The Supreme Court of Pakistan has held that the country lacks a law declaring Al Qaeda a terrorist organization, and no one could not be detained simply for having links with the organization. "Nope. Nope. Can't do it. Nope."
The Supreme Court made the observation in its detailed judgement on the federal governmentâs appeal against the Lahore High Courtâs order of releasing three of the five Khawajas taken into custody from Lahore during an FBI operation. "Nope. Nope. Gotta let 'em go."
In the wake of short order of the SC last month, the government had released Dr Umar Karar Khawaja, Dr Khazar Ali and Hafiz Muhammad Usman, while an appeal against the continued detention of elderly Khawajas has recently been filed in the SC. In its detailed judgement, the SC categorically blasted the governmentâs petition, calling it devoid of merit. The court also said the evidence produced was utterly untenable for detaining the Khawajas. Senior advocate Hamid Khan and Pervez Inayat Malik represented the Khawajas. âWe have carefully examined the contentions as agitated on behalf of both the parties in the light of relevant provision of Constitution, Security of Pakistan Act 1953 and judicial precedence,â the two-members Supreme Court bench said. "This is Pakistan. There ain't no daggone law against being an international terrorist organization. Hell, if we had one, we wouldn't have any exports!"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 10:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
Pakistan's President General Pervez Musharraf on Thursday called for careful probe into killing of 24 persons in Indian-administered Kashmir. Musharraf, while condemning the tragedy, called on Indian leadership to carefully probe and analyze the killing. These persons were shot dead in Kashmir on Sunday last. He condemned the 'cowardly and heinous act of terrorism' in Kashmir. "It seemed clear that this dastardly act had been perpetrated by the elements that wanted to create friction and did not want any improvement in Pakistan-India relations," he said. Musharraf asked the Indian leadership to carefully probe and analyze the tragedy to determine who these elements were and to get to the real motives. Rather than leveling allegations, Musharraf emphasized such acts that have been taking place from time to time, are not in any conceivable way in Pakistan's interest and this must be realized and understood by Indian leadership. Y'think Pakland might turn the perps over to the Indos, when they Indos finally identify them? Didn't think so. Or that Pakland will shoot them, rather than turn them loose? Didn't think so.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 01:56 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
riiiggghhhttt
Careful probing is what your proctologist does. Rousting and arresting (or worse) is what aresponsible government does, Perv. It shows how bad Pakland is that this is all they can generate in condemnations. I forsee really bad things on the line of control this year
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2003 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
The biggest Deobandi militant group, Harkat-ul Mujahideen, declared a Foreign Terrorist Organisation by the US State Department in 1998 and banned by Pakistan in November 2001 has re-christened itself Jamiat-ul Ansar. Man, these Pakistani and Afghan Jihadi groups change their names and split up and merge so often it is impossible to keep track.
It's that childish love of false noses and moustaches and assumed names...
The new group, JA, also comprises a breakaway faction of another jihadi group Harkat-ul Jihad-e-Islami (HJI). TFT has learnt that there was some pressure initially on HM to merge with Jamiat-ul Mujahideen, yet another jihadi group. However, this plan could not be executed because of resistance within HM. Indeed, the dissent led to a group breaking away from HM and calling itself Harkat-ul Mujahideen Al Aalmi (HMA). HMA is the group responsible for the suicide bombings in Karachi and also two abortive attempts on the life of General Pervez Musharraf. Most of its activists and its top leader are presently under arrest. It has also had links with the sectarian Deobandi terrorist organisation, Lashkar-e Jhangvi. So the HM, instead of merging with JM, decided to reincarnate itself as JA. When Pakistani authorities moved in November 2001 to ban the group and freeze its assets, it suffered a major setback. It got a second shock when some of its activists and leaders broke away to form the HMA. However, reports suggest it has since found its feet and is now operating under a new name. The organisation still retains links, like other groups, with Taliban remnants and al-Qaeda terrorists. They are all symptoms of the same disease
The leaders of HJI that have joined the JA are Maulana Abdul Samad Sial (patron), Commander Illias Kashmiri (commander-in-chief), Doctor Badar Niazi and others. Qari Saif Ullah Akhter and Mualana Ahmed Umer of HJI have still not joined the new organisation and continue to keep their independent identity.
"Programs! Getcher programs! Y'can't tell the jihadis without a program!"
According to JA sources, Dr Sher Ali Shah of Jamia Akora Khatak has played a major role in the unification of both organisations. He is still actively trying to get the HJI to join up with JA. Interestingly, when HM approached Jaish-e Muhammad (JeM) to convince its leader Maulana Masood Azher to join up with them, he refused to do so. It must be noted that Azhar after being sprung from an Indian jail had chosen to from his own group, JeM and broke away from HM. However, JA sources say âour doors are still open for him and other activists of Jaishâ.
"We can always use experienced help..."
Harkat-ul Mujahideen, now JA, has gone through many incarnations over the years. It was formed in 1987. In 1993, HM merged with Harkatul Jihad al Islami to form what came to be known as Harkat-ul Ansar. In 1995, an organisation called Al Faran kidnapped some foreign tourists in Indian-held Kashmir. The two commanders â Abdul Hammed Turkey and Commander Sekander â who set up Al Faran belonged to HM. Subsequently, the US declared Al Faran an FTO. Meanwhile, Harkat-ul Ansar had split into two factions over the Al Faran issue. The HJI faction blamed Maulana Khalil of HM for allowing this to happen since the two commanders who set up Al Faran belonged to his group. Maulana Khalil came under pressure and denounced Al Faran. Both commanders were killed later, which made it easy for Khalil to detach himself from Al Faran. But the issue kept hanging fire and finally in 1996, the HI split formally. Both groups reverted to their previous identities.
"Mahmoud, do you ever wake up the the morning and wonder who you really are?"
"Who the hell are you?"
The HM suffered a major setback when Mualana Masood Azher formed JeM in February 2000. A large number of HM activists joined JeM and Azharâs organisation also captured HM assets in the Punjab. The feuding also cost HM the lives of some of its activists. Sources say later Osama bin Laden compensated HM for the losses sustained by it after the JeM captured its assets and deprived it of its funds. Azhar didn't want to go back to being just a Lt. when he could lead his own band of frothing at the mouth fanatics
According to some reports, Mualana Fazl ur Rehman Khalil was busy trying to save his outfit since last year. He seems to have got a new lease of life following electoral gains by the Mutahidda Majlis-e-Amal in the 2002 elections. Sources say he is being protected by some MMA ministers. The NWFP government has also freed over 100 arrested activists of Khalilâs group What a shocking and unexpected development!
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
03/27/2003 01:45 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wish we could see hostile takeovers on some of these groups, complete with good old American downsizing.
#4
On September 10, 2001, Pakistan was near dead. While India was in a boom period, investment in the terror state was next to nil. Now with US aid pouring into Pakistan, NWFP and Balochistan are flush with American jihad subsidies. Thanks to US short-sightedness, NWFP has been able to institute free education, in the Deobandi-Salafi madrasas. If the democracies abandoned the terror state, it would break up into four hostile pieces, two of which would live in eternal hostility to the Punjabi-Pashto savages. The handful of al-Qaeda operatives that Pakistan arrests in Jamaat-i-Islami safe-houses are not worth the costly subsidies to the worst basket case in Asia. Let that territorial junk-pile collapse.
From Stratfore: No Link - Need Subscription
Update: Syria Opens Borders
Mar 28, 2003 - 0212 GMT
A report that Syria will open its borders to Syrians who wish to fight alongside Iraqi forces comes on the same day that Syria's highest religious authority, Sheikh Ahmad Kuftaro, called on Muslims to conduct suicide missions against Western forces in the region.
The Syrian government to this point had tried to dissuade volunteers from carrying out attacks and had closed the border with Iraq, though there were reports that some people were sneaking across or bribing border guards. This latest report indicates the government has made the decision to open the border.
Posted by: Scott Ross ||
03/27/2003 08:41 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
This could be a great way for Syria to rid itself of extremists. In a post Saddam world, a Syrian government forced to deal with the new reality will be much more stable without them.
From several other reports, it also looks like Hezbollah and Al Queda troops (at least the cannon fodder types) are also converging on Baghdad. This could be good news on the terrorism front.
Posted by: Dave ||
03/27/2003 21:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I've been wondering which of the three remaining largest supporters of terroism was next, Iran, Syria or the House of Sa'ud. Looks like we just might have a volunteer.
I would be intersted in buying a square in the office pool on just how long Syria stands up between Israel and the US, think I'll put my dollar on the 32 minute square.
Posted by: Peter ||
03/27/2003 21:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It is a long, long drive from the Syrian border to Baghdad. Better just stay in Syria and trash a McDonald's. No Warthogs in Syria. Yet.
#5
I say please open the borders. Wanna fight for Saddam? No problem, come on in. There's plenty of dirt. We'll find a place to bury your ass.
Posted by: Mark ||
03/27/2003 21:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
this also from Stratfore on the weirdness of the Syrians- edited tosave space
Summary
The Syrian government may be shifting its heretofore passive position concerning the war against Iraq, placing mounting emphasis on anti-war rhetoric and even picking diplomatic spats with other Arab states. Although Damascus' motivations are unclear, given the heightened tensions in the region, the consequences could be dear.
Analysis
Syria has demonstrated strange behavior and an aggressively anti-war stance in recent days -- with officials taking pot shots at Egypt and allegedly allowing busloads of Syrians to head to Iraq to fight against U.S. and British forces. On March 27, the country's most senior mufti called for suicide strikes against allied forces in Iraq, and Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview with a Lebanese daily that the country would not wait until it becomes the next U.S. target.
Stratfor has written extensively on the Syrian position regarding the war in Iraq. Until recently, Damascus has shown passive acceptance of military action there: Its United Nations delegate voted in favor of Security Council Resolution 1441 and, more important, Syria has maintained behind-the-scenes dialogue with the United States despite rhetoric condemning U.S. war plans.
Now Damascus seems to be changing that position. Rather than showing quiet acceptance and passivity, it is actively encouraging anti-war activity and sentiment. The question is why. The government's motivations remain unclear: They could be tied to internal unrest, which Assad is trying to direct it outward. However, if so, Damascus is taking a very real risk not just of alienating Washington but of being labeled an Iraqi ally and therefore a legitimate war target. The Bush administration so far has kept silent on Syria's hostile rhetoric, but it will not be able to remain so if Damascus takes more serious steps toward supporting Iraq.
Another motivation for the recent behavior might be that Damascus fears U.S. attacks against suspected Syrian weapons of mass destruction (WMD) assets. "Stray" missiles have been hitting southwestern Iran, and Syria might fear that it too could be a target of "stray" coalition bombs. But suspected chemical weapons plants are near Aleppo, Damascus and Homs, nowhere near the Syria-Iraq border. Moreover, Iran and Saudi Arabia likely rank higher than Syria on the U.S. hit list, given that both are tied much more closely to al Qaeda and Tehran's nuclear program is thought to be more advanced even than Iraq's.
Finally, Damascus realizes that if it enters the U.S.-Iraq war on the side of Baghdad, Israel is likely to want to step in. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon could not tolerate any chance of an Iraqi-Syrian victory, however slim, and would be unwilling to sit on the sidelines at that point.
There is no evidence to suggest that the Syrian military is about to get involved in the fight in Iraq -- but the government in Damascus is acting bizarrely, and that is bound to impact Syrian military actions.
Posted by: scott ||
03/27/2003 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Taking a more cynical view:
Syria knows Iraq is losing. Syria knows that the last busload of wanna-be Feydaheen got met by a missle from an American F-16 on Iraqi terriroty. Syria knows it will have to stop acting up once the Coalition takes Iraq down, or else they become the next target.
So how to get rid of the troublemakers who would push the government into conflict with the US? Hmm, how about letting them take busses over to Iraq to let the US burn the trash for him?
Let the borders be "open" but have your border guards report the time, vehicle, and number of people headed in. And do that on an open frequency where you know the US NSA is listening.
#8
It is safer for Syria to provide an outlet into the waiting arms of the 3rd Inf and 101st Airborne. However, the real question is whether once they give a green light they can keep the Hezbollah from engaging Israel?
#9
Hey might as well fight your inevitable war on someone elses turf.Bring on diaper brigade Two.If were lucky maybe some frenchies will join forces also.
Al-Independent, so a grain of salt is appropriate:
This dusty, impoverished corner of Jordan is making the country's authorities nervous. For one thing, there is the protest against the war in Iraq that the people of Maan plan to hold today â a protest they call the "march of the coffins".
Then there is the military base at Jafr, 50 miles away in the desert, where locals say they have seen hundreds of US soldiers arrive in the last few months, plus trucks carrying tanks and armoured vehicles. Hope this is right, but these folks seem to have paranoid imaginations.
Salfa abu Tayi â the grand-daughter of Auda abu Tayi, the Bedouin fighter of Lawrence of Arabia fame â says she has seen US soldiers at the base, and tanks covered with canvas. It is an open secret that small teams of US, and possibly British, special forces are operating in western Iraq out of Jordan.
Out at the Jafr military base, Blackhawk helicopters could be seen flying in â confirming one part of her story. It was not possible to confirm any more before Jordanian security arrived to say the road was closed.
The Jordanian government has admitted there are 6,000 US troops here, but says they are only here to protect Jordan from Iraqi missile attack and train Jordanian troops. All true. Hope there's more.
Sheikh Mohamid is the head of a committee formed several years ago because of perceived government injustices towards Maan. He says: "The government of Jordan made a shameful decision to participate in this war by allowing these troops to go to Iraq."
He also claims he saw tanks being driven to Jafr on trucks. And he names Jordanian companies contracted to provide facilities for US soldiers at the base. The protest is called "the march of the coffins", he says, because "this is a message that we are ready to die, to condemn the government". Maybe he can get on one of those busses heading east.
an interesting memo from Stratfore to it's analysists on about what you are reporting may not be really what is happening and how to avoid that- worth a read- sorry link will not work- need subscription
Mar 27, 2003 - 1805 GMT
Note to readers: This is an internal Stratfor document produced to provide high-level guidance to our analysts. It is not a forecast but rather a series of guidelines for understanding and evaluating events, with suggestions on areas for focus. We thought it might be of value to our readers, so we are sharing it.
The initial assault by the coalition was completed about two days ago. We are now in a consolidation phase that will be marked by relatively few significant operations in the south. You will be seeing the following activities:
1: Resupply
2: Attacks on pockets of resistance
3: Redeployment of forces
4: Active reconnaissance, particularly on the part of the Iraqis, who lack air recon ability.
Units will be showing up in different places than you last tracked them. You will hear about fighting in places you thought were pacified days ago. You will hear about supply problems, because these will be filtering back to HQ and will be in the process of being solved. You will possibly be hearing about supply units getting lost and killed in mine fields or in encounters with stray Iraqis. Also, you will be seeing "counterattacks" by Iraqi armored scout vehicles that are out there looking to map U.S. positions. Expect also exfiltration by Iraqis in isolated pockets moving east and north in an attempt to escape and rejoin main Iraqi forces. This process will result in encounter engagements, that will include short, sharp firefights and occasional deployments of helicopters and AFVs depending on size and location. These should not be mistaken for major battles.
The major question in the south is what the final deployment of the British units will be. Most of them are in pretty good shape, having seen relatively limited high-intensity fighting and having moved relatively little. They have also been in pretty good supply. There is more than a division of Brits down there -- wherever they go will represent a major axis of effort in the future.
There is some evidence of probes under way toward Al Kut or northwest toward the main line of resistance. This is tactical probing of the lines. No major assaults will be carried out until greater force is brought to bear. The Marines will need to have additional armor before assaulting Al Kut, for example. This may be where the Brits go when they finish in the Basra area.
One issue will be air strikes. The weather is clear. If there are no massive strikes in the Karbala-Al Hillah-Al Kut area, this will indicate either that there are no major forces in the region, or that there are and no major assault is planned. Watch the air strikes and watch the mix between tac-air and strat-air.
The action in the north is in its very early stages. We will likely see a heavy airlift consisting of C-17s and C-130s bringing in troops. The question to look for: Are they bringing in equipment or supplies, or are those on the ground already? No major operations can be expected in that region for several days. Try to figure out what the mission is up there. At this point, the 173rd is providing security for the air fields. Where the follow-on troops go will be the key.
Over the next 24 hours, expect to see a large number of media stories with two themes -- the logistics foul-up for the 3rd ID and Marines and that the fighting was much heavier than reported. The former will result from inexperienced reporters who have seen what they think is chaos in resupplying units, coupled with interviews with troops griping about the service. In addition, when interviewing combat soldiers on a badly needed break, griping and heroic bullshit are ancient rites and traditions. Reporters listening to this will conclude that all rear-echelon personnel are hopeless screwups and every engagement was the Battle of the Bulge. With reporters present, the tales will become mighty indeed. Investigate reports with a jaundiced eye.
REPORT ANY INFORMATION OF ACTIVITY, REGARDLESS OF HOW SLIGHT, FROM THE DESERT WEST OF THE EUPHRATES BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH OF BAGHDAD, EXCLUDING THE IMMEDIATE AREA OF THE EUPHRATES FROM KARBALA TO KUWAIT. WATCH THE WESTERN AND NORTHERN DESERTS CAREFULLY.
Posted by: Scott Ross ||
03/27/2003 07:09 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Look to the West, young man, look to the West.
It's quiet, too quiet.
50/50 the Fourth comes charging out of the West. Some of those ships from Turkey ought to be in Kuwait, if that was where they were really going. Any such reports?
#2
Watch Tikrit, hometown of the Big Moustache, his tribe and the source of his political power and most loyal goons. If the bad guys want to hold hostages, the good guys can do the same to Tikrit. First sniff of VX and Tikrit goes poof in a cloud of MOAB fumes.
