Source: Dharb-I-Momin, Translated By Jihad Unspun
In order to lessen the Taliban influence and keep its control, the Americans have decided to split Afghanistan into seven states. The task has been handed over to Karzaiâs deputy Naimat Ullah Shehraniâs brother Inayat Ullah. According to very reliable source, the Americans initially allocated $75 million for the task. The source went on to show surprise that the Americans have informed Russian and Pakistani governments but they have also gained their consent for this project. Hey! Sounds good! When do we start?
The practical work on this project, in the name Federalism, was started when the operations in Afghanistan were redirected. According to this American plan, regional governments would be established in all these seven states. A diplomat from Kabul told Dharb-i-Momin that Inayat Ullah was recalled from Washington, who later on participated in a secret meeting of American Generals in âTaliqanâ. He was then taken to Kunduz under American commandosâ protection. I'm guessing "Taliqan" is the town of Taloqan, a Northern Alliance stronghold...
According to report, Inayat Ullah informed the non-Pashtoon participants of the conference about the plans for the seven state division. It has also been mentioned in the report that all the factions of Northern Alliance also attended this conference. However, no Pushtoon, Jihadi or political leader was privy to the details which is why the conference attendees did not argue over the American backed proposal and accepted it without any resentment. Northern Alliance members aren't allowed to be jihadis. It sounds like a proposal for some sort of federal system for Afghanistan, probably affording the different ethnic groups a measure of autonomy. That's just my guess, though, assuming it ever happened at all...
Inayat Ullah said in the conference that he gives importance to all the nations in Afghanistan and is tolerant to give representation to them all. About Pushtoons not present in the conference, Inayat Ullah justified it by saying that since they are not for the division of Afghanistan it will take some time to convince them. Staffing it with the guys they figure they can get on board?
According to sources, along with high ranking officials of American and British military and secret agencies, the American Counsul General in Mazar-e-Sharif also attended this conference in Taliqan. Sources also mentioned that this plan has the backing of Russia as well as several other Afghan neighbors. Pakistani Prime Minister Gen. Parvez Musharraf was also briefed some of the basic elements of this plans during his recent visit to Russia. If it exists, I'd guess it has the blessing of all of Afghanistan's neighbors...
Following are the details of the plan in the name of federalism
1.Eastern and South Eastern provinces Nangarhar, Laghman, Kantar, Paktia, Paktika and Khost to be made into to PUSHTUNISTAN
2.Southern provinces Hazara, Shabarghan, Sarpul, Faryab, Samangan, and Kunduz into TURKISTAN
3.Central provinces Bamyan, Ghazni and Wardig into HAZARISTAN
4.Kandahar, Zabul, Arzagan and Himand into LOAY KANDAHAR
5.Harat, Ghaur, Badgehs and Nimroz into ARYANA
6.North Eastern provinces Badakhshan, takhar and Baghlan into KHURASAN
7.Capsia, Kabul and Logar into PAMIR
Meanwhile, Afghan military and political analysts while labeling this American plan a failure commented that prior to this, the British also tried to divide Afghanistan which failed. Analysts say that more than 65% of the Afghan population is Pushtoon which are against the division of Afghanistan. I don't think I've ever seen an estimate as high as 65%. Most say between 40 percent and a little over 50 percent, making the Pashtuns either the largest single minority in Afghanistan, or a bare majority of Afghans.
An Afghan historian and literate, Habib Ullah Rafi said in a statement to a foreign news agency, that this American- Russian plan will never reach completion. He said that those who are traitors to the nation as well as the country, will have a horrible place in history. Bear in mind, although this plan is emerging on the international media front, Hamid Karzai has opted to be silent on this issue. If the plan exists â a big "if", considering the source — it might involve a realignment and grouping of the provinces along ethnic lines into larger "states," more a confederacy than a federation. I'd guess there would be a centralized foreign policy with local administration under ethnic customs. That would mean that the Tadjiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen and Dari-speakers could engage in commerce, watch dirty movies, and generally have a good time, while the Pashtuns could continue shooting each other in family feuds, abusing their women, and generally vegetating.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/24/2003 05:07 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
So depending upon one's point of view it could be a political subdivision of Afghanistan along ethnic lines, or in the Pashtun's view, draw and quarter....so to speak.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 17:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
And that's why I won't buy a globe, too many changes.
Via Daily Pundit
A chartered Cessna aircraft carrying an Afghan minister and seven others crashed into the sea off Pakistan Monday and all aboard were feared dead, the Pakistani navy said. Navy spokesman Commander Roshan Khayal said the wreckage of the plane had been found about 30 nautical miles from the southern port city of Karachi in the second crash in Pakistani territory in less than a week. "We have recovered four dead bodies. I cannot confirm their identity. The search for others is still in progress," Khayal told Reuters. On board was Afghan Minister for Petroleum and Mines Juma Mohammad Mohammadi who had held talks in Pakistan at the weekend on a major pipeline project that would link Turkmenistan and Pakistan via Afghanistan. Others aboard the aircraft included several other Afghan officials, an official of Pakistan's foreign ministry and Sun Chang Sheng, chief executive of MCC Resource Development Co, a Chinese pipeline firm, said an official with Star Air Aviation, which chartered the aircraft from a private relief agency. He said the aircraft was a Cessna 402 that took off from Karachi at 8:10 a.m. local time.
Speaking in Kuala Lumpur, where he was attending a summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, Afghan President Hamid Karzai expressed shock at the news. "This is a shocking thing and it is sad news," Karzai told Reuters. "We have lost a fine qualified Afghan minister if the news is true. And we are very sorry for that."
The Edhi Welfare Foundation, a private Pakistani charitable group, said its plane went missing over Cape Monz, near Karachi. Abdul Sattar Edhi, the head of the Edhi Welfare Foundation, said the plane had been due to land at an airport in Baluchistan province at 11:15 a.m. local time. Edhi flies small aircraft for relief and air ambulance operations. A Cessna 402 is a twin-propeller aircraft capable of carrying up to eight people.
Knowing there's a "charitable group" involved always makes me suspicious...
#1
If I ever go to Pakistan - and I'll be kicking and screaming if I do - I'm taking a boat everywhere.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/24/2003 12:10 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Hmmm why would a Cessna flight plan out of Karachi be 30 miles out to sea?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 12:56 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They bought their navigation equipment from N. Korea.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 13:29 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Fred said "If I ever go to Pakistan - and I'll be kicking and screaming if I do - I'm taking a boat everywhere."
I'd like to add "..and wearing a lifejacket with a survival kit in my pocket for every mile of the trip."
Posted by: Ed Becerra ||
02/24/2003 14:01 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Not much to chose from, third world airlines, buses, trains, or ferries. Seems like there is a story once a week of one or the other crashing or sinking.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 14:27 Comments ||
Top||
Three Kuwaitis have been detained on suspicion of planning terrorist attacks on U.S. forces in Kuwait, the Interior Ministry announced Monday. The three were found with weapons and ammunition, the ministry said. It did not say when the men were detained or if they had been charged. The ministry identified the three as Ahmed Mutlaq al-Mutairi, 29, Abdullah Mutlaq al-Mutairi, 32, Musaed Horan al-Enezi, 28. It said the men were suspected of planning terrorist attacks on American forces based in Kuwait ahead of a possible U.S.-led attack on neighboring Iraq. The arrests follow a series of attacks on American soldiers and civilians in Kuwait and come as U.S. military forces mass here for a possible war to topple Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. The longer our troops are massed there, the more risk there is of a terror attack.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 02:15 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
According to our French anti-jihadis at www.proche-orient.com: "The latest survey conducted by the internet website of al-Jazeera, between Feb. 19-22, posed the following question, 'Do you endorse al-Qaeda's demand for the removal of American troops from the Gulf?' The answers are edifying: 85.6% voted YES; 10.5% voted NO; and 2.8% were undecided. The number of voters: 56,183."
Message: Screw their sensibilities. Screw restraint. The only way to deal with a self-proclaimed mortal enemy, is to kill them in large numbers.
#2
I suppose if you had asked: "Do you support al-Queda's demand that ever man should should have 3 virgins a day for free?" you would have gotten similar results.
If the question is rigged the outcome can't be fair.
Leave out al-Quaeda in the question and the results would be quite similar. Except in Kuwait probably.
Qatar has decided to build churches on its territories so as Christians from various sects will be able to perform their religious rituals, officially and openly for the first time, according to an official Qatari source. The source explained that the Qatari ministry of municipalities will sign long- term lease contracts with sides concerned in charge of building the churches noting that this measure "comes in the context of Qatar's belief in the freedom of practicing religion." Of course, the fundi's have another word for churches. They call them targets.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 12:39 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Yes, but that is still significant, when it comes to choosing sides ("freedom of practicing religion"), isn't it ?
#4
They shouldn't be paying for the Churches, since they'll have the option to bulldoze down their own property. Also, there would be strings attached. No thanks.
SELL, or ALLOW THE SALE of, the land to the congregations or foreign church groups, ALLOW the churches to be built, and just PROTECT the churches like they'd protect any other building or property. THAT is true freedom.
#5
Just allowing the practice of any religion other than Islam on the Arabian peninsula is a breath-taking contrast with the Soddies. The local practice is for the gummint to build mosques, to they're being fair and building churches, too. Qatar seems to be trying hard to become a (small L) libertarian society, and that should be applauded heartily, just as we're going to make faces and holler at the Qataris - and expats - who're going to do their best to abuse their individual freedom.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/24/2003 12:43 Comments ||
Top||
Sheik Abdullah al-Faisal, 39, of Albert Square, Stratford, east London, denied five charges of soliciting murder and four others relating to stirring up racial hatred. The charges related to talks he gave which were recorded and put on sale. The jury found al-Faisal incited young, impressionable Muslims to kill non-believers, Americans, Hindus and Jews. Al-Faisal argued his words were taken from the Koran, the Muslim holy book, and had been misrepresented. One tape, Jihad, contained the words: "So you go to India and if you see a Hindu walking down the road you are allowed to kill him and take his money, is that clear?" Clear to me, you're guilty!
He also said it is permissible to use chemical weapons to kill unbelievers. In a tape called Rules of Jihad, thought to have been made before September 11 Al-Faisal told his audience: "You have to learn how to shoot. You have to learn how to fly planes, drive tanks and you have to learn how to load your guns and to use missiles." He said: "You are only allowed to use nuclear weapons in that country which is 100% unbelievers." On a tape entitled Declaration of War, which had a picture of Bin Laden on the cover and is thought to have been made in 2000, Mr al-Faisal translates one of his speeches calling for a holy war against Americans and Jews to "drive them out of the Holy Land". The tape called Them Versus Us says: "There are two religions in the world today - the right one and the wrong one. Islam versus the rest of the world." Radical Islam being the wrong one.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 09:02 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A Muslim "holy man" spewing hate... Jeez, ya don't see that everyday.
Tony Blair will move to avert a potentially crippling Labour backbench revolt over Iraq this week by heralding a new joint US-UK resolution to be tabled in the next 24 hours as part of "a push for peace". MPs are due to vote on the Iraq crisis on Wednesday and senior backbench Labour MPs predicted it is likely to be the last chance for the Commons to register disapproval of war before British troops go into action in mid-March. It's not a good sign in a parliamentary system when the PM has to meet like this.
The United States and Britain will start the countdown to war by tabling a draft resolution at the UN today or tomorrow which they expect to put to the security council for a vote around March 7 or March 10. The simple resolution will refer back to the previous UN resolution 1441 passed in November and declare that Iraq has failed to comply with its terms, so implictly putting Iraq in material breach and open to attack. This is going to fail because the French will veto it. So why not just go ahead and make it explicit?
The UN chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, will make a third and possibly final report on the inspection process at the beginning of March. Washington and London believe Mr Blix will report that Iraq is still not in full compliance with resolution 1441. The proposed US-UK timetable attempts to pre-empt French efforts to delay decisions until as late as March 14.
The Frenchies want to delay any kind of decision until several weeks after Doomsday. When the last trumpet sounds, the French clock starts ticking for Iraq...
The US secretary of state, Colin Powell, on a tour of Asian states, said that time was running out for Iraq. "It isn't going to be a long period of time from the tabling of the resolution until a judgment is made as to whether the resolution is ready to be voted on or not," he told reporters in Japan. "Iraq is still not complying and time is drawing to a close when the security council must show its relevance by insisting that Iraq disarm, or that Iraq be disarmed by a coalition of forces that will go in and do it." In other words, defecate or decommode.
In a statement to MPs tomorrow, the prime minister will again insist that Iraq can avoid war and will vow that he is trying to ensure no action is taken without the support of the UN. Mr Blair hopes the switch in focus to the humanitarian plight of Iraqis is finally winning over doubters. But Labour MPs, including senior figures who have not rebelled so far, plan to express their dissent on Wednesday. The former defence minister, Peter Kilfoyle, said last night: "Wednesday is make your mind up time. I cannot foresee another opportunity to vote before military action starts. Tony Blair is not involved in a push for peace, but a drive for war." He said he would be pressing for the Speaker to ensure that a vote is allowed on an amendment arguing that the case for war is not proven. Not proven? How?
Forty-four Labour MPs rebelled on January 22, but opponents of war, such as Labour backbencher Alice Mahon, claimed the rebellion could reach as high as 150. Ms Mahon said: "I think we'll get quite a good vote and that will show that the house is completely divided. It is unprecedented to send our servicemen and women into military action when we're not being invaded or threatened, with that kind of a division in the country." I could easily have this wrong, but there are 410 Labour MP's right now. If 150 revolt, it's all over, as the remaining 260 can't turn back a vote of no confidence in the house unless the other parties come to Tony's rescue. Any Brits here to correct me on this?
The Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, Michael Moore, predicted that his party would be tabling an amendment insisting no war should be countenanced without UN backing. That's 53 votes.
British officials yesterday pointed to Iraq's unwillingness to meet Mr Blix's demand that it agree to destroy dozens of Samoud 2 long-range missiles. In what could be a test case for Iraqi cooperation, Mr Blix has set the deadline of Saturday for their destruction since they exceed the 150-km (93-mile) range limit set by resolutions adopted at the end of the 1991 Gulf war. UN inspectors have started to "tag" the missiles and their components. Mr Blix has drawn up a checklist of 30 other questions which Iraq must answer soon. Kofi Annan, the UN secretary-general, said in Ankara yesterday that he was confident Iraq would destroy the missiles. "If they refused to destroy the weapons, the security council will have to make a decision," he said. "I don't see why they would not destroy them." "Please Saddam, don't force us to make a decision!"
Mr Blix, in an interview with Time magazine, also appeared to question the undue speed of the US-UK timetable for war. "Eight years of inspections, four years no inspections, and then 11 weeks, and then call it a day? It's a little short," he said. It could be another twelve years and you still wouldn't find anything!
His remarks are likely to harden the resolve of the French to demand more time and, in a nightmare scenario for Washington, even table a counter-resolution to the security council. A French diplomatic source told Reuters last night that the French still opposed a second UN security council resolution on Iraq at the moment. And will oppose one forever.
Mr Blair talked to Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, on the phone yesterday in an apparent bid to head off any amendments or rival resolutions. But Moscow is keeping its options open, according to a Kremlin statement after the call. I must say, I don't like the way this is going for Tony.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/24/2003 02:18 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I prefer "defecate or discommode". It has a nice ring to it. ;-)
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
02/24/2003 7:27 Comments ||
Top||
#2
As I understand it, the main reason we went to the UN and and pursued the international diplomacy route was to keep Mr. Blair happy and to get the Europeans on board.
Well, Mr. Blair may lose his job soon (resulting in a British withdrawl from Iraq, and probably Afghanistan), the UN has been demonstrated to be useless (big news to some people, apparently), the EU is tanking due to French arrogance (which I suspect is actually good compared to an EU dominated by a Franco-German alliance), NATO itself is ruptured like never before, there's a tremendous split between European and American popular opinion, and it's a virtual certainty that no President of the United States will ever again go to the United Nations for anything that's even slightly important to US national security.
There's nothing here I can't live with, since most of our "alliances" are actually parasitical in nature, and I never had the faintest faith in the UN. But I wonder what Mr. Blair thinks of the diplomatic approach now?
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
02/24/2003 7:51 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I'm not sure about the legal nicities regarding delcaring war, but I'm pretty certain Blair doesn't need a vote in order to sanction it - he can give that order without permission from anybody, that's the PM's sole responsibility (with token approval from the Queen). So there won't be any risk of defeat for Blair on this issue at the hands of parliament.
"Mr Blair's spokesman confirmed that on Wednesday MPs will be given another vote on the Iraq crisis. But Downing Street has accepted this vote will be only to approve the action so far taken by the government - not to sanction any future action." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2793939.stm)
Tony should still be around in a couple of weeks.
COPENHAGEN, Denmark - Aage Bjerre has three rules for dining at his pizzeria on the Danish island of Fanoe: No dogs. No Germans. No French. Beats the hell out of "no shoes, no service, no shit".
The owner of Aage's Pizza said Monday that he's tired of French and German attitudes toward the United States, calling them "disloyal" and "anti-American" in their bid to thwart a possible U.S.-led attack against Iraq. Since hearing news of France and Germany's opposition, which has led to a rift in U.S. relations with Europe, a split in NATO and a feeling of malaise between old friends and stalwart allies, he's made it rule number one to bar service to any French or German tourists in Nordby, the North Sea island's largest town. "Hadn't the United States helped Europe in defeating Germany, there would have been photos of Adolf Hitler hanging on the walls around here," he said, referring to Nazi Germany's occupation of Europe in World War II. Boy, there's no speech quite as shocking as the plain spoken truth, is there?
The island, 320 kilometers (200 miles) southwest of the capital, Copenhagen, is a popular spot for visitors from neighboring Germany. Of the approximately 100,000 tourists who come, some 60 percent are German, said Birthe Elstroem, head of the island's tourism office. The others are mostly Scandinavians and Dutch. There are few French visitors to the island, which has a year-round population of 3,300.
While I appreciate the support, and I agree with his statements, I'm not at all sure I agree with the concept of a blanket ban. There are lots of Fritzies, and even Monsieur Jacques Crapauds who don't hate us on GPs. My butt cheeks are still clenched over this, and I'd not wish it on anyone who's undeserving. Fair is fair â and unfair is still unfair.
The idea of losing euros from German and French tourists hasn't curbed Bjerre's zeal. On Friday, he put two homemade pictograms on the shop door, much like the ones that show the outline of a dog with a bar across it. One featured the silhouette of a man colored red, yellow and black â the colors of the German flag. The second was painted blue, white and red â the French Tricolor colors. Both silhouettes had a bar across each man. Where can I get one?
The ban has yet to effect his business because tourist season typically starts after Easter and peaks during the summer. "I do what my conscience tells me to do," he said. Thereby breaking with 2000 years of European behavioural tradition
Should Germany decide to participate in U.S.-led military action against Iraq, Bjerre, 44, said he would lift his ban. But the few French tourists who do visit the island will need to fill their bellies elsewhere. Frenchmen have "a lifetime ban here," Bjerre told The Associated Press. "Their attitude toward the United States will never change." And apparently, niether will their manners, clothes or bathwater.
Does he have a website? Is there anyway we can send some note of thanks to this brave isolated soul of decency behind the lines in "occupied europe"?
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
02/24/2003 07:55 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Point taken TGA. True discrimination based on generalizations is usually ugly in reality and denigrates all involved. I would say that, while I truly abhor the Green influence in Germany and the French attempt at airs of superiority (even though it's all about ooiilllll for them), there are citizens of both countries that I love as friends and who feel about Iraq much as I do. That's the problem - all generalities are bad, right?
#7
Well heck, I can't even get a pizza delivered to my door - talk about "sucks". The argument that he's racist may be a bit thin given the shared ancestry.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/24/2003 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Call it xenophobic then..lol. The Danish are not very fond of Germans anyway although most of the tourists on Fano are Germans (ummm or because of that rather). They have the obnoxious way of building sand bunkers on the beaches and sticking their flag into it.
I suppose pizzaman Bjerre doesn't see a lot of French on his windswept sand island. They wine too much about the food anyway..lol
#9
Since when is it racist to say "I dont like it when you behave in a morally reprehensible and dangerous way"? Disagreeable, sure, but racist? Is using the word "racist" a good way to stop free speech? Are people no longer free to say " I dont like you" without being painted with an epithet thet sits close to "child molester" in the accusative language of todays culture?
He's not saying that hes superior, and that germans/french are inferior, hes just saying, "Not in My Pizza Store You Dont"!
I'll start accepting German opinion on whats racism when I start seeing a few more synagogues go up in Berlin.
Posted by: frank martin ||
02/24/2003 19:57 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Fred - RE: Your highlights. I Agree.
Posted by: frank martin ||
02/24/2003 20:00 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Hey, I going to order a pizza-to-go from this guy! What's his phone number? A man who takes a stand---I will write this one on the calendar.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 18:22 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Frank you don't get my point. "Racist" is not the right word, blatant discrimination is. That this pizza guy dislikes Chirac and Schroeder (like I do btw) is one thing. But if he didn't like Sharon and put up a yellow star saying "no pizzas for Jews" you would certainly not applaud.
And re synagogues: They are going up in Berlin. The Germans just signed a concordat granting the Jewish religion the same privileged relationship the government has with the Catholic and Protestant faith. The intention is to bolster a stronger Jewish community.
A German pizza seller putting up signs like "no Jewish customers" (or any other nationality or race) would be fined and even imprisoned in Germany for "incitement of the people". And free speech is cherished as much in Germany as it is in the U.S.
#13
Point taken TGA. True discrimination based on generalizations is usually ugly in reality and denigrates all involved. I would say that, while I truly abhor the Green influence in Germany and the French attempt at airs of superiority (even though it's all about ooiilllll for them), there are citizens of both countries that I love as friends and who feel about Iraq much as I do. That's the problem - all generalities are bad, right?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
#14
Well, TGA is probably right. We let emotion of the moment take over. The pizza man should just have a sign saying that he reserves the right to serve Chiraq or Schroeder if they misbehave in his shop. All kidding aside, point well taken, says this fellow of Jewish heritage.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 22:17 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Ok, I think we are all on the same page here. I dont think the "Danish Pizza Guy" is necessarily a "Racist". I do think he's used an elephant gun where a flyswatter would probably have been sufficient.
I cede the point.
Desireable as it is, probably not a good idea. Fun? yeah,sure but good idea?, no.
Posted by: frank martin ||
02/24/2003 22:53 Comments ||
Top||
The government has decided in principle to allow some of the outlawed organisations to operate under new names after getting surety they would not involve in religious terrorism and sectarianism. The decision was taken after the two key outlawed religious parties - Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan and Tehrik-e-Jafria - gave written surety to the government that they would co-operate in its efforts to create religious harmony and end sectarianism from the country. !! - Good thing I wasn't drinking anything
Thank you, Dr Heimlich! But for you, I'da been a goner...
Under the agreement reached between the two sides, the outlawed organisations assured the government to end their militant groups Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Sipah-e-Muhammad, an official of the National Crises Management Cell told Online. "Talks between the government and banned organisations were underway for the last one year. The agreement was reached after the outlawed groups assured the government that they will have no connection with religious terrorism and sectarianism," the official seeking anonymity said. And if you can't trust foaming at the mouth Jihadis, who can you trust?
Under the agreement, TJP has been allowed to work under its new name Tehrik-e-Islami, Lashkar-e-Tayaba under Jamaat Al-Dawa while the ban on Jaish-e-Muhammad will stay.
Jaish never bothered getting a "legit" front organization.
However, Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan and Sunni Tehrik are also likely to formally start operating with new names. Under the agreement, these organisations have been bound to submit the details of their activities and donations on annual bases to the government. They will teach the government authorised subjects in their Madrassas (religious seminaries) and will not collect donations. So the task of 'reforming' the madrassas is in the hands of the Pakistani Taliban, bet that will please the Indians
It's gonna make the Americans want to holler "hidey-ho!", too...
They will have to submit their weapons to the government and will not send their workers or members for terrorist training to any other country.
"Now, remember, Brothers! You have to get all your terrorist training here at home. I don't want to hear of any one of you going elsewhere for it."
They are also strictly directed not to use, write and publish the word of "Kafir" (infidel) against any other party, group or sect.
The new watchword can simply be "Death to Them!"
Some of the MMA central leaders played key role in reaching a settlement between the outlawed religious organisations and the government, the official said.
Gosh. Who'da thunk that would happen?
Posted by: Paul Moloney ||
02/24/2003 05:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
A station identifying itself as Radio Tikrit, which carried programming early in February referring to President Saddam Hussein in respectful terms, seems to have shifted to a line hostile to the Iraqi leader. Tikrit is the birthplace of Saddam Hussein, and the radio announces itself as "Radio Tikrit for the whole of Iraq and all the Iraqis", although it is unclear from where it is broadcast.The radio, which broadcasts for two hours in the evening on a medium-wave frequency, was heard on 7 and 8 February carrying news, songs and general-interest features. The initial programming did not air the Iraqi national anthem but did seem to support Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party and was critical of the US. One programme, called Open Dialogue, included items glorifying "Saddam Hussein's Iraq".
But from 15-19 February, the content had changed noticeably, with reports highlighting poverty in Iraq. The same programme was sharply critical of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guards and the Public Security Department. In a country where the domestic media is controlled by Saddam Hussein, such a deviation is noteworthy. And cause for the station manager to be "dismissed".
Members of the Republican Guards were advised to leave their positions "before it is too late". Similarly, public-security officers were advised by the programme on 19 February to refuse the "orders of the tyrant" and "be brave before it is too late".
The station can be heard from 1900-2100 GMT on 1584 kHz, but reception is patchy because of co-channel interference and fading. Most likely this station is being run by the Iraqi oposition from somewhere in Northern Iraq.
Features include recitations from the Koran, and the Arabic press review includes London-based Arabic-language papers.
There is speculation that this may be a psychological operation - or "psyops" - designed to disrupt Saddam's monopoly on information and drum up opposition to his rule - but the identity of its sponsor is as yet unclear. Similar psyops radio broadcasts have been used in times of conflict. In recent months, particularly in Afghanistan, the US has delivered radio broadcasts from the air with its Commando Solo flights. Commando Solo broadcasts have enough power to smother real Iraqi broadcasts. That's why this sounds like a oposition broadcasting operation. Of course, funding and equipment may be coming from Langley.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 03:16 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Time to dust off the shortwave radio and pick up a copy of "monitoring times" and the bookstore.
also - www.clandestineradio.com has pretty good coverage of all of the "in theatre" stuff that you can track via shortwave radio.
Posted by: Frank Martin ||
02/24/2003 17:27 Comments ||
Top||
In an exclusive interview with CBS News Anchor Dan Rather, Saddam Hussein has challenged President George W. Bush to a live, international television and radio debate about the looming war. How about a steel-cage death match?
