prosecute or expel war criminals, Denmark is obligated to investigate claims he was involved in the poison gas attack. Did he take off on his own, did someone put the grab on him, or is he sleeping at the bottom of the North Sea? My money is on the latter, he would have been a good witness at a war crimes trial.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 01:10 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
House arrest? Two days ago, a Federal judge released MSA/IANA terrorist, Sami Hussayen into house arrest, even though the DOJ indictment quotes a Hussayen post endorsement of crashing passenger planes into "enemy" buildings.
The war-on-terror cannot be won if those without common purpose are allowed to undermine it.
Say it ain't so!
Sweden may halt arms exports to the United States if U.S.-led forces attack Iraq without a mandate from the United Nations Security Council, the Swedish TT news agency reported on Wednesday. Militarily non-aligned Sweden opposes armed intervention in Iraq without U.N. backing and would consider any such attack a breach of international law. "International law is an important factor in our guidelines," TT quoted Lotta Fogde, a top civil servant dealing with arms control issues, as saying. Lotta Fogde?
The government's foreign policy guidelines say arms should not be exported to countries at war or in violation of international law. ...and I'll bet they've NEVER violated that rule before.
"We hope we can avoid such a decision but if it comes to that, it will clearly be one of the more difficult questions the government has had to decide in the field of arms exports," Fodge added.Swedish arms exports to the United States are worth approximately 250 million crowns ($30 million) per year. TT quoted Prime Minister Goran Persson as saying the government had not yet discussed the issue.
#1
There are ZERO major wapons systems of Swedish origin in our inventory [I think the AT-4 disposable anti-tank rocket may be a Swedish design]. In any case it is an empty gesture: we are already in the field with equipment that is already bought & paid for.
#3
The line forms to the right for the 'empty threat' department.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/17/2003 12:31 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Where will we get our bofors guns, now, pray tell?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2003 12:34 Comments ||
Top||
#5
There are ZERO major wapons systems of Swedish origin in our inventory [I think the AT-4 disposable anti-tank rocket may be a Swedish design]. In any case it is an empty gesture: we are already in the field with equipment that is already bought & paid for.
In the war against terrorism, the Bush administration has failed to balance the scales of liberty and security, former U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno told a packed audience Monday night at Brown University. After watching President Bush's address, Reno said, ''We will not solve the world's problems by might.'' Neither will it solve the problems of intransigent religious fanatics in Waco Texas, but hey, dont let that stop you.
''I had hoped people would come up with an opportunity for him to save face,'' she said. Ouch, talk about your 'pot calling kettle black' situation.
Bush on Monday night said the United States would lead a war against Iraq unless Saddam Hussein in the next 48 hours went into exile. Reno also criticized the White House's policy toward enemy combatants. ''Two enemy combatants citizens today are being held incommunicado in military brigs in this country, without being charged, without access to counsel, by the simple fact that the president has declared them what is called 'enemy combatants,''' Reno said Wishing deeply that she would have thought of that in her "war against religion" in Texas, referring to ''dirty bomb'' suspect Jose Padilla and the Louisiana-born Yasser Esam Hamdi. ok, thats two. what about the other 400 guys Janet?
''What has happened to the Bill of Rights? What has happened to due process? What has happened to the Geneva Convention? If they're not prisoners of war, what are they? And what rights do they have?'' she asked. I dunno Janet, maybe that kid Elian took the "bill of rights" with him when you sent him back to the hell hole prison island that is Cuba.
Reno, whose father immigrated to the United States from Denmark, also denounced profiling at the borders. Her "test case" proving her point appears to be Janet herself. "why look at all the damage I did and you'd never catch me at the border with a profile!. Sure we would Janet, ever since we caught KSM, we've expanded the profile to include members of the sasquatch family, of which you appear to be descended.
''We are a nation of immigrants, made great by immigrants,'' she said. Wow, I need to write that one down. Thats almost a complete thought.
Reno was the first female attorney general. She made an unsuccessful bid last year for governor of Florida, losing to the president's brother, Republican Gov. Jeb Bush. After losing to yet another lame Democrat for the nomination.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/17/2003 11:04 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
She didn't lose to Jeb, she lost to whats-his-name in the primary. Wonder how the AP copy editor let that past?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 23:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
She didn't lose to Jeb, she lost to whats-his-name in the primary. Wonder how the AP copy editor let that past?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 23:10 Comments ||
Top||
Sen. Tom Daschle, who voted for the October resolution, lashed out at President Bush on Monday, saying he had "failed so miserably" at diplomacy in the crisis with Iraq that the United States now stands on the brink of war. "I'm saddened," Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat, said in a speech to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "Saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country. But we will work, and we will do all we can to get through this crisis like we've gotten through so many."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/17/2003 07:22 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Daschle is a pathetic little man, and will live to regret saying these things, they will make fine campaign ads...keep it up, tiny tom
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2003 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Did he consider it "OUT- rageous!"? Said it in front of a government employees union meeting too. How Dimbo.
#6
Daschle is a pathetic little man, and will live to regret saying these things, they will make fine campaign ads...keep it up, tiny tom
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/17/2003 19:54 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Dork, er...Daschle, needs to get a new schtick - "saddened" is wearing pretty thin. Pretty soon now even the true believers will start to notice his total lack of imagination.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/17/2003 20:06 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Did he consider it "OUT- rageous!"? Said it in front of a government employees union meeting too. How Dimbo.
#9
Daschle has marginalized himself every time he opens his mouth. He used to piss me off, but now I realize that he is just Arnold Peck the Human Wreck. The only silver lining (read: anvil) in his cloud is that his pathetic mouth will bring him down. Thank goodness and Inshallah, I guess......
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2003 20:21 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'm saddend to say that I want to back my large smelly diesel truck over the esteemed senators head, and watch it burst like a boil on an Armenians ASS!
Edited for brevity.
Automotive supply chain Pep Boys fired a Tucson store manager because his military Reserve duties took him away from work, according to a federal lawsuit filed here. It may not be an isolated case. Several other reservists fired from Pep Boys in Tucson and Pennsylvania have contacted a military advocacy group with similar complaints. In the Tucson case, Erik Balodis, then a store manager at the 7227 E. 22nd St. Pep Boys, was fired after being called to a U.S. Naval Reserve exercise in June 2002. Balodis, a father of two young children, was unable to find work for five months. He eventually found work as a store manager at Big Lots in October 2002 but by then the family's finances were in ruins. In February, his family was forced to sell its four-bedroom East Side home and file for bankruptcy. Balodis, who is stationed in South Korea, now earns about $20,000 less a year, said his wife, Kathy.
Ummm... There are laws against this sort of thing, for precisely this reason. Pep Boys is going to be giving Balodis a lot of money in the near future. And I'm all for it...
Under the federal Uniformed Services Employment and Re-employment Rights Act and Arizona state law, an employer may not terminate an employee who is called to active duty. In the lawsuit, Balodis' attorney, Andrea Watters, said Pep Boys fired Balodis because his duties with the Navy were keeping him from work. The suit says he told the company he was being called to training in June of last year. On the day he reported for duty, he was told by Pep Boys that we was being terminated for "job abandonment." Sounds like a boycott is in order.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/17/2003 11:14 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Whoops--posted this before I finished my comments and added my name--forgot there is no "preview"!
Anyway, I can understand if not every company has the will or the means to pay their employees who are called up their full salaries or the difference between their normal salaries and their military salaries. However, terminating their employment altogether is the biggest slap in the face I've seen yet. Furthermore it's a violation of federal law.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/17/2003 10:02 Comments ||
Top||
An Al Qaeda suspect nabbed during a recent raid in Lahore has started cooperating and is "giving some leads" to his Pakistani and American interrogators, a security official said Monday. Yassir al-Jaziri, allegedly in charge of communications for Usama bin Laden's terrorist network, was arrested on Saturday. Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed disclosed on Monday that a man believed to be al-Jaziri's brother-in-law is also in custody. "He was arrested the same day when al-Jaziri was caught," Ahmed said. A third man, an Afghan national named Gul Zeb, was arrested with al-Jaziri, but was regarded as less important.
"Zeb's just cheap muscle, but don't tell him. He thinks he's a big-time jihadi..."
The brother-in-law was seized from Gujranwala, about 40 miles northwest of Lahore, a security official told The Associated Press. He said the man was arrested based on information provided by al-Jaziri, but it was not clear if the brother-in-law is also an Al Qaeda member. Since being a Islamo-terror-nutbag seems to run in families, it's a good bet.
The official said the brother-in-law was arrested based on information given to them by al-Jaziri. "He has started talking and is giving some leads to us, and on this basis we have arrested his close relative," said the security official. "Pakistani and U.S. security officials are interrogating him to find out how Al Qaeda is operating." "Ouch, put that down! I'll cooperate, just don't let him do that any more."
Court documents describe al-Jaziri as an Algerian-Moroccan dual national responsible for Al Qaeda's business interests. Financial advisor, or did he run front companies?
Other accounts describe him as a computer guy, responsible for communications...
The official said al-Jaziri has told investigators that the last time he conveyed a message to bin Laden was "four or five months ago." He has not admitted to having a direct meeting with bin Laden. Notice how everyone has messages from Binny, but no one has had a face-to-face with him?
Investigators hope to learn more from al-Jaziri about where bin Laden and other top Al Qaeda leaders may be hiding in Afghanistan or Pakistan. Ahmed said al-Jaziri is being questioned by Pakistani and American interrogators at an undisclosed location within Pakistan. Ah, yes. The famous "undisclosed location".
Al-Jaziri is not on the FBI's list of most wanted terrorists, but he is believed to be an important second-tier operative in the Al Qaeda organization. His capture was made possible by information gleaned from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, who was arrested on March 1 from a home in an upscale neighborhood of Rawalpindi. Mohammed has also been talking to interrogators, U.S. and Pakistani officials have said. Al-Jaziri's name emerged in January. Prosecutor Sher Zaman said in Lahore that al-Jaziri was an Al Qaeda terrorist who had been in contact with Dr. Ahmad Javed Khawaja, a naturalized U.S. citizen who lives in the city, and eight family members who were arrested in December on charges of harboring Al Qaeda operatives. Two of Khawaja's sons, also doctors, and some other family members have since been released. But one of his brothers said Sunday that no one had questioned the family about al-Jaziri or his arrest. "We know nothing about al-Jaziri," said Ahmad Nadeem Khawaja, a younger brother of the doctor who was detained briefly and released last December. "And as for the allegation that we harbored him, it's a pack of lies." Lies, all lies!
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 02:59 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Our Pakistan "ally" has now replaced common law rules-of-evidence with Sharia. Which means: rape becomes de facto legal; honor killings are de jure legal. Ergo: female and kaffir truth are now Islamic lies.
Chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix on Monday spelled out exactly what Iraq must do to prove it has disarmed and avoid U.S.-led military action, even as war looms. I think there's only one step required at this point...
In a report to the Security Council, Blix said if Saddam Hussein cooperates, the dozen key remaining disarmament issues could be resolved in months. We'll solve it in days...
France, Russia and Germany have seized on Blix's presentation of the disarmament tasks to call for a council meeting Wednesday to set a "realistic" timeline to complete the tasks. "Yassss... We must have more discussions..."
But with efforts to disarm Iraq peacefully apparently at an end, the exercise appeared futile to many diplomats. In a televised address Monday evening, President Bush gave Saddam a 48-hour deadline to flee Iraq or face a U.S.-led invasion. So have a nice chat, guys...
Blix whittled down a 173-page dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which he gave to the council earlier this month, to pick a dozen key remaining disarmament tasks, each with questions Iraq must answer. I think Blixie must have pulled a muscle in this exercise in futility...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/17/2003 08:41 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm afraid that by the end of the week Iraq will not have showed us that it has no chemical weapons.
It will have showed us that it HAS them.
Ask "Chemical Ali", he knows best. How about going to Basra and "question" him Blixie? Thursday maybe?
Will that @#*($& blowhard ever understand? The creep has had TWELVE freakin' years to cooperate and, abetted by your pathetic waffling, has never done so!
Hans Blix is the pentultimate waste of protoplasm so far in the 21st century.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/17/2003 22:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Who installed this guy anyway?
It's time to show what American Imperialism⢠is all about.
Senior Defense and other U.S. officials confirmed that intelligence reports indicate that Saddam Hussein's troops are armed with chemical munitions. "The information is raw, and hard to confirm ... but we are seeing — using different methods — that Saddam Hussein has armed troops south of Baghdad with chemical weapons," one official said. Officials say it's hard to tell how many of these weapons are being distributed, but the intelligence reports indicate that "some chemical shells" have been provided to troops. That's why he put Chemical Ali in charge...
Senior Defense officials say they expected the Iraqis to use these weapons, and they predict more movement by Iraqi troops in the South and the West in the next day or so. Iraqi troops along the Kuwaiti border far to the south are in shooting distance of U.S. troops stationed there — but the troops with the chemical shells are further north — still in the southern no-fly zone, but south of Baghdad. I'd guess they're toast...