#3
you may be right Chuck- this just of fof Strafore:
U.S. Officials: Coalition Troops Now Control Large Swath Of Western Iraq
Mar 28, 2003 - 0236 GMT
U.S. special forces -- who have been conducting secret operations in western Iraq -- have taken control of a portion of the west that spans 275 km (170 miles), from the Jordan-Iraq border to the Mudaysis airfield, U.S. military officials claim. The area is mainly unpopulated desert, but it contains a few airfields and locations where coalition officials believe SCUD missiles might be hidden.
Also didnt Debka claim something about the 101st coming up the Iraq-Saudi border then turning upsomewhere West of the Karbala
Posted by: scott ||
03/27/2003 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I mentioned this 2 days ago when the 101st Div disappeared from the news, along with a brigade of the 82nd Airborne, and all of the 75th Rangers. And nobody has been mentioning H1 since it was captured.
Also, the 2nd ACR has disappeared from what I can gather.
The 2nd is an experimental unit, in the process of transitioning from light Hummvee to Strikers next year, as they transitioned from Bradleys/M1's to Humvees last decade.
They are part of the XVII Airborne Corps and are the designated Cavalry Regiment for that corps- very mobile, very well armed, very agressive and very well trained. Look up the regiment's history against the RG's in the last ware (I was there, part of regimental S2 for the 2ACR).
Due to its lght nature, this unit could be airlifted part and parcel with a C17 surge in less than 48 hours. Think "Rat Patrol", except much more well armed, and equipped with a troop (company) of Apaches and a battery of mobile field artillery.
#5
Yeah, it does seem that everything that heads out west tends to convieniently disappear. What kind of Godzilla force are they forming out there? Enquiring minds...
A Christian Science Monitor reporter, who had not been officially embedded but managed to hook up with a U.S. Marine unit south of Baghdad earlier this week, was kicked out of the unit and escorted by Marines out of Iraq after he reportedly revealed the unit's location during a television interview. Philip Smucker, who joined the First Marine Division on Sunday along with Monitor photographer Andy Nelson, was interviewed on CNN early Wednesday morning and disclosed the approximate location of the unit, according to Monitor spokesman Jay Jostyn. He said the newspaper had not spoken with Smucker, who was being escorted back to the Kuwait border, but believed his comments had not been detrimental to the Marines. "Given the fact that he was not embedded, he had not undergone the same sort of preparations that the other embedded reporters had gone through," Jostyn said, explaining why Smucker might have inadvertently broken the rules. "I'm not sure how soon it will be that we hear from him." Tell him to piss off and not come back. We didn't want to hear from him that time...
Smucker and Nelson were able to embed with the Marine unit after traveling from Kuwait City late Saturday night to the Iraq border in a Mitsubishi Pajero SUV that they purchased from a Kuwait used car lot for $4,500. In a Monitor story published Monday, Smucker, 41, described how the pair of journalists were welcomed into the Marine unit just before it crossed into Iraq and stayed with them over several hundred miles on the trek to Baghdad. Smucker was expelled while the unit was about 60 miles south of the Iraqi capital, Jostyn said. The difficulties began after Smucker was interviewed on CNN, Jostyn said, and apparently revealed more information about the unit's location than the unit commander would have liked. He also gave a similar location description to National Public Radio, according to The Washington Post, which also reported that Marines searched some of his belongings prior to expelling him from the unit. "My understanding of the facts at this point from the commander on the ground is that this reporter was reporting, in real time, positions, locations, and activities of units engaged in combat," Bryan Whitman, deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, said in a statement to the Monitor. "The commander felt it was necessary and appropriate to remove [Smucker] from his immediate battle space in order not to compromise his mission or endanger personnel of his unit." That's the sort of horsecrap a lot of us suspected from the embedded reporters, that hasn't surfaced anywhere else yet that I'm aware of. He's either stoopid, or a self-important jerkhhroid that the rules don't apply to. The Marines are much better off without him...
Monitor Editor Paul Van Slambrouck defended Smucker's actions in a column slated to run in Friday's paper. "Smucker's work in the Monitor is not at issue, but we have read the transcript of the CNN interview and it does not appear to us that he disclosed anything that wasn't already widely available in maps and in US and British radio, newspaper, and television reports on that same newscycle," the column said. "They're pickin' on our boy for nuttin', nuttin', I tell yez!"
"Of course, the Pentagon has the final say in the field about any threat the information reported might pose. We are disappointed Smucker has been removed. He is an experienced war correspondent who understands the gravity of such situations and not one who would knowingly put U.S. troops â and himself â in jeopardy. Even during his short time in Iraq, he gave Monitor readers valuable insights into the campaign." "He didn't do it on purpose. He's just stoopid."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 06:39 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I was watching Larry King, who had a guy from Al-Jiz on. He says they've got a guy embedded with the Marines. They must just LOVE him.
British military interrogators claim captured Iraqi soldiers have told them that al-Qaeda terrorists are fighting on the side of Saddam Hussein's forces against allied troops near Basra. At least a dozen members of Osama bin Laden's network are in the town of Az Zubayr where they are coordinating grenade and gun attacks on coalition positions. It was believed that last night (Thursday) British forces were preparing a military strike on the base where the al-Qaeda unit was understood to be holed up. A senior British military source inside Iraq said: "The information we have received from PoWs today is that an al-Qaeda cell may be operating in Az Zubayr. There are possibly around a dozen of them and that is obviously a matter of concern to us." If terrorists are found, it would be the first proof of a direct link between Saddam's regime and Osama bin Laden. The connection would give credibility to the argument that Tony Blair used to justify war against Saddam — a "nightmare scenario" in which he might eventually pass weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 06:02 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Have you seen this picture? Same story though.
http://www.hk94.com/weblog
Posted by: Tall King ||
03/27/2003 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
At the bottom of the article:
This is a pooled despatch from Gethin Chamberlain of The Scotsman.
---
#3
The cockroaches have crawled out from under the outhouses. Welcome back you al-Qaeda slim. We had reason to believe you were visiting Uncle Saddam. Oh yes, I know...you esacaped the Great Satan in Tora Bora in one piece. Round Two is about to begin. Place your bets.
Posted by: Mark ||
03/27/2003 18:57 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Have you seen this picture? Same story though.
http://www.hk94.com/weblog
Posted by: Tall King ||
03/27/2003 19:02 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Hmm. Perhaps that's why the British are on the East flank.
#6
SMH, as I gather from the inimitable Tim Blair , bats from the left side of the plate. Of course that's a generalization, but I wouldn't look for them to reprint anything Bush-vindicating unless they believed it true.
Not that it wouldn't be easy to backpedal, what with all the "claim," "believe," and "if" going around.
Posted by: (lowercase) matt ||
03/27/2003 20:50 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The Scotsman is an extremely reliable newspaper; just the facts, most of the time. They also seem to have reporters with extensive knowledge and incredible sources. MB has been using their stuff for well over a year, now.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld suggested on Thursday that U.S. forces bearing down on Baghdad might lay siege to the capital and hope anti-Saddam Hussein citizens rise up against the government before American troops have to invade the city of 5 million.
Rumsfeld also said the United States and its battlefield allies would accept nothing short of total victory in Iraq. ``There isn't going to be a cease-fire,'' Rumsfeld told the Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee. He said later, ``It will end at the point where that regime does not exist and a new regime is ready to go in its place.''
Rumsfeld appeared before two congressional committees Thursday amid efforts by the Bush administration to counteract speculation that the war effort is bogging down and that it underestimated the need for armored forces to protect attacking U.S. troops' long supply lines inside Iraq.
The defense secretary said there is a near-continuous flow of fresh U.S. forces into the Persian Gulf, noting that 1,000 paratroopers from the Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade jumped into northern Iraq on Wednesday. He estimated that between 1,500 and 2,500 troops are arriving daily.
The total number of American forces in the Gulf region stands at 250,000. Close to 90,000 are in Iraq, a senior defense official said Thursday. That's an increase of some 13,000 since Tuesday.
Asked by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., what American ground troops would do once they reached Baghdad, Rumsfeld answered by alluding to what is happening at Basra, Iraq's second-largest city. British forces there have laid siege, hoping for a successful uprising by the city's Shiites.
Rumsfeld noted that both Basra and Baghdad have large Shiite populations. ``And they are not terribly favorable to the regime,'' Rumsfeld said. ``They've been repressed, and they are in the present time in Basra assisting us.'' He said that roughly half the Baghdad population is Shiite.
``The regime has tended to be fearful of them and repress them,'' he said. Rumsfeld said he expected Saddam's loyalists to shoot any Iraqi troops in Baghdad who try to surrender and those who might try to assist U.S. forces.
``We will go through a period where we'll have to deal with that problem,'' he said.
Rumsfeld did not say how long Gen. Tommy Franks, the war commander, would wait before launching the final phase of the attack on Baghdad. He left little doubt, however, that Franks has a plan for fighting the 30,000 or so Republican Guard troops north, south and east of Baghdad.
``I think it's only reasonable to expect that it will require the coalition forces moving through some Republican Guard units and destroying them or capturing them before you'll see the crumbling of the regime,'' he said.
If the war reaches that stage, the large Shiite population in Baghdad might feel emboldened to revolt, Rumsfeld said, obviating the need for an invasion that could result in heavy losses. The wire is beginning to tighten around Sammy's neck. I'm waiting for the eyes to bug out.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 05:49 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
anti-Saddam Hussein citizens rise up against the government
It ain't gonna happen. This will be Rumsfeld's second miscalculation.
The only way I see this happening is if American forces take and hold a part of the city, allowing the anti-Saddam population to sneak in, re-arm, and go after the pro-Saddam thugs.
Revolts don't happen without a spark and fuel source. Surrounding the city will not be enough of a spark.
#2
anti-Saddam Hussein citizens rise up against the government
It ain't gonna happen. This will be Rumsfeld's second miscalculation.
The only way I see this happening is if American forces take and hold a part of the city, allowing the anti-Saddam population to sneak in, re-arm, and go after the pro-Saddam thugs.
Revolts don't happen without a spark and fuel source. Surrounding the city will not be enough of a spark.
#3
Just be prepared for TV out of Baghdad of bug eyed starving little children and their mothers on the Kim Il Jong(tm) diet. Of course the thugs will be well fed, but that doesn't make good theater to beam across the world on the We-Hate-America Network(tm). You just got a taste of cheap propaganda with the explosion in the Baghdad marketplace. It's not what we believe, it is what the world believes. And if we weren't concerned about World Opinion(tm) why would we be making such a great effort in reducing potential Iraqi civilian and military casualties? The Siege(tm) will be just as destructive as a direct assault in civilian casualties and the noise of the WHA Network.
Posted by: Don ||
03/27/2003 19:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Rummie should study the German siege of Leningrad. And Stalin wasn't even in town. And of course Hitler didn't give a damn about how many people would die of hunger. The more the better.
A siege would kill any chance Americans could later be seen as liberators. And America has no chance to pacify Iraq while being seen as a hostile occupant.
The RG will not roam the streets, they will hide in the houses to shoot at anything moving.
The key to Iraq is not Baghdad, it's Saddam. ONLY Saddam.
#5
Don't be too hard on Rummy. He's playing mind games with some bad-assed characters in Baghdad.
Posted by: john ||
03/27/2003 20:52 Comments ||
Top||
#6
He's also playing mind games with a bunch of idiots in the State Department, and several dozen left-wing newspapers in the States, as well. The world will not be the same place in six months. Let's just hope the changes will be for the better.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 21:31 Comments ||
Top||
#7
For years we have had arguements back and forth regarding whether or not to engage in dis-information as a matter of government policy. It is now appearant that the best practioner of this art is the SecDef himself. He uses verbal sleight of hand as well as a master magician does prestidigitation. He never tells a lie, but he mis-directs the media wonderfully. What the media has not as yet learned in this campaign in Irag, is that the DoD is using them to make Saddam chase his tail. It could end up being one of the milestones of modern warfare policy.
Drew
WARSAW, Poland (AP) - Poland's defense minister scolded President Bush and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Thursday for publicly describing the actions of Polish commandos in Iraq, saying the U.S. leaders shouldn't use the troops ``for propaganda.''
Bush on Wednesday told U.S. troops at the Army's Central Command in Florida that Polish troops had secured an Iraqi oil platform in the Persian Gulf, while Rumsfeld praised the Poles' professionalism.
But Jerzy Szmajdzinski said the country's troops in Iraq include members of the elite GROM commando special forces unit, and said Warsaw doesn't want information about their activities discussed. ``It is not good when a politician - even if his name is George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld - talks about the actions of special forces,'' Szmajdzinski told Polish state Radio 1. ``We are happy with the high grades given to Polish troops but we are not happy with their use for propaganda.''
More than two-thirds of Poles are against the U.S.-led war in Iraq, although the government has supported the United States and has approved the use of up to 200 Polish troops, including 56 GROM members. It's ok, Jerzy, say what you have to say at home, we still appreciate the Polish special forces oh my was I allowed to mention them here?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 05:45 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Seems the government has more brains than the average Polish citizen. People identify themselves more with Germany & France, hoping that once the flood gates to Old Europe are opened, all their economic problems will disappear. A particular slogan comes to mind: "Once we join the EU every Polish citizen will get a Mercedes-Benz... to wash."
#2
What's Jerzy so pissed about? God Bless the Poles.
The GROM (the few, the proud, the GROM) are very hip. Thank you, Poland.
Posted by: Mark ||
03/27/2003 18:45 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Why is it that the polls always show the citizens of our coalition partners as being overwhelmingly against the U.S. and this war, and yet their soldiers appear to be ready, willing and almost eager to attend? No one ever takes a poll of the combat soldier.
#4
Seems the government has more brains than the average Polish citizen. People identify themselves more with Germany & France, hoping that once the flood gates to Old Europe are opened, all their economic problems will disappear. A particular slogan comes to mind: "Once we join the EU every Polish citizen will get a Mercedes-Benz... to wash."
Excerpt from a longer al-Guardian article to provide the latest:
British forces destroyed 14 Iraqi tanks outside the southern city of Basra early today in what was believed to have been the largest tank battle involving British armour since the second world war. "We beat Rommel, and now we're going to beat Sammy!"
Coalition forces first engaged with a larger Iraqi armoured column of about 120 T55 tanks heading south out of Basra towards British lines last night. The Iraqi column was forced to disperse after coalition air and artillery assaults.
Then early today British Challenger tanks appear to have encountered a squadron of Iraqi tanks that had been dispersed during the earlier attacks. The British armour, attacking while moving, destroyed all 14 of the Iraqi tanks thought to be a breakaway group. Good shooting, lads!
Captain Al Lockwood, the British military spokesman at US central command forward headquarters in Qatar, said this morning's tank battle was a "very quick, short, sharp engagement". "Didn't miss lunch, nope."
Four armoured personnel carriers were also destroyed by the Challengers, which fire depleted uranium shells at a rate of up to eight per minute. One British tank officer said it was "like the bicycle against the motor car". Or a Challenger against a T-55. What Iraqi armor officer in his right mind thought he could take on the Brits in the open field?
An RAF source said significant numbers of British aircraft were involved in strikes on the main Iraqi convoy which as well as Iraqi tanks, included type 59 artillery pieces and armoured personnel carriers.
US Navy F/A-18 Super Hornets and RAF Harrier ground attack jets dropped precision-guided munitions and cluster bombs on the Iraqi armour. From the ground, it was pounded by 155mm AS90 heavy British artillery. I think the scrap even bounced.
The convoy was heading south-east along roads close to the border with Iran and towards British forces on al-Faw peninsula when it was spotted by coalition helicopters.
British military chiefs said it was "madness" for the Iraqis to move in such force on the open desert plains risking air strikes, rather than stay in the relative safety of Basra. The Iraqi convoy was especially vulnerable after it had left the main road and begun to scatter into open countryside, much of which has been turned into a muddy quagmire after 24 hours of torrential rain.
Major Mick Green, the officer commanding the battle room of 40 Commando, which has secured the area on al-Faw peninsula, said: "We have no idea why this column has come out at the moment ... to move tanks around in daylight is suicide." But the commander of the UK's forces in Iraq, Air Marshal Brian Burridge, had a theory about the motivation for the move. He claimed Iraqi soldiers in Basra were being forced by Saddam Hussein's security forces to get into their tanks and attack the encircling British forces. Either way, they're dead. They could have turned those T-55s on the Fedayeen and done some good.
Air Marshal Burridge said that the Iraqi troops involved appeared to have been coerced by Ba'ath party militias in the city to fight, and added that there was evidence of "exemplar executions" to terrify the conscripts. "They go to their houses and hold a gun to the heads of their families," he told a news conference at central command. He said the militia "put them in their tanks and say 'go that way'". I still don't get it. Once you're in a T-55, if the Fedayeen aren't standing there with multiple RPGs, you're the one in control, not them.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 05:23 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They take the family to a different location. Hostage. Thats why.
As for why they moved the tanks like that? Well, the Brits deliberately left them a "hole" in the lines that they could take straight to Umm Qasr and the Al Faw. The rats took the cheese.
#2
These t-55 tanks can't be more than a 4 runner with a civil war cannon atop.To go along with the Iraqi navy,a fleet of ski-doos and one boston whaler.
Massive explosions rocked central Baghdad late Thursday night, sending a towering plume of smoke skyward in the strongest blasts felt in the city in days.
Shortly after 11 p.m. in Baghdad, explosions shook the capital near the city center. Buildings close to the Information Ministry appeared to have been hit, sending a huge plume of smoke skyward.
Loud explosions were heard in and around Baghdad again Thursday, and witnesses said an unknown number of people were killed and injured when a housing complex for employees of a weapons-producing facility came under attack. The Military Industrialization Authority of Iraq complex is in the Al-Youssifiah area, about 12 miles south of the capital.
Another blast about 700 yards west of the Information Ministry, possibly from a missile, sent scores of journalists fleeing. Anti-aircraft guns on the roof of the ministry opened fire, witnesses said, but there was no immediate information on damage or casualties.
One of Baghdad's main telephone facilities also was hit early Thursday, causing some disruptions in service.