Saddam envisions it as being along the lines of U.S. presidential campaign debates. The Iraqi president also flatly denies that his al-Samoud missiles are in violation of United Nations' mandates and indicates he does not intend to destroy them or pledge to destroy them as demanded by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. Blix had set a deadline for at least a promise by this weekend. Thataboy! You show them Sammy! You the boss!
Responding to Saddam's proposal, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer tells CBS News Correspondent Mark Knoller that it's "not a serious statement." "In fact Lynn Cheney could take Saddam"
Fleischer said, "This is not about a debate. This is about disarmament and complying with the worlds instructions that Iraq disarm." It's also not about inspections
As for Saddam's denial of possession weapons of mass destruction, Fleischer said Saddam "is not facing reality on the issue of the al-Samoud missiles, why would his other statements have creditability?" Fleischer said it would be more helpful to the world if Saddam engaged in disarmament and not debates. Meanwhile, the U.S. and Britain readied a measure that could lead to military action while war opponents introduced a call for more inspections. Anything to avoid dealing with Sammy with anything other than words...
Britain's U.N. Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock will introduce the resolution on behalf of London and Washington at a council meeting Monday afternoon, the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "The best way to protect America is to find the killers before they kill us," President Bush told a meeting of U.S. governors at the White House. The U.S.-British resolution is expected to be accompanied by a deadline for a vote, which a spokesman for British Prime Minister Tony Blair said is expected by mid-March. The resolution will state that Iraq remains in "material breach" of U.N. resolutions ordering its disarmament and refer to "serious consequences," the diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity. It does not call for "all necessary means" to be used against Iraq. Why limit yourselves to necessary means? - try some unnecessary ones for grins as well - R & D at the Al-Kut testing range
The United States and Britain believe a declaration that Iraq is in "further material breach" would be enough to pave the way for military action against Saddam. French President Jacques Chirac, meanwhile, announced that France, Germany and Russia have submitted a proposal Monday in the United Nations for step-by-step disarmament of Iraq, part of a European drive to counter U.S. pressure for military action. A 12-step program for WMD dictators?
"The aim is to establish a timetable for Iraq's disarmament, program by program, relating to weapons of mass destruction," Chirac told reporters before talks with German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. The U.S. is hoping to win the nine council votes necessary to pass a resolution â and thus put the pressure on war skeptics like France, China and Russia, to either use their vetoes or acquiesce to military action. The idea is that none of the three, who have criticized the U.S. for pushing a war without an international consensus, will want to be seen blocking a resolution with consensus support.
I think that at this point Jacques will go ahead and veto, since all the bridges have been burned. I think Russia and China will abstain — though it's not beyond the realm of belief for one of them, probably China, to take the hit and veto, thereby letting the Frenchies pretend to be innocent bystanders...
In Beijing, Secretary of State Colin Powell urged Chinese support for the resolution authorizing force against Saddam, but the Chinese stood by their position that U.N. inspections should continue. France reiterated its long-held position that a new resolution on Iraq was "neither useful nor necessary" and that weapons inspections should continue and be reinforced. If it's neither useful nor necessary to the French then there's gotta be something good about it for America
Russia issued a strongly worded statement opposing a war over Iraq. The Foreign Ministry said, "Russia intends to use its full arsenal of diplomatic means ooooooo!
in order to resolve the current critical situation around Iraq through political methods."
Poor Primakov about turned himself inside out on the diplotour last time around. I wonder if he's ready to pick up where he left off...
The United States has said it may go ahead with an attack even if it doesn't win Security Council approval. Don't say we didn't warn ya
The Security Council vote could depend heavily on the next report by chief inspector Hans Blix, and especially upon Iraq's reaction to Blix's call for the destruction of all Al-Samoud 2 missiles, which experts say violate range limits. Iraq, which contends the missiles are still in a testing stage, has not refused to destroy them but has asked Blix to reconsider, claiming the missiles don't exceed the 93-mile limit once loaded with warheads and guidance systems. See? Look at this one - we'll test it towards Kuwait
But Blix said Iraq had increased the diameter of the Al Samoud in violation of a 1994 order from the previous U.N. inspectors, and that computer simulations showed the missile exceeded the limit. A larger diameter means the missile has the potential to travel farther. Kinda hard to explain away a diameter increase as poor quality control..
U.N. inspectors now estimate Iraq has between 100 and 120 of the missiles, according to diplomatic sources. Thought they were still in the testing stage?
Blix is also expressing skepticism over Iraq's claims to have destroyed the stocks of anthrax and VX nerve agent. Blix told a magazine he found it "a bit odd" that Baghdad, with "one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world," had no records of the substances' destruction. But Iraqi Lt. Gen. Hossam Mohamed Amin repeated claims that Iraq is "clean" of weapons of mass destruction, and said Iraq is cooperating with the inspectors in an attempt to prove it. He said a U.N. team will come to Iraq on March 2 to check the soil for proof of weapons' destruction. That should give 'em enough time to dump some at the spot they say they did
And maybe to type up the "lost" documentation...
Amin also cited as an example of Iraq's cooperation its agreement to let American U-2 spy planes fly over its territory to support the work of the inspectors. He said Iraq was working on plans for flights by French Mirage fighters and German drones. I like it! That sounds like a description of the respective countries' leadership
Separately, the United States on Monday overcame a hurdle in military preparations with Turkey's Cabinet agreeing to the deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. troops, allowing for a possible northern front against Iraq.
Turkey's parliament was expected to vote Tuesday on whether to allow the troops. A deadlock on the issue was broken when Washington offered Turkey $5 billion in aid and $10 billion in loans to cushion its economy in a war. Bargained themselves down, did they?
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 03:19 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
nice...previewed everything but the stinkin' title
and still missed a typo...dang
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 15:01 Comments ||
Top||
#2
S'okay, Frank -- the line about Mirages and drones more than makes up for it!
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
02/24/2003 15:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
German drones is about right, but I don't know about the words French and fighters being in the same sentence.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 15:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
thanks Fred
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 15:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Russia intends to use its full arsenal of diplomatic means" = Lots-O-Stolichnaya Vodka
#9
Actually, I thought the russkies would embargo our chicken. But I'm sure the people of Iraq would like chicken, and they have the money (thanks, UN) for it. All 21 bil in euros. Wonder which banks that'll be pulled out of?
#10
My 7 year old son has 7 chickens that are ready to volunteer for NBC duty in the Iraqi theatre of operations. They come complete with eggs of various colors if you feed 'em ok.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 22:24 Comments ||
Top||
A top Pentagon official has launched a savage attack on French President Jacques Chirac's campaign to block a war with Iraq, saying it was merely the product of French commercial interests masquerading as a moral case for peace.In an interview with the Observer, Mr Richard Perle - a central figure in the circle of hawks around President George W. Bush - said he was rather 'pessimistic' that the United States will get French support for a second resolution authorising war on Iraq. 'I think they will exercise their veto, and in other ways obstruct unified action by the Security Council: they're lobbying furiously now,' said Mr Perle, who is the Pentagon's Defence Policy Board chief. Notice that the White House never rebutes Mr. Perle? Think he might have cleared his remarks with them?
Maintaining that the five permanent members of the Security Council sought essentially to advance the respective interests of their countries, he said that when the French ambassador gets up and expresses the position of France, 'what you are hearing is what the French President perceives to be in the interests of France. 'And the French President has found his own way of dealing with Saddam Hussein.'It would be counter to French interests to destroy that cosy relationship, and replace it with a hostile one.' Chirac will be foaming at the mouth when he reads this one.
In Mr Perle's view, the French position against regime change in Iraq is fatally undermined by its multibillion-dollar oil interests negotiated since the last Gulf war, the Observer said. 'There's certainly a large French commercial interest in Iraq, and there are contracts that a new government in Iraq may not choose to uphold, partly because they're so unfavourable to the people of Iraq.'Saddam has been prepared to do deals to keep himself in power at the expense of the people. 'My understanding of the largest of these deals, which is the French Total-Fina-Elf contract to develop certain oil properties in Iraq, is that it is both very large and very unfavourable to the Iraqis,' the Observer quoted Mr Perle as saying. He dismissed suggestions that America wished to topple Mr Saddam for the sake of its own oil interests and described it as 'bizarre'. Meanwhile, foreign policy watchers believe there could be a clash between the United States and France in the United Nations Security Council. The International Herald Tribune said this may well turn out to be a watershed marking the end of a period in which the two countries have been prickly but durable allies. The report, quoting diplomats and political analysts in both countries said that when the dust settles, both countries may think of each other in very different and significantly more hostile terms.
Already started on this side of the pond. And I think it started on that side of the pond before this episode, not as a result of it.
An early victim of the worsening relationship is bound to be France's role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, which has grown significantly over the last decade. The Bush administration wants to handle important Nato business in the Defence Planning Committee to upstage the French delegation. The committee, which can replace the Nato council for military decisions, is the only top-level alliance body of which France is not a member. Moreover, the Pentagon may show reluctance to lend Europe any significant US military assets such as satellite intelligence, which would be a setback for the fledgling EU peacekeeping force. The French are 'obviously not a foe, but they are starting to be seen as a nation liable to side with an enemy of the United States in a major quarrel', a former Clinton administration official who deplores the trend, said. Of course he does, Clinton was all too eager to suck up to the French.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 02:26 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
News says Saddam will say no to disarming missiles tonight in an exclusive interview with CBS evening news. Then he will ask for a 1-on-1 debate with George Bush.
There goes the French peace plan.
Posted by: Jon ||
02/24/2003 14:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
So to the French, it's all about O-I-L. Funny, isn't that what the peaceniks say about us?
#3
Oh, oh, does this mean Perle will be find 45K euros for insulting the froggies' pres?
As to Nato/froggies - toss em overboard. The prof linked to an interesting site. It seems, while Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia don't have the financial power, they do have 56 votes in the euro parliament, conveniently, the same amount as frankenreich.
US strategic bombers capable of launching cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs began practice runs over the Gulf region on Sunday, ramping up psychological pressure on the Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein, the military announced. The first training flight of a B-52 and its crew took place over an unspecified area 'in the North Arabian Gulf region,' according to the US Central Command. Close enough for all the neighbors to see them on their radar screens and reflect on what happens when BUFFs come calling.
'The missions will be conducted on a recurring basis and are designed to maintain aircrew proficiency and familiarisation,' the command said in a statement. Lieutenant-Commander Stephen Franzoni, a spokesman for the command, declined to say if the bomber, often referred to as a 'flying fortress', had penetrated Iraqi airspace in the course of its mission. Uh, nobody has ever called a B-52 a "flying fortress". That title was retired when the last B-17 was.
But he said none of the B-52s involved in the training were currently based in the United States. 'They are flying from the region,' he told AFP. Diego Garcia or Oman, most likely.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 01:59 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
When you care enough to send the very best....
Who's that knocking at my door, who's that knocking at my door.....
Posted by: Hungry Valley ||
02/24/2003 19:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The BUFF's formal name is "Stratofortress." BUFF stands for Big Ugly Fat F***er."
#3
After Afghanistan, it would seem appropriate to give the BUFF another nickname:
BUFFy the Taliban Slayer
Posted by: Mike ||
02/24/2003 14:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
BUFFy the Taliban Slayer - LOL
I would like to ask knowledgable readers if B-52s and other heavy ordnance is being used in direct tactical support and, if so, when we resumed doing so. IIRC, after the botched "Cobra" preliminary bombings in '44 that killed so many of our own troops--and a general--that heavy bombers were not to be used for tactical support. Have GPS and other, better navigational aids since WWII caused that to change? Or are we still using them strategically and when friendly troops are way, way out of the area?
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
02/24/2003 15:17 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Yes Dar, 52s are being used for tactical support. The new GPS guided bombs are so accurate you could shove them out of the back of a C-130 and still land them within feet of the target.
#6
Say what you like about our newer weapons, but there's just something about a B-52 strike that really gets the point across. It conveys a certain seriousness of purpose.
Posted by: Matt ||
02/24/2003 16:49 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Murat,
I agree that a federated Iraq state is the best of a limited range of options.Giving every seperate group in the world with an autonomise state would result in world wide chaos.
However while your waving those maps around lets see if you can find an independant Palistinian state.If I remember my history there never has been one(at least in the last 4,000 years)
The United States is asking Egypt to submit information about the scientists who, the US claim, were instrumental in building the Iraqi nuclear reactor that was destroyed by Israel in 1981, according to Al-Majalla, a sister publication of Arab News. Sources at the Egyptian Nuclear Committee said that most of these scientists independently contacted Iraqi universities for teaching positions, and not through the Egyptian government. Most of the scientists graduated from Alexandria Universityâs nuclear engineering department. Dr. Yahya Al-Mashad, the brain behind the Iraqi nuclear reactor who was assassinated by the Israelis in 1980, was a teacher at Alexandria University. Most of the scientists graduated between 1967 and 1970 and went to Iraq at the request of President Saddam Hussein, who knew some of them from his time when he was a political refugee in Egypt. Iraqi-Egyptian old boys network?
Forty graduates of Alexandria University went to Baghdad. On return, half of them found employment with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). And they are totally objective inspectors!
The US believes that the remainder are still in Egypt and has asked to compare the list of scientists submitted by Iraq with Egyptian university lists. Fourteen of the 20 scientists in Egypt have died in suspicious circumstances, according to sources, who speculate that they, like Dr Al-Mashad, were assassinated by the Israelis. Or maybe by Saddam, because they knew too much?
It is known that there was an agreement between the Iraqi government and the Egyptian Nuclear Committee on the peaceful use of nuclear energy, but the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait put an end to cooperation. Sure it did.