Saddam said Monday that Iraq once had weapons of mass destruction for defense against Iran and Israel, but it no longer holds them, according to the Iraqi News Agency. "We are not weapons collectors," Saddam said in remarks during a meeting with a Tunisian envoy.. "But we had these weapons for purposes of self-defense when we were at war with Iran for eight years and when the Zionist entity (Israel) was, and it still is, a threat." One use, and we'll go nuts on them. They won't like what follows. We'll probably be sorry afterwards...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/17/2003 07:18 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
But....they aren't supposed to have this stuff. Blixie, Kofi, and Jacques say so.
I actually live about 10 miles from RAF Fairford, where the USAF B-52s in the UK are currently stationed. At least three have flown overhead in a south-westerly direction this evening. Heading south west would take the birds away from French airspace, to overfly the Med via Spain.
#3
B-52s Leave Royal Air Field, Fairford For Training Flight
Mar 17, 2003
Reports from near the Royal Air Field, Fairford, in Gloucestershire indicate that at least three USAF B-52 bombers left the air field at 1830 GMT, flying in a south-westerly direction. This flight path would take the aircraft away from French airspace and overfly the Mediterranean via Spanish airspace, heading into an Iraqi war theater. The flights reportedly were for training purposes only, and the planes landed back at the RAF shortly after 2130 GMT.
To read
Posted by: scott ||
03/17/2003 20:23 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Cocked,Locked,and standing by.
Just being prudent.
#4
"Suddenly that $15 billion is looking more than adequate for our needs."
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/17/2003 15:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
*rolls eyes*
The world is not helping to keep us from becoming an empire. If they just acted cooperative, did the right thing without calculating or trying to embarass us, then we'd be cool about it, do our job, and get the hell out like the Cowboys we are, riding into the sunset.
As it is, they bluster, block, temporize, prevaracate, insult, and slander. They get themselves out onto a limb keeping company with the asshole we're trying to nail. Then, when we start sawing away at the limb, they suddenly recognize that, "SHIT, the Americans are SERIOUS!". I'm sorry, but they look very undignified scrambling off the limb and hurredly rearranging their dissheveled hair and clothes and pretend to act as if they were behind us all along. We can't help but get a nice, WARM, fuzzy, self-satisfied feeling of having made our point. Forcefully.
DAMMIT! That nice, warm, self-satisfied feeling is seductive and addictive. It's not empire, but it's the siren call of empire. I like it too much, so I must resist as a Good Christian should resist all temptations. I don't know how my fellow Americans can help resisting it, though. We don't want to run an Empire now, but I CANNOT say we will resist the temptation tomorrow if this, this COMEDY keeps up!
#6
Turkey's top political and military leaders called on the government Monday to urgently take steps toward allowing in US troops. The announcement came at the end of a meeting that included the leaders of Turkey's new government, President Ahmet Necdet Sezer, and top generals.
A statement released after the meeting referred to an earlier meeting of Turkey's top political and military leaders that called on parliament to take steps to let in foreign troops. "A unanimous decision was reached ... that there is a need to move urgently according to the National Security advisory taken on 31 January 2003," presidential spokesman Tacan Ildem said.
They noticed that our timetable doesn't seem to match theirs. Also the Turkish stock market tanked today.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 15:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
We have an expression in English: "Too little, too late."
#12
I dunno, suddenly this is beginning to look like a masterful exercise in mis-direction. They won't, they won't, they won't, ... oh, ok, go ahead. In the meantime all the vehicles and gear were unloaded, put on trains and carriers, and sent south.
Doing it this way meant that Saddam couldn't plan any sort of spoiling or chemical attack on the north. Turkey was safe, our guys and stuff were safe, the Kurds were safe, and all of a sudden it's H-E-L-L-O Northern front!
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 23:22 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Had an emergency metting to decide to make an urgent decsion.
How pollitical of them.
AS HUNDREDS of thousands of men and machines mass in Kuwait, a highly secretive military build-up is also under way on President Saddam Husseinâs western flank. Special forces from the United States and Britain have begun to conduct long-range reconnaissance missions from their bases along the 113-mile border between Iraq and Jordan. Remarkably, Israeli forces are also said to be involved.
Jordan is highly sensitive about military activity in a swath of land 50 miles deep along its border with Iraq, where residents talk of the rumble of transport aircraft landing at remote airstrips. You can hide an awful lot in a 50 mile wide zone.
Jordan acknowledges that American troops are there, but insists they are to defend its own territory and airspace. One Western military expert said yesterday: âIt is a very discreet operation, but the special forces are certainly there. You may not see any tanks dashing across the border from Jordan when the war begins, but there will be significant special forces activity. âThese forces are already providing targeting information on Iraqi assets â so called Scud-hunting â and as they push east towards Baghdad, you can expect to see a very fluid front line.â
The secrecy has two objectives: to keep Iraq guessing and to avoid provoking a Jordanian population bitterly opposed to the coming war. On Saturday, about 5,000 people chanted âno to foreign troops in Jordanâ as they demonstrated in Amman. The US Air Force is already targeting Iraqi positions in the western desert and on Friday a B1B bomber was used for the first time to attack an installation just across the border. At least 5,000 US troops are already in Jordan, according to an official source in Amman. One Western diplomat in the capital said, however, that the true figure was nearer 7,000. Thousands more are expected to arrive soon, and although some will be training Jordanian Armed Forces and manning the three Patriot anti-missile batteries defending Amman and the northern city of Irbid, about half are thought to be special forces troops.
Marwan Muasher, Jordanâs Foreign Minister, conceded last week that the number of foreign troops may have risen to 2,000 or 3,000. âWe are not denying that there are special forces troops in Jordan, we are not denying that there are US troops in Jordan . . . but I want to make it absolutely clear that their presence is for purely defensive purposes,â he said. âThere are no troops for any offensive operations, and there are no troops in the tens of thousands, as has been reported in the press. We have made it clear that we are not participating in this war.â Raising the art of denial to new levels.
Scattered among the Americans are an estimated 100 British special forces troops, some of whom are thought to be from the Royal Marinesâ Special Boat Service (SBS), the Marinesâ equivalent of the SAS. Intriguingly, members of Sayeret Matkal, Israelâs commando force, are also said by Western military experts to have carried out covert reconnaissance operations inside the Western Iraqi desert. They are thought to be pre-empting a repeat of the first Gulf War when Saddam fired 39 Scuds at Israel. We've heard about them before. They've been in Iraq for so long I think they can declare residency.
In return for its political gamble, Washington has promised Jordan an economic aid package worth hundreds of millions of dollars or more, according to one official source in Amman. King Abdullah has said that he is confident that Jordanians will benefit âeconomically, politically and strategicallyâ from the pragmatic position that he is taking. But the official source added: âWe wish we had a more understanding public.â "I guess we'll just have to keep beating them until they understand."
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 03:03 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Jordan sounds like quite a bargain compared to what Turkey "negotiated." Jordan should be our Target.
SOURCE is the British tabloid THE SUN. The CAPS are theirs...
TENS of thousands of terrified Iraqi soldiers have DESERTED before a single shot is fired. The number of conscripts fleeing for their lives was put by intelligence experts at between 20,000 and 30,000. The mass desertion in the face of overwhelming Allied might means up to 15 per cent of Saddamâs regular army has gone AWOL. "Decimated" is literally one in ten dead. This is kind of like getting decimated a time and a half, assuming the report is true...
A senior British war planner at US Central Command in Qatar said last night: âIraqi soldiers are scared out of their wits at what they know is over their borders. They are not stupid. They know if they hang around thereâs a good chance of things getting very nasty indeed.â Many of us regard decomposition as "very nasty indeed."
The exodus â fuelled by leaflet drops warning Saddamâs men to quit or face death â was uncovered by eavesdropping on military communications. RAF Nimrods packed with hi-tech surveillance gear have been flying over Iraq. And the security serviceâs listening posts in Cyprus and at GCHQ in Cheltenham have been working overtime to pick up on phone calls, emails and other intelligence. Thanks to whomever it is that's blabbing...
Saddam may not even be able to rely on his âeliteâ Republican Guard. Military planners believe the troops may turn on their generals rather than face the 250,000-strong Allied force.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/17/2003 02:12 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They are not stupid and they remember that in GW1 giving up actually saved their lives.
"Ibrahim, where are you going? Get back in your tank!"
"Ahh.. I'm just going to take a leak over there in the desert. I'll be back in a minute."
Iraq rejected on Monday a U.S. ultimatum for President Saddam Hussein to go into exile or face war, and said a decision by the United Nations to withdraw its staff from Iraq was an "unfortunate decision." Iraqi Foreign Minister Naji Sabri told reporters that "any child" in Iraq knew that President Bush's ultimatum to Saddam was a non-starter. We knew that too, but it was on the checklist. Can we start now?
"The only option (to secure peace) is the departure of the warmonger number one in the world, the failing President Bush who made his country a joke," Sabri said. He who laughs last, laughs best. Jokes on you, Sammy.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 01:34 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, maybe this means Bush can just skip the offer and go straight to "Go" tonight!
BRITISH troops have been given new machine guns to boost their firepower in Iraq.
The Minimi I love it's name!! can shoot at a rate equivalent to 1,000 bullets a minute. It uses 200-round ammo belts whereas the Armyâs existing Light Support Weapon â LSW â has 30-bullet magazines.
Soldiers, although firing only short bursts, will therefore be able to provide a more sustained volley before reloading.
It will also be better for protecting advancing infantry and in close combat. And the facility to use ammo from other guns adds to its versatility.
The Belgian-built Minimi has been given to all eight infantry units attached to the 7th Armoured Brigade â the Desert Rats.
They tested it in the Kuwaiti desert over the weekend. Second Lieut Matt Helsby, 25, from Hampshire, said: âThe Minimi brings a lot more firepower to the party. âBecause itâs so light the gun can be carried by us on foot easily, giving far superior support to front line troops. It allows us to move more quickly as we are not lugging around a heavy machine gun any more. I think I can speak for all of us who are using it, the Minimi is a welcome asset to the troops.Weâre really chuffed that weâve got it. Itâs going to give us a lot of extra firepower.â And Guardsman Craig Marshall,19,of the same regiment, said: âIt gets a lot of fire down very quickly so itâs better for close quarters combat and trench clearing. Itâs also ideal if you are the first man out because itâs got so much firepower to protect everyone else whoâs getting out after you. Itâs a very good weapon.â
The Minimis are standard issue in the US Army and UK soldiers were due to get them soon but that step was brought forward.
Major Joe Carnegie,a spokesman for the British Army in Kuwait,said: âWe are supplementing the firepower of our infantry sections with the Minimi, but it is not replacing the LSW. âThe Minimi guns have been acquired under our urgent operational requirements, which we use if there is any shortfall of equipment.â The current LSW â a larger version of the much-criticised SA-80 rifle â is more accurate than the Minimi. But senior officers have called repeatedly for it to be scrapped,claiming it requires constant reloading and cannot provide sustained fire.
Some of the strongest criticism came in a internal report by Brigadier Seymour Monro, the Armyâs former director of infantry, which was leaked last year. He warned that the LSW was unlikely ever to be capable âof meeting the requirements of the infantry engaged in close combatâ.
The Royal Marines and the Paras are already using the Minimi in the Gulf. They were equipped with the weapon while operating in Afghanistan last year after shunning the LSW.
Each eight-man infantry section will now receive one Minimi to use in addition to â or instead of â the two LSWs which they carry.
The infantry also use the general purpose machine gun, although this is heavier than both the LSW and the Minimi and more difficult to use in certain circumstances.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/17/2003 11:47 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
in the us the minimi is known as the M-249 or the SAW. I qualified expert on the saw the last time I went out for a weapons qual. I love that weapon, it's easily controlled (no muzzle climb) relatively light, and rather imposing looking to the locals. This thing is great.
As a US-led war against Iraq appeared imminent, the Chinese Embassy in Baghdad today began evacuating its staff and Chinese reporters. Chinese Ambassador to Iraq, Zhang Weiqiu and other six Embassy officials began evacuating "amid a tense atmosphere of a looming war," the official Xinhua news agency reported. The evacuation also includes six Chinese correspondents — two from Xinhua, three from China Central Television and one from Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. "Large numbers of foreign journalists" are also packing up," Xinhua said. China, in February itself, had asked its citizens to withdraw from Iraq and had evacuated non-essential Embassy staff. Gee, you'd think they were worried about being bombed, again.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 11:28 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm be more concerned if I were in the French embassy; a hit there might not be by accident.
Posted by: Mark Byron ||
03/17/2003 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hmmmm, maybe they should just send their address in to the CIA so no one is confused this time. Just hope we have a photo or video of the tanks Saddam parks next to the embassy as the JDAMs hit.