Iraqi state television, which was still on the air, reported Thursday that Saddam chaired a meeting of the ruling Baath Party, his top aides and his son, Qusai. Although it did not show any video from that meeting, it said Saddam and the leadership urged Iraqi fighters to exploit what it called the "exhaustion" of coalition forces. Silent video was shown of another meeting of Saddam, Qusai and other party officials. They're not even pretending Uday is still around... Maybe his brain's still hemorrhaging...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 03:59 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Why in the world are they still hitting government offices in Baglady. The Iraqis are not completely brain dead. They have to off moved out any important files equipment ect. a long time ago. Better yet if we know where the Baath Party HQs are in every town and city start taking them down
Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire ||
03/27/2003 16:17 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Because Iraq has invested billions in redundant systems, and we will continue to dismantle them until they ain't got a crapper to crap in...
#3
Because sometimes one must take all structures down in order to start building something good. As a random example, let's imagine a Nazi/Baathist dictatorship that has terrorised millions of people for 30 years. It's far from being over.
Posted by: Kalle ||
03/27/2003 17:03 Comments ||
Top||
DAMASCUS, Syria -- Iraqi opposition groups called Thursday for a popular uprising to liberate the country from Iraqi "dictatorship" and outlined a detailed plan for the future of Iraq. Is it just me, or is Damascus just chock full of opposition groups of all stripes?
In a statement faxed to The Associated Press, the six-member Iraqi opposition leadership council -- set up this year to formulate policies for a post-Saddam Iraq -- urged the Iraqi armed forces to "sever ties with the Baghdad regime" and join them. Thanks for the fax. Now could you please come just a little closer to the frontlines.
...the opposition front would announce a transitional, broad-based coalition government to run the affairs of the country.
"Among its tasks would be to negotiate with coalition countries and the United Nations to find and destroy weapons of mass destruction and place a timetable for the withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq," the statement said.
#1
my understanding is that Chalabi is in kurdistan, as of course are the Kurdish leaders. Dont know if this is some other group in Damascus, of if this was just the closest AP office to fax it to.
A hilltop position where Iraqi forces had menaced Kurdish civilians for years fell Thursday, after several days of bombing by the U.S. military. Villagers and militiamen celebrated after Kurdish military commanders confirmed the Iraqis had abandoned the checkpoint and surrounding bunkers by mid-afternoon. The retreat came less than a day after U.S. paratroopers landed in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, opening a new front against Saddam Hussein's forces.
From the hills, the Iraqis had repeatedly shelled the Kurdish-controlled city of Chamchamal in the 1990s, making the checkpoint and barracks symbols of repression for the Kurds.
On Thursday, Kurdish militiamen gathered up mines along the road, while residents drove, rode bicycles or walked to the checkpoint cheering. "The people here have looked up at this line for 12 years and they saw a chance to go up there and they took it," said Rostam Hamid Rahim, a high-level Kurdish military commander. Abbas Kaka drove up with a truckload of young people. "All the bunkers are empty," he said. "It's all right to go up there."
After the hilltop position fell, Kurdish forces swept the area in case the Iraqis had planned an ambush. Kurdish peshmerga guerrilla forces then took over the checkpoint and the Bani Maqem barracks, Rahim said. The barracks are close to the line that separates the Kurdish-held section of northern Iraq from territory under the control of the Iraqi president. By nightfall, it was believed the Iraqis had retreated west to Qarah Anjir, 16 miles from Chamchamal. However, Rahim said there was no evidence of Saddam's forces falling at other defense positions between Chamchamal and Iraqi-controlled Kirkuk, a key oil city 22 miles to the east.
After years of oppression, some Kurds, encouraged by the Iraqi retreat, were eager to press forward and return to their hometowns, even though the communities remained under Iraqi control. "We're ready to go back to our lives in Kirkuk," said 29-year-old Ali Mustawfa. But Rahim wanted to prevent such movement. Kurdish officials have promised the Americans they would not advance toward Kirkuk, which is predominantly Kurdish, without U.S. approval. The Americans fear a Kurdish move on the Iraqi-controlled city could prompt the Turkish military to invade northern Iraq. Ankara fears that Iraqi Kurds will take over Kirkuk to create an independent, oil-rich homeland that would inspire Turkey's Kurdish minority to revolt. Even if we go in first, I don't think it's going to be possible to keep the Kurds out. The next is for you, Fred.
Meanwhile, a Toyota Land Cruiser filled with explosives was stopped Thursday at a Kurdish checkpoint in Gerdigo, the same place where a car bomb killed an Australian reporter last Saturday. The bomb apparently failed to detonate and Kurdish security men shot to death the driver, a member of Ansar al-Islam, an Islamic group with alleged al-Qaida and Baghdad ties. Oops, I guess he didn't get the memo about amnesty.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 03:45 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well, at least Mahmoud ended up with his flat-chested 12-year-olds in the end.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/27/2003 20:13 Comments ||
Top||
The US forces, deployed in northern parts of Iraq, are targeted by missiles, said an Iraqi spokesman Hazem al-Rawi in Baghdad on Thursday. Al-Rawi told a press conference that Iraq had fired 44 Tariq missiles and seven Raad missiles on US forces in northern Iraq. He did not mention any damage or casualty as well as exact locations of the targets, saying Iraq had predicted the spots the forces would infiltrate. He said the so-called `Qods Army' voluntary forces were engaged in battle with the coalition forces in the south of Iraq. He added that Qods army with the capacity of about seven million volunteers has been formed to operate in Iraq as the second major resistance force after Intifada Second squad of Palestine to strive for liberation of noble Qods. I don't think that last sentence makes any sense...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 02:32 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suppose those would be 44 "Tariq Aziz" missiles and 7 "Where's Raed" missiles?
Something always seems to be lost in the translation.... heh!
#3
Qods = Jerusalem. I translate this as the Jerusalem Army of 7 million volunteers was formed as a backup in Iraq to the Intifada Second squad of Palestine striving to liberate noble Jerusalem. Maybe they planned to all go help their buddy Yasser kick the Jews out. They just never got around to it.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#4
He did not mention any damage or casualty as well as exact locations of the targets, saying Iraq had predicted the spots the forces would infiltrate.
Uh huh. If they did predict the locations, it seems to me they would have had forces nearby waiting, instead of firing missiles.
He added that Qods army with the capacity of about seven million volunteers has been formed....
In Saddam's Iraq, the vast number of army personnel aren't likely to be "volunteers", at least not after Gulf War I.
Military clashes are raging south of Najaf between the coalition and Iraqi forces. Al-Madineh division of Iraqi presidential guards are reportedly engaged in clashes with the US and British forces. US news sources as well as Iraqi radio and TV have confirmed the heavy battle about 100 kms south of Najaf.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 02:30 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
Sounds of RPG and machine gun fires are audible in Tanumeh, an industrial and residential township near the Iraqi city of Basra in vicinity of border with Iran. Tanumeh is about 10 kms from Iran's southwestern city of Shalamcheh on the zero border point with Iraq and military movements in the area is easily visible through camera. The US and British forces are reportedly trying to siege Basra, considering Tanumeh as a bridge for access to the city. Basra, the second largest city in Iraq with a population of 1.2 million, is strongly resisting extensive invasion by US and British forces both on the ground and the air.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 02:28 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
American helicopters overflying Al-Emareh to the north of Basra on Thursday afternoon, parachuted a number of commandos in the region. Simultaneous with the city's air raids and bombardments, American and English ground forces are reported to be approaching the city in armored vehicles. Iraqi forces in Al-Emareh attempted to block the advance of the invading forces by diverting the flow of Tigris river to the desert area. The Iraqi military forces are firing on US and British troops using artillery and semi-heavy armaments. Meanwhile, huge explosions from the artillery fired by both the warring parties were heard in the outskirts of Basra this afternoon. Concurrent to the continuous artillery fire near Basra, another battle with heavy and semi-heavy armaments was underway in Tanoumeh war front, a township in the outskirts of Basra. Looks like they're finally going in... Good luck to them!
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 02:18 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Isn't that how Alexander the Great took Babylon?
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/27/2003 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Parachuted from helicopters? Don't they do fast-roping from helis or just land? Under what circumstances do they jump from helicopters?
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/27/2003 15:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm more interested in just how they were planning to divert the Tigris River into the desert. This is from an Iranian source, I've heard they've been having a big problem with drugs. I think this is proof.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Isn't that how Alexander the Great took Babylon?
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
03/27/2003 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Dar - you don't get the Combat Airdrop wings for a rope drop. They look like normal jump wings, but with an enclosed five pointed star top and center. With the drop up north, there are now 1-2 thousand new owners. Don't want to be left behind.
Posted by: Don ||
03/27/2003 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#6
This must be the 101st Airborne. They are trained in air assault and also to parachute from helicopters. The 82nd airborne is also trained in helicopter parachute jumps.
#7
Good Lord - that's where the Iraqi 10th Armored Division (Regular Army) and the 4th Corps HQ is! The Iraqi 14th and 18th Mechanized Divisions are supposed to be a little ways south of that.
This of course assumes those units are still in their pre-war positions. There's also an airfield there and something called an Intercept Operations point according to the map I have.
As for the article, the poor iranian writer is pretzling himself to make sure he shows the devils (Iraq) getting the snot kicked out of them, without making the Great Satan (The US) look good for doing the kicking.
Iraqi forces withdrew to Basra on Thursday after a heavy battle with the coalition forces on Faw-Basra highway. The US and British forces, backed by ground support, dropped bombs on Iraqis' positions in the region to force them to pull out. Two Iraqi tanks, destroyed by the coalition, remain in the region. Iraqis had taken part in the operation with 14 tanks and armed personnel carriers. The clashes started as Iraqis managed to advance to about 40 kilometers from the occupied Faw port. Having spent ten years see-sawing back and forth with Sammy, at the cost of thousands of dead, over Faw, it must really gall the Medes and Persians to see control coming together for us after a week.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 02:15 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
All them Iranian human wave attacks in the marshes must look kinda silly now...
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
03/27/2003 15:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Heck, they looked kinda silly back then too....unless you were actually taking part in one.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/27/2003 15:59 Comments ||
Top||
Edited for length and to stay on topic, I hope this story is wrong:
GULA KHANA, Iraq -- As U.S. soldiers parachuted into Kurdish-held territory in northern Iraq on Wednesday, leaders here offered an amnesty deal to Muslim guerrillas that could help eliminate a threat to American troops in the region. Kurdish leaders extended an amnesty offer to some members of a militant Islamic group called Ansar al Islam, whose 500 to 700 guerrillas have been fighting Kurdish militias for control of a string of villages not far from the Iranian border. Nooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!
Ansar, which Washington alleges is tied to al-Qaida, has in recent months carried out suicide bombings and assassinated a high-ranking official in the autonomous Kurdish enclave. The Bush administration considers Ansar a terrorist group and says it sheltered lieutenants of Osama bin Laden during the U.S. bombing of Afghanistan. The group also was blamed for a car bomb attack Saturday that killed five people, including an Australian journalist. Which is why you don't give them amnesty!
About 60 Tomahawk cruise missiles have struck Ansar's territory since the war began, including five Wednesday. The amnesty offer, according to one Kurdish official, is an attempt to lure away less-radical fighters who may be shaken by the U.S. airstrikes. ''We see a lot of disarray in Ansar,'' said Barham Salih, prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which governs the eastern half of the Kurdish enclave. ''We sense some opportunity here.'' Then just kill them! Or arrest them and hand them over to us.
As the amnesty proposal was sent by courier to Ansar, another militant Muslim group, Komaly Islami, agreed in a de facto surrender to move 1,000 fighters out of its stronghold of Khurmal. U.S. officials and their Kurdish allies have feared that Ansar and Komaly would merge, giving the extremists nearly 2,000 guerrillas. But U.S. airstrikes have crippled Komaly's operations and killed 50 of its members. Komaly was stunned early Saturday when the first round of U.S. missiles battered its headquarters and military barracks. Unlike Ansar guerrillas, who had retreated to mountain hideouts, Komaly fighters stayed in their positions. Either dumb or they really didn't think they'd be targeted.
More than 1,000 Komaly members and their families, many of them wounded, attempted to escape by crossing into Iran. Fearing reprisals from the U.S., the Iranian military, which in the past had let Komaly members pass, turned them back. Iranian officials were dispatched in recent days to mediate the surrender of Komaly. That's the first I've heard of the Iranians being involved.
On Wednesday, 15 scared and angry Komaly fighters waited in a drizzle for their leader, Ali Bapir, to finalize the surrender. In the distance a bus carrying about 40 U.S. troops sped down the road, past bunkers and villages of mud brick homes. ''I don't think the U.S. is against all humanity,'' said Peshewa Mahmud Muhammed, a Komaly fighter with a blue scarf covering half his face. ''But I think the U.S. is against Muslims. It wants to frighten us.'' Bapir said his group does not consider America an enemy: ''I don't know if the U.S. hit us because we are Islamic. Is that enough of a reason? If there is a reason, the U.S. must tell us. If we have done anything wrong, the U.S. must tell us. If there is no reason, the U.S. must apologize.'' Maybe he really does just want to stay at home and beat his wife. He sounds clueless.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 02:35 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Well this is nuts. Looks like we're in for some fun down the road if the Kurds pull this.
Kanan Makiya, a leading Iraqi exile, and professor at Brandeis University, asks why the coalition is not utilizing the Iraqi opposition. He calls for the destruction of Iraqi television, and explains why the Iraqi people are afraid to rise against the regime.
#1
Prof. Makiya has been active in the Iraqi opposition for some time, and has been a strong and articulate advocate for US intervention. I think his advice is worth considering.
#3
A better question would be: Time for the Iraqi people to become our allies? It's their country. And what is Professor Makiya doing other than giving us advice?
Posted by: Matt ||
03/27/2003 14:06 Comments ||
Top||
#4
It's too soon, yet. There are still too many Hussein goons out there, and not enough organization to deal with them. I'd bet large bills on there being Coalition Special Forces units in Baghdad working with the local population to respond, at the right time, against the Republican Guard and other Baath party targets. It's not a good time to be a Baath party member right now...
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 14:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If the INC is brought in they will start squabble for power. Its better for the US to keep control of things, perhaps with help from the Iraqi masses.
I don't see why the US doesn't start broadcasting in Arabic on the same frequency as Iraqi tv and convince the population and the Iraqi military to rise up.
#6
Prof. Makiya has been active in the Iraqi opposition for some time, and has been a strong and articulate advocate for US intervention. I think his advice is worth considering.
#7
This is what he says:
Makiya:The coalition needs the Iraqi opposition--Iraqis who can sneak into the cities and help organize other Iraqis, men from the same families and social networks that hold these places together, who know how to communicate with their entrapped brethren, who can tell them why this time Saddam is finished, and who are able to root out his cronies when they try to melt away into the civilian population.
LH: You see Old P, this is about HOW we deal with the goons - its a suggestion that we use not only US and British Special Forces, but that we use IRAQIS to help us reach the local population.
Makiya:One cannot liberate a people--much less facilitate the emergence of a democracy--without empowering the people being liberated. Did not a Free France need its wartime resistance to help, partially at least, redeem the nation's sense of self-respect and honor, as De Gaulle demonstrated when he rode into Paris? It is a million times easier for an Iraqi soldier to join his fellow Iraqis in rebellion than it is to surrender his arms in humiliation to a foreigner.
LH: This makes alot of sense to me. Of course in WW2 some Americans found De Gaulle far too prickly. The Brits worked with him much better. I think they may be better at this sort of subtle thing than us impatient, goal oriented Yanks.
Makiya: To date, however, my meetings with administration officials have given me the impression that some quarters of Washington are at war with Saddam Hussein and others are at war with the Iraqi National Congress.
LH: Yeah, notably the CIA and the State Department, like their Saudi friends. This is very much about what kind of Iraq emerges from the war - soft authoritarian state or a democracy - the "pro-stability" crowd seems frightened of democracy - we left the Iraqi people in the lurch in 1991 because we wanted a military coup, not a popular uprising. The focus on decapitation and negotiations with the Republican Guard gives me the impression the same concerns continue. Its time we had the courage of our democratic convictions.
Makiya: The administration still adamantly refuses to let the Iraqi opposition activate our networks to make the fighting easier for the coalition in the cities, towns, and villages. Why?
LH:As far as I can tell this question is still unanswered. Our senior people are afraid of the post-war squabbling - well, thats what democracy is all about, squabbling - they are putting at risk the lives of our troops and of anti-Saddam Iraqis in their concern to have an easy transition and to avoid democratic squabbling. Its time the people of the Middle East got used to democratic squabbling.
#11
"...in WW2 some Americans found De Gaulle far too prickly. The Brits worked with him much better."
Liberalhawk: Churchill detested de Gaulle (I don't think that's putting it too strongly). One of his famous quotes was: "I know that every man must bear his cross, but why must mine be the Cross of Lorraine?", and I've heard variants describing De Gaulle as the "heaviest cross" he bore during the war. Plus ca change...
#12
LH - Isn't that what I said? "There are still too many Hussein goons out there, and not enough organization to deal with them. I'd bet large bills on there being Coalition Special Forces units in Baghdad working with the local population to respond, at the right time, against the Republican Guard and other Baath party targets."
The special forces people are working with the indigenous population, training people to take out Hussein's "fedayin goon squad" as soon as the military folks are ready to make a concerted attack on the main military folks.