Several Egyptian universities with nuclear engineering departments produce scores of graduates every year who cannot find employment in Egypt because the country only has one nuclear power station. The majority of these graduates look for work abroad, especially in the US and Canada, where an estimated 250 are currently employed. The 170 Egyptian nationals working for the IAEA form the largest group from any single nationality. No wonder that the IAEA can't find any nuclear weapons in Iraq or Iran.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 02:20 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'll bet that our pal Mohammed AlBaradei, the IAEA poobah, was in this group,too.
Any takers?
#2
This article is just the can opener on the proverbial worm can. Here you have a university cranking out nuclear type engineers for a country with no internal market. So who finances these guys? Is it siphoned off aid (UTT under the table) from the US, is it Saudi, Iraqi, Iran, or a combo? I smell a very large rat here, or a pack of rats. It is my view that the Egyptians are gaining ground on the Paks in the sh-t list.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 16:57 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Nobody will ever beat out the Paks on the Secret Poop Listâ¢. See the above article on the fundo killer korps being allowed to put on false noses and chin whiskers.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/24/2003 17:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Alaska Paul, I sincerely doubt it was the US.
My money's on the Saudis. (Allah knows they've funded lots of other nefarious stuff in Egypt!)
Betcha also that this was the brainchild of Gamel Abdul Nasser, who was the first IslamoFascist nut to dream of an "Arab bomb."
#5
Jennie---I do not think that we knowingly did it. The Saudis are a prime candidate, since they have the bankroll. The thing that gets me is the deeper we dig, the stinkier it becomes, especially with the Saudis. Iran seems to be getting its expertise with the Russians on Bushehr. I think that it is time after Iraq to quit being nice to the Saudis, either publiclly or diplomatically. Need some Truman talk soon.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 22:32 Comments ||
Top||
The latest resolution on Iraq to be introduced to the U.N. Security Council on Monday will not contain benchmarks or set a deadline for Iraq to comply, officials tell CNN. Rather, it will have two "operative paragraphs" concluding that Iraq has "failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441," according to a senior administration official who read aloud some of the text to CNN. Several officials confirmed the resolution, a short one-page document, will not explicitly authorize military force against Iraq. It will, however, recall that previous resolutions in which false statements or omissions "would constitute a material breach" and that failure to take the final opportunity to comply would result in "serious consequences," the officials said.
In addition, the resolution will state the Security Council "decides to remain seized of the matter," diplomatic parlance indicating the matter remains open to further action that could include military force. "This is British language," said one senior administration official, who said the only reason the United States is going forward with another resolution is that "the Brits want a second resolution." Another U.S. official said the United States "is in the process of notifying Security Council capitals" what will be in the resolution, which is to be introduced Monday at a council meeting. The French are strongly opposed to another resolution at this time and are expected to introduce a "non-paper" to the council Monday calling for more inspectors and inspections.
The United States and Britain recognize they do not have the nine out of 15 votes to pass another resolution, and face possibility the French, Russians and Chinese could veto it. Nevertheless, one senior official bluntly stated, "You gotta start somewhere," and this text "gets the ball rolling."
One of the reasons the United States and Britain decided to introduce their resolution Monday -- before securing the needed votes ensuring its passage -- was a procedural one. Formally tabling its text-- or putting it "in blue"-- gives the United States and Britain priority over text introduced later by another council member. It also allows the United States and Britain to call for a vote in 24 hours. For the next couple of weeks the Bush and Blair administrations will be engaged in high-stakes diplomacy as they lobby council members for the necessary votes. One official familiar with Powell's thinking said he "thinks the United States will get Bulgaria, Spain and the Africans" (three African states -- Cameroon, Guinea, Angola -- hold rotating seats on the council). That would leave three other nonpermanent members of the council -- Mexico, Chile and Pakistan -- up for grabs. Forget about Pakistan, don't know about Chile, and we'll see if Mexico remembers who their friends are.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 04:00 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Chile may have its own ideas about the quality of "regime change" instigated by the U.S.
Does Pinochet 1973 ring a bell? The Allende government may have been leftist but it was democratically elected.
#2
Hard to believe Chile and Mexico would go against the US. Isn't the US working on a free trade agreement with Chile? can't see that happening if Chile votes no. And Mexico has a lot of things it would like from the US that would be hurt by a no vote
Ending a high stakes diplomatic standoff, Turkey's Cabinet agreed Monday to the deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. combat troops ahead of a possible war in Iraq. The measure is expected to face a vote in Turkey's parliament on Tuesday. If the cabinet approved it, the parliament most likely will.
The announcement comes as U.S. ships loaded with tanks and other armor awaited orders off the Turkish coast. It followed a more than six-hour Cabinet meeting, a sign of the deep difficulties during the U.S.-Turkish talks. The agreement to allow the troops in has been delayed by weeks of tense negotiations. The deadlock was finally broken late last week, when Washington offered Turkey $5 billion in aid and $10 billion in loans to cushion the Turkish economy from the impact of any war. The check must of cleared.
Washington wants to use Turkey to open a northern front in a war in Iraq, a strategy that would divide the Iraqi army. A U.S. official said talks between the two sides on the details of the agreement are expected to continue throughout the day. Turkish leaders have demanded assurances that the fall of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein will not lead to the creation of an independent Kurdish state in northern Iraq. A Kurdish state, Turkey fears, will boost aspirations of Turkey's Kurdish rebels. To prevent this, Turkey wants to send tens of thousands of troops into northern Iraq in case of war. Ankara also fears that a war will push hundreds of thousands of refugees toward Turkey. Many observers say the military move may actually aim at preventing the creation of a Kurdish state in the autonomous areas of northern Iraq that border Turkey. Yup.
Kurdish groups living in those areas say they strongly oppose any Turkish deployment. If they are smart, they'll just verbally oppose it.
Turkey and the United States also are still discussing command of any Turkish troops in northern Iraq, the disarmament after a war of Iraqi Kurdish groups and the control of two northern Iraqi oil fields, Turkey's Foreign Minister Yasar Yakis said. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, leader of the governing Justice and Development Party, has said that he would not order his lawmakers to vote in favor of the deployment. He said he hoped "his friends would act toward the authorization." The Justice party has a large majority in parliament. "My friends, I will not tell you you have to vote in favor of this resolution, but the guys in the other room wearing uniforms would really like you too."
On Monday, a NATO mission to help defend Turkey against a potential Iraqi attack got under way with the departure of a planeload of equipment and support units from Germany. Turkey, a member of NATO, fears that Baghdad might launch a counterattack if it supports the United States. The Iraqis said they would consider it an act of war if Turkey allowed US forces to use Turkey as a base for an attack. We'll see if they follow through.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 12:28 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The Kurds have been a far more successful state than Somalia has been recently. And fred's right: "Kurdistan" is a vision of what Iraq has the potential of being once Saddam is gone. A pretty sight for western eyes, and a sore sight for wahhabi ones...
#3
From what I've read, the Kurds have succeeded in establishing a pretty well functioning "state within a state" in their autonomous area. When we make out comments about the lack of democracy in the Middle East, "Kurdistan" can't rightly be included in the generalization. To me, that puts it in the same category as Turkey and Israel and, ummm... Jordan, to an extent. Can't think of any other that are actual working democracies at the moment, though some of the Gulf States seem to be working up to it.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/24/2003 11:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
While I have a good bit of sympathy for Ankara's problems, at a certain point they're going to have to deal with the Kurds as being a real group of people; not just Turks who are unclear as to their identity.
International agency for Atomic Energy Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei remarked that he might resign from his post if war against Iraq starts without an authorizations by the UN Security Council. In an interview with the German new magazine Der Spiegel issued today, replying to a question on that matter, he said "I do not practice such trick. However I do not rule any thing." He added "I still persistently think that peace still has a chance ahead. War means that international diplomacy and politics have completely failed." They have.
He said he is with the continued military pressure on Iraq. He indicated that Iraq's co-operation "has improved in recent days.. It seems that they ( the Iraqis ) have recognized that the situation is grave." Quitting just ahead of being discredited after we find proof of an Iraqi nuke program will look better than being fired.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 09:08 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We're all very frightened!
Posted by: Ben ||
02/24/2003 19:13 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Form is apparently far more important than actually accomplishing anything.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
02/24/2003 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#3
So what if he quits. Its a small loss considering the number of Americans who are out of work because of the sluggish economy -- sluggish in part because he isn't doing his job aggressively.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/24/2003 11:10 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Hmmmmmm, he'll quit if we go in without UN approval. So what does he do if we go in with UN approval? Dope. Blix and ElBaradei will do anything to preserve their precious inspections bureaucracy.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/24/2003 11:50 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Don't go away mad, just go away.
I do have a little sympathy for the standing UN officials caught in the gears of major power politics.
So much for the dream of being the world's honest broker.
#6
This ElBaradei guy is most certainly a Muslim.
Could he possibly be a "fundo,"too? Why not.
His presence in this important job has always made me nervous given his Islamist "sympathies" which is also why I'm assuming that he'll quit in the event we launch our war "against Islam"/Saddam.
Good riddance,too.
Time to get a non-Allah, but God-fearing Christian, Jew or even atheist Westerner to take his place!
#4
It's being reported on Turkishpress.com: ISKENDERUN - Under permission of the parliament, necessary renovation, development and construction works have been continuing at Iskenderun Port in southern province of Hatay.
A Norwegian-flagged vessel carrying armored vehicles and ammunition, docked into the port on Monday. The vessel ''Antares'' will unload its cargo after the necessary proceedings are completed. Last week, a number of armored vehicles and ammunition were brought by a vessel ''Tellus'' from the United States to Iskenderun Port. These vehicles and ammunition were stored in depots in the port.
Most likely equipment coming from Germany, that's where the Tellus came from.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Globalsecurity.org said the Tellus loaded in Netherlands and is carrying V Corps equipment.
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
02/24/2003 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
The US plans to station at least 40,000 troops in the Kurdish self-rule area of northern Iraq, but their mission will be to secure the region and provide logistical support for a US-led offensive on the key cities of Mosul and Kirkuk, rather than to use the area as a launching pad for an assault on Baghdad, a senior Kurdish official told the Guardian yesterday. "That's what we're tell you today, anyway!"
During a campaign to remove President Saddam Hussein, US troops would be ferried across the border from Turkey and deployed at bases stretching from Dohuk in the west near the Turkish and Syrian borders to Mount Harir in central Iraqi Kurdistan and to the Derbendikan lake in the southeast, not far from the frontier with Iran. Other American infantry would move swiftly through the western edge of the Kurdish-controlled area from the border with Turkey to capture Mosul and Kirkuk, just outside the Kurdish zone, from where they would be able to thrust southwards to Tikrit, President Saddam's home town. Didn't he just say they weren't going south?
"They will establish a northern bridgehead to protect their supply lines to government controlled territory, but also to help defend our area from invasion from the Iraqi army," the official said. "Kurdistan will not see much fighting, but it will be a strategically vital area to support the allied battle against [government] strongholds in Tikrit and Baghdad."
That seems to discount any fighting with Iranian mercenaries, and it assumes the Kurds will be dealing with Ansar al-Islam, I'd guess...
US troops would also seek to secure Iraq's northern border crossing with Syria to prevent the regime's scientists and officials from fleeing. How about the border with the Soddis?
The official said there were already up to 1,000 US troops in Iraqi Kurdistan, which has been free of Baghdad's control since 1991, in addition to intelligence teams. Military vehicles and communications equipment have been flown in, but as yet no heavy weaponry. "That is only a matter of time," said the official. He predicted that the weapons would include Patriot and Stinger missiles, but they would be for "defensive purposes only and be operated by US troops".
That way we avoid seeing them show up two or three wars down the road, in the Bad Guys' hands...
Wary of provoking President Saddam, Kurdish leaders publicly insist they have not been made privy to US war plans. But the last two weeks have seen a flurry of consultations with American officials. US forces would work closely with the 70,000 or so lightly armed peshmerga fighters loyal to the two groups controlling the self-rule area, Massoud Barzani's Kurdistan Democratic party and Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. A commander with the PUK's forces said that although the peshmerga would be kept out of any frontline fighting, they could assist US troops with their knowledge of the mountains and valleys of Kurdistan. Should the Iraqi frontline quickly collapse, the self-rule area could become a base for special forces raids into central Iraq, aimed at the Iraqi army's command and control structure. Crack squads of peshmerga have reportedly undergone training by the US and British in the arts of sabotage and diversionary manoeuvres. The Kurdish air force will be heavily involved as well. Sorry, old joke, I keep pushing it.
The peshmerga fighters may also be called on to handle prisoners of war, or large numbers of defectors from the Iraqi army, said the Kurdish commander. His men were already in contact with senior Iraqi officers who say they are ready to bring their troops over once a US attack starts. He believes even President Saddam's republican guard will quickly surrender. "If the US is serious about removing the regime, it will be a short surgical attack. And we can prepare the way." I don't think anyone wants the honor of being the last Iraqi soldier to die for Saddam.
Kurdish military leaders appear happy to accommodate the US, but hint they would like to play a more active role once the fighting starts. "We'll turn the whole of Kurdistan into an airstrip if they want us to," the commander said, "though our allies should know we are serious about being their partners in whatever happens." Now these are the kinds of allies you want to have. "Let us fight! Let us fight!"
A few red lines have already been drawn, however. For fear of upsetting its regional ally Turkey, the US is eager to keep the Kurdish peshmerga under the direct control of a US-allied northern command. Turkey fears that any advance by Iraqi Kurds will provoke its own Kurdish population to rise up. It also fears Kurdish control of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk, just outside the self-rule area. "We will not be allowed to make a move out of our area without the agreement of the US," the Kurdish commander said. "We accept that. We welcome their help with our liberation." That's smart.