Posted by: Don ||
03/17/2003 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Who wants to bet that the shredders at the French embassy are working overtime right now?
DEBKAfile Special Military Analysis-insert salt grain here.
The two giant American B-1 multi-role long-range bombers that struck two military radar sites in West Iraq Friday, March 14, laid down markers for fully activating the western warfront of the Iraq campaign. The heavy bombers, not used in Iraq since 1998 Operation Desert Fox, hit a mobile anti-aircraft radar system near the H3 military air base and another near the Jordanian border. DEBKAfileâs military sources say the bombing raid aimed to clear the routes of advance for the US Marines and British forces poised to enter western Iraq from Jordan and Saudi Arabia in the next 48 hours. The southern and northern Iraqi warfronts were launched earlier this week.
The mission of the troops of the western front, fighting as part of the US 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit based in Jordan, is to capture the largely desert wasteland of western Iraq, focusing on five key Iraqi bases — a cluster of installations at H3, H3 Northwest, H3 Southwest and H3 Highway plus the disused Shab al Hiri facility. The Jordan-based units will link up with American forces streaming to the western region from bases in Saudi Arabia — Arar in the east and Tabuk in the north near the Saudi-Jordanian frontier. Although disused, the Shab Al Ari baseâs capture in the initial stage of combat is important for Israel and Jordan. It is partly concealed in a labyrinth of deep desert gulches surrounded by mountains and hills atop which are a complex of ramshackle buildings, most of them abandoned farm structures. The US war command as well as Israeli and Jordan military leaders are acting on the premise that the Iraqis have hidden in those deep wadis and abandoned buildings a number of missiles â although not necessarily of the Scud type that hit Tel Aviv in 1991 - for launching against Jordan and Israel. They also postulate the possible concealment in remote caves there of guided drones capable of delivering chemical and biological payloads.
Warning sirens will certainly sound in Israel when Iraq attempts to mount air or missile attacks against Jordan and Saudi Arabia, both of which are braced for punishment. Jordan has this past year served as primary launching pad for the American-British invasion of western Iraq, while a large-scale buildup of US air, armor and ground forces ready for attack has taken place in the Saudi kingdom in the last ten days. American, British and Jordanian special forces are therefore sweeping the wadis, derelict buildings and caves of western Iraq inch by inch in search of hidden Iraqi weapons. But however exhaustive this search and destroy operation may be, it cannot count on 100 percent success. The Iraqis are wizards at deception and camouflage. A single drone or missile with crew may well escape human and electronic detection and surface long enough to strike a US-UK target across the nearby Jordanian border — or even civilian targets in Jordan or Israel.
The radar system knocked out at the H3 base complex on Friday is codenamed âFlat Faceâ, while âPlutoâ was the system smashed opposite the Ruwayshid base in East Jordan, where over the past year American forces built a large airfield and air base and now house their Western Front Forward Commands and several Marine units. âPlutoâ is designed for the surveillance of low-flying aircraft like helicopters, which its screens can pick them up at a distance of more than 100 km. Iraq positioned this system within range of the Jordanian-Saudi frontier so as to track the hundreds of American helicopters due to carry Marines to western Iraq in the next day or two. DEBKAfileâs military sources report that 1,200 American and British warplanes of different types deployed in bases within striking distance of Iraq are now performing an average of 1,000 sorties a day, which by any definition is full scale warfare. Saddam Hussein may therefore decide it is time to start fighting back, a decision he has held off until now, although large expanses of Iraqi territory have already fallen into American hands. Don't know about the Marines being based in Jordan (Voted most invisible country), but sweeping up the western areas of Iraq to clear out the Scuds most likely is a top priority.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 11:36 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm surprised at the Jordanians being in on this. I wonder if the ruckus over Turkey inadvertently masked the buildup there.
CAMP BOUGAINVILLE, Kuwait, March 17 â U.S. Marines poised to spearhead an invasion of Iraq say they have devised a new âslingshotâ supply strategy to speed up the advance and reduce their casualties. Engineers, medics and ammunition specialists plan to give closer support to combat troops than in previous operations, providing the extra logistics muscle needed for a rapid campaign.
"WHATâS UNIQUE is that we can move with them,â said Col. John Pomfret, who heads a battalion providing support for a division of U.S. Marine tanks, troops and artillery.
âIf you look at past history, logistics forces always followed behind combat forces, we move with the combat force,â he said at Camp Bougainville, part of a vast sprawl of U.S. military bases in northern Kuwait. U.S. forces aim to drive some 300 In as little as five days, or so I've heard miles to Baghdad, stretching logistics lines far further than in the 1991 Gulf War, when a U.S.-led coalition freed Kuwait from seven months of Iraqi occupation.
âItâs a bit sexier to have your picture taken next to a tank; whatâs not so sexy is having your picture taken next to a tank when itâs broken down,â Brig.-Gen. Edward Usher, in charge of logistics for over 50,000 troops in the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force, told reporters. His command even includes a dental battalion.
BATTLEFIELD LAPTOPS
The new supply strategy used by the Marines, a major column of U.S. forces in Kuwait, may have an Achillesâ heel.
Being able to deploy ammunition or fuel more rapidly brings a bigger risk of sending it to the wrong place, officers say. The system is also more reliant on technology. Since the 1991 Gulf War, the U.S. Marines have learned to exploit the Internet, adapting civilian software and encasing it in what they say are secure computer systems. For many Marines, laptop computers placed on folding tables in windswept camps are more important than their M-16 rifles â but a lot more fragile.
DOCTORS CLOSER TO ACTION
The new logistics strategy is aimed partly at saving the lives of Marines by bringing better medical facilities closer to the fighting â a crucial political consideration for U.S. leaders anxious to avoid fuelling anti-war sentiment at home.
âPeople wonât have to go behind the line to get care, weâll give them life-saving care initially,â said Andres Ruiz, a U.S. Navy hospital man first class. Some of the troops a few miles back from the tip of the advance appear more at ease supplying what they dub âbeans, bullets and band aids,â than actually fighting, but few are under any illusions about their ultimate task. âWe kill people and break things, thatâs what Marines do,â said 1st Sgt. Gonzalo âButchâ Vasquez. âWhat logisticians do is support the guys who kill people and break things.â
WATER, FUEL NEEDS
As for getting fresh water on the road, the military has purifiers that can produce several hundred thousand gallons of drinking water a day should they reach a large water source such as the Tigris or Euphrates rivers inside Iraq. For fuel to keep the thousands of tanks, armored vehicles, trucks and Humvees running, Kuwait has laid pipelines to dumps of rubber containers â each holding 210,000 gallons â at sites scattered around the desert. About 8 million gallons is stockpiled now, Pratt said. Tanker trucks run the stuff from the âbag farmsâ to the front line.
British troops â whom the British press have dubbed âThe Borrowersâ because of their requests for American gear â are still awaiting some of their desert combat equipment, including camouflage. Lt. Col. David Paterson, commanding officer of Britainâs First Fusiliers Battle Group, wore black boots at a meeting with reporters this week and conceded that desert boots in his size had not arrived yet. âWe flowed the best part of 20,000 troops into theater in six weeks,â Paterson said. Considering where the troops are, supply âtakes a little more time.â
Posted by: Domingo ||
03/17/2003 09:59 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Water, Fuel Needs. Just so everyone is aware, that this is the eschelon that you start having the female members show up in numbers. The line between combat and combat support quickly disappears and regardless what the law stipulates restricting females from ground combat positions they are going to be in the chaos that constitutes the combat zone. Just don't be surprised about what you're going to see live from the front lines.
Posted by: Don ||
03/17/2003 11:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I won't.
If we want equal rights, we should take equal responsibilities, and equal risks.
There may be some things my sex may not be physically as good at (in general), but I consider the ban on combat to be stupid. There are a few women who would be good on the front lines (not many, but a few).
If they can do it, they should be allowed to. If they can't they shouldn't. That should be the ONLY test.
Posted by: Kathy K ||
03/17/2003 18:53 Comments ||
Top||
President Bush on Monday gave Saddam Hussein a 48-hour deadline to flee Iraq or face a U.S.-led invasion, saying American forces will wage war "at a time of our choosing."
The president, commander in chief of 250,000 U.S. troops poised at the borders of Iraq, addressed the nation at 8 p.m. EST.
In the White House speech, Bush said the U.S. tried to resolve the crisis peacefully, but "we are not dealing with peaceful men."
An intense White House debate over whether to establish a timetable was settled hours before the president's speech.
"It boils down to the president is giving Saddam Hussein 48 hours to get out of town," Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., said after he and other lawmakers met with the president and his advisers at the White House earlier. Skelton said of the likelihood of Saddam leaving, "I don't think he will. I don't think anyone thinks he will."
"The diplomatic window has now been closed," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer declared Monday morning, just 12 hours after Bush's return from an Atlantic island summit with his allies from Britain and Spain.
And now two more days of marking time?
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 07:56 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Schlep, Blair doesn't 'need' the vote to go to war. The parliamentary vote's just a gesture.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/17/2003 9:54 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It's about time for those of us who've advocated this action from the comfort of the Internet to pray for those who will now have to fight it in the desert.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/17/2003 10:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If I recall, the British troops said today would be the day. But I'm guessing it's already dark over there and nothing seems to have happened yet. OK..I admit I was secretly hoping Bush would come out at 8:00pm and say...we're going to war.. and...oh look..it's already over. Hey, I'm entitled to my own little optimistic fantasies..so sue me.
As for praying for the troops - everyone get busy!
#6
It can't be today; 8 PM EST is roughly 4 AM. There's not enough time in the bombing window.
Posted by: Brian ||
03/17/2003 10:41 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Rumor is that W is going to give Sammy a short time (24-72 hrs) to get out of Dodge. Seems like that'd be asking for Sammy to launch a preemptive attack on our massed troops, no?
U.S. Special Forces troops are working with Kurdish military units with the aim of penetrating Iraqi-held territory once an American invasion begins, spotting targets for U.S. airstrikes and laying the groundwork for seizing Kirkuk, a strategic oil city in northern Iraq, Kurdish officials say.
THE DEPLOYMENT marks the first known instance of American forces blending with Kurdish units, which are based in a haven beyond control of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government. Several dozen U.S. troops are already stationed in the Kurdish zones, largely invisible to the public, the officials say. More will begin arriving in the next few days, one Kurdish official said. The precise identity of the U.S. forces could not be determined. SF who did the same thing in Afghanistan, most likely.
In interviews with several Kurdish officials over the past few weeks, the outlines of cooperation with the U.S. forces have become clear, despite repeated public assertions that armed Kurdish forces were meant to confine themselves to the autonomous zone. Kurdish officials have long expressed their desire for a military link with the Americans. The joint work is taking place both in the zone ruled by the Kurdistan Democratic Party, or KDP, and with its sometime rival, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, Kurdish officials said. Planning began a year ago. "We are willing to cooperate with anyone who is going to bring democracy to Iraq," said Masrur Barzani, who heads the KDP's intelligence department. The Special Forces troops have joined Kurdish units that will lead them into areas around Kirkuk that were once populated largely by Kurds. The Iraqi government has driven tens of thousands of Kurdish civilians from the region over the years. The Kurds lack the technology to call in U.S. airstrikes. "The Americans have the technology and the training. We have the numbers and the morale, and we know the area," said Azad Miran, chief of KDP military operations. "Spotting is vital. It has to happen." "Fire for effect!"
Kurdish leaders have pledged to the United States to keep their forces from entering Kirkuk, a city of 1 million residents â about half of them Kurds â 150 miles north of Baghdad. "It is in our interest to coordinate with our friends," Barzani said. A Kurdish move into Kirkuk would upset Turkey, which fears that the growth of Kurdish influence in post-Hussein Iraq would reawaken nationalist aspirations among its own large Kurdish minority. The Iraqi Kurds are seeking to cement the autonomy they have had since a failed uprising against Baghdad a dozen years ago. After Iraqi forces put down the revolt, the United States and Britain guaranteed the security of a broad swath of northern Iraq by patrolling the skies with fighter jets. The Turks also claim Kirkuk on historical grounds and have threatened to occupy it themselves if Kurdish forces move in. Kurdish forces don't have to move in, they are already there.
U.S.-Kurdish cooperation is going ahead despite Turkey's reluctance to reach agreement with Washington over joining the anti-Hussein drive. Talks among Turkish officials, Kurdish representatives and U.S. special envoy Zalmay Khalilzad are scheduled to get underway in Ankara on Monday. The Bush administration had planned to send 60,000 troops into northern Iraq, but Turkey has withheld permission for the troops to pass through its territory. If Turkey intervenes in northern Iraq, Kurdish cooperation with the United States will be disrupted, say the Kurds, who have threatened to take up arms against the Turks. "Having Turkish troops in Kurdistan means war. It would be a major war," KDP leader Massoud Barzani predicted in an interview.