The one thing we don't want in this situation is a repeat of the "Polish uprising", where the Russians encouraged the Poles (mostly Jews) in Warsaw to stage a rebellion, then waited outside the city for the Germans to crush it before attacking.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 17:56 Comments ||
Top||
Tehran, March 27, IRNA -- The Supreme Assembly of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SAIRI) in a statement issued here on Thursday warned against consequences of the attack on the Shiite holy shrines in Iraq. The statement, a copy of which was faxed to IRNA, said that the intensive fighting around the holy cities of Najaf and Karbala has made the people of Iraq and all Muslims throughout the globe concerned over the possible attack on the holy sites in those two cities. The Baghdad regime, during suppression of the public Intifada of the Iraqi Shiites in 1991, invaded the holy sites in several Iraqi cities. The statement warned both the US forces and the Iraqi regime against insulting the Islamic values and feelings of millions of Muslims of the world. I notice that SAIRI is back to releasing its statements from Teheran, rather than from Iraq. Safer there, isn't it? For the moment, anyway...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 01:02 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At one point in its advance to Moscow, the German army was fighting six major "encirclement" battles at the same time. Because these operations are only mop-up efforts, specific areas which may include "holy" sites can be pacifed by means of siege, without damaging structures. However, if offensive operations are conducted from same, anything goes. I am disgusted by the number of commentators who are taking the position that the life of American soldiers is cheap.
The Iraqi presidential guards prevent the Iraqi people from leaving the Iraqi capital city of Baghdad. IRNA correspondent here said on Thursday that the terrified people of Baghdad were trying to leave the city but the Iraqi presidential guards forced them to stay in the city in order to make use of them as human shield. According to the report, the Iraqi regime has settled its sensitive military units including the missile launching pads in the residential areas so that in case of the US and British attacks and killing of the civilians, it would make use of the attacks as a propaganda means. Such measures taken by the Iraqi army have made the people horrified especially when they expect the intensification of the attacks in the coming days. After the al-Sha'b residential area was hit by several missiles, it was rumored that the Iraqi regime, itself, had launched the missiles upon the residential areas, the report said, adding that claims made by the Pentagon that the US and British forces did not launch the missile attacks supported the rumors. So it wasn't a stray, but a propaganda job? Not at all surprising...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 12:37 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Saw the crater on tv. Looked way too small for a JDAM or ACLM. Tomahawk would make a bigger hole too, I think. The Iraqi's will have cleaned up any parts that pointed to it being a SAM.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 12:57 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Keep your friends close, your enemies closer, and your human shields righ t in front of you. Sad thing is that they aren't just human shields...they're fodder. Sammy will continue to butcher them to garner international support against the war. We had best prepare ourselves for some real savagery in the coming weeks.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/27/2003 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
US Secretary of State Colin Powell indicated that US Central Command chief Gen. Tommy Franks, who heads the US war on Iraq, will be initially in-charge after the war. Powell said in an interview to Saeed Naqvi on World view program on Doordarshan, India's official news TV channel on Wednesday night that Gen Franks will take charge to stabilize the country for humanitarian supplies to come in and to get rid of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). "But as soon as possible we want to have an interim Iraqi authority. Some of them will be from outside Iraq," he said. "UN will have a role to play. Condolezza Rice, National Security Adviser met with UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan and we are working with our coalition partners to structure the proper role of the UN," he said. "We are talking to our Security Council colleagues on what resolution might be appropriate," Powell added. "... if any."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 12:33 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Damn you Powell, don't you learn?
The only "proper" role for the U.N. is to stand on the sidelines where it belongs and stay out of they way. As for another UNSC resolution, why bother? Those resolutions are a total waste, in terms of effectiveness and in the use of otherwise good paper.
With Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard dug in on the outskirts of Baghdad and thousands of his most loyal defenders no doubt armed and waiting in the city's neighborhoods, he might be on the verge of delivering the "mother of all battles" he promised 12 years ago. He has ceded the majority of his country to the rapidly moving American and British forces, but has left pockets of determined loyalists in cities large and small. These troops, many dressed in civilian clothing, will shoot at coalition forces from densely populated areas, daring return fire that might kill the very Iraqis whom President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain hope to liberate.
It is a strategy both cunning and cruel, and it may work. The outcome will depend in large part on the people of Baghdad, each of whom has a decision to make. What they decide could mean either a quick defeat of the regime or a protracted mess that would amount at best to a Pyrrhic victory for allied troops. Saddam Hussein is betting that his people will rally around his crack troops. The allies are betting they will betray the dictator and flush out his enforcers. I'm afraid the odds at this point favor Saddam Hussein. Even those Iraqis eager to turn against the regime are still caught between the guns, and won't dare make a move until they are sure one side has the upper hand. Neighborhood by neighborhood, they will have to decide when it is safe to make their move.
If Saddam Hussein wins his bet, then coalition forces could face fighting reminiscent of the 1993 battle of Mogadishu. There would be important differences, of course. The 150 American troops trapped in the streets of Mogadishu were members of a light infantry unit cut off from backup or supply, without armor, dependent on a small number of helicopters for air support. Allied troops in Baghdad would number in the tens of thousands, with full armor and air support, and, as soon as the coalition manages to buttress its overextended supply line, a huge support system. But no matter what kind of power can be rolled into Baghdad, if it faces a hostile population, as our troops did in Mogadishu, the scene could turn into a nightmare. Soldiers would be moving in a 360-degree battlefield with obstructed sight lines and impaired radio communications, trying to pick out targets from a civilian population determined to hide, supply and shield the enemy, unable to attack Iraqi firing positions without killing civilians. Even in victory such a battle would outrage the Arab world and fulfill the fears of the war's critics.
But why would the citizens of Baghdad rally around such a tyrannical regime? After all, Saddam Hussein has turned what was once one of the most prosperous and modern of Arab nations into a destitute state. His terrorist apparatus, modeled on Stalin's, has tortured, imprisoned and killed hundreds of thousands. The problem is that each war develops an interior logic. Immediate traumas supersede the larger context, just as the fog of war plays havoc with generals' plans. Allied military commanders have wisely waged a careful air campaign, leaving most of the city's nongovernment buildings undamaged and keeping civilian casualties low. But every death and wounding â of a child, a sister, a father, a neighbor â no matter how unintentional, creates passionate new enemies whose anger eclipses politics.
And even Iraqis who despise Saddam Hussein can be expected to recoil from a foreign invasion, which wounds national pride. There are reports of Iraqi expatriates who fled the regime now returning to fight for their country. For Iraqis who distrust the United States, it will be a choice between their own local devil and the Great Satan of the world. And Iraqis get their information from the propaganda ministries, which amplify the grief and play upon nationalistic sympathies. Much of this happened in Somalia. When American forces landed in 1992 to enforce the United Nations humanitarian effort, many were greeted with smiles and gifts from the Somali people. Mohammed Farah Aidid, the most powerful of Mogadishu's warlords, was not a popular figure, even within his own clan. But then the United Nations decided to pursue him after his forces began attacking and killing peacekeepers. Clumsy military attempts to capture Mr. Aidid in the summer of 1993 left scores of Somalis dead or wounded and destroyed property. The people of the city quickly soured on their Western saviors, and the warlord's repeated escapes transformed him into a local hero, the sly Somali David tilting with Goliath. By the time Task Force Ranger arrived in August to apply more skillful tactics to the search for Mr. Aidid, thousands of local citizens were ready to fight in the streets to protect him. The result was the debacle that left 18 Americans dead and ended the humanitarian operation.
I suspect the coalition plan assumed that images of jubilant liberated Iraqis from southern cities, awash in humanitarian aid, would help sway the hearts and minds of Baghdad. So far that hasn't happened, either because the Iraqi people are less enthralled by this invasion than its planners hoped, or because Saddam Hussein's enforcers have managed to keep the population in line. There was hopeful news of popular uprisings in Basra, but it was not clear if they were widespread. If there are such happy scenes to report, then it is time to shut down Baghdad's propaganda machine and give Iraqis a full range of independent reporting about the war. In the Battle of Baghdad, information will be as important as guns and bombs. But only if the truth is what we hope it will be. Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down," is national correspondent for The Atlantic.
Posted by: kgb ||
03/27/2003 12:04 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Once the siege of Baghdad has started, if needs be, Saddam will have no resources to support his thugs. Further, anytime they choose to terrorize, torture, or murder the people of the city, these people will be reminded of why he is known as the Butcher of Baghdad and they will think they'd be better off without him. There is no need to enter Baghdad to get him -- the Iraqi are already there and will do it for us. Remember Ceaucescu.
#2
RE: "Once the siege of Baghdad has started, if needs be, Saddam will have no resources to support his thugs."
Good point. I just hope there are enough people who are ready to do what has to be done. The desire to be free is powerful.
Posted by: kgb ||
03/27/2003 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Another da$$$$ anti-military, anti-US apologist. Disgusting! Still, there are a couple of nuggets to be mined from this boxcar-load of drivel. We at least are fully aware of what sadista-in-charge sadsack plans. Beyond that, it depends on Franks, and his battle plan. So far, none of us know that for sure.
I think we will see something unexpected. So far, this war has NOT been a by-the-book set piece, and it's not only caught the Iraqis by surprise, it's also caused many of the second-guessers to tear their hair out in huge clumps.
Two reasons why the "mother of all battles" won't succeed: air superiority, and unconventional warfare tactics. I'm sure there will be dozens, if not hundreds, of small-unit forces inserted into Baghdad from all directions once the seige begins. They will wreck havoc on an isolated group here, there, and then disappear, only to reappear somewhere totally unexpected and do it again. In the end, the lack of food, water, and supplies will force the Iraqi Republican Guard to either surrender in large numbers, or launch an attack that will be totally destroyed.
Sadsack is not smart, only shrewd. He can be out-thought as well as his troops can be out-fought. If all else fails, we can pull back and engage in an artillery exercise a la Stalin. Lots of civilian casualties, but you end up with nothing to hide behind.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Patriot--
Mark Bowden is NOT anti-military or anti-US. You could argue that his article is excessively influenced by Mogadishu....
Posted by: Brian ||
03/27/2003 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Bowden strikes me as being far from anti-American, or anti-patriotic in my own encounters with the man. At the very least his son is (was?) a Marine.
The point remains is that all roads lead to Baghdad and that Saddam knows this and can plan for it. The question is do we have some alternative to siege or urban assault. Considering that the administration seems to have been taken aback by the partisan war, some hard thinking is in order about just how to bring this show to a successful ending. I don't have any great answers, I just know that I'm starting to nurture some real distrust for Rumsfeld & Wolfowitz. Maybe, just maybe, Eric Shinseki knows what he's talking about.
Mr. Bowden is not anti-military or anti-US. Having read his books and a number of his articles, I get the sense that he loves the grunts and is reasonably clear-minded. Brian's thought might be more spot-on: having seen and written about Mogadishu, it's all he knows about urban warfare right now. I'm hoping Gen. Franks has a better plan.
I'd rather listen to Bowden than at least half the "analysts" employed by the networks right now.
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 13:53 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Why would the US bother to take Baghdad. Easier to encircle the city, take over radio and television and wait it out. Bombing targets of opportunity of course with occasional nightime incursions into the city to keep them off balance. While that is going on we set up a new Iraqi government in the rest of the nation (shown on the telvision we now control) and push for an uprising of the people in Baghdad.
#8
360 degree combat? I don't see it. We're not having our guys inserted in the middle of Baghdad - we're starting around the edges and working slowly towards the center - using fire support to take out any units that attempt to go to the rescue of the building we're clearing. I think Mark Bowden is a fine journalist, but as a combat tactician, I'm not sure he's as knowledgeable as he could be.
#9
First of all, they have been carefully targeting, bombing and destroying communications facilities so that centralized coordination gets disabled. Also, they have made a deliberate decision to withhold bomb destruction assessments. I think that a couple of crucial psych ops strategies need to be formulated and implemented, too. I am not in favor of just going in and doing street fighting. We need to get the upper hand and put them in a reactive posture, not the other way around. Going in would be fighting on their turf with them having the advantage of an intimate knowledge of all the alleys and hidden shortcuts in the casbah-- we don't need that aggravation. If you saw what happened to the IDF going into a casbah at the refugee 'camp' or in one of the other cities, you should know that we need to avoid that. Let's not get sucked into that.
Perhaps not exactly a hard news item, but a fascinating (and long!) article about Saddam's motivations and personality. Some very interesting and terrifying anecdotes included. Article by Mark Bowden, author of Black Hawk Down.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/27/2003 11:54 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
kgb--I don't think they're the same article, although by the same author. Your link is more about the war and contemporary situation and mine is more about Saddam's background and persona.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/27/2003 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I should have checked more closely before posting the same article! Bowden does his homework. I hope he's wrong in his assessment of the stuff that can go badly.
Posted by: kgb ||
03/27/2003 12:41 Comments ||
Top||
#3
kgb--I don't think they're the same article, although by the same author. Your link is more about the war and contemporary situation and mine is more about Saddam's background and persona.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/27/2003 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I printed this off, (maybe 25 pages) and it is a fantastic read. We have rightfully demonized Saddam, but for those of you History Channel buff's who want to understand better how this guy ticks, this is very well written.
I also have a better perception of the "lack of Luv" we are getting from the "first of the liberated" and a better understanding of the fear 'raqi's have been living under and why they just aren't jumping up and down like they just won immunity challenge on Survivor. It will take some time for them to believe it.
PORT SAID, Egypt, March 27 - Six warships from the United States, Spain and Denmark entered the Suez Canal on Thursday on their way to the Gulf to support the U.S.-led war against Iraq, canal sources said. Suez Canal sources said the vessels comprised U.S. supply ships Cape Inscription and Cape Intrepid, Danish corvette Olfert Fischer and Spanish warships Marques de la Ensenada, Galicia and Reina Sofia. The sources said the ships would reach the Red Sea by the end of the day. Twenty-three U.S. supply ships have already passed south through the canal from the Mediterranean this week. Defence experts say it takes a ship at least five days to sail from the Red Sea to the Gulf. That should be most of the 4th IDs gear.
Spain is a staunch supporter of the war, which Washington says aims to overthrow the Iraqi government and destroy Baghdad's alleged weapons of mass destruction. As well as sending the ship, Denmark has offered to send military and medical personnel to help in the war and has set aside funds for post-war reconstruction in Iraq. Thank you, Spain and Denmark. Have a seat at the table.
U.S. officials said on Saturday the U.S. military planned to move about 20 cargo ships loaded with equipment for its 4th Infantry Division from positions off the coast of Turkey through the Suez Canal to the Gulf to back up the war effort. The high-tech division, based at Fort Hood in Texas, had been scheduled to fly to Turkey, but is now due to fly to the Gulf region in the coming days. Send-off ceremony is today.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 11:59 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Sometimes I wonder how remarkable it is that they let us use the bloody Canal
Posted by: Michael ||
03/27/2003 14:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Let's understand that for various reasons a number of countries keep a very low profile in this fur ball. The Egyptians and Jordanians are providing support in a manner that is important, but silent. Interesting when they talk about the Arab Steet(tm), they forget its not what you say, it's what you do that counts.
Posted by: Don ||
03/27/2003 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
TALLIL AIRFIELD, Southern Iraq - The first U.S. airplane landed Thursday at a key Iraqi airfield, which forces informally renamed "Bush International Airport." The captured airfield is expected to be a major resupply base and transport hub for American forces. A C-130 transport plane glided down onto a 12,000-foot runway newly cleared of concrete blocks, wrecked vehicles and other barriers placed on the strip by the Iraqi military to prevent its use. A hastily erected sign at the airfield's entrance read "Bush International Airport" for the U.S. president. The sprawling base is located four miles from Nasiriyah where U.S. Marines are trying to root out resistance by groups loyal to Saddam Hussein's regime, such as the Fedayeen militia. The airfield, second in size only to Saddam International Airport in Baghdad, had been out of use since the establishment of the no-fly zone following the 1991 Gulf War. Tallil's main runway, once used by Iraqi jet fighters, is long enough to take the military's largest transport planes, as well as civilian jumbo jets. Air Force Red Horse units will have this base up and running in no time.
Tallil sits astride a major logistics corridor for U.S. forces, running from Kuwait toward Baghdad. Aircraft flying in could help speed the flow of supplies from Kuwait to troops in the field. "It's been sitting in a time warp, waiting for someone to wake it up," said Col. A. Myers of the U.S. Air Force Air Mobility Command. His unit, from Scott Air Force Base in Illinois, had the mission to revive it. The airbase, overrun by the U.S. 3rd Infantry Division on March 22, had been only partially occupied and maintained in the past decade. Jumbles of rusting equipment were strewn around the derelict control tower and U.S. troops were clearing out ramshackle buildings before moving in. Regular air traffic was expected in coming days, weather permitting. This will be a big help. Interesting that we have heard nothing about similar operations at the other Iraqi airfields, H-1,2, and 3, that we have secured in the west. Wonder who's using those?
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 10:45 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ihope my luggage heading to Houston's Bush International doesn't get misdirected to Northern Iraq. Seriously, I think we need to save this name for the rename of Saddam International. Order the signage right now, and put it up on Terminal 1. When the "maybe still alive" dictator hears about it, he will be so obsessed it will force the mole above ground.
#4
"Freedom is not a term that sits well on the Arab Street."
I'm beginning to think the "Arab street" is grossly over-rated and can be safely ignored. If not, we'll soon have four divisions in a liberated Iraq we can use to keep order.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 11:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Much as I like it, I'll be surprised if that sign last very long. Just like the US flag that the Marines hosted over Um Qasr, it may be misinterpreted by the locals that we're not liberators but occupiers.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
03/27/2003 12:00 Comments ||
Top||
#6
The deep thinkers at Atrios' site are having a cow over this one ('F*'in Morons', all the usual BS). I'm sure they'll like my two cents...
#8
H-1 through H-3 needs to have the reporters kept out. I'm sure our forces, the Brits, and others are hard at work keeping Sammy's Scud Squad and other mischief makers out of the weatern desert and out of range of Israel.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 14:08 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Much as I'm happy to see them recognize the man-in-charge, I would think it would be better to name it for "Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone" (Killed by "Sgt" Akbar.) or "Army Pfc. Jessica Lynch"
...after all, they paid for it.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/27/2003 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
A group of Russian journalists and military experts have created a site to offer their take on the war in Iraq. The English translation of most of the site is at http://www1.iraqwar.ru/?userlang=en. The upper right corner of the page offers "Russian military intel update: War in Iraq", with a different view of the war than most of the other sites I've seen.