But Kurds remain unhappy with a plan drawn up in Ankara which envisages Turkish troops deploying along a nearly 200-mile long, 20-25 mile deep "buffer zone" on the Iraqi side of the border — from the Kurdish town of Zakho eastwards. The deal, which US officials insist is not finalised, is part of a quid pro quo with Ankara for allowing US troops to use Turkish bases. According to the US, the Turkish presence will be for "humanitarian" reasons only, but Kurds believe Ankara has its eyes on regaining former Ottoman territories in the regions of Mosul and Kirkuk. And the oil. Don't forget the oil.
It remains unclear whether the Turkish troops will fall under US allied command. "No Turkish troops will be allowed here without our prior agreement," vowed Babakir Zebari, commander-in-chief of the KDP's military forces in the Dohuk region. "We have stated very clearly that we are not seeking independence and that we are not going to make a move on Kirkuk." I sure hope the IFF is working when this starts.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/24/2003 12:04 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Officials have stated that the Turkish troops gathered on the Iraqi border region have reached twice the size of the troop build-up of 1998, which forced trembling Syria to expulse terrorist leader Ocalan.
I really wonder if such an extraordinary huge force is needed for a small piece of Northern Iraq. It makes me believe there might be plans that Turkish forces will also act beyond the 36th parallel.
Not to be to suspicious, but I canât let go of the suspicion there might be more in the game than newspaper make us do believe. 40.000 US mechanized/tanks troops covered by A10âs and Apacheâs rumbling in a lightning speed towards Bagdad followed by thousands of Turkish troops covering /occupying/securing the back flank makes a perfect sense.
Posted by: Murat ||
02/24/2003 2:46 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Murat, There's little chance of long-term peace in the ME unless peopls like the Kurds are given autonomy. Isn't their 'homeland' currently divided between four or more countries? You only have to look at maps of the region to see how clumsily 'national' boundaries were often drawn up, mainly by European powers in the last century. Would Turkish popular opinion allow granting the Kurds self-determination in that part of your country where they predominate? Is it time countries like Iraq were re-assessed from a distance and partitioned on a more sensible basis? There's something positive the UN (or its successor) could actually do...
#3
Bulldog, I disagree slightly. Africa, the Balkans, and the Middle East illustrate what happens when you impose boundries and borders. Giving every little group its own country may not be the solution. A country must be large enough and have enough resources to be viable. Otherwise, you're just setting up an series of Salvation Army missions. And independance does not solve the problem of intermixing. Afghanistan is a perfect illustration, where a variety of different groups are intermixed. In Kurdistan, there are some places that are mostly Turk. The Armenia / Georgia / etc. region is another example where handing out countries based on ethnic origins isn't working. Then, you get the "It used to be ours before the hated ... came along" factor.
America has worked to date because it overcomes ethnic and national origins. That, I believe, is the key. A federation, where everybody is sure that they are being treated as fairly as the next guy and an effort is made to forget centuries old grievances.
#4
Bulldog,
Partly I do agree with you, Kurds could be given a homeland, but I agree partly because the big difficult here is that Kurds never had a homeland. All the existing Kurdistan maps are imaginary maps, look up any historical map and you wonât find a Kurdistan, simply because it never existed. The big difficulty is that you have to take a part from one or few countries and create it. The big question here is how to find a country giving up voluntarily a part of its territory, would this create peace or would it create a second Palestine/Israel. Suppose you take a part of Iraq and create a Kurdistan, how to protect it, I think such would only create a lightning rod taking Arab anger from Israel to a Kurdistan. Israel could resist the Arab world, but can Kurdistan resist it too or would such create an even bigger bloodbath in the middle east?
About your question of Turkish popular opinion, I can be very clear, that would be very problematic for Turks as well as Kurds. Such would create scenes like WW1 i.e. the population exchange of Greeks and Turks, millions of Turks would have to leave a âKurdistanâ and millions of Kurds would have to leave western Turkey. To be short a creation of a Kurdistan in the middle east would create an unforeseeable chaos, nations are not created that easily, it takes an evolution of centuries. I think Chuck has perfectly analyzed the situation.
Posted by: Murat ||
02/24/2003 9:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Chuck, I think we can expect to see something akin to what happened in the Balkans once Saddam's gone - removal of the iron fist results in internecine squabbling which, unless forcibly prevented, will stabilise at something like independence for each group. The Kurdish community may be a small minority in Iraq, but there are other contiguous Kurdish communities in Turkey, Armenia, Syria, Iran... The USA is a very different situation - it's a country that has grown from immigration, it's a phenomenon peculiar in recent times to the new world. Imposition of invented states such as Iraq which clumped together disparate cultures and communities and rent existing ones, was a disastrous idea. It may sound nationalistic to voice support for national rights to self-government, but it's fair to say that imposed shared-rule or subjugation is the cause of a great deal of the world's conflicts.
"To be short a creation of a Kurdistan in the middle east would create an unforeseeable chaos, nations are not created that easily, it takes an evolution of centuries."
Isn't it also fair to say that much/most of the middle east didn't exist as defined states until the arrival of European colonialists and their cartographers? An "evolution of centuries" could be overdrawn in an afternoon by a man wielding a pencil, to create Frankenstien states like Iraq. I know Turkey has problems with Kurdish separatists at the moment, and I'd think the problem will worsen unless issues like this are dealt with, even if it means partial autonomy or gradual independence.
#7
Isn't it also fair to say that much/most of the middle east didn't exist as defined states until the arrival of European colonialists and their cartographers?
Well the middle eastern countries are after the fall of the Ottoman empire created by the British to suit their interests in the best way, thatâs true. The difference however is that at those times (WW1) more than 23 nations where created on what was once the Ottoman empire. So most of those nations didnât lose a part of their territory, they got territory, as it would not be the case with a creation of a Kurdistan nowadays. How feasible would it be to take territory from Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria to create such a country, and how many years would it stay there until one of these would recapture it? I am not a specialist to answer the consequences, but I think it will unleash more wars than bringing peace.
Posted by: Murat ||
02/24/2003 9:46 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Murat, I'm not sure what you mean by nations getting territory under British division. Exchange of Ottoman rule for British and French - supervised independence gave the middle east a degree of self government, but it wasn't ideal. These new states might have got territory, but didn't necessrily get the right territory. To deny the Kurds the chance of self-government because their neighbours 'couldn't guarantee their safety' is apretty lame excuse for keeping one people divided, if I may say.
We should stop this thread now, because as Frank said, this site ain't a forum for arguments and opinions. just let me have the last word ;)
#10
This is one of the most rational disagreements I've ever seen on a blog. In reading the comments, my own opinion has been reshaped a bit. Thanks all.
Very few people in the US really LIKE the US government. We will, however, fight like hell to protect it from 'them', whoever they might be. It provides a large neutral mass in the middle of the battlefield.
Iraq presents a unique opportunity in that there are more than two distinct factions: Kurds, Sunni, Shi'ite, Turkmen. Each of the factions is itself a minority. The Iraqi experiment can succeed if each faction feels the government is better than 'them' having power.
#11
Don't let me put a damper on an interesting discussion. All I ask is that the white spots are news, the yellow spots are views (and more news, if it clarifies or expands.)
Posted by: Fred ||
02/24/2003 11:53 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The closer that I examine the Kurd issue, the more I realize that an independent Kurdish state would not be viable.
#13
I will side with Murat and Chuck here. I think we've all learned from the experience of the past decade-plus (most notably in the Balkans) that giving every ethnic group their own statelet, no matter how justified their past greivances, does not automatically bring the golden age of peace and prosperity. I think it will make much better sense in the long run - if it can be done - to recast Iraq, once Saddam is seen to, as a genuine federation where the rights of the Big Three - the Sunnis of the central region, the Shiite Marsh Arabs, and the Kurds - and the smaller groups received equal protection under the law, and, even more to the point, where *group rights* are deemphasized in favor of *individual* rights and responsibilities. I don't call for making Iraq a U.S. clone, but I do suggest that all Iraqis who want to rebuild their country should consider carefully studying the proceedings of the 1787 Convention and the writings of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists.
Posted by: Joe ||
02/24/2003 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
THE US military is ready to wage war against Iraq in mid-March. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld made the declaration as the US and Britain prepared for one final assault at the UN to win international support through a second resolution. To be tabled early Tuesday, the resolution will not contain an explicit deadline for Iraqi compliance but US and Britain will demand that the UN Security Council vote on the resolution by March 14 at the very latest, effectively establishing that as a deadline. Mr Rumsfeld said yesterday the 222,000 American, British and Australian troops massed in the Gulf were "ample". "We are at a point where, if the President makes that decision [to attack], the Department of Defence is prepared and has the capabilities and the strategy to do that," he said. Tick, tick, tick ...
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/24/2003 09:06 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The final assault on the UN will be a disaster. When will the brain dead persons in the State Department realize that the UN exists to thwart any American plan, even a perfectly innocent plan to sanitize filthy toilets on a camp site in some wild park ?
It will end 11-4, and that's based on the assumption that Blair is still PM of the UK on the day of the vote (which is highly unlikely, as the backbenchers will sink him on Wednesday). Attack now, before the UN charade.
Posted by: Peter ||
02/24/2003 3:44 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I agree that this final UN push is likely to be a "disaster"... for the UN itself, at least in the eyes of popular opinion in the US and among our real allies (e.g. "New" Europe, UK, AUS, Japan, etc.) Might that not be part of the plan?
#3
Off topic, can someone help me figure out a visitor to my site, macpearson.nipr.mil? I like to recognize the military sites that visit me with a blog post. Thanks!
#4
I find it odd that you want to identify people who post to your blog. Besides, it seems more likey you could get the guy in trouble if he's busy blogging his opinion from a .mil site. I'm sure your intentions are good, but maybe you should let people give you that information rather than to sleuth it. Maybe I'm off base here, but it's JMHO.
#5
Becky, you can configure your browser to prevent your URL from appearing. I'm using eXtreme site tracking, the basic package, hardly an intrusive item.
The reason I asked is that NIPR.MIL shuts me out completely. Most .MIL sites have a home page that I can link to, such as the 16th Special Ops Wing and I'd like to recognize our men and women in the military when I can. Also, the Naval Support Facility at Souda Bay, Crete. Both sites VERY COOL, and I'm glad someone from there took the time to visit.
#8
"the Department of Defence is prepared"?
Not "the US is prepared"? I don't the sound of that. It almost sounds like he's saying "it's not my fault" that the war on Iraq failed.
#9
Last I checked, Rummy's responsibility is the DoD. Protocol is that you speak for your own bailiwick. Saying the 'US is prepared' is the privilege of GWB.
#10
The way these bastards are desperately trying to hinder action to get rid of Saddam you'd think their very life was at stake. Something smells here really bad, and it ain't Ch'iraq's old socks.
#11
I don't remember who said it (samizdata.net?) but supposedly the main reason for all the delay was due to discovering that our NBC equipment was crap and needed to be re-ordered en-masse. Supposedly it was a rush job. The delay in shipping people over was due to not wanting them being sitting ducks with inadequate NBC gear.
France opposed a second U.N. Security Council resolution on Iraq for now, a French diplomatic source said Sunday, as Washington prepared a new resolution contending Baghdad was failing to comply on disarmament demands. The diplomatic source said President Jacques Chirac believed U.N. weapons inspectors needed more time to complete their work."We are still and remain in the inspections phase" allowed for by resolution 1441 on Iraq, the diplomatic source said. "Especially if it takes a really, really long time!"
The source said Paris believed Washington was raising the tempo with a view to getting rapid adoption of a second resolution hot on the heels of a report that chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix is due to make on March 7. Thought it was going to be March 1st.
France was preparing to present a "memorandum" to the United Nations in the next few days setting out specific tasks which might serve as benchmarks for Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. demands that he get rid of weapons of mass destruction. Iraq denies having such weapons. A memo was not regarded as a draft resolution, the source said. Of course not. A memo will just slow things down further and gum up the works, which is all that Chirac wants.
Secretary of State Colin Powell told a news conference in Tokyo he expected the Security Council to make a judgment about a new resolution on Iraq — to be presented by the United States and Britain as early as Monday — soon after the inspectors' report on March 7. Not if the French can help it.
Washington and London want a new resolution seen as paving the way for an attack on Iraq if they feel Baghdad has not complied with U.N. disarmament demands. Which the Iraqis won't do, though they'll try to make it seem as though they're cooperating a little. We'll still be arguing over whether the missiles should be destroyed.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/24/2003 09:07 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Though, the cross-continent bashing between the United States and France has been on since decades. But it was for no reason that Mark Twain wrote in 1879 for a journal, "There is nothing lower than the human race except the French."
Based on the historical record, it is not difficult to pronounce the French as cowards. But perhaps that is propagating a silly myth. There is another point that often does not meet the eye in the discussion and that is the menacing evil they harbour against the English-speaking world. The French in post World War II order of things have come to suffer with a devilish combination of cynicism and narcissism and that same thread runs in their policy and governmental issues.*1
Just a step back in the argument, the French lost WW II to the Germans in about 20 minutes. Americans along with the British in which about 150,000 soldiers were killed getting their country back for them. The French in contrast suffered 23,500 casualties. Their leader, Charles de Gaulle, insistently and at the expense of bad relations with Churchill and Eisenhower led the victory parade after the liberation of Paris.
And despite all that people in the know have quoted Steven Spielberg say the French would not even let him film the D-Day scenes in âSaving Private Ryanâ on the Normandy beaches. They want people to forget the price we paid getting their country back for them. Just forget it, it ever happened.