War fever has begun to grip the 31/2 million Kurds in the north. The economic situation in the Kurdish region is dire, and the prolonged advance toward war has dried up commerce. The city of Irbil shelters 100,000 Kurdish refugees from the Kirkuk area, and they are eager to go home. Kurdish military forces, known as peshmerga, or "those who face death," have been mustered at bases throughout the region. KDP forces plan to occupy towns and villages in a large arc from a point near Mosul in the north to areas south of Kirkuk that were once home to Kurdish civilians. Patriotic Union of Kurdistan troops would move from the eastern side of the Kurdish autonomous zone. Peshmerga commanders expect U.S. air power to destroy fixed Iraqi positions and artillery that could threaten Kurdish towns in the zone. Commanders predict that Arab settlers brought to the region by the Hussein government will flee if war breaks out. The peshmerga will not enter traditionally Arab villages, and it is unclear who will take Arab towns near Mosul.
Iraqi troops in Mosul and Kirkuk are under the command of Izzat Ibrahim Douri, vice chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and one of Hussein's top deputies. He led Iraqi troops that put down the 1991 uprising in Kirkuk. Kurdish officials predicted that Iraqi forces defending the countryside and outskirts of both cities would fold quickly. The areas south of the frontier between Kurdish and Iraqi territory are manned by regular Iraqi troops from the First and Fifth Army Corps. A mechanized and armored Iraqi Republican Guard division has withdrawn from Mosul, officials say. Another Republican Guard division remains in Kirkuk, but one Kurdish official said he expected that unit to withdraw toward Baghdad if bombs begin to fall. "The Iraqis will try to draw the Americans deep into Iraq and inflict casualties," the official said. If Turkey maintains its refusal to let U.S. forces enter northern Iraq from its territory, the bulk of Americans assaulting Kirkuk would come from western Iraq, the Kurds say. Kurdish officials have also predicted that clandestine Kurdish forces in Kirkuk would revolt, complicating the Iraqi defense.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 01:33 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've decided I like the Kurds. I know this is lazy of me, I could research all of this on the net, but would someone explain to me why the Turks won't let them establish their own nation? I know I'm not apprised of all the facts, but after having read the articles I've read, the Turks come off looking like bullies. The Kurds, on the other hand, I feel sorry for because of all Sadam has done to them--and it sounds like the Turks would like nothing better than to get rid of them, too.
Posted by: charlotte ||
03/17/2003 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Why do the Hatfields hate the McCoys? By the way, the Kurds are not totally good guys. There are some terrorists among them and there are some nasty things that have happened in the past.
#3
Charlotte---I read a background article on the Kurds in Asia Times last month. It's complicated, and tribal, and ethnic. I would hope that the Kurds and their neighbors can work on some things to advance the common good. To me, this seems to be the biggest nut to crack anywhere in the middle east, or a lot of other developing places in the world. I hope that we can have success in Afghanistan and especially Iraq, which has an economic base. This will be one of the keys to winning the war on terror.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2003 12:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I think most of the "criticisms" I've about the Turkish treatment of the Kurds seen could easily be tossed back at Israel if you replaced "Kurds" with "Palestinians."
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
03/17/2003 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
It's complicated, and tribal, and ethnic
Like everything else in that part of the world.
Open acts of defiance by opponents of Saddam Hussain's regime have intensified in the past week, with saboteurs carrying out attacks against Iraq's railway system and protesters openly calling for the overthrow of the Iraqi dictator. The most blatant act of sabotage took place 20 miles south of the north Iraqi city of Mosul when members of the Iraqi opposition blew up a stretch of track on the Mosul-Baghdad railway, causing the derailment of a train. Before fleeing back to their base in Kurdistan, they left piles of leaflets by the side of the track urging the Iraqi soldiers who were sent to investigate the explosion to join the "international alliance to liberate Iraq" from "Saddam the criminal". In a separate incident, a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at a train illegally transporting fuel from Baghdad to Syria. The resistance preparing for "D-day".
Demonstrations were also reported to have taken place in Kirkuk, where an estimated crowd of 20,000 marched on the Baath party's main administrative headquarters demanding Saddam's overthrow. Three posters of the Iraqi leader were torn down and a grenade was thrown at the government building. One senior Baath official was reported killed in the attack. There were also unconfirmed reports that another demonstration in the holy city of Kerbala last weekend was violently suppressed after the intervention of militiamen loyal to Saddam. The escalation in attacks by Iraqi opposition groups has also been accompanied by widespread acts of anti-Saddam vandalism. Posters of the Iraqi president, which adorn every public building, are being openly defaced and vandalised throughout the country. Sounds promising.
Until recently anyone caught carrying out such acts would have received the death sentence. But the mounting acts of open defiance against Saddam's regime is indicative of the growing confidence being displayed by the main Iraqi opposition groups.
"Until recently such acts of open defiance were very rare, and were dealt with harshly," a British Foreign Office official commented. "But as Saddam concentrates his energies on trying to protect his regime from attack, Iraqi opposition groups are becoming more audacious in their attacks." The only area where Saddam can rely with confidence on the loyalty of his security forces is in the Baath party's heartland around Baghdad. In an attempt to reassert his authority Saddam last week issued a directive ordering Iraqi officials not to give up their positions and flee the country. To set an example, members of Saddam's security forces arrested a civil servant in the Al Hurriyya suburb of Baghdad on suspicion of preparing to leave the country. The unfortunate official was then tied to a pole in the street and passers-by were ordered to watch as his tongue was cut out and he was left to bleed to death. This will just teach them to be more careful.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 08:35 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm with Dar.
If Bush/Blair pull out now, with all this happening, then We not only are screwed, but will definitely deserve it...
#4
Mainstream press isnt carrying this. Even if only rumours, very interesting. This sort of thing likely to accelerate and be VERY important in the first 48 hours of war, and i suspect mainstream press, focusing on "embedded reporters" and govt statements will have trouble following it. Look forward to seeing more on internal Iraqi revolts here.
#6
Pardon my French but Saddam must be shitting bricks right about now. I mean come on, knowing your days are numbered (in the low numbers btw) must do wonders for the bowels.
#7
RW, you're assuming anyone is telling him about this. Rule 1 for working for a crazed dictator, never be the one to tell him bad news.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 14:19 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Steve's right: The nightmare scenario during the cold war was a President or Premier who wouldn't listen to the cooler heads around them at the time of a crisis. Same problem with Saddam who, it is known, is in the habit of shooting the messenger. The guy who is smart enough to have the better idea is also the guy who knows to keep his mouth shut.
In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said the recommendation was given late Sunday night both to his Vienna-based agency hunting for atomic weaponry and to the New York-based teams looking for biological and chemical weapons. "Late last night ... I was advised by the U.S. government to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad," ElBaradei told the IAEA's board of governors. He said U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the Security Council were informed and that the council would take up the issue later Monday. U.N. officials have said the inspectors and support staff still in Iraq could be evacuated in as little as 48 hours. No one has yet given the order for the inspectors to begin pulling out, and they were working on Monday. Most of the teams' helicopters have left Iraq because their insurance was canceled, chief U.N. inspector Hans Blix said, and the personnel level was low because of a scheduled rotation home. IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said the nuclear agency would wait for Security Council guidance later Monday before deciding whether to pull out its inspectors. The teams, which returned to Iraq on Nov. 27 after a nearly four-year absence, drew up contingency plans to evacuate even before their redeployment. "A lot depends on the Iraqis," a senior U.N. inspector told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity. "If they let us use aircraft to get out, we could be gone in 48 hours or even less. If they won't let us fly out, we would have to drive to a border, and that could mean an eight-hour journey across hot desert. It would take longer, but we would get out."
Inspectors have experience in getting out of Iraq in a hurry: In December 1998, they pulled out on the eve of U.S.-British airstrikes amid allegations that Baghdad was not cooperating with the teams. There have been some concerns that the Iraqis might hold the inspectors as human shields in case of a conflict. But Iraq's foreign minister appeared to play down those fears in a live television interview on the al-Arabiya Arabic satellite channel Sunday night. "The inspectors came by a decision of the Security Council, which decides on their departure," Naji Sabri said. ElBaradei told the nuclear agency's 35-nation governing board Monday that he was worried about the safety of the teams, yet still held out hope that war could be averted. "Naturally the safety of our staff remains our primary consideration at this difficult time," he said. "I earnestly hope - even at this late hour - that a peaceful resolution of the issue can be achieved, and that the world can be spared a war." Goodbye, thanks for nothing.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 11:38 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Would the last inspector out of Baghdad turn off the lights?
#2
Several United Nations weapons inspectors checked out of their hotels in Baghdad on Monday, witnesses said, ahead of a possible evacuation as the United States prepared for military action against Iraq. At the Burj al-Hayat hotel, six inspectors loaded their bags into cars. Hotel staff said they were not sure how many others were leaving as some had paid their bills two days ago. Inspectors were also seen checking out of Rimal Hotel. "Everyone has to be prepared to leave," one of them said, adding that he had not yet seen any directive to do so.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 10:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Hotels.com is running a last minute "Spring Break Bagdad" special for all Human Shields who have yet to make plans. No word yet on "Human Sheild Girls Gone Wild" video team is coming.
These are some of the major headlines and their brief stories in Turkey's press on March 17, 2003. The Anadolu Agency does not verify these stories and does not vouch for their accuracy.
TEN SHIPS UNLOAD 2087 MILITARY VEHICLES AT ISKENDERUN PORT
Ten cargo ships carrying military vehicles and equipment have approached Iskenderun port in southern Hatay province since February 19. The ships unloaded 2087 vehicles at the port. Five military ships of them carrying Patriots of the Netherlands unloaded vehicles and equipment at the port. That is a lot of vehicles to just "upgrade" facilities. And I seem to remember that last month there was a story about how the Dutch Patriot missiles were on three ships and they were all in place. Some thing smells here. ''U.S. TO FIGHT AGAINST IRAQ WITHOUT TURKEY''
A U.S. official said that the United States would attack Iraq without support of Turkey. U.S. official told Hurriyet that Justice and Development Party (AK Party) was responsible for the point which was reached on the issue and said that the United States would make war against Iraq without Turkey. U.S. official said that financial aid package was no longer on the table and stated that Turkish economy would be affected negatively due to this situation.
''WE HAVE NOT BREAK OFF TIES WITH U.S.''
Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul said that Turkey didn't want its relations with the U.S. to be disturbed, adding that ''the ties between Turkey and the U.S. didn't break off, we find ways to sort out the problems.'' When responding to questions of the paper about the relations between Turkey and the U.S. regarding a possible operation against Iraq, Gul said that ''our relations with the U.S. are very important. We don't want these relations to be disturbed or to be drifted to a crisis. Certainly, the ties between us have not broken off. We follow the developments. We attribute great importance to our relations with the U.S. which is our strategic ally. We search for ways to find a solution to the problems that came out regarding the process about Iraq.''
''15 BILLION DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SUSPENDED''
The U.S. which continues its preparations to start an operation against Iraq, takes a step back regarding monetary assistance to Turkey. Following the statement of U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell who said that ''no money was allocated for assistance to Turkey in the budget,'' two high ranking U.S. officials said that the aid package was not in question for the moment. Associated Press asserted that ''senior U.S. officials speaking on condition of anonymity said the 15 billion U.S. dollars offer to Turkey had been withdrawn.''
OZILHAN: ''MOTION MAY NOT BE ADOPTED''
Chairman of the Association of Turkish Businessmen and Industrialists (TUSIAD) said that the U.S. didn't prepare a new assistance package to Turkey for a possible operation against Iraq, as the U.S. was suspicious that the second motion would not be adopted. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan seems resolved to submit the second motion to the parliament. However, the business circle is suspicious about the adoption of the second motion. TUSIAD Chairman Ozilhan expressed his doubt about the adoption of the second motion and said that ''if the aid package is not sent to Turkey by the U.S., the government in Turkey has to play a key role and it should take decisions to keep the damage of a possible war on Turkey at the minimum level.''
LAST WEEK FOR BARGAINING BETWEEN TURKEY AND U.S.
A meeting which will be held in Ankara between Turkmens and Kurdish groups in northern Iraq is very important for negotiations on Iraq issue between Turkey and the United States. An agreement on Turkey's possible security operation and strengthening of status of Turkmens will be tried to be formed at the meeting in which U.S. President George W. Bush's adviser for Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad will also participate. According to result of the meeting, either Turkey will be in full cooperation with the United States on Iraq issue or it will extend limited support to the United States in case of an attack against Iraq.
IRAQI OPPOSITION LEADERS COME TO TURKEY
Turkey, the U.S., Kurdish groups and Turkmens in Northern Iraq will come together in Ankara. Patriotic Union for Kurdistan (PUK) leader Jalal Talabani, Iraqi Kurdistan Democrat Party (KDP) representative Necirvan Barzani and Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITC) leader Sanan Ahmet Aga entered Turkey from Habur border gate yesterday. During the talks in Ankara, the dimension and character of the military activities that are expected to take place in Northern Iraq in parallel with a possible intervention in Iraq will be discussed.