Posted by: BLoB ||
03/27/2003 11:56 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Iraqi Kurdish fighters crossed the frontline into Iraqi government-controlled territory on Thursday in the first such advance since the start of the U.S.-led war in the country, a Reuters witness said. "I saw a crowd of peshmerga fighters at a forward checkpoint position pointing to their own forces who had taken the hilltops around half mile away," said Reuters correspondent Mike Collett-White. Previously the territory had been held by Iraqi government troops loyal to President Saddam Hussein. There was no sign of any Iraqi soldiers and the advancing Iraqi Kurds were not involved in any clashes. Reports have suggested that the Iraqi frontline was lightly held, more of a lookout than anything else.
"We have taken the hilltops, and our fighters are 2.5 miles inside Iraqi territory," said Mam Rostam, a senior peshmerga commander told Reuters at a checkpoint in the north Iraqi area controlled by the Kurds. The advance followed increasing U.S. activity in the region seen as the start of a new front in the week-old war against Saddam. U.S. paratroopers landed in northern Iraq overnight, with Washington putting the force at 1,000-strong from the 173rd Airborne Brigade. Reuters correspondent Jon Hemming saw a U.S. plane drop eight bombs over Domiz, a small town or military installation north of Mosul under Baghdad's control and close to the front line with Kurdish-ruled northern Iraq. At Kalak, another frontline village, a powerful explosion was heard at around 7 a.m. (11 p.m. EST). Heavy bombing was also reported on the road to the Baghdad-controlled northern oil capital of Kirkuk. Hope the Kurds haven't jumped the gun.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 10:28 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
it appears theyve been cleared to take rural positions but not move into Kirkuk or Mosul - I think they will be more disciplined than Northern Alliance was at Kabul, and in this case we know have coalition forces on the ground, increasing in number steadily.
Via Drudge. There was talk yesterday that some chemical weapons had been captured by the Third ID. This appears to be about that.
Also yesterday, US military officials reported that two Iraqi rockets, seized by American troops Tuesday southeast of Najaf, were suspected of containing chemical munitions. It was unlear whether they had been fired or where they were found. The rockets were undergoing testing in a military lab, said Lieutenant Christopher Pike, an intelligence officer with the Third Infantry Division. So at the moment, this is a definite "maybe". In other important news, it appears that the man who captained the USS Enterprise before James T. Kirk is now an Intel guy for the Third ID.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/27/2003 10:13 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/27/2003 16:14 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Unfortunately, it seems Christopher Pike had to take a demotion when he transferred from Starfleet to the U.S. Army. Constitution-class heavy cruiser command experience must not translate quite that well to the needs of desert warfare.
Posted by: Joe ||
03/27/2003 18:49 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Christopher Pike Medal of Valor
This is the highest award of Starfleet Command. It is awarded by Starfleet Commands Seventh Fleet but can be recommended by a Shipâs Captain. Named after Fleet Captain Christopher Pike. The military ribbon used is The Yangtze River Service Ribbon. Captain Benjamin Sisko earned this award during his Starfleet career. See DS9 Episode "Tears of the Prophets". Captain Solok was twice honored with the Christopher Pike Medal of Valor. See DS9 Episode "Take Me Out to the Holosuite."
Radio Free Iraq said here Wednesday that the forces belonging to the Kurdistan Patriotic Union (PUK) have been stationed in 'Khoram' close to the Iranian border. It added that the troops will substitute for the forces of 'Jama-e-Islami', (Komala) adding that the move comes after an agreement between the two groups "will be in force until the halting of hostilities in the area." We heard about this deal yesterday.
The radio reckoned that the step will facilitate more intense attacks by the US against the forces of 'Ansar-e Islam.' 'Jama-e-Islami', aka Komala, agreed to move out of the way so that the PUK can attack Ansar positions.
Meanwhile, Coalition forces bombarded positions of Ansar al-Islam, a group which is accused of having links with Al-Qaeda based in Iraq's Kurdistan region, on Tuesday. A representative of Iraqi Kurdistan Jamat-e-Islami in Iran's Kurdestan and Kermanshah provinces, Bahaoddin Barzanji, told IRNA that US-led coalition forces heavily bombarded the group's bases in Biyarah, Tovailah and Sargat regions. Now that the paratroops have arrived, things in the north will begin to move.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 08:29 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Steve - get that stutter worked on!
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2003 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The 173d's mission is to secure the airfield so that others can follow on at the airhead. It's part of their doctrine. I don't expect the paratroopers to do any major offensive ops outside security ops for the airhead for a week or weeks.
Posted by: Don ||
03/27/2003 8:40 Comments ||
Top||
#3
It was, wasn't m, me, it wa, was the server. Fred, ple, please fi, fi, fix it?
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 9:02 Comments ||
Top||
#4
;-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2003 9:44 Comments ||
Top||
The U.S. military said on Thursday "it was entirely possible" that an Iraqi missile was responsible for the marketplace explosion in Baghdad that killed 14 civilians. Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said there was an Iraqi missile battery near the neighborhood and that Iraqi has been using old missile stock fired with guidance systems turned off. "We think it is entirely possible that this may have been an Iraqi missile that went up and came down," Brooks said. He the United States had an air mission in the area but not in the neighborhood that was devasted by the explosion.
Posted by: George ||
03/27/2003 08:24 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It said right on the side of the box..."Do not launch near any residential areas". Maybe they couldn't read the safty instructions because they were written in Russian.
The soldiers from the U.S. Army's 173rd Airborne Brigade parachuted to the ground, then walked across flat, open fields and assembled in the new morning light. They then began to secure the Harir airfield, not far from Bashur. Harir is about 40 miles from the border of Iraqi-controlled territory and is within an area not hostile to coalition forces. The paratroopers stepped out of C-17 Globemaster transport planes that took off from an undisclosed airfield in Europe, according to CNN Correspondent Steve Nettleton, who is embedded with the unit there. The cargo planes returned to the airfield empty, and the Army will now begin to load military equipment -- including tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers -- onto the planes to bring them into northern Iraq, Nettleton said. The airstrip at Harir is around 6700 feet, big enough for C-17s to land. Each can carry one M-1 tank, or several APCs. Not the best way to insert them, but it can be done.
The Army aims to secure the northern area so a larger armored force can enter. Another goal is to stabilize the area to prevent other forces from coming in, whether it be Turks from the north or Iraqis from the south. The move will also eventually lead the way to the entry of humanitarian aid.
Two U.S. helicopters at the Harir airfield also unloaded personnel and equipment. Kurdish forces met them and transported them in three-ton trucks. The 2,000-strong 173rd Airborne Brigade is based in Vicenza, Italy, and the 1st Battalion, 63rd Armor, which is bringing in its armored vehicles, is based in Bilsek, Germany.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 07:57 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I hope we'll be good to the Kurds and Armenians when this is over.
#2
I hope they'll be good to us when this is over. I hope they aren't France/Germany/South Korea all over again 5 years from now.
Posted by: g wiz ||
03/27/2003 8:18 Comments ||
Top||
#3
For all those who critize Rummy, this is his point about being mobile and deployable. An effective armored vehicle which uses an entire airframe hinders strategic and operational projection. Since the taxpayers are not going to fund a massive increase in manning and equiping airlift to move brigades of this stuff around, the alternative is to exploit technology and reduce the weight of these beast while retaining the hitting and crew protection near what we have now. So next time some generals throw a hissy fit because Rummy wants to cut their pet project that requires sea transport because the airframe can't handle it, just remember this operational situation.
Posted by: Don ||
03/27/2003 8:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Why just C-17s? According to the specs, a loaded C-5 can land on a 4,900 ft runway. They don't list an empty takeoff requirement, though they do give a 12,200 ft requirement for loaded takeoff.
Advantages of C-5 is that they can carry 2 Abrams, rather than the C-17s 1. In addition, I'm guessing that the smaller C-17 will be in demand in southern and western Iraq.
#6
From GlobalSecurity.org: Reports on March 27 indicate that elements of the 1st Infantry Division are being airlifted into Bashur/Herrir. They've been sitting in Germany waiting. Some of their logistics personnel had been in Turkey getting bases ready.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 11:23 Comments ||
Top||
Excerpt from a longer CNN.com article:
Meanwhile, waves of B-52 bombers pounded a convoy of Iraqi military vehicles overnight before they could reach the lead elements of the U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division in Najaf, about 60 miles south of Baghdad, CNN's Walter Rodgers reported Thursday. Air traffic controllers with the U.S. Air Force told Rodgers, embedded with the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry of the 3rd Infantry, that the bombers pounded the convoy "almost into oblivion." The column was believed to have been made up of elite Republican Guard troops. In a briefing from U.S. Central Command headquarters in Qatar, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks said that "most of" the force was destroyed. That's gotta be doing a job on Saddam's morale, assuming a) that he's alive and b) that anyone had the courage to tell him
However, Pentagon officials in Washington said they were aware only of "defensive repositioning" of Republican Guard units near Baghdad and had no information on any large columns or convoys of Iraqi vehicles and troops moving toward U.S. forces. OK, now this confuses me. All day yesterday we heard about the 1,000-vehicle convoy heading south from Baghdad to engage I MEF. Then the lace-panties brigade in DeeCee started telling everyone that there was no such formation. Now we hear that they've been flattened, except that it never happened. What would be the value to our team to pretending that this never happened?
Posted by: jrosevear ||
03/27/2003 08:25 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I suppose the alternative question is "what would be the point of talking about a 1000-truck formation that didn't exist?", except that the stories about the formation seem to come from folks on the ground in-theater and the stories denying its existence seem to come from that five-sided puzzle palace on the potomac...
#3
There seems to be a general pulling back from the "1000 vehicle Republican Guard convoy" story. It's now being said that the number of vehicles was smaller and their goal was less aggressive -- more along the lines of redistributing their forces than directly attacking our troops. Rather than interpreting the difference between the stories as being somehow sinister, we should probably chalk it up to fog-of-war.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
03/27/2003 7:38 Comments ||
Top||
#4
CNN has now updated the story quoted above -- they've removed the last paragraph I quoted and substituted this:
"Brooks at CentCom said that the Iraqi force was smaller than initial intelligence reports suggested and that "most of" the force was destroyed."
#6
"filled with Iraqi's wearing American uniforms" soon too be seen on al-Jazeera...... hey, why are all the American casualties white guys with moustaches?.....We must respect the Geneva Conventions and not show their faces this time.
Posted by: Dick Saucer ||
03/27/2003 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Welcome to the FOG of WAR[tm].
Posted by: Don ||
03/27/2003 8:50 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Why are they saying "Repositioning"? Disinformation.
No Saddam, we dont see your 1000 vehicle column, we are not expecting an attack, our troosp are resting, we dont see an attack coming at all, keep it moving right along
#10
Who cares what they were DOING, as long as they were DESTROYED. Killing people and breaking things are what soldiers do in war. It's their job. The winners are the ones left alive and whole after the job's done. The destruction of a column of 100 or a column of 1000 is one step closer to winning this war, and freeing the people of Iraq from sadistisein. We can do body counts once Baghdad surrenders, unconditionally.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 11:40 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Saddam's folks watch the news. If our military leadership acts like they aren't paying attention and are preoccupied with more pressing issues, like they are not really focused on that convoy of vehicle streaming out of wherever, the RG will be more inclined to attempt to sneak/dash out, and then they can be hammered by combined forces and air power away from population centers.
#12
Just a guess, but those estimating the 1000 vehicle convoy may have been using the "Afghanistan Civilian Death Estimatorâ¢" Version 1.0 which had a known flaw, corrected in Ver 2.0 (AKA: post-'fall of Taliban')
Knowledgable users have upgraded with a downloadable patch from reality.com
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2003 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Smebody shined an Arclight on the Roach Patrol...
Edited and re-jigged.
The leader of UK forces in the Gulf has clashed with a television station over its "deplorable" decision to show footage of dead soldiers and prisoners of war. Air Marshal Brian Burridge told Qatar-based al-Jazeera it should take no pride in a film of the bodies of two soldiers lying in a dusty street and two prisoners of war in a room with Iraqis.
Meanwhile the Ministry of Defence has told BBC News Online the two prisoners shown on al-Jazeera are civilian drivers employed by a company in Saudi Arabia. It said they were part of an aid convoy with a military escort, but were separated when it was stopped by a "civil disturbance".
The Ministry of Defence has said the dead men are thought to be two soldiers who went missing during fighting around the town of al-Zubayr, near the southern city of Basra. One of the dead soldiers appeared to have been shot in the chest, but the other's injuries were unclear. Their wrecked vehicle was included in the footage, with armed civilians climbing over it. The soldiers' families have been informed of the development.
At a news briefing Mr Burridge said: "We deplore the decision by al-Jazeera to broadcast such material and call on them to desist immediately." He said the broadcast had been a "flagrant breach" of the Geneva Convention, adding: "All media must be aware of the limits of taste and decency."
But an al-Jazeera correspondent at the conference hit back, saying: "British and US forces said that their war will be clean. When? I think our decision is to show our audience the truth, even if it is a dirty war. "We are in al-Jazeera not a part of the coalition, nor a part of the Iraqi regime. We are independent anti-Western propaganda media."
The stance was immediately criticised by Mr Burridge, who said he understood that al-Jazeera wanted to produce balanced and engaging news they could be proud of. But he said: "That type of reporting is neither balanced, nor should anybody take any pride in it. Take it from me." The UK commander said he had been "shocked and appalled" by the broadcast and urged journalists to avoid becoming the compliant unwitting tools of the "Iraqi propaganda machine".
After the footage was shown Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "The prime minister's reaction was horror both at the deaths and at the fact that the pictures were shown." So threaten to pull their UK broadcasting licence if they do it again, Tony.
The MoD said it could not confirm the nationality of the two captives shown in the TV footage. Al-Jazeera said it believed they were Kenyans working for the British Army as lorry drivers. The MoD told BBC News Online that for some reason the two drivers failed to turn right when the rest of the convoy did and had been captured. A spokeswoman said: "It would be quite normal to hire civilian contractors." The men must be afforded prisoner of war status for as long as they are held, the MoD added. FWTW in Ba'athist hands.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
03/27/2003 05:14 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Another reason why the DoS attacks annoy me. I want to see what aJ is up to, and welcomed their overdue launch of an English language website. Besides, internet "direct action" is a double-edged sword. Rantburg could easily be the next target.
#2
I think a company of Marines could take care of Al Jazeera much quicker and easier. Have them wear Saudi dress. Select a company from the group that was gobsmacked by the "Iraqi civilians" surrendering. I'm sure they would be GLAD to handle this small matter.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 9:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"British and US forces said that their war will be clean."
Since WHEN is any war "clean"? No one in their right mind would say that, and no one in their right mind would believe such a silly statement.
#4
I'm with Bulldog. DoSing AJ is stupid. The "Freedom Cyber Force" or whatever the kiddies call themselves should be given a priority ticket to "Cyber Prison."
What kind of moron cuts off a source of intellegence on what's going on on the other side?
Edited for relevance.
Iraqi forces in Basra are being forced to leave the city and fight by pro-Saddam militia, the commander of the British military in the Gulf has said. On Wednesday night an attempt was made by an Iraqi column to break out past encircling British forces. The column of 14 tanks — thought to be Russian-built T-55s — was wiped out after being engaged by a similar number of Challenger 2 tanks, British military sources reported. Earlier reports had estimated the strength of the column as up to 120 vehicles. Hmm, as exaggerated as the reoprts of an uprising...
The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards — who engaged the column — also overran two Iraqi infantry positions. The commander of UK forces in the Gulf, Air Marshal Brian Burridge, said the Iraqis involved appeared to have been forced by Ba'ath party fighters to engage the British. Air Marshal Burridge said there was evidence of "exemplar executions" being carried out. "They go to their houses and hold a gun to the heads of their families," he told a news conference at Central Command in Qatar. "These militias — probably the Ba'ath party militias — go through a neighbourhood, round up the existing soldiery, put them in their tanks and say 'go that way'. So that 'push south' was just a bit of Ba'athist housekeping, sweeping out potential troublemakers...
"You can tell this isn't a fighting formation that really knows its business. It is disorganised, but there is someone trying to organise it." Wednesday night's attempted breakout from the south-east of Basra was said to be headed for the al-Faw peninsula. It was picked up by radar as it travelled along the coast road on the Shatt al-Arab waterway.
[...Blair] said it was essential not to encourage uprisings to take place too soon. "We've got to be careful we know we have the support in place, [and are] able to help them before we encourage them to do things that may lead to their death," he said. British forces spokesman Group Captain Al Lockwood said Basra was now "quiet" after Tuesday's reported uprising. "We are obviously on the outskirts, we are making small forays in, talking to local people," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. The uprising, which involved a "significant number" of Iraqis, had been "dispersed" by the Iraqi authorities, he said.
#1
T-55s versus Challenger 2 tanks? That's not exactly a fair fight, unless it was 20 to 1 odds against the Brits, and even then I'd bet on the Challengers.
I thought Sammy had some better armor -- T-72s at least if not better than that. Where are they?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This from ABCnews
"Burridge said that small arms and mortar fire heard in Basra suggested that regular Iraqi troops were battling the Saddam loyalists for control of the city, the largest in southern Iraq. He said the Al Faw peninsula further south was firmly in British hands."
#3
T-55s versus Challenger 2 tanks? That's not exactly a fair fight, unless it was 20 to 1 odds against the Brits, and even then I'd bet on the Challengers.
I thought Sammy had some better armor -- T-72s at least if not better than that. Where are they?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 14:03 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Steve - all the "good" stuff is in Baghdad.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Basra could be a horror movie after the dust settles if we link a couple of these stories together. We might find that the Iraqi 51st who negotiated secretly with the coalition was left to "melt away" back to their homes. When they got there, Feddeythugs held their families hastage and said you are in trouble if you don't get in get in those tanks because we are in trouble if you don't get in those tanks. They may have been forced to chose between death of family and certain death on the southbound road toward Faw. It may explain why they drove out into the open for certain destruction. We may have lost a few future friends.