They have a tract record of protecting genocidal regimes like :â¦â¦.
* In 1994, the French at their African bases were the one military power who could stop the Rwandan genocide of the Tutsi by the Hutu. Alternatively, in Operation Turquoise they created a safe haven for the culprits of the genocide, the Hutu Interahamwe militia. Only because the Tutsis chasing the murderers had become Anglophones in exile and French cultural vanity couldn't allow losses in a French-speaking country.
* During the Balkan wars, pro-Serb French military officers allowed the murder of Bosnian politicians in convoys they were supposed to protect and continuously passed NATO classified information to Slobodan Milosevic.
The French were the main obstacle to any pragmatic intervention against "ethnic cleansing" until the United States stepped in to break the stalemate. Yet even after NATO intervention, French officers deliberately leaked information that enabled Radovan Karadzic, to escape twice.
In the eight-year war between Iran and Iraq, it was the French, not the Americans as often alleged with the Russians and Chinese were arms suppliers of military hardware to Saddam Hussein. Later on, they were major beneficiaries under, âOil for Food" program minting cash all over again.
French delegations have been visiting Parliament flew to Baghdad on the face of it to bear on Saddam for serious complying with the all demands of United Nations . But Le Monde quoted that that the trip also was made for "the defence of French economic interests in Iraq." And it was those interests that made France as Iraq's largest European trading partner in 2001, which got them $1.5 billion worth of business. Mr. Chirac has personally visited Iraq in 1976.
Under the U.N.'s "oil for food" program, France has pulled together $3.1 billion in trade since the program began in 1996.
Baghdad International Trade Fair in, November of 2002 French companies were conspicuous among the 1,200 firms represented. Among them: car manufacturer Peugeot, maker of medical equipment Cercomex and pharmaceutical house Nutris and French pharmaceutical manufacturers organisation TULIP were present. Of course not to forget TotalFinaElf the French oil company
Russia, France's partner in undermining the Bush administration at the U.N., also has quietly positioned its petroleum giant LUKoil to exploit Iraqi oilfields. Iraq owes Russia $8 billion dating back to the Soviet era.
So when career diplomats like M de Villepin, 49, the French foreign minister believes and quotes those romanticisms in his speeches at the UN that France is living up to its historic grandeur whenever it is led by men (there is rarely mention of women) of vision, intelligence and courage. He sees himself in thatmould.
His model is Napoleon Bonaparte, his quest is for glory and his belief is in swift, decisive action. The crisis over Iraq has given him an opportunity to try out his philosophy.
In a book authored by M de Villepin,(a self âpublished poet also) on Napoleonâs last 100 days in power, "Les Cent-Jours", he says that France is never greater than when it is fighting against the odds of a more powerful opponent. To him, the clash with the United States is just that.
In reference to a comment from Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defense Secretary, who brushed off France and Germany as being part of âold Europeâ, M de Villepin said that he was from an âold countryâ, one that had known âwar, occupation, barbarityâ, one that was standing up for what it thought was right. He describes Napoleonâs philosophy in chimerical terms as: âVictory or death, but glory whatever happens.â
Winston Churchill, it is said, had one thing to say about the leader about French leader he complained that, of all the crosses he had to bear during World War II, --putting up with de Gaulle--was the heaviest.
France and its leaders have an unresolved Past, with an imperfect present and future. And George Bush has to live with that tradition.
*1 (Everybody remembers Michel Garretta, the director of the French National Blood Transfusion Centre (during 1985) , who knew very well that testing blood supplies for traces of HIV infection was necessary Yet he deemed that French blood supplies did not need the American-pioneered tests or treatment and ordered "the normal distribution of non-heated blood products as long as they were in stock." At his trial, in 1992 Dr. Garretta admitted that he knew about the possibility of tainted blood: "Everybody knew about it, including me....â the French health minister and other technocrats they were charged with abstraction called "the national interestâ. However, the national interest dictated that the test should be "made in France." And not use the American made. By that time, however, hundreds of haemophiliacs and others receiving blood transfusions had contracted HIV through tainted blood products. The prosecution admitted that by blocking the tests in part was to give the French Pasteur Institute time to develop its own procedure rather than use the one made in America.)
#2
After the war, our country should seriously examine the issue of whether the UN is just irrelevent, or is it something much worse; a device that inherently protects dictators.
#3
Completly off-topic, but I'd just like to say I've been impressed by recent Ishmail's comments. That's the kind of (long) informative NB that balances nicely the funny smarth-mouthings. Oh, and I agree with that last one, and I'm a froggie, too.
#5
I'm sorry but hanging Vercengetorix's defeat at Alesia on the French is ridiculous. Back then the Gallic tribes were Celtic, a very different culture. And lest we forget those very Celts were the first to sack Rome around 300 B.C. Sorry I don't have my Livy with me, so I don't remember the exact date.
Also, the French poilus conduct in World War I was courageous and they took appalling casualties.
I prefer to think that the average French man-in-ranks is brave, but betrayed by utterly unprinicipled leaders.
Seventeen rubes foreigners bunked down Friday night at a Baghdad water purification plant as the first "human shields" to deploy in Iraq in preparation for a looming U.S.-led war. The gits volunteers from Sweden, Spain, Italy and Finland weren't roughing it: Their quarters at the Seventh of April named for the last day of the upcoming war water purification station were a huge room with beds, a television, electric heaters and a large table. The wall was adorned with a picture of President Saddam Hussein. Can't have shields without a picture of Sammy!
"We will try everything to get peace instead of war and to protect civil societies," said Ingrid Ternert, a Swedish member of the group. That's really heavy, man.
The dopes volunteers planned to spend only one night at the station, but said others would rotate in to protect the infrastructure installation, which wasn't bombed during the 1991 Gulf War. Workers at the station were happy with their unusual visitors."We welcomed them. I feel happy and it is nice because they want peace for our country," said Hussein Alwan, a 32-year-old supervisor. "Please don't kill me!"
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday that any Iraqi officials who help in the deployment of the human idjits shields could be punished as war criminals. "It's a war crime to misuse lower life forms like this!"
Asked about Rumsfeld's remarks, Ternert, a high school teacher, said: "He doesn't know that this is protecting the society." I agree, society is already better with these fools out of the country.
"We do this because we are very angry," said Ignacio Cano, a bearded Spanish university professor. "Our governments, especially in those countries like mine - Spain, Italy and Turkey - are supporting the war even though the population are overwhelmingly against the war." Teachers, professors, no wonder the kids aren't learning.
Nearby, a woman sat on her bed covering her face with a sweater to prevent television crews from filming her. What's wrong, don't you want everyone to know just how brave you are?
Some of the human dupes shields weren't exposing themselves to much danger. Cano said Iraq the United States would be to blame if anyone is hurt - but conceded that likely wouldn't be him. "I will be leaving Iraq in two days," he said. "So I personally think I will be all right." Don't you just admire a man who stands up for his beliefs?
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/24/2003 12:07 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
From scrappleface.com
Blix Orders Iraq to Destroy Human Shields (2003-02-24)
Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix has ordered the Republic of Iraq to destroy dozens of so-called 'human shields' recently discovered by his inspections team.
In a letter to the U.N. Security Council, Mr. Blix said the human shields are "a hindrance, however slight, to compelling Iraq to disarm. They protect Saddam."
The shields may also contain chemical and biological agents which could prove harmful to Iraqi citizens.
"We've found some of the human shields contain controlled substances," the letter states, "and others spew a kind of bilious vitriol that can cause adverse reactions among those nearby."
A terse response from the government of Iraq said: "We have a right to defend our sovereignty. The human shields pose no threat to our neighbors in the region."
#2
"He doesn't know that this is protecting the society."
Would not she have been more accurate to have said"protecting the status quo".
"the United States would be to blame if anyone is hurt"
Let me see if I understand this statement,if I stand in the way of a pissed-off,chargeing Rhino and get sashed into jelly it is the Rhino's fault.
Is it me or does anybody else see something wrong with this logic?
#3
Way to go professor! Take a stand and get out of the way before the s**t starts flying! Now you can go home and tell your war stories, even though was no war while you were there. I'm sure that'll impress all the ladies.
#4
I wonder if at some point we may have to save these guys from being strung-up by pissed-off Iraqis who will see them as allies of Saddam. If they're smart, the shields will stick to the Sunni parts of Iraq.
Posted by: Patrick Phillips ||
02/24/2003 10:55 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Save them? Fuck 'em. They are there by their own choice. They get killed, it's under the heading of "evolution in action" as far as I'm concerned. And if the Iraquis string 'em up, tough shit.
#6
"but said others would rotate in to protect the infrastructure installation, which wasn't bombed during the 1991 Gulf War." In other words, they are going somewhere that probably won't be bombed anyway. They put the dupes here, to keep them safe and warm. All the others (CIA, etc.) probably went to the important sites to set up their explosives, as planned. heh heh.
Mr. President,
I am pleased to report that the human shield deployment is nearly complete. As estimated in my memo of 1st January, fully one-third of the shields deployed are either our assets, or those of the CIA, MI5, or Mossad. All are experts in sabotage, improvised munitions, and assassination. The remaining two-thirds are, as Sec. Rumsfeld described, "doubly useful idiots," in that they provide valuable cover for our covert operatives.
As expected, the Iraqi government has deployed the shields to cover the targets Saddam considers the most critical to the survival of his regime. Collection of intelligence is ongoing, and is expected to continue through the outbreak of hostilities, but we have already confirmed the existence of several WMD caches either previously unknown to us, or whose locations were only roughly known. Bombing coordinates for these targets have been variously pinpointed through the use of concealed GPS devices, triangulation of cell and satellite phone calls, and in one instance, a classroom laser pointer.
In most cases our assets have been deployed as part of a larger group of shields, but the luck of the draw has created several groups containing none of our agents. Intelligence gathered from these shields is therefore more sketchy, and information other than location is gathered primarily through analysis of their cell phone conversations. Nevertheless, we have confirmed the location of one underground bunker within Baghdad proper, as well as an al-Samoud missile factory.
Cell-phone usage has also allowed us to locate all remaining shield group positions. We have scheduled U-2 and reconnaissance satellite overflights for these areas, and have a high degree of confidence that our analysts will be able to classify them before the campaign commences. Agent O'Keefe is to be commended for the creation and implementation of the plan, and is expected to provide invaluable service once we begin to focus on the Iranian and Korean fronts.
Col. Nicholas Fury
Undersecretary of Operations
NSC
23rd February, 2003
*Strategic Human Intelligence, Enabled by Loony Dupes
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 12:33 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I keep thinking about what Raed said recently in his weblog posting about how much these human shields (read: parasites)are provided for in just meals. This phony propaganda ploy ought to get out in the mainstream press, but of course they won't bring it up. "Oh, the humanity!" should be changed to "Oh, the hypocracy!"
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 13:02 Comments ||
Top||
John Major, the prime minister during the 1991 Gulf War, says a new attack on Iraq would be far more dangerous with Saddam Hussein backed into a corner and likely to lash out in all directions. We know that.
Major, who sent tens of thousands of troops to the Gulf to help the United States kick Iraq's armed forces out of Kuwait, said on Sunday that the Iraqi president knew he was likely to be deposed or dead if a new war is launched. We know that too.
Twelve years ago, the goal was to liberate Kuwait. Now, London and Washington plan to go into Iraq, disarm Saddam and probably topple him, he said. "This time he is threatened... he knows at the end of this war he is likely to be dead, or fled or on trial," Major said. "This one is much more complex and has many more potential hazards. He may on this occasion use all his arsenal." Major ran through a range of options which a cornered Saddam may pursue — including setting alight his own oilfields, targeting those in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait or firing missiles, possibly chemical, at Saudi Arabia and Israel in an attempt to destabilise the whole region. Yep, we thought of those as well.
"None of these things is certain but all of these things are possible and all of them must be in the minds of the planners as they anticipate what might happen when conflict starts," he said. Major and the elder George Bush balked at marching on Baghdad in 1991, fearing that would shatter a carefully built Arab coalition backing the freeing of Kuwait. This time there is little or no Arab support for war on Iraq, complicating the diplomatic sphere, Major said. Other than Kuwait, Qatar, Oman, the UAE, and Jordan, you mean.
But he was even more concerned by the aftermath, predicting an uprising by Shi'ites and Kurds if Saddam's demise seemed imminent. British and American troops may find themselves in Iraq as peacekeepers for a long time, Major said. We'll be there a while, yes.
Major was also sceptical about the prospects for a broad, post-Saddam government, saying it would be "next to impossible" to build a coalition of Iraq's ethnic groups. "The problems of winning the peace... are going to be much more complex and take much longer than most people are currently reckoning," he said. We know that, John. We're prepared, and it looks like Tony is too.
Just because it's hard isn't a reason not to do it. If it was easy, it probably would have been done long ago. Letting it go another ten years would make it harder when it eventually has to be (read: no choice at all to us) done.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/24/2003 12:33 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
TAG: Thank you for your insight into the current German-French entente. I had never thought of that angle. It's disturbing to me as an American that we might have botched our diplomacy that badly.
You zeroed right in on the weakest part of my argument. Invading Iraq only makes sense if you think that maintaining a successful, secular, relatively democratic state in the Arab world would act as a catalyst for change in the rest of the Middle East. It is truly a revolutionary strategy in that its ultimate goal is to initiate revolutionary change amongst the Arabs. It is a very risky strategy. But as I pointed out above, the alternatives are even more dangerous.