GREEK DEFENSE MINISTER PAPANTONIOU: âSERIOUS CLASHES WOULD FOLLOW THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A KURDISH STATE IN NORTHERN IRAQâ
Greek Defense Minister Yannos Papantoniou over the weekend predicted that if an independent Kurdish state were established in northern Iraq after Saddam Hussein loses power, Turkey would very likely intervene in the region, which would in turn lead to serious clashes between Turkish and Kurdish troops. He added that Greece was well aware of Turkeyâs firm opposition to the establishment of a Kurdish state. Noting that the European Union, which Greece currently holds the rotating presidency of, lacked a specific policy on the Kurds, the Greek defense minister said that like Turkey, his nation also wanted to maintain the current borders and Iraqâs territorial integrity. /Hurriyet/
Posted by: Steve ||
03/17/2003 07:56 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One would think the Greeks would be delighted that the Turks would be occupied with the Kurds.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, shrugging off voter opposition to a war on Iraq, threw his backing behind the United States on Monday after President George W. Bush declared the day would be "a moment of truth". Another Blair?
"Iraq must take this extremely seriously. Peace, or war?," Koizumi told reporters. "At this stage, we are continuing the final, last-ditch efforts. The United Nations, too, must take this extremely seriously. The authority of the United Nations is being called into question." Asked whether this meant he was backing Washington, Koizumi said: "I will support (the United States). I have already been supporting them." Good man, another one willing to state the truth even though it has cost him at home.
Koizumi's popularity ratings, his main weapon against rivals in his party, have fallen to record lows due to dismay over his stance on Iraq, worries about Japan's prolonged economic stagnation and simmering ruling party scandals. A weekend survey by Kyodo news agency showed support for Koizumi's cabinet had fallen to 41.3 percent, a 7.5-point drop from a month earlier and the lowest since he took office two years ago promising sweeping economic and political reforms.
Koizumi, keen to keep the United States happy as he worries about nearby North Korea's nuclear ambitions, had backed a U.S.-British proposal to set a deadline for Iraq to disarm. Like British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Koizumi had hoped for U.N. backing for the deadline to mute the hefty public opposition domestically to a U.S.-led attack. Kyodo also said its polling showed that four out of five Japanese voters opposed a U.S.-led attack on Iraq, but previous surveys have shown opposition would drop if the military operation were backed by a new U.N. Security Council resolution. On Monday, with the United States close to abandoning efforts to win a new U.N. resolution, Koizumi said existing U.N. Security Council resolution 1441 would be enough to go ahead with war. We need to keep this guy around too.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 12:39 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From the Japanese POV this surely looks like a good opportunity to be in on the creation of a new global political order that won't -- as the last one did -- marginalize Japan relative to its population and economic strength.
#3
Koizumi needs the UN and American force to confront the N. Korean situation as soon as the Iraq war is over. Bush and Koizumi will surely try to use the IAEA and ElBaradei (we haven't seen the last of him and Blixie, I fear) to squeeze Krazy Kimmie (and Iran too, perhaps)into backing down on the plutonium production. If we fail to go to war to enforce the Iraqi resolutions, whatever UN resolutions there are on North Korea will carry no weight whatsoever. I'm sure Koizumi sees this. I'm kind of suspicious of him but he's done good this time. When it counts. Now do you think he'll stop visiting the temples of the war gods (Tojo's buried there too) and pissing off the rest of Asia? Do you think he'll crack down on bad loans?
#4
japan has been attempting to use its still considerable economic clout to influence wavering UNSC memebers. Unfortunately that is wasted effort, now. Japan can do little in the war, but they can be VERY important in reconstruction of Iraq.
#5
Win, win for Japan. Attack on Iraq serves as a very visible warning to North Korea and now perhaps they can get W. to push for a seat on the Security Council for Japan. Yeah the Security Council will be primarily useless now but it's a pride thing. Also you've got the world economy on pause until this thing is over, certainly Japan would like things to shake loose again.
#6
UNSC's an anachronism that couldn't be 'fixed' without exposing it as a sham. Don't think India would be too happy about Japan jumping the queue. Foremost adjustment should be removal of France for unreasonable use (or threat of use of) veto, and for being an arrogant, shamelessly imperialist, dictator-loving cess pit.
U.N. observers monitoring the Iraq-Kuwait border said on Monday that they had stopped all operations in the demilitarised zone amid U.S. preparations for an attack on Iraq. "Effective today, we have ceased all operations under... our security plan," Daljeet Bagga, spokesman of the U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission (UNIKOM), told Reuters. "We are still here in the DMZ (demilitarised zone) but we have ceased operations and are awaiting further instruction," he said. "Sarge, when do we bug-out?"
"Yesterday. Now shaddup and strap that gear down."
UNIKOM, set up after the 1991 Gulf War, last week began withdrawing civilian and military staff from the DMZ straddling the 200-km (120-mile) desert frontier, which U.S. forces would have to cross in any invasion of Iraq. Tick, tick, tick ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 12:40 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We're comin' through! Get the HELL out of our way!"
UN Observers have run away from military forces before. This is probably the one mission out of several hundred (thousand?) where the retreat of the blue helmets can actually be ascribed to prudence instead of cowardace...
#2
You will have to admit that it was very considerate of our allied forces to put gates on the fences instead of running them down with some M1A1s. Good luck and good hunting, guys. Come home safe.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2003 8:43 Comments ||
Top||
Democrats leader Andrew Bartlett has accused Prime Minister John Howard of allowing others to decide whether Australia will join possible war against Iraq. "It is clearly the case that Australia's participation has been decided by other countries — the UK, the US and Spain — in the middle of the Atlantic on the other side of the world," he said. "The Democrats call on Cabinet members who are meeting this evening to finally show some backbone, stand up in the interests of the Australian people and the Australian troops, and tell Mr Howard to back off, to follow international law." Sure seems like Mr. Howard made the decision for Australia to fight, and not the US/UK.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 12:42 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bali was the wake-up call Mr. Bartlett. By the way, watch your imam buddies in country. I do not think they like you very much...in the long term, ya know.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2003 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
aussie dems are to the left of Aussie Labour, IIRC
#3
The ICC will be the next phony org to fall. I will have to give Russia and China the credit for basic common sense avoiding signing on the dotted line for that sell out of national sovereignty.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2003 13:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Seems Howard might be in the ICC dock for "war crimes."
The State Department said on Sunday it had ordered non-essential diplomats and all embassy dependents out of Kuwait, Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Damascus because of the threat of a possible war with Iraq. "The decision to move to ordered departure status is a result of an overall assessment of the security situation in the region due to the threat of military action in Iraq," the State Department said in statements announcing the decisions. Tick, tick, tick ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 12:42 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A Kuwaiti gunboat opened fire on an Iraqi dhow killing a member of its crew on Saturday night, as tensions grew between coalition and Iraqi forces operating in the waters of the northern Gulf. The dhow, which is believed to have been attempting to smuggle oil or dates out of Iraq in breach of UN sanctions, was hit after it strayed into Kuwaiti territorial waters. Rock on, Kuwaitis!
The boat, which had left the Khawr Abd Allah river just before 8pm, was part of a flotilla of more than 30 dhows and small merchant ships that had gathered together at the entrance to the estuary. They were planning a mass break-out to try to scatter the UN mandated forces that patrol Iraqi waters trying to stop the smugglers. The Kuwaiti gunboat challenged the dhow and when it failed to stop fired several warning shots across its bow. Radio transmissions between the two boats suggest the dhow refused to stop until the Kuwaitis stopped firing, while the Kuwaitis refused to stop firing until the dhow stopped. How dumb do you have to be not to realize who's in the stronger position here?
A bullet, which the Kuwaitis claimed was a misdirected warning shot, then struck the dhow, hitting an Indian member of its crew. "You killed the crew member!" "He's not dead yet!"
"Well he's mortally wounded!" "He's get-ting bet-ter!"
The dhow, which had by now left Kuwaiti territorial waters, called for assistance, and a medical team from the Australian navy ship Kanibula boarded the boat. But they were unable to save the victim. The dhow, with the dead sailor still on board, then returned to Iraq. The captain of HMS Marlborough, Mark Anderson, said he was sure the Kuwaiti gunboat had not meant to hit the dhow. "I am sure that whoever was laying down these warning shots made a serious misjudgment," he said yesterday. "I am convinced they did not hit the dhow on purpose, but unfortunately the Iraqis may use this to try and muddy the waters."
They'll have other things to bitch about soon...
The British naval vessel has been carrying out maritime interdiction operations (MIOs) against smugglers trying to break UN trade embargoes against Iraq. The ship is stopping almost everything that attempts to run the blockade and turning it back or removing its cargo if it is illegal. If the goods on board are within the auspices of the UN oil for food programme, which allows Iraq to sell oil and other goods as long as the revenue is filtered through UN-controlled accounts, the vessel is allowed to go on its way. The blockade is aimed at shipments the country sells to smugglers at a quarter of the price through the back door. HMS Malborough and other British vessels have hugely reduced the amount of oil smuggled out of Iraq, thus depriving Saddam Hussein of revenue the allied coalition believes is being used to fund his military. In two months late last year, one British vessel, HMS Cardiff, intercepted oil worth £600,000, and other illegal goods worth £750,000 on the black market.
Meanwhile, in another sign of escalating tensions in the region, an Iraqi gunboat — one of only a handful of serviceable vessels the Iraqi navy is believed to have left — appeared outside the entrance to the river over the weekend. When a US coastguard, also in the region to enforce UN sanctions, challenged the Iraqi gunboat it trained its weapons on the American vessel. After a brief standoff the two vessels went their separate ways. That Iraqi gunboat is going to have a short and exciting time. Then it's going to be very quiet.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 12:47 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Aussies to the rescue! Are you sure that isn't the HMAS Kanimbla, and not the "Kanibula"? I don't think we have a Kanibula...
#2
Well, good for the Kuwaitis! Remember, there was a debacle of a computer exercise in which suicide Dhows were used to sink a couple of carriers. Everyone criticizes the way the top brass kept resetting the exercise, but the practical reason was that they realized that they had holes in their plans and couldn't very well halt the exercise and not learn where else their plans had holes.
Supposedly, the ex-marine consultant was pissed off, but now I realize that he, being a consultant, was billing by the hour, and a reset and continuation of the exercise was cutting into the potential hours he could have charged.
I've been in the consulting world before, and know whereof I speak...
#3
"Supposedly, the ex-marine consultant was pissed off, but now I realize that he, being a consultant, was billing by the hour, and a reset and continuation of the exercise was cutting into the potential hours he could have charged. I've been in the consulting world before, and know whereof I speak..."
Thirteen missile-firing US warships yesterday sailed into the Red sea to obtain a clear line of fire against Iraqi targets following Turkey's refusal to open its airspace to American forces preparing the assault on Saddam Hussein. In a sign that exchanges between the Nato allies have degenerated into political threats, the US warned Ankara to abandon plans to send troops into Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq. Don't bother scheduling the re-vote.
Washington is also reported to have withdrawn war compensation, worth at least $15bn, which had previously been on offer in return for permission to deploy 62,000 troops on Turkish soil. The US soldiers were to have been used to open a northern front against Saddam Hussein. The Turkish parliament's rejection of the package and a decision by the new prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, to delay a second vote have exasperated the White House. The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, said yesterday: "We have made it clear that the situation [in northern Iraq] is volatile, and it would be better if there were no Turkish forces in as part of any military operation. They are concerned about that area, but they also know that we don't want to see anything happen that would precipitate a crisis between Turkey and the Kurdish populations in northern Iraq". I guess that means Turkey won't gain the province of Mosul.
Turkey, where the population is fiercely opposed to war, appears determined to withhold permission for US overflights, severely restricting options for sending US ground troops into northern Iraq. Nor are Iran, Syria or Jordan likely to allow US military planes to use their airspace. Mr Erdogan told Mr Bush last week that use of Turkish airspace would have to be approved by parliament. The timetable for any further vote on US troop deployments has slipped again; nothing is now expected until next week. I don't get the stalling act. It's as good as a 'no'.
As the countdown to war enters its final days, there are only a few US military advisers and members of the special forces operating alongside Kurdish militias in northern Iraq. The enclave could be vulnerable to counter-attack from Saddam's T-72 tanks. Ummmm, T-72s, yummy.