MORE than 30,000 American reinforcements were ordered to the Gulf last night as fierce battles raged through southern Iraq and the Republican Guard went on the offensive. Now one of Americaâs most modern fighting units â the 16,000-strong 4th Infantry Division â is being sent to Kuwait, where its 200 tanks, other vehicles and equipment are waiting. It will be joined by 14,000 more troops from other units, including the 3rd Armoured Cavalry. The 4th Infantry should have been used to open the northern front through Turkey, but the plans were blocked by Ankara. The reinforcements were ordered in after a series of setbacks in the opening days of the war. After several thousand bombs and missiles, Saddam has seen his ministries, army headquarters and palaces pulverised yet Baghdad and the four regional comanders are still functioning. Time to get there, join up with their equipment, get oriented and get into the fight is ...?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 08:26 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Between 10 days and 3 weeks. They should have turned 4ID's ships south the moment the Turks began their bullshit, and 4ID would be almost ready to roll right now.
Posted by: Joe Katzman ||
03/27/2003 2:15 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Actually, if I'd had my druthers, I'd have sent a Marine expeditionary force ashore in Lebanon, and had the 4ID mate up with its equipment in Beirut for a march overland - through Damascus - another snake that needs to have its head removed.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 10:01 Comments ||
Top||
Tony Blair lined up staunchly behind George Bush last night in agreeing that the United States military should administer a post-Saddam Iraq before handing the country over to the United Nations. At a working dinner at the US President's Camp David retreat, the British Prime Minister backed Washington's plans to install General Jay Garner as civil governor for the country in the short term.
Mr Blair and Mr Bush agreed that a new UN Security Council resolution would be needed to authorise an interim UN administration and release funds for reconstruction â but only after the military situation stabilised. What funds? Reconstruction funds can come from the oil; and if there's no new UN resolution, why the Iraqi Interim Authority and military governor will have to see to it that the money is spent properly.
The talks came amid growing controversy over the extent to which the UN should be involved in Iraq even during the conflict and, more importantly, once the fighting is over.
The current lack of consensus with France and Russia also meant that Britain and the US were in no mood to go "rushing" back to the UN, the Prime Minister told reporters. Sometime in 2005 would be fine.
Before he flew to Washington, Mr Blair said in the House of Commons that the interim arrangements for Iraq had to be robust enough to ensure that American and British troops "did not give their lives in vain".
Downing Street said that a new UN resolution for reconstruction was less of a priority than a resolution giving Kofi Annan, the secretary general, powers to run Iraq's £6.35bn-a-year oil-for-food programme. No, no, no! Kofi can't feed a parking meter properly let alone run the programme.
The secretary general is anxious to replenish UN coffers relaunch the programme under which Iraq was allowed to import food, medicines and other civilian supplies using revenue from its oil sales. Russia and Syria have balked on sovereignty grounds, noting that, for now, the Iraqi government remains in place. With some French backing, the two governments also fear that approving the resolution would confer some legitimacy on the US-UK armed attacks. Fine, no resolution, have it your way. We'll manage.
Some members of the Bush administration would prefer there to be no UN involvement in Iraq once the conflict is over and are keen that the French and Russians do not benefit from lucrative civil contracts.
However, Mr Blair insisted yesterday that the President himself was committed to a UN administration at some point. "It is very clear that we should make sure that any post-conflict Iraqi administration has the full endorsement of the UN. It actually releases funds. It allows the international financial institutions to operate in a better and more effective way," Mr Blair told MPs at Prime Minister's Questions. Master politican, can actually talk about a "better and more effective" international institution without guffawing.
"American and British soldiers have put their lives on the line, and in some cases given their lives, for the liberation of Iraq and the disarmament of Saddam Hussein," he added. "We will obviously have to discuss the details of how we make the handover to civil administration in Iraq because it is important both to protect our own troops and make sure, frankly, that they did not give their lives in vain." Hear hear!
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 12:53 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Giving any administrative power to the United League of Nations would be an unmitigated disaster because it would put in place a socialist/bureaucratic system instead of bringing a federal republic and prosperity to Iraq along the lines of what was done in Germany and Japan post-WW II.
Keep the UN out of Iraq, and return the oil-for-food billions that Kofi is sitting on to the Iraqi people!
#2
"It is very clear that we should make sure that any post-conflict Iraqi administration has the full endorsement of the UN. It actually releases funds. It allows the international financial institutions to operate in a better and more effective way,"
Doesn't sound like he was describing the UN actually DOING the work.. only releasing the funds.
#4
Thank GOD for the Brits (and their aussie cousins)! The are (almost) always on the right side of history and humanity. Parliament, slavery, humane treatment of animals, Hitler and now Sadaam. Thanks guys! We need you in this one! Thanks for being there, front and center, once again.
#5
fear that approving the resolution would confer some legitimacy on the US-UK armed attacks. Ha! Flogging a dead horse doesn't help you move forward.
Let the UN weenies keep their limos, suites and credit cards. Give them lots of crayons and tell them how important they are. Paying for the babysitter will allow the grown-ups to get their work done without having to deal with screaming babies all day long.
#7
iiuc there is a substantial balance now in the oil-for-food account, that the UN controls - thats the money being referred to. I think Kofi wants it released - his agenda is keeping the UN relevant - the French and Russians are opposed - since their agenda puts opposing the legitimacy of Op Iraqi Freedom above saving the UN.
#8
The "anti-war" nations of France, Germany, Belgium, Russia, and to some degree, China, should be forced to buy their oil from Iraq for ten years, and 10% over the market price. This will go a long way toward absolving them from their perfidity in the current situation.
The United Nations is a turkey - overstuffed and overdone.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 10:11 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Keep the UN out of Iraq and Iraq out of the UN (along with the rest of us who are willing to do a job without a bloated expense account with no accountability).
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Coalition forces are already in control of two of the world's deepest oil pools. These sources alone could support the civilizing process in Iraq.
If use of smart-bombs on stupid people is only resulting in more atrocity propaganda - a al Marc Herold - then I would squash the RG divisions and an entry route to Baghdad, with massive B-52 attacks. Take any possibility of heroism away from the Fedayen savages, and their war capacity is gonzo. One cannot occupy Iraq while 60,000 of these wild animals lurch behind windows.
Cited yesterday in Instapundit, but I'm not sure Murat reads that :-)
Everybody knows that Turkey did not permit America to stage operations from Turkish bases, but hardly anybody realizes that, contrary to the conventional wisdom, the vote was not an Islamic protest against the American-led coalition,but an act of anti-American intimidation by France and Germany.
The Turkish government, which for the first time since the fall of the Ottoman Empire is based on an Islamic party, fully expected that Parliament would approve its proposal that America be given the use of Turkish air bases in the Iraqi war.The government was so confident that the party failed to demand internal discipline, and thus several deputies voted against the resolution.
But that does not account for the failure to approve the governmentâs proposal. Primary blame for the defeat of the measure lies with the opposition â the secular, Kemalist parties that have governed the country since Ataturk.
Contrary to expectations, the opposition, responding to orders from party leaders, voted unanimously against the governmentâs position. The leaders insisted on a disciplined "no" vote because of pressure â some would call it blackmail â from France and Germany.
The French and German governments informed the Turkish opposition parties that if they voted to help the Coalition war effort, Turkey would be locked out of Europe for a generation. As one Turkish leader put it, "there were no promises, only threats." We should have offered the Turks membership in NAFTA.
One can describe this behavior on the part of our erstwhile Old Europe allies only as a deliberate act of sabotage against America in time of war. It is even worse than the behavior of France in the Security Council â first joining with us to give Iraq a "really, really, last chance" and then preventing us from acting as if the language of Resolution 1441 meant what it said. It is of a piece with the exertions of French diplomats to "convince" African countries to vote against us in the U.N.
I think that when the events of the past few months are sorted out, we will find that French actions constitute the diplomatic equivalent of chemical and biological warfare.
To take such action, Mr. Chirac must have conceived of a French future not only independent of the United States, but in open opposition to us.
To be sure, he does not speak of France alone, or of the Franco/German entente, but rather of "Europe." But he sees Europe as an extension of French power, not as a federal union in which all states will be free to pull their weight and pursue their sometimes diverging interests.
Thus, his rude insults to the Central European countries who joined with Spain, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands and the others who support our efforts to liberate Iraq. If they want to be part of Europe, he said, they should just shut up. This is all part of the tectonic shifts taking place all over the world.
President Bush the Elder intuited the emergence of a new world order once the Soviet empire fell,but it is only now that we can begin to see the profundity of the changes and the magnitude of the challenges we will face in the immediate future. To blame a transformation of such magnitude on the diplomatic style of this administration, as so many of President George W. Bushâs critics do, is to personalize, and thereby trivialize a world-historical event. Weâd better understand it, and fast. So, Murat, do you really want Turkey to be a department of France?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 12:46 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Turkey joins the EU. Tell me when to stop laughing!
#2
"As one Turkish leader put it, 'there were no promises, only threats.'"
That means: it didn't help, fools -- France is going to veto your ass anyway. Have fun in the wilderness; we're certainly not going to take you in after this.
#3
This is the most ridiculous piece i have read, Turkey and France, nonsense. The reason is the total disregard of the Turkish interests by the US, if the US sees herself in the position that she can disregard others interest, so can do other nations.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/27/2003 1:49 Comments ||
Top||
#4
And precisely what Turkish interests should the US be regarding?
#6
Turkey only wanted to station troops in Northern Iraq to prevent a mass influx of refugees into Turkish soil like the one in 1991 when also thousands of PKK (on the US list of terror) militants infiltrated disguised as refugee, it did cost us thousands of terror casualties, the US is insisting to make the same failure again. The whole American press is presenting a diverted view as if Turkey wants to grab land and all kind of other nonsense. And some wiz kids are airing columns in some of the ârespectedâ American papers like âwhy donât the Turks put the buffer line on their side of the borderâ, without having even the notion of how the border of Turkey-Iraq looks like. The border of Iraq Turkey is separated by a huge mountain chain, with the mountain on the Turkish side and the slope and plains on the Iraqi side, it is not possible to install a buffer zone on a mountain. All what Turkey has asked for is to put up a buffer zone of 20km inside Iraq on the plain, what kind of land grab would that be? A no from the US resulted in a big NO from the Turkish parliament, and it serves right, we will be receive again the mess on our plate due to US botch-up.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/27/2003 2:44 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Think about it Murat. You don't have a pipeline into the machinations of the Turkish government. You only know what you read in the papers and on TV, right?
Decisions like Turkey's, or any rational government, are usually based on a mixture of reasons. Every country acts first in it's own self-interest, we know that.
Obviously, there is legitimate concern about an independent Kurdistan. Certainly there is real domestic internal opposition against the war in Iraq. But were those REALLY the only reasons for the fiasco in your parliament?
What was the national interest in angering your best ally and friend in a time of need? Obviously, a political calculation was made that something else was more important.
National honor? Squeamishness about taking $15 billion?
C'mon. $15 billion is peanuts, a one-off, compared to what Turkey believes would come of being in the European Union. I think your real problem with the German-French blackmail story is that it's extremely PLAUSIBLE.
Your politicians played their hand very poorly. Do you really and truly believe that the masses in your country would have risen up and down anything consequential if your government had helped us? No way.
Do you actually believe that had the U.S. and Turkey worked out a deal that there was a chance in hell that we'd back an independent Kurdistan? No way. We don't double-cross true friends. EVER.
The U.S. and Turkey will remain allies, because there is plainly still some military cooperation. But don't expect any help from the U.S. in promoting your cause to the EU (not the Germans, especially the Germans, and French want you anyway).
If the war goes well, this will blow over for the most part. But if it doesn't, if the delay in getting the 4th ID into the theatre results in serious U.S. losses, the U.S. isn't going to forget this for some time. And, if the Kurds do start pushing for an independent Kurdistan, well, I guess our Congress will have to debate very long and very hard about whether we'd want to get involved in that...
Posted by: R. McLeod ||
03/27/2003 2:52 Comments ||
Top||
#8
R.McLeod, What was the national interest in angering your best ally and friend in a time of need?
This is a strange notion there is no real friendship between nations but alliances and trade relations, especially no friendship when the US is pursuing her interests. Anyway, it is also very obvious that points of Turkish national interests with the US are widely diverting, the US felt no need as a superpower to commit herself to regarding the national security concerns of her ally and this situation has appeared.
Do you really and truly believe that the masses in your country would have risen up and down anything consequential if your government had helped us? No way.
No way? What about the protesters in your own land, do you have a grip on the free mind of the people, the will of the masses are strong and we canât shove aside democracy because we have to please the US.
Do you actually believe that had the U.S. and Turkey worked out a deal that there was a chance in hell that we'd back an independent Kurdistan? No way. We don't double-cross true friends. EVER.
The US officials gave only oral assurances, you donât want to know what kind of pledges we heard before in GW1 none to little have been kept, oral assurances have no worth. Why didn't the US commit herself to written assurances, when the prime minister would have excepted also a written declaration of Bush or Powell, but I am sure the US papers didn't wrote anything about that of course, the oral pledge of GOD Bush should suffice!
Posted by: Murat ||
03/27/2003 5:31 Comments ||
Top||
#9
So Turkey's refusal has nothing to do with the fact that between 80%(www.washingtonsost.com) and 90% (www.sptimes.com) of the Turkish people didn't want US troops in their country? This decision was made by the elected representatives of the Turkish people. What hope would there be for the people of Iraq if the Bush administration didn't respect the democratically made decisions of America's oldest and closest allies? What does democracy mean if not respecting the wishes of your people? If allegance to the US requires suspending our democratic processes and going against the will of the majority of our citizens, what hope do any of us US "allies" have for enjoying the celebrated US values of freedom and democracy?
Posted by: British Citizen ||
03/27/2003 5:46 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"...there is no real friendship between nations but alliances and trade relations."
Murat, that comment betrays a strange blend of cynicism and naivety. Of course nations have 'friends' in the same way individuals, families and communities do. Nothing happens on the international scene without reference to past events and without a degree of emotion involved. Why do you think there's been such a tremendous backlash from the US and UK towards France, when other countries, such as Russia and China, have supported Saddam more so and are yet barely considered as targets for anger - because France was considered to be betraying us. What ignited the first world war? Alliances and their promises based on something far more akin 'friendship' than national self-interest, dragged Europe into a war that laid waste to so much national power and ambition, at little or no national gain.
A country that believes it has no friends is probably right. I hope that for Turkey's sake, your view is not representative.
#11
The US requested Turkey to allow the use of 3 bases Ãncirlik, Malatya and Batman, probably there will be another round of voting by our parliament soon.
Posted by: Murat ||
03/27/2003 6:02 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I think that the speculation on this (and other boards) about Turkey and its motivations have pretty effectively demonstrated that the posters have no idea as to what they are talking about, Murat possibly excepted. No one has addressed Murat's basic points: (1) Turkey suffers from substantial Kurdish terrorism, much resulting from GW1, (2) Turkey is a real democracy, and so the actions of its gov't can't be reduced to "tool of the military" or some other simplistic formulation and (3) Turkey (like the US) is generally going to do what its gov't perceives is best for Turkey. Btw, this last point is completely consistent with Turkey being a US friend and ally.
As for me, I think that Turkey has probably made a mistake.
But consider India: after a massacre of 24 civilians by islamists (one of countless post-9/11 atrocities almost certainly attributable to Pakistan and its agents), our public reaction is to tell them to continue to diplomatically engage Pakistan. Of course, our strategic interests (and maybe even India's) may favor this course. But is it really ridiculous that the Turkish gov't would have reservations about cooperating with the US, being caught between wide public disapproval of the Iraq action and fears that "terrorists" are defined with respect to US interests?
#13
Gulf War I - The Kurds were left alone to be slaughtered precisely because of Turkish fears that the uprising would lead to a new Kurdistan.
The Turkish government did exactly what their people wanted. That doesn't mean it was the best thing for Turkey. They lost money, a military and political hand in northern Iraq and the good will of the U.S. What did they gain ? French support ? The U.S. was their ONLY hope of getting into the EU.
Good to see you on the board. As always, raising some hackles and challenging some viewpoints.
The more I look at the situation, the less I think that relations b/t the US and Turkey have sustained serious damage. I DO think it was a huge surprise to Americans that Turkey did not want to help the US, but I think that Turkey has better reasons to decline than, say, France or Germany.
However, from what I've read, it seems also that many Turks themselves were surprised that they didn't support the US action. The expectation of many in the government seemed to have been that 1.) many parliamentarians would vote FOR helping the US, so they needn't; 2.) the parliamentary vote was a stage in the negotiations for US aid offers, and so did not constitute a final rejection. As was notably quoted in a news release on Rantburg earlier this week (I think) some government minister admitted that they had mis-calculated the tolerance of the US for bargaining.
Bottom line, Turkish interests are defined by Turks. From the American viewpoint, it seemed that our aid offers and support for NATO protection(opposed by Germany and France)were accommodating those interests, and that Turkey would respond in kind. It seems downright irrational for Turkey to have refused our requests, and in so doing, seemingly damage themselves AND one of their closest allies.
#16
"This is a strange notion there is no real friendship between nations but alliances and trade relations...
Thank you, Murat, for stating the Kissingerian doctrine. When followed by the USA, it leads to howlings all over the planet, but righteous defensiveness when espoused by everyone else against the USA.
expect it to be requoted at a later date, and in such a way as to make you regret you ever said it...
#17
"The more I look at the situation, the less I think that relations b/t the US and Turkey have sustained serious damage."
Regardless of Turkey's recent actions the relationship between the US and Turkey will diminish because Turkey will no longer be that important, geo-strategically to the US. Turkey has been very useful during the past 50+ years because of it's proximity to the Soviet Union (cold war) and Iraq (Saddam Hussein war). Once Iraq falls, Turkey is no longer that useful. I expect the long term relationship to be amiable, but mostly one of indifference.