I think that in your reply to my first post is the very seed of the current American-European discord. As you say, it takes a "knife" at the throat of someone like Saddam Hussein to get him to cooperate. What Joe Six Pack in the US doesn't understand is why that knife is almost always made in the USA. I understand that the French are corrupt and the Germans are limited by their Constitution and that the rest of the EU just doesn't have the raw GDP to project power outside their borders. All that being true, you could do a lot together. As an informed observer, I don't see a lot going on to that end. Yes, every few years there is a Multilateral Force or a Euro-Corps or French-German Rapid Reponse Force. Then it just disappears. It never gets exercised. It never gets deployed. So intellectually, I feel the same way that the American Joe Six Pack feels in his gut. When are our allies going to share the risk? As much as Americans are portrayed as go-it-alone cowboys in the popular press, we are team players in real life. We glory in the history and myths of our WWII and Cold War alliances. The question is, when will continental Europe join the team?
#2
The Bush-Rumsfeld-Powell (BRP) clique's pathological irresolution has certainly filtered onto American field troops. Sy Hersh has already signalled that he is going to douse Afghanistan mythohistory with the facts on the Konduz atrocity, wherein the Oval Office allowed Pakistani fighters to fly from a surrounded salient, to safety with their Taleban/al-Qaeda beneficiaries. BRP also: exhonerated Saud King al-Fahd's Islamo-fascist son - Crown Prince Abdul-Aziz, from his brazen complicity with al-Qaeda terrorism, and used State Department resources to attempt a sandbag of the 911 lawsuit; offered Mullah Omar a halt of U.S. troops, which were approaching the Afghanistan theater, in exchange for Osama bin Laden, as if that would stop operation of the genocide camps; ordered (unsuccessfully) Northern Alliance troops to withhold capture of Kabul, pending State Department diplomacy, directed at creating a broad-base government of Afghanistan, which would have included Taliban; ordered the Northern Alliance to conclude armistice agreements with crypto-Taliban parties, notwithstanding the folly of facilitating an armed peace with animals who had instructed 50,000 jihadis in the production and use of WMD; sent Treasury Secretary O'Neill to Pakistan, after the election in NWFP of the MMA, a neo-Taliban party with direct ties to al-Qaeda, to give assurances of American aid continuity; setting up American troops for slaughter in Afghanistan, by denying the jihadi policies of the MMA, and allowing the Mushareff government to funnel 8.4% of American aid to the terrorist government; guaranteed for the Saudi government a consultative - if not directive - role in a post-Saddam Iraq (Prince Bandar at the Bush ranch); adopted a policy of buying allies in the Iraq theater, rather than admit that the general populace has been brainwashed by genocidal clerics; allowed the Holyland (al-Haramain) Foundation to finance an Islamo-fascist primary and secondary school system, on American soil; subsidizes American jihadism of the Muslim Students Association, notwithstanding that the MSA's mother groups Jamaat-i-Islami/Islamic Society of North America, invited Osama bin Laden to their 1998 convention in Pakistan.
Notwithstanding certain bought and paid for elites, Muslims are at war with America, while the BRP clique believes that the real enemy is only a small group of terrorists who don't understand that they are part of the common-children-of-Abraham. When American soldiers start dying in a conflict that should have been over by October 11, 2001, Americans will finally subject their anti-secular/pro-Wahabi government to the scrutiny it deserves.
#3
11A5S, I fully agree with you. For me the whole transatlantic rift is a result of a diplomatic screw up on both sides.
Alliances are not formed out of gratitude, they are formed out of necessity. Believe me, the Kuwaitis may be very grateful that the U.S. liberated them but once the Iraqi threat is eliminated, don't count on them.
The U.S.-European partnership was (and hopefully is) based on more than "you save my ass and I pay and shut up". It's based on common values, on a similar view on freedom, democracy, free trade, cultural heritage.
Lately the U.S. has reduced this partnership to a "we lead, you follow, period" thing. Europeans (and UN) were never left in any doubt: Be with us or face irrelevance. Thats still better than the Soviet way that read: Be with us or be occupied. But the idea is that of a superpower bullying its allies at will. At least Europeans see it that way.
The U.S. never let anyone in doubt that attacking Iraq was the only option, all that UN talk was only good to allow for the necessary deployment time. Days before resolution 1441 was passed the US said it wont be of much use anyway, days before the Iraqis delivered their 12000 pages report the US said it was a bunch of lies (without having read it; ok it was a bunch of lies but they could have waited), days before Blix reported for the first time the US called his report rather irrelevant etc. So they created the impression that war was always the only (and long planned option) the U.S. were ready to pursue.
What if the U.S. had proposed their allies a different procedure? Like: "Hey guys, we all know that Saddam will only comply with a knife at his throat? So lets get the knife there and if everything fails then lets cut his throat. The Europeans would have hoped that Saddam would understand, the Americans would have hoped that he would not. In the end both sides would have agreed on cutting the throat.
I don't think that Schroeder had any ideas about the box of worms he opened when he tried to save his re-election by pleasing the peace loving Germans. Had the U.S. just looked the other way the whole think would have died down.
But you can call the French anything but irrelevant. And thats what Rumsfeld did with his remarks about "Old Europe" not mattering anymore. So Chirac took great care to tell us all that France still matters. And now the Germans are tied to the French. They can't go against the only "friend" they have right now. And thats a result of failed U.S. diplomacy that never offered Schroeder a decent retreat. And now the U.S. cornered Chirac even more. That much that he in a Napoleonic fit may feel compelled to use his veto even if he rather preferred to sign on 5 minutes before an attack (I guess that was his original plan, the French always have an exit strategy). All that French bashing will lead to nothing but more calamity.
The French are no cowards, no traitors. They just like to play with the big boys. So give them the idea that they actually do and they won't spoil the match.
I can understand how Joe Six Pack feels. But I also know how Hans Bierkrug and Jacques Winebottle feel.
#4
TGA asks, "So why did we send them to Iraq if we don't allow them to do their job?"
We sent the inspectors into Iraq to verify Iraqi disarmament. Iraq hasn't disarmed so there is nothing to verify. What is the purpose of continuing to verify something that hasn't happened?
#6
Typical Tory speak. They have no imagination and they fear the end of the world is about to happen as soon as even the smallest change is made to the current state of affairs. So it is better to keep a murderous madman in business, just because he is in business for a long time. This attitude caused them to give in to Hitler's demands in Munich : who knew what would happen if they confronted Hitler ? Or worse yet, when they confronted him and toppled his regime. Who would prevent Germany from falling into chaos then ?
Posted by: Peter ||
02/24/2003 3:51 Comments ||
Top||
#7
That's a bit harsh toward the Tories, Peter. Don't forget Churchill was a Tory, and Maggie T. Hardly change-fearing scaredycats. And don't forget parliament as a whole was overwhelmingly supportive of appeasement until it was too late to realise the mistake. This time the Tories are more supportive of Blair than his own party.
#8
Bulldog, I don't consider Churchill or Thatcher to be typical Tory leaders. Churchill hasn't even been a Tory for his entire carreer, as he was almost completely out of step with the party. And Thatcher was way too bold and revolutionary to be a typical Tory. Major, Heath, Chamberlain, Balfour and the like, those were real Tories : decent people, but often quite clueless.
Posted by: Peter ||
02/24/2003 13:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
To compare Munich 1938 appeasement politics with the situation today doesn't cut it. Nazi Germany 1938 was already the most powerful state in Europe, bullying the others. A clear and present danger. Frankly Hitler was disappointed with Munich. He already wanted to start the war back then. The outcome wouldn't have been much different. Ok you may argue that Hitler gained one more year for building up his military but so did the allies who in March 1939 (when Hitler invaded the rest of Czechoslovakia) had no more illusions about "peace in our time".
The outcome of "preemptive strikes" are more than uncertain. Lets assume the UK and France had led a preemptive strike against Germany in 1938, what could have happened? The German Wehrmacht might have defeated the invaders and Germany could have emerged as a superpower later. Or the allies could have succeeded and a weakend Germany would have been an easy prey for Stalin a few years later. Maybe all Europe would have followed.
Speculations, of course. We will never know. My point is that preemptive military action does not necessarily change history the way you want.
And Iraq? You can't compare Iraq 2003 with Germany 1938, not the same league. A superpower like the US can't be threatened seriously by a country like Iraq. If Iraq attacked the US with chemical and/or biological weapons in the morning (and its not clear how and why it should do that) it would be a big crater by noontime.
US nuclear weapons deterred a nuclear power as big as the Soviet Union, why should Iraq be any bolder?
You may argue that Iraq may give its weapons to terrorists who could strike the US. Possible, but not very likely. Somebody would trace the attack back to Iraq and then its high noon again.
If the joint intelligence community of the West couldn't make the connection Saddam-Osama (they couldn't even fake it) then there probably isn't any.
I don't say that Iraq is no danger. It must be contained. We face many dangers. Iraq is not the biggest of them. But it is a danger we think we can eliminate easily. Others we can't (at least not easily). But eliminating that danger will probably just create new ones.
I question the positive "domino effect" that the occupation of Iraq is supposed to have on other Arab nations. I rather see a renewed race for nuclear arms in order to be "safe" from an US attack. Won't make the world any safer.
That's the whole story.
I disagree with your analysis of the Hitler situation and the comparison. Germany was not the most powerful state in Europe at the time, and Hitler desperately needed the Czech industry and armaments for his military.
I feel France was more powerful than Germany, but very poorly led. If either England or France had had a better grip on using their superior armor, things might have been very different.
Finally, even if Iraq is not the most powerful country in the Middle East, their posession of WMDs, their location in an area of such strategic importance, and Saddam's demonstrated agression in lashing out at his neighbors and his own people are ample reason for me to support pre-emptive military action.
Saddam is quite capable, or will be quite capable very soon, of devastating the petroleum production in the entire area with a few well-placed nukes or other WMDs. It's effect on the world economy would be utterly destructive.
All the more reason we need to explore other sources for energy (our own domestic sources of petroleum and developing alternative fuels) so we can pull out and let the Arabs butcher each other as they like to do. But we're unfortunately not ready for that day yet.
And in the meantime, I would appreciate if every time heating oil goes up a nickel the left would stop looking at the Strategic Reserve as their personal Rainy Day Fund and Short-Term Vote Grabber.
Posted by: Dar Steckelberg ||
02/24/2003 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#11
True German Ally, I disagree with you wholeheartedly. You say that if Iraq attacked the US even with clandestine means, then Iraq would be a crater by noon. But don't you think such a scenario would be far worse than a war with Saddam right now? I thought this is what we are trying to prevent. And do you honestly think Iraq can be dealt with the same methods the Soviet Union was dealt with? Do you think Saddam understands the concept of mutually-assured destruction? Do you think he cares? Given the way he cares about his people, the world is no different to him. Remember that technology will only get better with time, it will become more widely available, and attacks will only get easier to carry out. Also you say Iraq is not the biggest danger we face. Can you point out which ones are bigger? And please don't say N.Korea because it is not. N.Korea is an open and shut case. Your vision that Saddam should be left alone is by far the biggest threat to world peace. It would send a signal to any tom-dick-and-harry country that it is ok to pursue WMD programs, after all, there are many customers out there and this could prove very profitable. It is time to set the precedent. Don't be fooled that Europe is somehow the moral leader of the world. It is not. Europe is more corrupt than you can ever imagine.
#12
Historical comparisons always suck. The danger never lies in what you know and fear but in what you have no idea of.
The French felt safe behind their Maginot Line. But the Germans made a joke out of it by attacking France from neutral Belgium. Foul play, right? Well dictators don't play by the rules, too bad.
We know what Saddam is capable of if we let him. We don't know what he actually would do. But would Hitler have stopped after Poland?
Yet I think we have been too focused on the "pre-emptive" thing. Iraq is not an example for it. Iraq attacked Kuweit, was driven back by an international coalition with UN backing and signed a ceasefire (read: CEASEFIRE) with the coalition. And accepting UN resolution 687 was an essential part of these ceasefire agreements. It's worth re-reading this resolution.
http://www.unog.ch/uncc/resolutio/res0687.pdf
Breaking a ceasefire is about the same as re-declaring war. The First Gulf War has never ended, it just took a break.
The UN simply isn't doing its job. If it allows that a country can break the resolutions of the Security Council at will (and these resolutions spared Iraq the fate of US occupation in 1991) and responds by negotiating for 12 years and probably another 12 years it renders itself ridiculous and obsolete. If the Iraq resolutions are not enforced then the UN better call them "friendly recommendations, please disregard if they bother you".
The US could have done a far better diplomatic job regarding Europe but France and Germany need to know that they put the future of the UN in jeopardy, not the US.
Re North Korea. I believe that it is indeed dangerous as it is led by a dictator without any morale (actually someone who needs a straightjacket). I don't know if we can keep NKor from selling their nukes (that will depend on China's protection) but I guess we can prevent others from buying.
Posted by: Morally Not Corrupt European ||
02/24/2003 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#13
True German Ally,
I think that your analysis fails, not because as you rightly point out, Saddam Hussein is no Adolf Hitler, but because the Middle East is 2003 is not Europe in 1938-9. The Middle East (and the Arab world in particular) consists of a number of weak state actors. None of them are strong enough to take on the US or even the EU (as you again point out correctly). Over the years, they have found that they could achieve their foreign policy goal through intermediaries such as terrorists. Since the first plane hijackings in the 1960's, Arab governments have successfully manipulated much stronger countries. Using terrorists provided deniability. Unless you were stupid like Ghadaffi and used your own intelligence agents, you would not have to face any retribution.
The problem with most terror groups is that they are one trick ponies. They have a specialty, and once their tactics are understood, they can be shut down fairly quickly. That was the situation until Osama bin Laden came along.