The Pentagon may deploy its 101st and 82nd airborne divisions and the 173rd airborne brigade. The troops, most of whom are now in Kuwait, would be flown into Kurdish-run areas and would fight with heavy air force support to make up for the lack of armour. Iraqi opposition leaders will meet US and Turkish officials in Ankara today to warn against Turkish plans to send troops into the Kurdish self-rule area of northern Iraq during a US-led offensive. Zalmay Khlalilzad, Mr Bush's envoy to the "free Iraqis", said: "We oppose unilateral force. Such an action would have a negative effect on US-Turkish relations and Turkey's relations with other countries." Ankara has advanced plans to establish a large-scale military presence in northern Iraq. Although the Turkish army has a few small bases in the Kurdish enclave, it is proposing to set up a buffer zone and scores of refugee camps. Turkey is anxious to prevent Iraqi Kurdistan from taking advantage of the war to become the nucleus of an independent Kurdish state, which it fears could reignite separatist sentiments among its own large Kurdish population. Well then, you should have gone along with us, and we would have made sure. Now you'll be kept guessing.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 12:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
--And now, Fred Barnes, on Tony Snow's panel on Fox News Friday afternoon, reports that they are aggressively lobbying the Turks to not only deny us the use of their territory to open up a northern Iraq front, but to deny us their airspace as well.--
#2
I donât believe in the whole media fuzz anymore, nor do I believe that the northern front option has been abandoned. From February 19 till now 2087 vehicles have been unloaded in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and right at this moment the ro-ro freighter âRepublica-Biromaâ continues to unload her cargo of 716 vehicles.
It makes no sense to say the US has abandoned the northern front plan A option and to continue the deployment of military materials at full speed.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/17/2003 3:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Welcome back Murat. Vacation? The pot is about to boil over.
#6
I wonder how long the Turkish military will stand back and let the civilian government operate against Turkish self interest.
Posted by: Canaveral Dan ||
03/17/2003 7:35 Comments ||
Top||
#7
A touchy situation. The best thing to do is for the Kurds to say that they'll absorb the refugees themselves, and for the Turks to let humanitarian aid through to be pre-positioned: Refugees tend to settle where there's food and shelter. If the Turks point back over the border and say, "Nothing here, it's over there", then they'll move on.
It's also time for broadcasts and leaflets to the northern Iraqui peoples telling them what they should do and where to go so they don't go into Turkey by accident.
Murat's right: it sure doesn't look to me as if the northern front option has been totally abandoned. However, we may be seeing the elements of a buffer force getting into place to prevent either side from starting anything. I think the Turks will act prudently, but I don't think all the kurds are listening to prudent Kurdish authorities. I can picture some whacko Kurd tribal leader pulling off some damn fool stunt to boost his prestige and bargaining position, getting in trouble, and appealing to fellow Kurds for help.
I do not blame you one bit, Murat, for being worried.
#8
Somebody commented "I wonder how long the Turkish military will stand back and let the civilian government operate against Turkish self interest."
I would ask you what makes you sure that the Turkish military and the US are on one line?
Posted by: Murat ||
03/17/2003 10:05 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Because, Murat, both entities should recognize that Occalan, his spawn, and his fellow travelers are a threat to all freedom-loving people and that the elimination of those monsters is a service on behalf of humanity.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
03/17/2003 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Playing both sides against the other in search of the best deal is one thing, but it would appear that the Turkish government has managed to get nothing from either Washington or Brussels.
Talk about stupid, considering that they're not exactly thriving under the status quo.
#11
Murat said, "From February 19 till now 2087 vehicles have been unloaded in the Turkish port of Iskenderun and right at this moment the ro-ro freighter âRepublica-Biromaâ continues to unload her cargo of 716 vehicles. "
Yeah...so they've been unloaded - but where are they now? Ready for use in the front line?? Anyone, anyone?
The fact that the Turks rejected our $15B aid package is says something which I believe is very ominous indeed. Perhaps it is a diversion...perhaps not. If it is not a diversion - it does not bode well at all. In fact, I think it is very, very threatening.
Yes, I'm not an expert and don't have the "inside scoop" but as someone who has followed this through what is available in the press, I can say that I have seen nothing, absolutely nothing, in the press that has given me even a teensy tiny indication of cooperation from Turkey. Quite the contrary. I think the Turks have created nothing but huge problems for us - all while slapping on the backs and calling us friends.
Perhaps Murat is right and the appearance of non-cooperation is all just a show. That would be nice. Nothing would make me happier than to find out that is true. But if it is, it's been an Academy Award winning performance from all concerned.
Most protest demonstrations in the country against the holding of the Philippines-US war exercises and the US plan to attack Iraq have been ordered by the Communist Party of the Philippines-New Peopleâs Army (CPP-NPA). This was gathered from voluminous subversive documents which included a fourpage computerized memorandum dated March 25, 2002 and issued to all CPP-NPA organic units of the Bagong Hukbong Bayan or NPA in Central Luzon. The documents were seized by the policemen in an encounter with some 15 NPA guerrillas last Feb. 27. In that clash, five rebels, including an amazon, were killed. The subversive documents which were encoded [sic] with the help of former NPA officers who had surrendered to the police also showed that the CPP-NPA's Central Luzon Executive Committee has ordered the intensification of the armed aggression against "American imperialists in the country."
A part of the seized documents is entitled "Objections to Balikatan 02-2" war exercises in Central Luzon on April 22 to May 2002 "especially since the Balikatan exercises in Sulu have yet to be finished." The CPP-NPA memorandum to its units stated that the joint Philippine-US war exercises with participation of 1,700 US troops in Central Luzon was "merely an excuse of the American imperialists to conduct an aggressive armed pursuit against members of the NPA."
The memorandum also stated that the war exercises "were made for the pursuit of the Abu Sayyaf in Mindanao and with the absence of the ASG in Central Luzon, the targets of operations of the US would be the leftist groups which they have already tagged as terrorists."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/17/2003 08:11 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
President Bush has given Sammy 48 hours to get out of Dodge. Sammy's already said, "No, no, a thousand times no!" Actually, I guess he's just said "no" a thousand times, but it amounts to the same thing. At some point within the next 48 hours and 15 minutes the balloon will be up and it'll be clobbering time. There are already reports that Ali Hassan al-Majid's forces are being issued chem weapons. If they use them, the response is going to be something they don't want to see and something that the lefties will be harping on for the next 50 years. If they don't use them, we're going to roll over them. The results will be the same in the end, only with fewer casualties on their side and possibly ours.
Blixie is continuing to pretend events can be turned around and the Frenchies and Fritzies are calling for more talks on Wednesday. The UN is dead, unless Bush and Co. want to keep the husk around, and its corpse will soon start to stink. NATO is dead. The EU is probably dead. Should we become all wimpy and multilateralist, all that can be reversed. I'm hoping we dont' â the UN has been shown to be nothing but a gabfest, NATO an empty shell, and we'll be better off without them.
What's going to happen next? I'll be expecting the first demand for a cease-fire sometime Thursday morning, assuming the festivities begin Wednesday night. The Sammy lovers will take to the streets, the Arab street will make faces. Neither will amount to anything in the end. I don't think Sammy's own Bad Guys will be able to bring anything off within the U.S. or even overseas, but I expect his sympathizers â Hamas and/or Hezbollah, possibly al-Qaeda â will manage something. My guess would be Hezbollah, probably acting behind a deniable front. If it is, that will make Iran and Syria the next targets. It's going to be an interesting couple weeks.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/17/2003 09:15 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
About the UN -- has any administration source actually mentioned UN participation in the postwar regime, or is that just the chatter of (many) invidious talking heads?
The Israeli occupation army on Monday arrested Palestinian lawmaker, Hussam Khader, a prominent critic of Yasser Arafatâs authority. Palestinian sources in Nablus said Israeli soldiers stormed Khaderâs home in Nablus around dawn Monday before arresting him and whisking him away. The sources said Israeli occupation troops confiscated a computer and several files belonging to Khader. The Israeli state-run radio quoted an army source as accusing Khader of âinvolvement in terrorist activities.â Khader has been a focal critic of Yasser Arafatâs autocracy, often accusing him of graft, corruption and surrounding himself with hangers-on and self-serving aides. None of which, mind you, keeps him from being involved in terrorism...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/17/2003 07:59 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
The IDF has been taking it to Hamas and Islamic Jihad pretty good lately, both of these groups are political opponents to the PLO. And now they arrested Arafat's hated foe.
A guy who is a conspiracy nut could think that Sharon and Arafat are in cahoots in eliminating the PLO's opponents.
If Arabic News thinks this would really bother us, they... uuuummmm, might be mistaken.
In its effort to gain support for war against Iraq, the US has failed to make a convincing case and failed in its effort to gain the support of the UN Security Council. Having failed, the US is threatening to act alone and outside the framework of the United Nations. This is the ultimate threat the US is using to intimidate and coerce world countries to gain their support. The tactics the US is using are those of despots, and dictatorships that always go beyond the law and will use any means to achieve their interests â bribe, lie, intimidate, and if all else fails, use force. That is the state of affairs the world is in today. Hmmmmmm, sounds like the Arab world!
The US is the dominant power in political, economic, and military affairs and holds a choke hold on many of the international institutions. As such, this political, economic and military monopoly is causing great damage to world development â as should be expected from a monopoly. But the extent of damage has become so great that this state of affairs should no longer be tolerated.
The US is giving the world an ultimatum: Either follow us and do as we say, or else we will do what we want anyway. Many countries in the world may feel helpless against such intimidating power for fear of US reprisal against them politically, economically, or even militarily. They have been conditioned to this mentality, and have accepted the status quo for a long time, with the US managing to outflank any real efforts that limits its power. But the US is now challenging the world on a grand scale, defiant of its institutions â institutions that it has helped develop and used herself over and over again to its advantage.
So the world is before a choice: to cower and give in to the USA and let things proceed as they have in the past â with much greater potential of degeneration as the US becomes even much more dominant, or the world can very simply and calmly reply to the US ultimatum with one of its own: If you will not respect the UN decisions and will, then get out of the UN or we will kick you out. This message should be acted on Monday, even if only symbolically as a quick start, toward achieving this goal. Oh, no! Not that! Let's vote on this RIGHT NOW!
The UN has been handicapped for too long by the UN Security Council, which had been totally handicapped and dominated by the USA. The world needs to have true and effective democratic institutions â with the true sense of the word â to resolve conflicts and manage its affairs. Nothing less than the standards of domestic institutions will suffice at the international level as well. Arabic News wouldn't know a "democratic institution" if it bit them in the ass.
The biggest obstacle to this development has been the United States of America. The United States, itself, is incapable of extricating itself from the position it is in. It is a monopoly that enjoys the position it is in, and would naturally not relinquish this position by itself, while at the same time, the US knows that monopolies are not good. Clearly, there needs to be an outside force to change this situation. So let us give the United States a helping hand in forcing it to do what is right. It will not be easy and it will require courage, but it is the right thing to do, and it will produce the kind of results many want. NUKE MECCA! Who do these assholes think they are, the French???
It is time to kick the USA out of the UN Security Council for starters, or out of the United Nations if need be. The world can do without such bullies and war mongers and international dictators. No more ultimatums to the UN. If you don't like the United Nations, then get out of it; Tomorrow is a good day to announce this. And if the USA does not announce this itself, then the countries of the world should seize the moment and understand what is going on and act. Make no mistake about it, this issue, at its core, has little to do with Iraq. This is a grandiose game that its details are not the subject of this article. In short, this is about the kind of future the world wants for itself. Here is a chance to show that you don't support dictators and their methods. Kick the USA out of the UN. Enough autocracy, let the world know true international democracy, and let the world see how fast peace and economic progress will flow everywhere; They will wonder why they waited this long; Of course, they felt they could not, because the USA was in the way, and it still is. Oh....please... please... PLEASE!!!!
Time for the USA to get out of the UN. If not, it should be kicked out. This should be Monday's proposed resolutions at the UN security Council and at the UN General Assembly. Time for the United Nations to grow up and become independent of the USA, and it is time for democratic international institutions. Let a new era of world development begins. Enjoy that nightlife in Zimbabwe. Oh, you mean you want it to stay in NYC? Sorry, don't think so.
#1
tcc: Excuse me. "Only the UN has an infrastructure that can guarantee fast and efficient aid...." Oh, please. Whenever the UN has to get anything, anywhere, who do they call on? THE USAF, that's who. The one orginization that has said infrastructure is the good old USA-DOD, with specific fill-ins from other assorted Departments, Agencies, etc. Once you get past WHO & UNICEF, the UN is a great Potemkin village. If the orginization does stay in NY, about all its qualified for is SAG membership (as extras).
#3
Maybe they can get the French to enforce the resolution if it passes. Ha!
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/17/2003 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Let me see if I've got this straight:
One, the French say we're arrogant.
Two, the Germans say we're warmongers.
Three, the Russians say we don't respect the rule of law.
And now four, the Arabs think we're undemocratic.
And if that doesn't convince you of the correctness of our position, nothing will.
Posted by: Matt ||
03/17/2003 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Bush as the anti-christ has shown his true colours - kick the gringo bastards out immediately
Posted by: Ron ||
03/17/2003 14:15 Comments ||
Top||
#6
For once a proposed UN resolution I can get behind.