#18
it is not possible to install a buffer zone on a mountain
I don't get it. It would seem to be easier for Turkey to defend the mountain passes than to irritate the Kurds on Iraqi soil. Also, Murat, you made your choices (turning down $15B in the process) and your choices were respected, so why are you so hostile to the American government lately? Do you prefer Saddam to a free Iraq? In truth, would you prefer that we pull out, eliminate the no-fly zone, and let the Kurds be slaughtered by Saddam and/or Turkish forces?
Posted by: Tom ||
03/27/2003 9:39 Comments ||
Top||
#19
What Glenn Reynolds wrote is true, but it's only half the story - the other half is that Turkey intended to screw us, they just didn't get the chance. France offered the EU. However less noticed is that China offered trade, lots of it - in exchange for Turkey's cooperation. (http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200301/15/eng20030115_110148.shtml ) Notice the date on this article is 1/15/03. Notice (yet unelected) Erdogan made public statements they wanted "a peaceful solution to Iraq" on the same day.
It was obvious - to anyone who wasn't consumed with wishful thinking - that the Turks would say no to US troops, WEEKS before they finally plunged the knife in our back. I said it then, I'm saying it now - not that anyone has ever listened.
Turkey was feeling smug until it became clear that their denial of the front did not prevent us from going to war as planned and we ARE going to win it. Furthermore, Allied Forces made it crystal clear that we will not allow ourselves to be intimidated by their troop movements. We'll fight them if they force us to.
Now they are backpeddaling like crazy and pretending like it's not their fault - it's mean old France's. Poor happless Turks - NOT!
#20
Murat, in all honesty I don't think a "buffer zone" would solve Turkey's terrorist problems. And you can't blame Washington for being a bit suspicious of any such Turkish buffer zones inside Iraq.
So, any other Turkish interests the US should be regarding?? Or is this the only one?
#21
Since we have been denied the opportunity to forge a "proper" northern front (heavy armor) the U.S should consider very carefully who their friends ae and to what extent we should bankroll their economies with our aid. Check out a recent oped by William Safire in the NY Times regarding aid and loans only conforming to World Monetary Fund guidelines
#22
Fact is, Turkey is teetering on the edge of becoming another Iran or Taliban/Afghanistan. If their Army doesn't roll on the Fundies, it is just a matter of time. I figure the Fundies take over, move to do to the Kurds what they did to the Armenians, and we are at war with them within 5 years.
#23
frankly, none of us is privy to the negotiations between the US and Turkey, we dont know exactly what Turkey asked for, if it was only a small refugee buffer, or if it was a broader veto over the Kurdish situation, and we dont know what the US responded with.
We also dont really know what the final outcome was. Even now the 173rd Airborne is landing in Kurdistan, to be followed, apparently by elements of the 1st ID. As someone pointed out it will be very difficult to supply a large force by air - and as Murat and others have pointed out theres been a lot of activity at Turkish ports lately - it may be too soon to connect these particular dots, but i continue to look for a surprise in this area.
Questions were being raised last night about the legality of the bombing of Iraqi television's main station in Baghdad, an attack that appears to have been triggered by Washington's determination to pull the plugs on a vital propaganda weapon of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Amnesty International said the bombing could be a breach of the Geneva convention. "The bombing of a television station, simply because it is being used for the purposes of propaganda, cannot be condoned. It is a civilian object, and thus protected under international humanitarian law," it said. There are times during PBS Pledge Week that I wish the Air Force would drop an E-bomb on Channel 11.
"To justify such an attack coalition forces would have to show that the TV station was being used for military purposes and that the attack properly balanced the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated with the incidental risk to civilian life," said Claudio Cordone, Amnesty's director for international law. Thanks for that, Claudio. What's that "international law" stuff again?
The International Federation of Journalists described the attack as an attempt at censorship. "I think there should be a clear international investigation into whether or not this bombing violates the Geneva convention," Aidan White, its general secretary, said. These guys are serious! I haven't seen this degree of obtuseness and pedantic mopery since, well, freshman orientation.
"We have every reason to believe this is an act of censorship against media that US politicians and military strategists don't like," he added incredulously. The US would have targeted the television station earlier if it had been a military target, he said. Your name, again, General?
The US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said this week that the aim was to end the Iraqi regime's "ability to communicate". Targets including Iraqi government communications and satellite links were described by Jim Wilkinson, a spokesman for US central command, as "key regime command-and-control assets".
Iraqi satellite TV, which broadcasts outside Iraq, temporarily went off the air while Iraq's domestic state-run television service, resumed broadcasting with a weaker signal.
The defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, has said he personally scrutinises targeting. His officials say that under the law of armed conflict only military objectives and combatants can be targeted but "something that is normally civilian in use that is being used for military purposes may be a legitimate target". "Now kindly shut up, you yapping gits."·
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 12:20 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ABC is in New York. Peter Jennings is in New York. We don't want to bomb New York. However, Peter Jennings is Canadian. Maybe we can get his visa cancelled.
ABC in general, and Peter Jennings in particular, leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. I'm glad Jennings wasn't an "embed" - it would be hard to keep the "long knives" from being brushed across his arrogant throat. Jennings and the rest of the leftist "mobocracy" should have to do latrine duty in Mogadisiu when this is over.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
When you've got the ability to strike a specific target at exactly the time you intend to, it allows a much more detailed sequence of events.
We didn't take it down until it was the last uncompromised means of communications.
#3
I can put an end to this debate very quickly: every time Sammy appears on the tube he is secretly sending messages to his RG & and the other thugs (note the winking and mustache movements).
Case resolved. Good targeting fellas. Next.
#4
It's a government-owned tv station When you are at war, everything that the government owns and runs becomes a target.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/27/2003 9:08 Comments ||
Top||
#5
In an AP article from 3/25, they said that 'State television carried what it described as a message from him to tribal and clan leaders, saying, "Consider this to be the command of faith and jihad and fight them."'
Using the TV station to issue commands to fight the coalition was probably something like a strategic error...
#6
Attack of type blah on islamic blah condemned internationaly by blah blah, intentional murder of innocent blah blah blah, arab street blah blah, great satan blah blah blah.
(Aljazeera news chief) Ok boys, I outlined the story, just wait for an event and fill it in.
#8
ABC is in New York. Peter Jennings is in New York. We don't want to bomb New York. However, Peter Jennings is Canadian. Maybe we can get his visa cancelled.
ABC in general, and Peter Jennings in particular, leaves a nasty taste in my mouth. I'm glad Jennings wasn't an "embed" - it would be hard to keep the "long knives" from being brushed across his arrogant throat. Jennings and the rest of the leftist "mobocracy" should have to do latrine duty in Mogadisiu when this is over.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 15:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
propaganda is part of warfare. knock it out i say.
A large contingent of Iraq's elite Republican Guard headed south in a 1,000-vehicle convoy Wednesday toward U.S. Marines in central Iraq - an area that already has seen the heaviest fighting of the war. In Baghdad, Iraqi officials said two cruise missiles hit a residential area, killing 14 people.
Word of the Republican Guard advance came as U.S. units in central Iraq appeared to be shifting their strategy because of the attacks from Iraqi militiamen. Instead of racing to Baghdad, some units were moving slower to clear out pockets of opposition.
``We're going into a hunting mode right now,'' said Lt. Col. B.T. McCoy of 3rd Battalion, 4th Marines. ``We're going to start hunting down instead of letting them take the cheap shots.'' It's "elk-hunter" hunting season for the Marines! Guys, the ranger has licensed you to use large-bore weapons. Don't worry about bringing any of the varmints home, just field-dress them for us.
Cobra pilots resupplying Marines in central Iraq cited military intelligence reports that 3,000 Republican Guard troops were moving from Baghdad to the city of Kut, and 2,000 more were seen south of Kut.
The Iraqis, issued their first fable report of battlefield foolishness action by the Republican Guards. A military spokesman said a Guard special forces unit attacked coalition troops in south-central Iraq, destroying six armored vehicles and inflicting an unspecified number of casualties. There was no allied confirmation of such an attack.
Together, the reports appeared to signal that the Republican Guard, Saddam Hussein's best trained and most loyal force, was still not prepared to take the offensive despite days of allied air strikes and missile attacks on its positions. Oh, please, please take the offensive.
The U.S. Army's 3rd Infantry Division drew to within 50 miles of Baghdad, west of where the Republican Guard was advancing. Other American forces were expected to join soon in squeezing the capital from several directions.
Asked about military conditions south of Baghdad, Brooks said ``we've not seen any significant movement'' in the area by the Republican Guard. ``There have been local positionings and survival positionings, but not serious attacks,'' he said. "They looked like they were digging mighty big holes to hide in, which suited us fine, since it made it easier to back-fill the lot of them."
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 12:10 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When I first heard of this, it seemed to me that it was because of false orders given through tapped communications lines.
If reports are true that the convoy has not been attacked... then I'm inclined to believe that the orders arrived rather more openly.
This could be VERY interesting.
#3
If they end up across the Euphrates without any engagements, then it's pretty clear what happened.
We've said we want Iraq to have an army when we're done. They can park in the desert for a week or two, and we'll keep 'em supplied (via the Red Crescent, of course). Perfidy isn't really an option. Out in the open desert, they'd be sitting ducks for us if that were our intent.
Not surrendering. Just choosing to be ready to fight another foe on some other day.
#4
As I write, it has been reported that the entire RG unit was squashed by Coalition airpower. In order to channel Arab rage, the Saddamites have been harping on their alleged success at Umm Qasr. Reality dictates that the allies held back in that theater, in consideration of civilian casualties. Yet the Arab world is celebrating alleged heroic "hold-outs." For example:
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/opinion/25_03_03_b.asp
Over 50% of Coalition field target-applications are being rejected by operations commanders, according to "rules of engagement" respecting civilians. It has to be understood that civilians abandon buildings when armed men enter, thus, it is reasonable to target buildings from which sniper fire originates.
Two International Red Cross workers attempted to prevent the IDF from arresting a senior Islamic Jihad terrorist today. An IDF Egoz unit entered the Red Cross building in Jenin today, arrested the terrorist's accomplice, and found two Kalachnikov rifles at the site. When the soldiers asked to enter the offices, the two female workers - from the U.S. and Britain - would not allow them to do so, saying no one was inside. The Israelis insisted on entering, and found the terrorist, Shadi Sukiya, armed with a pistol. They arrested him without incident. Sukiya has long been wanted for his involvement in a series of murderous attacks against Jews. Every time I read about something like this, my respect for Humanitarianism, Inc., goes down another notch. The Red Cross's skim of the money donated to 9-11 victims, the Paleo Red Crescent ambos transporting boomers, and the UN's Food for Nooky program.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 07:06 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
The photo of Villepin at this link is a classic, well worth it for you Brits who play darts.
French foreign minister Dominique de Villepin gave a talk at London's International Institute for Strategic Studies in his first visit to Britain since the outbreak of war. During a question and answer session at the end of his speech he refused to answer the question: "Who do you want to win the war?" He considered the answer to be so obvious as to not require an answer.
De Villepin said France's main priority in the reconstruction of Iraq would be for the United Nations to pass a humanitarian resolution on the oil-for-food programme. He said the UN must be at the heart of the reconstruction of Iraq following a crisis which has "shattered" the established world order. He's good with words, I wonder if he knows the meaning of "forlorn hope."
But he said he was also confident that France and the United States would re-establish the close ties they enjoyed before the Iraqi crisis unfolded. Guess again.
Mr de Villepin and French president Jacques Chirac have clashed repeatedly with Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw over how to resolve the Iraq crisis. At the lowest point of the diplomatic feud, Downing Street described the French threat to veto a second UN resolution in any circumstances as "idiotic""traitorous""vile" "poisonous". With Jack Straw accompanying Mr Blair on his trip to the US there are thought to be no plans for another British Foreign Office minister to meet Mr de Villepin while he is in Britain. Is there a need?
Posted by: Steve White ||
03/27/2003 07:16 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I do not respect the French.
Posted by: Mark ||
03/27/2003 19:04 Comments ||
Top||
#2
France is worried about the $75 billion oil contract with Saddam and America discovering all the dual use technologies transferred to Iraq. If they think relations are bad now, they don't understand that Dubya is his mother's son.
#3
I say, as Americans, we all move into the parts of the Maginot Line that have been turned into apartments. Then we turn around and hold the rest of the country hostage....of course we'll need to bring our Makita drills to make holes...
âBritish and US troops are discovering they are not welcome in Iraq,â Senior Shiite cleric Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah said Wednesday, after coalition forces faced fierce resistance in the south. âThe people continue to view these soldiers and their presence in Iraq as an occupation force,â said Fadlallah in a statement sent to AFP. âThe Americans and the British are shocked by the significant resistance of the Iraqi people after they thought the road to Baghdad would be strewn with flowers.â
Fadlallah said the suffering of the Iraqi people under President Saddam Hussein will not make them forget who brought him to power in the first place, and supplied him with weapons, alluding to western support for the Iraqi leader during his war with Iran in the 1980s. Separately, Fadlallah said Wednesday that âeverybody is in a stalemate,â adding that âWashington has started to read the message of the Iraqi people accurately and it will not be welcomed by them in the future as it is not welcome now.â
In a TV interview Tuesday, Fadlallah said that the area of Najaf, a holy city for Shiite Muslims, would not accept occupation even if it suffered. Fadlallah also called on residents there to âsupport freedom.â
He said Israel will not stage any military attack against Lebanon because the US does not want to open new fronts, neither here nor in Syria.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 06:00 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
typical for a cowardly mullah, huh? He urges others to risk/lose their lives while he (an important religious figure) holds down the home 'fort'. I read and reread the interview and can only surmise his happy ass is seated in Lebanon, sending Fatwa faxes to AFP and his cannon fodder off to their deathes, It seems to me that the best way to discourage suicide attacks is to insist that the brave mullahs ordering them - lead them
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2003 21:22 Comments ||
Top||
Today at the future League of Nations...
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations walked out of a debate on the Iraqi war Thursday after Iraq 's ambassador accused the United States of trying to exterminate the Iraqi people. Yes! So long , folks. It's been great. I'm outta here.
"I did sit through quite a long part of what he had to say but I'd heard enough," U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said.
Iraq's U.N. envoy Mohammed Al-Douri charged that the United States had arranged for contracts to rebuild Iraq in 1997, six years before the U.S.-led war began last week. Wouldn't that be when a certain Mr. Clinton was president? So you know that's gotta be bullshit.
Negroponte got up and walked out as Al-Douri continued speaking, accusing the United States of a military campaign to wipe out the Iraqi people. "I don't accept any of the allegations," Negroponte said. Al-Douri said the United States had even planned the carving up of Iraq before Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990.Almost spluttering, he said the United States now was using the issue of humanitarian aid to hide its "criminal aggression." So I guess we're winning. Doesn't sound like they think it's a quagmire.
The Iraqi envoy urged the Security Council to halt the war in Iraq, saying ending the conflict was even more important than getting humanitarian assistance into the region. ...and because we're getting our asses kicked.
Al-Douri was the last of more than 80 speakers at the first open Security Council debate on Iraq since the war began last week. About a dozen countries that are not on the council supported the U.S. position, but the vast majority opposed the war and expressed regret that Iraq's disarmament could not be achieved peacefully. 80 speakers. At the UN? That's probably why he left. Talk about cruel and inhumane...
"Britain and the United States are about to start a real war of extermination that will kill everything and destroy everything," Al-Douri warned. "And then their regret will be of no use.If the humanitarian issue is very important, it is more important" to halt the war, he said. Sounds like Mo's worried about swing at the end of a rope soon, right next to Sammy and the boys.
#1
It would be rather apropos if Al-Douri was found one morning, hanging by his thumbs in Central Park, with his throat slit. "Just another mugging, nothting serious, just move along, now..."
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So what is going to happen to the present Iraqi delegation to the UN when Sammy is gone? Is the new gov't going to demand extradition to New Baghdad? When do we get to muck through all the goodies in the Iraqi Embassy?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"Britain and the United States are about to start a real war of extermination that will kill everything and destroy everything," Al-Douri warned.
Yeah, kill and destroy anything and everything Saddam. For some reason, I don't have much of a problem with that....
#6
It would be rather apropos if Al-Douri was found one morning, hanging by his thumbs in Central Park, with his throat slit. "Just another mugging, nothting serious, just move along, now..."
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 14:41 Comments ||
Top||
#7
It would be rather apropos if Al-Douri was found one morning, hanging by his thumbs in Central Park, with his throat slit. "Just another mugging, nothting serious, just move along, now..."
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 14:42 Comments ||
Top||
#8
This coming from a guy who hasn't been able to pick up his voice mail for a week now.
He should be thankful he was "away on business" when the music started.
#9
So what is going to happen to the present Iraqi delegation to the UN when Sammy is gone? Is the new gov't going to demand extradition to New Baghdad? When do we get to muck through all the goodies in the Iraqi Embassy?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 15:25 Comments ||
Top||
#10
"Britain and the United States are about to start a real war of extermination that will kill everything and destroy everything," Al-Douri warned.
Yeah, kill and destroy anything and everything Saddam. For some reason, I don't have much of a problem with that....
#11
I Overheard this at a bar yesterday:, ( TV showing footage of the market that we supposedly hit with a tomahawk )
"If we wanted to kill ya, you'd be dead, jackass"
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
03/27/2003 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#12
While this is one of those days where I really wonder if the administration has its shit together, I still look forward to when Saddam's surviving henchmen try to explain the stupid statements they uttered when they were pillars of the regime.
#13
All of the nation sin the UN that express regret that the disarmament of Iraq could not of proceded peacefully should of had the balls to tell the French to stuff it three to four weeks ago. The Third World Debating Society is the organization that is driving itself into nonrelevance. While something like the UN is needed I question wether or not the organization itself can be saved. It is ludicrus that in the general assembly a nation the size of India has exactly the same voting power as say Fiji.