It's time to get the US our of the UN, and the UN out of the US!
#7
Isn't it the French who refuse to follow 1441? Call a vote and then kick all the 'no' votes out of the UN. Then the US should leave the UN on our own.
#8
As Spock would say "that would be quite illogical".
Let me get this straight, the US controls the UNSC, so why did it not get the 2nd resolution?
And again with the generalizations: "holds a choke hold on many of the international institutions"
Get back to your stonings and honour killings ok.
#9
Reading this article was great! I have not had such a good laugh since grandma got her tits caught in the wringer. Let us call it the Scooter McGruder Initiative and go for it...lets carry the illogic to its logical end.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2003 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Yes, that's a splendid idea for a resolution! Let's support it, stop paying our U.N. dues, and give the U.N. 30 days to get out of New York City. We can give the Frogs 48 hours if they pay their parking tickets within 24 hours. Cash only.
Posted by: Tom ||
03/17/2003 15:30 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Dammit Tom, you beat me to it! I think a "lawless" society such as ours should make those parking tickets from the past retroactive as well, with penalties of course!... Hans Blix can manage the line at traffic court, being the seasoned administrator that he is
#14
What's even funnier is that United States funded over 60% of UN. Japan chipped in another 10%. Japan is already on record on scaling back their UN funding committment, and without US funding, there is NO UN.
#15
Guys, let's get one thing straight. The UN Security Council has failed, but the UN is not obsolete. Its humanitarian work should continue to be appreciated by the United States. Only the UN has an infrastructure that can guarantee fast and efficient aid to a postwar Iraq.
Bush knows this, thats why he didn't knock the UN around in his speech.
But the UN will have to be reformed after the war.
#16
tcc: Excuse me. "Only the UN has an infrastructure that can guarantee fast and efficient aid...." Oh, please. Whenever the UN has to get anything, anywhere, who do they call on? THE USAF, that's who. The one orginization that has said infrastructure is the good old USA-DOD, with specific fill-ins from other assorted Departments, Agencies, etc. Once you get past WHO & UNICEF, the UN is a great Potemkin village. If the orginization does stay in NY, about all its qualified for is SAG membership (as extras).
Postings should be anchored on a news article. You can use the HILITE button to include your opinion, or you can comment on a news article someone else has posted, or on your own article.
Pure opinion postings will be deleted.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/17/2003 01:02 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
what three things comtrol the United States?
a bush
a dick
and colin
Looks like they're "going reckless". Don't think this is what Kimmie had in mind...
Japan is preparing to launch spy satellites, speeding up development of missile defenses, building its commando forces and expanding the range of its air force in response to what it sees as a growing threat from North Korea. ...AKA, the peace loving DPRK.
In addition, a few right-wing politicians here are suggesting that Japan build nuclear weapons to counter North Korea's aggressive moves. That idea has almost no public support in the only country ever to have been struck with nuclear weapons. But the topic is no longer taboo. And isn't that the first step?
North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il seems intent on assembling a nuclear arsenal just 400 to 500 miles from Japan. Since October, North Korea has admitted pursuing nuclear weapons, reactivated a nuclear complex mothballed in 1994 and issued warnings about an impending war in an apparent attempt to jolt the United States into signing a non-aggression pact. Ah, that North Korean "nuclear racket".
Sunday, North Korea's government objected to U.S.-South Korean military exercises underway in the South. It called them ''a dangerous military racket to ignite the second Korean War.'' It also repeated a demand ''to resolve the issue through North Korea-U.S. direct talks.'' The United States wants talks that also include South Korea, Japan and other regional powers.
Japan has a pacifist constitution, imposed by the United States after World War II to keep Japan from becoming a military power again.That constitution does not bar Japan from having a military. It has a 160,000-strong self-defense force. North Korea has a 1 million-man army. Japan relies on an American promise to come to its defense, backed by 50,000 U.S. troops at bases in Japan and the threat of a retaliatory nuclear strike by the United States in response to any such attack here.
Japan's neighbors, mindful of its aggression during World War II, are warily watching its responses to North Korea's actions. China, which has nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, has spoken out against any effort by Japan to develop missile defenses. It says such a program threatens regional stability and could trigger an arms race. The United States has been encouraging Japan to strengthen its defenses but does not want it to be a major military power again. Many leaders here say this country has no choice but to boost its military capabilities. ''Japan ought to act like Rambo,'' says Shingo Nishimura, a right-wing member of Japan's parliament. Oh-oh. Looks like Shingo's nuts...
Japan is:
Speeding up development of a missile-defense system. Since North Korea fired a missile over Japan in 1998, Japan has been conducting research with the United States. A test could take place soon.
Readying spy satellites. Japan has long relied on U.S. satellites but complains that the Americans are stingy about sharing information. The first Japanese launch of a spy satellite is set for March 28.
Beefing up defenses against commando attacks, a threat posed by North Korea's vast special forces. Last year, Japan created a special 660-man regiment dedicated to defending its 5,000 islands from amphibious assaults. This year, it will set up a 300-man special operations unit assigned to defend cities against guerrilla attacks.
Working on in-flight refueling of military aircraft, which would allow its F-15 fighter jets to reach North Korea and come back home.
As for nuclear weapons, Japan could develop them quickly. Its more than 50 nuclear power plants have produced enough plutonium for hundreds of weapons. The main obstacle is public opinion. But Shinichi Ogawa of the National Institute for Defense Studies, a government think tank, says nuclear weapons are also impractical: There aren't many places to put them in this crowded, highly developed nation.
#1
"But Shinichi Ogawa of the National Institute for Defense Studies, a government think tank, says nuclear weapons are also impractical: There aren't many places to put them in this crowded, highly developed nation."
That's a strange argument. Mr. Shinichi Ogawa has apparently never heard of that thing called a "naval vessel"
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/17/2003 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Shinichi probably doesn't want all the eggs in one basket. And the Japanese are especially touchy about nukes in warships; look at how they treat ours.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Japan's reluctance to put nukes on Naval Warships may have to do with fear of surprise attacks by Godzilla.
The acoustic conditions off Japan might interfere with detecting the "Lizard King". Thus allowing him (her?) to sneak up and smack the warship with its paw, thus causing a significant environmental disaster.
#5
'Japan ought to act like Rambo,' says Shingo Nishimura, a right-wing member of Japan's parliament.
In other news, the Diet has resolved to "act recklessly", and furthermore "run amuck" at the earliest possible opportunity. The "stick thumb in Kimmie's eye" bill is currently bogged down in committee.
#6
Well, there's a surprising omission in there. Japan's not working on giant fighting robots, organizing teams of white-gloved schoolgirls with mystical Super Powers, or even considering raising the sunken Yamato to convert into a spacegoing battleship? They disappoint me. :(
Posted by: Joe ||
03/17/2003 17:02 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Wish they would have moved this fast on their economy, jeesh, 20 years.
#8
I can't help but be amused at China warning that a Japanese military buildup would trigger an arms-race, but at the same time it fails to see North Korea's brinkmanship in the same light. A bit odd, won't you agree? And have you seen the new Chinese defense budget? Who is Beijing trying to kid?
Posted by: The Marmot ||
03/17/2003 23:25 Comments ||
Top||
If (at what point can we start saying "when" instead of "if")
U.S. forces invade Iraq, the FBI has plans to mobilize as many as 5,000 agents to guard against terrorist attacks, monitor or arrest suspected militants and interview thousands of Iraqis living in the United States. Weeell....get BUSY!
The FBI operation reflects fears among counterterrorism officials that the risk of domestic attacks will increase dramatically in the event of war. Many of the FBI's criminal surveillance operations would be temporarily suspended in order to focus on potential terrorism or espionage suspects. I'm sure the mob and the drug dealers appreciate the heads up.
Any immigration violators found during interviews and sweeps would be detained, several officials said. Detained? Why not deported? Must fall under that "keep your enemies close" concept.
The steps are part of a voluminous and detailed contingency plan developed by the FBI over the last year in preparation for an invasion of Iraq. and currently detailed on the web and translated into 56 languages for review by any and all affected groups to assure no political sensitivities are not offended
Sources said the plan includes a checklist of more than four dozen steps to be taken by FBI field offices and joint terrorism task forces before and after war begins. Step one, ask the suspect if it is ok for you to interview him. Step two, if he says no, apologize and go to next candidate.
The Department of Homeland Security could raise the nation's color-coded threat level from yellow to orange, or "high risk," as early as this week. Well, Duh.
Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned that "we have to prepare for the inevitability" of suicide attacks in the United States. inevitability?! Come on guys..think positive!
At the start of a war, FBI headquarters and all 56 field offices would immediately staff 24-hour command centers, in conjunction with 66 joint terrorism task forces across the country, authorities said. The head of one major FBI field office said that "the small percentage of agents who aren't directly involved will be on call. . . . This is an all-hands type operation." versus an "all-thumbs" operation like before 9-11.
Some of the steps outlined in the FBI contingency plan have already begun, including initial meetings between the heads of FBI field offices and local Islamic groups across the country, officials said. FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III also met late last month with leaders of Arab American, Muslim and Sikh groups to ask for their support in identifying terrorists and to assure them of FBI protection against hate crimes. That's nice, too bad he can't assure the rest of us that we will be protected against the inevitablitity of hate crimes.
Working from an initial list of about 50,000 Iraqi nationals living in the United States, the FBI has winnowed that number down to about 11,000 who would be targeted for interviews in the event of a war, a senior FBI official said. Wow... with 5,0000 agents, that's almost one agent for every 2+ extremists. Not bad! Impressive!
Officials hope to complete those interviews within a few weeks of an invasion. The FBI would be aided by immigration investigators at Homeland Security, who would detain anyone found to be in violation of immigration laws, officials said. I guess that means they're pretty busy this week.
Other interviews have taken place, focused primarily on Iraqis who were considered potential security threats or who were thought to have information that would be helpful to U.S. military efforts, officials said. FBI and immigration officials are also still working to locate as many as several thousand Iraqis who entered the United States on valid visas that have since expired. darn...our one agent to two extremist ratio just went down.
official disclaimer: Senior FBI officials said the interviews and investigations have not changed their general view that most Iraqis in the United States are hostile to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and are unlikely candidates for terror. U.S. intelligence officials also worry that Hussein's regime might secure cooperation from an unwilling Iraqi citizen living in the United States by holding family members hostage back home. oooh...tough choice that!
During the Persian Gulf War, Iraqi agents in Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines failed in amateurish attempts to bomb U.S. facilities, leading to the widespread view within Western intelligence circles that Hussein's regime is not adept at overseas terror operations. Yet U.S. officials say they are alarmed by a case last month in the Philippines, where a high-ranking Iraqi diplomat was expelled after allegedly having contact with members of the Abu Sayyaf terror group. The Iraqi government dismissed the allegations as U.S. propaganda. "Iraqi intelligence did try some pretty pathetic operations last time," a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said. "Do I think they'll try it again? Probably, but this time they may have help. That's one of our major concerns." yeah..ours too. Good luck, guys... let's hope you've learned well since 9-11.
Posted by: Becky ||
03/17/2003 11:22 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Hmm. say 12,000 suspects, 5000 agents, 1 interview per day, one day for analysis. 6 working days tops.
#2
The difference between 1991 and now is that there is the beginnings of a terrorist infrastructure in the US itself. Many different Islamist groups (some with good connections to the liberal press).
#3
The difference between 1991 and now is that there is the beginnings of a terrorist infrastructure in the US itself. Many different Islamist groups (some with good connections to the liberal press).
#4
Well I feel safer already! The best defense is a good offense, but some of our defensive strategies from homeland security have been, well, kinda offensive. I hope that the FBI REALLY has its act together this time, and I hope that we get cooperation from state AND local law enforcement, or some Chiefs of Police will be subject to the wrath and fury of MILLIONS of pissed off Americans.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/17/2003 8:29 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Sounds like racial profiling to me.
CAIR will never approve. I guess the US is dropping all pretenses.
Posted by: Ray ||
03/17/2003 11:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
MARK STEYN WIMPS OUT: NO TO ISLAMIC GENOCIDE AWARD
Recrimination at the failure of US diplomacy has begun in Washington, one source close to the administration admitting yesterday: "This has been the worst American diplomatic debacle of our lifetime." Administration sources suggest that this is the prelude to a postwar bloodletting in which the secretary of state, Colin Powell, will be the fall guy. He will be blamed for encouraging George Bush to take the issue to the UN, for failing to grasp the extent and power of French and Russian opposition, failing to anticipate that the weapons inspectors would not adhere to the US's timetable, and for his puzzling refusal to pursue the kind of shuttle diplomacy normal in the state department for the past 30 years. There's no way anyone in Washington could have known about French intransigence. After all, the Frenchies voted for 1441. Right up to about January or so, we looked like we were going to have the best of both worlds — deal with the Iraqis and have UN approval for doing so.
"There's a recognition this has not been our finest diplomatic hour," the New York Times quoted a senior official as saying on Friday, adding that his voice was "dripping with understatement". In the Washington Post James Mann of the Centre for Strategic and International Studies described the administration's foreign policy as "a major intellectual failure" that would have consequences long after the war is over. This aspect of the crisis has finally given Democratic contenders for the 2004 presidential election — most of them terrified to attack the president directly over Iraq — an issue they can hammer home without having their patriotism impugned. Oh, please. There isn't a Democrat out there who can win his party's nomination who can make the Iraq war a winning issue for his party.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 11:24 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The heat of the moment is probably not the best time to speculate on what went wrong. Did the 15-0 vote for Res 1441 lead the administration to a level of overconfidence? Did the administration push the demands for regime change appear slightly arrogant? Was 4 months of inspection sufficient to identify Iraq's intrangicence? Or was France just stringing along all the time. Clearly The US sees a clear and present danger in Iraq that most other countries in the world simply deny. And at the end of today, a lot of people have woken up to the oxymoron: UN action.
Posted by: john ||
03/17/2003 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
TO PRESIDENT GW BUSH:
I just watched your ultimatum speech. Yes GW, it is "suicide" to let rogue elements control WMD. So why are you delivering WMD into the hands of Pakistan jihadis? You pressured elections in Pakistan, in context of the Islamist plague in that country. There can be no doubt about what these would-be killers of Americans will do.
If you don't like the way that the semi-secular tyrant in Iraq feels about "evidence" disclosure, then why are you injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into the Pakistan jihad state that quantifies human veracity, according to perverse religist dictate:
#3
Why did Bush say that we'd be coming back to the UN for resolutions on the reconstruction of Iraq? They're OUT. Let the Iraqis/US/UK/Aust. have a say, NOT"
I picked up on that too.Screw-em,let our allies,espically central/east Euorpe,have first crack at the contracts.
TO PRESIDENT GW BUSH:
Just another status quo weennie,whats the matter afraid to stand-up and be counted,Anonon?
#4
And Colin's already in Newsweek, poor me! Well, the only thing I have to say about the froggies is I'm not surprised. They don't change. They still think there's no price to pay and they'll be in Iraq helping to rebuild. If 7 weeks of arguing the wording of 1441 wasn't a clue and they're being french, then I don't know what is.
#5
So far, a Big, Unsayable Thing in the US media about the current situation is that Mr. Powell is the guy responsible for the diplomatic end of things -- and we didn't do too well there. Mr. Powell has to bear the responsibility for that.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/17/2003 2:14 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Bah. Colin won't go down over this.
He might have to stand up and give a mea culpa:
"I'm sorry. I did not realize the lengths to which Chiraq would go to protect his friend. I apologizing for believing that the French were allies. It won't happen again."
He'd be forgiven.
#7
Eh -- you see this coming up now because the left (along with, I'd guess, bureaucrats at State) wants to spin this as primarily a failure of execution, not concept. Powell's error was pushing to do the UN thing in the first place, something these clowns would have us do still more of henceforth under the notion of "if only we'd gone door-to-door more last time!" or whatever. So best perhaps that a chastized Powell stay, if his departure is to be taken as a repudiation of his UN diplomacy instead of UN diplomacy in general.
#8
To my way of thinking on this, it seems to be viperishness. Colin Powell was the Left's fair-haired boy (if you will excuse the term); I can't tell you how many columns Mary McGrory wrote in the WaPo extravagantly praising Powell as long as it appeared that he was fighting the good fight for peace against the warmongers in the administration. When it became clear even to the stoneheads that he was actually executing the "good cop" segment of GWB's "good cop/bad cop" diplomatic strategy, and especially when the tenor of his statements and actions changed once it became clear that good cop/bad cop would no longer work with the Weasels, there was a stunned silence from the Left as far as Colin Powell went for a while. No longer , it seems. I think it more accurate to say that Powell is going to become the _Left's_ scapegoat. I doubt very much that GWB will ask him to resign, if he didn't already at anytime over the past fifteen months.
Posted by: Joe ||
03/17/2003 4:24 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Here's a (probably apocryphal) tale: A Financial Analyst with IBM made a miscalculation, shifted some company funds out of Britain at a critical time, and caused a minor fiscal crisis. It got papered over and the guy was called on the carpet in front of Watson and the IBM VP's. After outlining the problem, the bad choice, and what should have been done instead, the poor guy ended up asking "So, I guess you want my resignation?"
Watson snorted, "No! We lost a few million on this debacle. You walk out, and that experience goes out the door with you."
Yeah, apocryphal probably, but these kinds of rumors used to fly around at IBM, whose former reputation for being loyal to their employees created a legion of corporate fanatics. Do these kinds of rumors fly around at YOUR corporation?
I say we keep Secretary Powell: this kind of experience is hard-earned and expensive, and of all the people that can be named Secretary of State who can be sure of not making the same mistake again, I'm sure Colin would head the list.
I am coming slowly to the conclusion that, despite all the odds against it, all the forces arrayed against the possiblity of it happening, a genuine, 24 Karat, 100% born again Christian is sitting in the Oval Office. Blair supposedly is one too, and I'm wondering if both are deliberately going to the mat for each other out of Christian Brotherhood. This explains an earlier post where Bush, through Condolezza, sent a message to Blair telling him it would be okay with him, Bush, if Blair felt he had to get out of the kitchen because of the heat.
If so, then the buck stops with Dubya, not Powell.
Forget the relgious right stereotypes formulated by Idiotarians, and which are responsible for them always underestimating Bush. Standing with your Brother is a major meme in Real Christianity, and was the seed from which fraternities sprang forth. Blair, therefore, is definitely in a unique position to influence Bush, and is probably the major reason why he's working overtime to stay in the game. I thought the british were only sending 25,000 men: a respectable force. Now, I hear they're in to the tune of 40,000.
Admittedly, this analysis is rather brief. Perhaps I should start my own blog where I could comment further. Should I?
The major danger: Forgetting to be wise as serpents. Time to stop reading the Gospels for morning devotions, President and Prime Minister, and to start reading Proverbs.
#11
Amen to your comments Ptah. You might do well with your own blog. Just be sure to post the address here several times if you do. I wouldn't want to miss it.
We all have had "friends" roll over on us at one time or another. It's pretty hard to tell someone they screwed up by trusting another who puts themselves over as a friend. I think the American public understands what happened and will in no way buy this lefty line of bull.
Posted by: Scott ||
03/17/2003 7:54 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Raptor - exactly right - all this whining about a failure of diplomacy ignores the obvious obstructionism and naked power grab by the French. Diplomacy absolutely CANNOT work under these circumstances. I wish it had worked out; now we are smarter and the world has learned a few things about itself.
Posted by: Jeff Brokaw ||
03/17/2003 7:57 Comments ||
Top||
#13
It's easier and more enjoyable for most to blame Bush, Rumsfeld and France.
#14
This was not a failure of diplomacy since there was no chance for it to succeed to begin with. The purpose was to show good faith on the U.S.'s part. Powell did the best anyone could. He should be applauded for his work.
#15
Its not that Powell could have made Chirac reasonable - its that maybe he could have done a better job of isolating Chirac. How many times have we heard Powell quoted speaking to the House Appropraitons comm re Iraq? WAhat was he doing on the Hill, why wasnt he globetrotting? Isnt that what a Sec of State does. Im not sure that it would have helped, but its certainly possible, and will i think be a worthwhile question in coming months. Doesnt matter to Rummy and the conservative hawks, for whom the problem was the concept (as noted above) and doesnt matter to the doves, to whom Powell is still a hero. It does matter to the harderline among the multilateral hawks on the Dem side. Eseentially Leiberman, Edwards, Gephardt. Do any of them have a chance??? I dont know, but if the Iraq war goes well i have a hard time seeing any of the doves having a real chance.
#16
While we busied getting our troops ready, Powell's very public belief in the goodness of man coming together to unite against a globally destructive butcher was a stark contrast to the vicious back-stabbing, naked power-grabbing, up-yours-USA attitude that was exposed in the UN. Let the media say whatever they want. The end result was (vote or no vote) a very public display of the UN's real motives. With few shots fired, it became crystal clear who our allies really are, a very good thing. Our "allies" are left standing naked, exposed. Their complaint that they didn't like they way we asked for their help is all they are left with. Oh boo hoo hoo. It may give the disgruntled hate-America-first crowd something to cling to today, but it's shallow, meaningless and won't hold up in the harsh light of history. On the other hand...Powell's effort to solve it peacefully WILL prevail and will provide valuable lessons for future efforts to resolve such conflicts without war. I applaud Powell - he's truly a good man.
#17
Powell's job is to be the dove.
Rummy's is to be the hawk.
This is a team effort.
No doubt, the universe (i.e., President Bush's plan) is unfolding as it should--or at least, as expected.
To our troops: good luck, good hunting, and come home safe.
Posted by: Mike ||
03/17/2003 10:06 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Powell played the "good cop" and can sleep well at night knowing he played the part the best it could be played... and every "think tank" pundit said the botton line is we had to have the "patina" of UN legitimacy to move forward, which we do not have... but it is "2 new moons" past the best timeline to bring saddam to "meet with the accountants"...
George Will said it best yesterday when he said we should bring in the French in a couple of weeks to translate the Iraqi archives when the extent of the the real relationship between the French and saddam becomes known.
Historically, Colin had to deal with a world that has noticed since the last US election that America is more divided in political mindset than any time since the 60's, and the time is ripe to thumb their noses at the good old USA. This to will pass, and when the dust has settled, and the worlds politicians wake up, those countries who have "obviously not been brought up right" will realized "they have missed a good opportunity to have remained silent"... (to quote one of the worlds great windbags)
#19
W and Tony are going to the mat because they're Christian?? Could it also be because of our ties, we were there in the beginning and we'll be with you in the end? Never let yourselves be separated from the Americans? Especially after what frankenreich pulled? He saw the future?
And considering Tony was supposed to be Bubba's bud.
You might be confused by some of our recent Secretaries of State who did the globetrotting. Time was when we had ambassadors deliver the message and a Secretary of State who stayed home and figured out how to implement the policies of the president. I'm thinking of John Foster Dulles who wasn't too shabby a SoS.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/17/2003 11:28 Comments ||
Top||
#21
I was reading Le Monde on Thursday and de Villepin was talking to UMP (Chirac's party) parlimentarians behind closed doors. Witnesses said how happy he was with the way (obstructing things, in other words) were going. Every day this process goes on, he said, the weaker the US and UK's position becomes. A few of these backbenchers were definitely worried thinking about the negative long-term effects of the short-term gloire pour la France would have vis a vis US/New Europe vs. Old Europe. De Villepin and Fischer had better remember that the new EU will have 25 countries, each of which currently will have veto power over policy. Two can play the vote game, which is why the French/Germans will probably try to make policy vote approval between 50%-75%.
One thing guys, about yesterday. Why did Bush say that we'd be coming back to the UN for resolutions on the reconstruction of Iraq? They're OUT. Let the Iraqis/US/UK/Aust. have a say, NOT UNSC. If the Frogs want a place at the table, they can reserve a conference room at the Al-Rasheed and present their case to the Iraqis. We don't need to give them a resolution so that the duplicitous ones can feel no pain.
Posted by: Michael ||
03/17/2003 15:18 Comments ||
Top||
#22
--Every day this process goes on, he said, the weaker the US and UK's position becomes.--
#23
The heat of the moment is probably not the best time to speculate on what went wrong. Did the 15-0 vote for Res 1441 lead the administration to a level of overconfidence? Did the administration push the demands for regime change appear slightly arrogant? Was 4 months of inspection sufficient to identify Iraq's intrangicence? Or was France just stringing along all the time. Clearly The US sees a clear and present danger in Iraq that most other countries in the world simply deny. And at the end of today, a lot of people have woken up to the oxymoron: UN action.
Posted by: john ||
03/17/2003 18:44 Comments ||
Top||
#24
TO PRESIDENT GW BUSH:
I just watched your ultimatum speech. Yes GW, it is "suicide" to let rogue elements control WMD. So why are you delivering WMD into the hands of Pakistan jihadis? You pressured elections in Pakistan, in context of the Islamist plague in that country. There can be no doubt about what these would-be killers of Americans will do.
If you don't like the way that the semi-secular tyrant in Iraq feels about "evidence" disclosure, then why are you injecting hundreds of millions of dollars into the Pakistan jihad state that quantifies human veracity, according to perverse religist dictate:
#25
Why did Bush say that we'd be coming back to the UN for resolutions on the reconstruction of Iraq? They're OUT. Let the Iraqis/US/UK/Aust. have a say, NOT"
I picked up on that too.Screw-em,let our allies,espically central/east Euorpe,have first crack at the contracts.
TO PRESIDENT GW BUSH:
Just another status quo weennie,whats the matter afraid to stand-up and be counted,Anonon?
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.