Posted by: Someone who did NOT vote for William Proxmire ||
03/27/2003 22:22 Comments ||
Top||
#14
If Saddam would tell Al-Douri to come back to Baghdad, would he return? I wonder...
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan admitted that the world was bitter at the United Nations' handling of the Iraqi crisis and said the member states regret the UN efforts to achieve a peaceful solution did not succeed. Opening the United Nations Security Council session held on Wednesday at the request of the Arab League and the Non-Aligned Movement, Annan said, the peoples of the world had shown how much they expected from the United Nations and the 15-member Security Council. "Many of them have been bitterly disappointed," Annan said. "All of us must regret that our intense efforts to achieve a peaceful solution through this council did not succeed," he said. "We're disappointed that the whole episode demonstrated just how ineffectual and venal the UN really is. We were hoping no one noticed..."
"We are living through a moment of deep divisions, which, if not healed, can have grave consequences for the international system and relations between states." "I'm really worried about whether I'm gonna have a job this time next year..."
He said faith in the United Nations could only be restored if the council worked on specific goals for Iraq, including tapping into billions of dollars in Iraqi oil revenue to finance the emergency aid under the UN oil-for-food program, which is still stalled in the council. "Money is power. It doesn't even have to be your own money, as long as it's your own power..."
Annan criticized both Iraq for neglecting arms inspectors and the United States for acting unilaterally. "Many people around the world are seriously questioning whether it was legitimate for some member states to proceed to such a fateful action now, an action that has far-reaching consequences well beyond the immediate military dimensions without first reaching a collective decision of this Council," Annan told the council. The Security Council did reach a collective decision. It decided to dither.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
03/27/2003 02:09 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Doesn't the oil for food game end when Saddam is removed. I think the UN just wants the oil money going through its greedy little hands.
#5
Dealing with Kofi is like sending radio signals to a distant galexy: it takes days or weeks to get a signal back. The age of accountability is coming, Kofi, and it will not be business as usual for the UN anymore. There is $40bn or so of the Iraqi people's money in a weasel bank somewhere for the Oil-for-Food Programe and it certainly does not exist as a skimming fund for UN skimocrats.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 15:15 Comments ||
Top||
#6
He said faith in the United Nations could only be restored if the council worked on specific goals for Iraq, including tapping into billions of dollars in Iraqi oil revenue to finance the emergency aid under the UN oil-for-food program, which is still stalled in the council.
Let there be no more money funneled to the U.N. for anything from Iraq, and let there be no more American money sent in the form of dues. The old oil-for-food program should be declared dead, and humanitarian efforts given to some other responsible organization.
Phuque the U.N.
"All of us must regret that our intense efforts to achieve a peaceful solution through this council did not succeed," he said.
Not only did the UNSC not achieve a peaceful solution, it also failed to respond to Iraqi intransigence in a forceful and determined way. That means it failed on not one but TWO fronts.
#9
"Many people around the world are seriously questioning whether it was legitimate for some member states to proceed to such a fateful action now, an action that has far-reaching consequences well beyond the immediate military dimensions without first reaching a collective decision of this Council," Annan told the council.
Yeah, and many people wonder why the removal of a brutal dictator would require even a vote, much less a drawn-out debate (and a failed one at that!).
Good luck in your next position selling used cars.
#10
"an action that has far-reaching consequences"
For you maybe. The other 90% of the world that isn't in Europe or North America or Australasia (?) could only be slightly worse-off.
Opinion piece from the Times (UK) by Anatole KaletskyLong but insightful
When Tony Blair flew to America yesterday to meet President Bush and Kofi Annan, he clearly felt that history was looking over his shoulder. It may seem extravagant to compare this weekâs meetings in Camp David and New York with Bretton Woods, Potsdam or Yalta. But to judge by the Prime Ministerâs extraordinary lucidity and frankness at his press conference on Tuesday, he understands as well as did Churchill that the world will never be the same again after the Iraq war. Mr Blair said in another of his moments of supreme eloquence, shortly after September 11, that the kaleidoscope of history had been shaken and nobody could say where the pieces would fall. Today, the state of the world seems even more chaotic than 18 months ago. Yet amid the confusion, new shapes and outlines are starting to form.
While nobody can predict exactly how events will unfold in Iraq in the coming days, weeks or even months, some long-term consequences of this conflict are almost as clear as the military outcome. Just as it is predetermined that the US will win, at least in a military sense, and Saddam Hussein will be overthrown, it is now inevitable that many global relationships will change dramatically in the years ahead. Some changes are obvious enough. It is clear, for example, that Americaâs relations with France and Germany will never be the same. As Mr Blair stated grimly on Tuesday: âThere is at the end of this going to be a reckoning about relations between America and Europe.â
It was equally clear from Mr Blairâs comments that Britainâs relations with Europe will permanently change. When a tireless Euro-booster such as Mr Blair uses the emotional word âreckoningâ about relations with Europe, it is likely that he has arrived at a personal moment of truth. This becomes undeniable when he looks directly at the camera and portentously adds, not once but twice, that what he is about to say is âprobably undiplomatic, but I will say it nonethelessâ. Mr Blairâs frustration was understandable enough. He feels, with a great deal of justice, that his efforts to reconcile American and global interests were sabotaged by France. He very nearly managed to integrate US military power into the UN system, thereby strengthening and legitimising both. One could readily imagine the depth of his resentment towards the French and German âpartnersâ who sabotaged this potentially historic task. And to what purpose, since the collapse of UN diplomacy only accelerated the war which the French and Germans supposedly wanted to stop?
But rather than endlessly raking over the blunders and misunderstandings which brought international relations to this sorry pass, it may now be more interesting to try to imagine some of the consequences of the new global alignments. Which countries and institutions, for example, might be long-term winners or losers? Some of the losers are easy enough to identify. Nato and the UN have both been permanently weakened. While the UN will doubtless continue to operate as a humanitarian organisation and a global debating society, Nato will probably cease to exist in its present form. Since Natoâs original purpose â to protect Western Europe from communism â has been fulfilled, it is hard to see any benefit for America or Britain in continuing a military alliance with France, Germany and Belgium.
The countries which will most obviously lose out are Germany, which will suffer from the withdrawal of US troops, and of course France. France will find its crucial aerospace, defence and electronics industries consigned to permanent technological obsolescence since they will be frozen out of joint ventures and partnerships in which the Pentagon plays any role. Belgium will suffer from the closure or relocation of Natoâs Brussels HQ.But what will be much more damaging for this âold Europeâ axis than such visible signs of US distrust will be the broader economic and social effects of the transatlantic cleavage. The gulf between the continental and Anglo-Saxon economic models will probably widen. This may prove reassuring to Europeâs ageing voters, whose prime concerns today are stability and secure retirement, rather than creating opportunities for the next generation. But flows of capital and trade across the Atlantic will diminish, as American companies and investors focus increasingly on Asia, rather than Europe. European investors, meanwhile, will be more anxious than ever to get their capital out of Europe as the economic opportunities evaporate.
Beyond Old Europe, some other clear losers are easy enough to discern. Russia and Turkey have both played strong hands extremely badly. And while Turkey may well be âforgivenâ because its co-operation is essential for stability in the Middle East, Russia is likely to suffer significantly, though not as disastrously as France and Germany, from ending up on the wrong side. Not only will Russia lose a substantial part of its financial stake in Iraq. More importantly, it has damaged its hopes of rapid integration into the world economy by establishing normal trade relations with the US and gaining early membership of the World Trade Organisation.
The cold warriors in Russiaâs foreign ministry may be congratulating themselves about undermining Nato by tempting France and Germany into a new triple alliance, but this strategy will backfire in the long run, as America tightens its military links with Poland, Hungary and the Baltic States, all countries inherently hostile to Russia. Even worse, the shift of American allegiances from Western Europe to the Middle East and Asia could revive the ultimate Russian nightmare â a further strengthening of the US-Chinese relationship, already the worldâs most important economic partnership. Another big and unexpected loser may be Israel â at least the militantly expansionist Israel defined by Ariel Sharon. Once the war is over, the priority for the Bush Administration will be to try to stabilise the Middle East. Since further serious trouble in Iraq after the war is won would destroy Mr Bushâs chances of re-election in November 2004, this priority will override all others, including the fanatical attachment to aggressive Zionism among many of Bushâs neo-conservative supporters. As a result, the Sharon Government could suddenly find itself friendless in Washington if it continues to obstruct progress towards peace. The outcome could be an unexpected flexibility in Israeli attitudes to Palestinian statehood, a collapse of the Sharon Government, or an implosion of the Israeli economy as the US withdraws its support. Whichever of these happened, it would be a supremely ironic case of the law of unintended consequences. For the most fervent supporters of Mr Sharonâs hardline Middle East policy in Washington were also the most vociferous advocates of war.
Turning from losers to winners, there seems to be only one country that will undeniably gain from the confusing events of the past few months. That is Iraq. Even if this war proves far bloodier than the 1991 campaign (which is, as yet, by no means certain) the vast majority of Iraqis will soon find themselves incomparably freer and better off than at any time in the past 50 years. Once Saddam is overthrown, the Bush Administration will spare no effort to make its liberation of Iraq âworkâ and, judging by the experience of other Middle Eastern countries, the combination of unlimited sums of money with a strong security presence is likely to succeed in stabilising Iraq, at least for a few years. The only other obvious winners from the Iraq crisis are less inspiring. They are the governments of Iran, North Korea and other rogue states. After this unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq â and the even more difficult occupation â America is most unlikely to be able to summon up the political will, the money, or the military resources to attack any of its other perceived enemies.
Finally, what about the main protagonists in this drama, America and Britain? Will they end up as winners or losers? I have left this question until last because it is impossible to answer. Neither Britain nor America will gain anything from the weakening of Europe, the straining of relations with Russia or the huge expenditures that will now be needed to reconstruct Iraq. But if the Middle East could be stabilised and Iraq did turn into a beacon of democracy for Muslims, the whole world would obviously gain.
Posted by: kgb ||
03/27/2003 12:15 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"After this unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq â and the even more difficult occupation â America is most unlikely to be able to summon up the political will, the money, or the military resources to attack any of its other perceived enemies."
Speculative. We've been at it for only a week--its much too early to label the current effort "unexpectedly difficult". Morever, the NEED to "attack its perceived enemies" could diminish dramitically if all goes to plan.
#3
I was agreeing with this article, but then this: re: stabili[zation] the Middle East .."this priority will override all others, including the fanatical attachment to aggressive Zionism among many of Bushâs neo-conservative supporters."
hmmm....maybe I'm reading this wrong...but not only does this seem to be an invalid assumption re: neocons, but it also reeks of vile anti-Semitism. Such an ugly outburst causes me to question the entire piece.
#4
Israel is the bad guy because it defends itself. The boom belt people get a pass. The article falls apart.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 13:04 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I agree with Becky. The Israel portion of the piece is deeply flawed.
"Militantly expansionist"?
Other than some truly minor growth in existing settlements, what expansion? It's just a label that gets thrown at Sharon but is devoid of any basis in current reality.
"Continues to obstruct progres towards peace"?
If I hear this phrase again my brain will explode. What progress? Seriously, what the hell is he talking about? The 20,000 Hizbollah in South Lebanon pointing rockets at Israeli farms? The suicide bombers? The Paleo rallies for Saddam?Any "progress" towards a state of decreased violence (certainly not "peace") has been the result of agressive Israeli counter-terror operations in the territories. In fact, American so-called even-handed reactions to Paleo suicide attacks came to an abrupt halt when Bush finally realized that a group of people that continuously sends bomb-belted jihadis into pizza parlors is not really interested in co-existing with its neighbors.
"Once the war is over, the priority for the Bush Administration will be to try to stabilise the Middle East"
To put it briefly, it seems pretty clear by now that Middle East stability - i.e. the status quo - has been deemed an untenable state of affairs that will perpetually give rise to groups like al-Qaida, and will therefore continue to threaten our physical security as well as jeapardize the world's oil supply. Conclusion - time to re-order things, get rid of the oppressive regimes that inevitably cause Islamo-fundos to sprout, otherwise no amount of homeland security will prevent another 9/11. Don't think so? Bashar al-Asad sure does (just announced he thinks he's next). Of course, we will attempt to control type and manner of change in Syria, Iran, Saudi. But the prediction that Israel will come out a loser is based on presumptions that are flatly wrong. It's interesting how an analyst can see some of the writing on the wall but totally miss the rest.
#6
"After this unexpectedly difficult war in Iraq â and the even more difficult occupation â America is most unlikely to be able to summon up the political will, the money, or the military resources to attack any of its other perceived enemies."
Speculative. We've been at it for only a week--its much too early to label the current effort "unexpectedly difficult". Morever, the NEED to "attack its perceived enemies" could diminish dramitically if all goes to plan.
#7
There are several severe flaws in this piece other than those mentioned above. First, consider the source. Russia has been playing both sides against the middle here, and will be more than "modestly" punished. Russia is going to find a HUGE hole in its rear. As for "NATO", I think the next time you see this alliance meet, it will be in Prague, with a lot of new members, and some old members excluded. We may even rename it. Other bigtime losers will be Syria and Saudi Arabia, and because of that, the so-called "Palestinians". All three will have their activities in support of "jihad" severely curtailed, and find themselves under increasing scrutiny by Coalition military and economic interests.
One big winner that hasn't been mentioned at all is Jordan. Not only will we continue to support the nation, we will encourage much of the rest of the Arab states move toward establishing similar relationships with Israel and the rest of the world. No country has benefitted more from peace with Israel than Jordan. Nor has any country been a better friend of the United States. We will reward our friends. I'm sure an oil pipeline to Jordan will be a major agenda item for the newly-formed Iraqi government.
The BIG loser will be the United Nations, which will cease to be of any importance in world affairs. I doubt it will recover. France will definitely take a hit, as will Germany. Turkey was mugged, and can be forgiven - later. The rest of the Middle East will find a mixed bag.
The United States and Great Britain will be BIG winners, even HUGE winners. Expect Blair to be Prime Minister for years to come. The Democratic Party in the United States is in total disaray, and is so busy shooting itself in the foot it may never recover. The "anti-war" movement will also suffer a huge defeat, and many of its members will find the future very unpleasant for themselves.
This definitely is a defining moment in world history. Too bad so many people don't realize it, and wilfully throw themselves on the losing side.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 13:46 Comments ||
Top||
#8
"the broader economic and social effects of the transatlantic cleavage."
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Thursday the United Nations must be at the heart of the reconstruction of Iraq following a crisis which France created has "shattered" the established world order. Speaking at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, de Villepin also said he was confident that France and the United States would re-establish the close ties they enjoyed before the Iraqi crisis unfolded. De Villepin said France's main priority in the reconstruction of Iraq would be for France to make a lot of money the U.N. to pass a humanitarian resolution on the oil-for-food program.
Posted by: Spot ||
03/27/2003 11:58 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yah, with the UN's very own "Iraqian Authority." Maybe Arafat could show them how to run it (into the ground).
#2
"France 'insists'the United Nations must be at the heart of the reconstruction of Iraq".
France is about to learn a lesson in behavior. Act like a spoiled, over-pampered and undisciplined brat, and you get treated like a spoiled, over-pampered and undisciplined brat. I also think it's time for the United Nations to learn an important lesson: We will NOT accept a group of unelected non-citizens running this nation, nor dictating to its people. I also think it's time for some of the innumerable NGO's to also learn that there are limits to our patience.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
03/27/2003 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
France should just appease us, wave the white flag and get back to eating some cheese.
#5
Frawnce's priority is to get at the oil. They had huge contracts with Sammy to develop upto 25% of Iraqs potential supply. Now, they get nothing and like it. Mmmmmmm Frog, tastes just like chicken.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
03/27/2003 11:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
How can I put this so they will understand...NON! Now get your cheese eating butt back over in the corner and cower!
#7
The other problem for the French is all the "past due invoices" with Saddam's soon to be Chapter 11 Regeim. It's what the accounts will call a "charge off to bad debt" as I don't think W is assuming any bad debt in this somewhat hostile takeover! But please Mr Villipan,do come back in a few weeks and check out our newest Chevron Station conveniently located at Faw & Iran.
#9
If the French present to us the white flag of surrender, we will give them everything they want. It is the American way (TM). If they keep up the same unsuccessful behavior of delay, obstruct, and threaten veto, we will tell them to take a flying f--k at a rolling donut. Watch the hands and not the mouth. They just do not get it yet.
#14
Last time I checked, all the money that the UN is holding in escrow for Oil-for-Food was sitting in French banks. I've heard the figure quoted as upwards of $40bil. Meanwhile the UN is asking fellow countries to pony up $1bil to pay for humanitarian support for Iraq. What gives here?
Someone need to ask the French and the UN some tough questions.
Posted by: john ||
03/27/2003 13:31 Comments ||
Top||
#15
On the other hand, since a fair number of the administration's more optimistic expectations seem to have been exploded, why assume that we're going to do well with post-war Iraq? At the very least it would seem a safe bet that Iraq will not become our new unsinkable aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf.
This being the case, it would be a perfect oppertunity to declare victory and go home. But only after very carefully making sure that the only people left to run the new Iraqi government are people inclined to support us. Heh, heh.
#17
France is in no position to "insist" on anything. Nor is the UN. Are they are both so arrogant that they have no clue how much they've hurt themselves? Change that insist to "begs" and maybe we'll talk.
#18
Still proud of my partial "French" heritage...of course, they're Basque, so......
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/27/2003 18:12 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Let's face it, folks. The French think they can win by negotiating from a position of weakness. This indicates arrogance a/o brain damage.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/27/2003 20:41 Comments ||
Top||
#20
I'll cross my fingers that my "French" heritage is from the Basque districts of Araba , Bizkaia , Gipuzkoa and Nafarroa (i.e, Spain) rather than France.
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.