OBL set up his terror network on an investment banking model. Investment banks have two main business functions. Getting funds and investing funds. Any actor, state or otherwise, who wants to use Al Qaeda to achieve some policy goal, can proffer a donation to the cause. Any terror group can bring their "business plan" to OBL and get funding. OBL is a literal broker of terror. Al Qaeda's effectiveness is an order of magnitude higher than the old system whereby states sponsored individual terror groups. Plus deniability is greater since there is an extra layer between the person desiring the action done and the person performing the deed.
Terrorism wasn't too much of a problem when its goals were limited to getting the US out of Lebanon or getting the Europeans to reduce their level of support to Israel. On the other hand, the Islamists goals are unlimited. Some of OBL's stated goals are the political reunification of all of Dar al Islam, $30 trillion in reparations from the West and oil at $140 per barrel. Another goal stated by some of his followers is world domination (I've never seen this attributed to OBL in print). All of this would be somewhat laughable if it wasn't for the Islamists willingness to use weapons of mass destruction.
The Islamists, using Al Qaeda as their cut out, have already launched a WMD attack on the US. As to their ability to get more WMD, let me ask you this: If Al Qaeda easily infiltrated the West with sleeper cells, how many do you think there are in Pakistan? In Saudi Arabia? Ok, let's say that they can't get a hold of the Pakistani nukes. What's to stop them from buying a surplus 707, filling it with fuel bladders and crashing it into a football game in Cologne? There are many desert airstrips where just such a plan could be executed. How many tens of thousands would die?
Hitler hesitated to use his WMDs (nerve gasses) in WWII. He never used terror bombing on the scale that the allies did later in the war. Stalin never risked nuclear war. We now know that the Islamists have no such compunctions. This is not Munich. This is not the Cold War. It is much more dangerous.
So is Iraq the main investor in Al Qaeda? Probably not by a long shot. I personally think that most of the funding comes from reactionary Gulf oil sheikhs. But it is a beach head into enemy territory.
I don't think that we (and when I say we, I mean the West) have any choice but to start intervening decisively in the the Arab world. Iraq is just a beginning. I really don't know if we can straighten out the Arab world by invading Iraq. I don't even know if tempermentally, Americans can succeed at this kind of thing. But I do know this. If we wait, the Islamists will get through with another WMD. The American response this time will probably be genocidal. I would rather risk being bogged down in Middle East for a generation than wait passively for death on that scale.
#14
The nightmare scenario is 10-15 years time where all the Middle East countries and other wackos (eg Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, etc) have say 50 nuclear weapons each. Then a terrorist uses a nuclear weapon to blow up a major western city. What would the west do? All the countries would deny having anything to do with it.
The September 11th attack demonstrates that there are people who would carry out such an attack. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work very well when you don't know who is behind the attack.
I think President Bush's current actions are all designed to avoid that scenario - or at least delay it - and provide options if that scenario did arise. Hence the missile defense shield and other weapons development.
Posted by: A ||
02/24/2003 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
#15
11A5S, you make some very valid points here. But then you kinda refute them yourself. After Afghanistan Al Quaeda didn't go out of business. Nor will it after Iraq. It will just get more followers.
I agree with you that the radical Islamists are the real danger. But as you say they don't even need biological or chemical weapons to cause mass murder. And they have way too many places where they can get them. I believe the dire state of Russian WMD facilities are a much higher threat to US security than the elusive stockpile Saddam drives around in his country.
Sorry but I believe that OBL may be the strongest supporter of an Iraq invasion. And may it be the bloodiest one possible. Thousands of new Al Quaeda members guaranteed.
Iraq a beach head into enemy territory? Sounds nice but I think the US forces will soon be trapped in that beachhead. The Shiites in the South will be the first ones to act against them. And as we have learnt the American public doesn't accept thousands of body bags shipped home.
How many pre-emptive strikes can the US lead? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Syria? Pakistan? We will be faced with a hydra that replaces every head we chop off. Or rather produces two heads for each slain.
I never said that we should leave Saddam alone. The US forces in the Gulf are a very good thing. They should not be withdrawn without having achieved their goal: Disarming Saddam. But the inspectors have just been in place for 2 months. They did find and destroy a lot in the years they were there before they left in 1998. So why did we send them to Iraq if we don't allow them to do their job? Why do many of them say that US intelligence provide them with "rubbish info"? What will we lose if we let them search for a year, with the imminent threat of an attack if Saddam doesn't cooperate? Of course this will cost but it will cost a fraction of what a war (and the clean up) would. As long as the US military is in place Saddam is contained. And who knows how long he can bear the pressure.
I make a caveat though: If he does not comply, he must be dealt with. Some people need a knife at their throat to do as they are told. The knife is in place now. From now on we can really put Saddam to test. The Samoud missiles will be the first of these tests. If he doesn't destroy them as ordered that means that he doesn't believe he will and must be attacked. Why? Because if he doesnt crack under imminent danger he will never. And then time has truely run out for him.
The rift between the US and Old Europe is not so much about Iraq, its about the way the US has treated allies. Why did Germany who has backed the US for the last 50 years suddenly throw a fit? When Schroeder said that Germany won't participate in an Iraq war the U.S. should have quietly said: Ok, your choice, sorry for that. Please don't stand in the way either, ok? Instead the U.S. thought it could get Germany back on the "right track" by bashing it and let emotions run high. And then, when Germany appeared to be rather desperate and isolated the French saw their chance to finally get their lost political influence in Europe back. Rumsfeld's "Old Europe" remark accomplished what de Gaulle in the Elysee Treaty didn't achieve: Weaken Germany's transatlantic ties. Schroeder is just a weak populist politician, but Chirac is a corrupt heavyweight. US diplomatic blunder made his day. He was deeply discredited in France before, now even the French opposition applauds. And Villepin gets the clapping in the Security Council.
Only an united front of free, democratic countries will be able tackle the threats that lie before us. US unilateralism will not.
#16
TGA raises good points. His analysis is mostly clear-headed, unlike most of the knee-jerk oppositionists. However, he writes: Sorry but I believe that OBL may be the strongest supporter of an Iraq invasion. And may it be the bloodiest one possible. Thousands of new Al Quaeda members guaranteed.
I can see why people are so eager to believe this. It's intuitive, it makes sense to them. The conventional wisdom thinks: Attack a muslim country = create more resentment, fear, and hatred = more terrorists. Unfortunately, such analyses neglect a wide range of other factors.
From what we know, Al Qaida's most successful recruiting angles were, 1) easy access, just come to Afghanistan - we've got the full protection of the Taliban and deep funding pouring in from all over the Ummah; and, most importantly, 2) guaranteed victory over the weak Americans. We know that they spun all of the events of the '90's as victories for themselves: Somalia, stopping in Kuwait during Gulf War I was seen by them as evidence of U.S. weakness, the Cole bombing, the bombings in Khobar bombing, the Embassy bombings and the ineffective Tomahawk response was their biggest recruiting coup. The list is actually much longer and older and includes the Iranian embassy, Lebannon and countless other events. Afghanistan was the first major setback they couldn't spin as victory.
Before Afghanistan, people said that such an attack would create more terrorists. So far that hasn't been seen and I think that it could be argued that the surviving terror cells were in place long before. Has hatred increased? Maybe, although I believe that most of that too was in place long before 9/11. But has hatred increased in Afghanistan? I suspect that the opposite has occurred and will occur in Iraq. The "seething anger", lingers in builds in the decaying and failed states like Pakistan and Saudi.
I've already gone on too long but I want to mention one more thing: The bases in S.Arabia and the sanctions on Iraq were a major source of hatred and terror recruiting for over a decade. If we end those after the battle, then we have removed one major root cause and positioned ourselves better to address another one: Saudi, Syrian, and Iranian funding.
One last thing: The most recent Al Qaida tapes (Osama?) called Saddam and infidel but urged muslims to oppose the invasion. I do not think this is some sort of clever reverse psychology.
#17
TAG you give Chirac & Schroeder way too much credit. It seems they are the ones that crossed the line and screwed it up. It is Schroeder who made Bush into a whack job during the elections, for his own benefit no less. Remember the Hitler comparison?? You expected the Americans to let that die down??? Rumsfeld's comments were made after it was already apparent that old Europe would obstruct everything the US put forward at the UN. Besides, Chiraq's recent tirade against E.Europe gave Rumsfeld's comments legitimacy. Rumsfeld couldn't have asked for anything more.
But to put it succinctly, we all know why the rift exists between Europe and the US, and it really doesn't have to do with WMD or Europe's moral high ground: the US wants regime change which threatens old Europe's lucrative contracts. It's funny how the 3 countries who have the most invested in Iraq are the ones throwing the worst fits. It's tough when you have to choose between your economic well being and a valued friend.
#19
"Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists"
This comment pertained I believe to the war on terrorism and not on Iraq. It is being construed to mean "be with us in everything we do" and is just a part of the ammunition that is being used against the US, in the manner that you use it yourself even.
The impression I get is that there is no reason for someone to be so obstructionist, like Chiraq, without there being some clandestine reason behind it. (I tend to think it is economic in nature, but you say otherwise, so who knows) One last thing to note: with all this pathological hatred around the world directed at the US and not at Europe, you'd think Europe would be a little understanding of the urgency in the American position. Unless of course, you believe that 9-11 was the American's own fault. And then it all makes sense.
#20
Bush did not specify. He did not say "Either you fight terrorism like we do or you are with them". And he said that phrase in the same speech that coined the "axis of evil" (of States supporting terrorism) America was going to fight. Connect the dots...
But even if he didn't MEAN it as harsh and final as it sounded Bush has done everything not to let Europeans know.
The hatred is largely directed against the US because the US is the only superpower. As the saying goes: "The higher the monkey climbs the more people see its ass."
Europe gets less of Arab hatred because its far less uniform. America may be the prime target but Europe is far from being much safer. We share the same "corrupt" Western values, right?
Chirac has many reasons and certainly economic ones as well. But he would have gone with the crowd eventually. But now its personal, you know. French pride is hurt, French hegemonial dreams were stirred by Germany's alienation from the US. De Gaulle's policy was to assert France leadership in Europe (with Germany as junior partner). Then Germany's economy got too strong and France had to bury its dreams. After the German reunification France even feared a reversal of the roles. But the reunification didn't strengthen Germany's economy, it weakened it. And Germany has not been able to dominate Eastern Europe the way the French feared.
With Germany falling from US grace plus a dismal German economic performance Chirac sees France back on the road to French grandeur in Europe. He has the nukes, he has the veto, and now he has Germany without much choice but to follow Chirac. If the U.S. manages to gently steer Germany back on the right track (without Rumsfeld's backstabbing) Chirac's bubble will burst.
Chirac has a problem, too. Voting with the U.S. in the Security Council (or lets say voting too early with the U.S.) would be seen as a betrayal of the renewed French-German entente. Which would leave Jacques in a mess. No respect in the U.S. AND in Germany.
Rumsfeld should have left the Europeans to Powell...
And no, I don't believe that 9-11 was America's own fault. I may be an European but I'm not an idiot. And I don't believe in conspiracy theories either.
#21
All in all...the damage has been done. If both the French and the Americans started to dig a tunnel under the atlantic they would not meet in the centre but keep digging past each other.
If the French don't dump Chiraq, that will be the end of my relationship with all things French. (I like giving people second chances) On the other hand, I do sincerely hope that the Germans come thru this diplomatically unscathed, perhaps as the future peace broker between France & the US. We shall see.
#22
"I don't say that Iraq is no danger. It must be contained."
That is like saying"Dilution is the solution for pollution".While it may "contain" pollution it does nothing to fix the problem.The best way to fix a pollution problem is elliminate the source.
We did tell them,GWB flat said"If you are not with us get out of the way.
Edited for length; this is part of Time Magazine's interview with Blixie. Worth the read. TIME: How much longer should inspections take before you'd decide whether Iraq is cooperating or not? Dr Hans Blix: If they were to cooperate as required under (Resolution) 1441, actively and without qualifications and immediately, it should not take a very long time. Now in 1991, one expected that that would be a couple of months at the most. And thereafter the period of monitoring would ensue. Much has been destroyed since then, so it should still be possible within a number of months, I think, to be sure that at least the major part had been eradicated. There will always be â and I'm being careful to say that â a residue of uncertainty. We used to take the examples of computer programs, even a prototype of a centrifuge, these are small pieces and you cannot be sure that you catch those. But larger things, industrial-scale activities, yes, I think within a number of months. Me: So Dr. Blix, do you think twelve years is long enough?
TIME: You told the Security Council on Feb. 14 that the period of disarmament can still be short with immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation. But is there immediate, active, and unconditional cooperation, or isn't there? Blix: I described the degree of cooperation and the degree of uncertainty. If (Iraq's recently appointed) commission (to seek documents demanded by the inspectors) comes up with a lot of documents that we've been looking for, and if they are authentic, if they are from the time, well, that is interesting. That could help us to resolve a lot of things.
Me: Dr. Blix, do you think that the people who refer to you as Inspector Clouseau know what they're talking about? Blix: "If they don't, if they say "sorry, we have chased all around the country and confirmed there aren't any." Well, it may be true or it may not be true. I would have thought that having such detailed information about who took part in the transportation and destruction of particular types of biological weapons . . . I would be surprised if they haven't kept some records also of quantities, etc. Me: Dr. Blix, would a fair summation of that answer be, 'we have no idea what we're doing?'
TIME: So when you say to them, what happened to the anthrax, they say, well, there was a hole in the ground in the desert we put it in. Is that what they say? Blix: Yes. That's right. Exactly. That's what they say. It was not a hole in the ground, they poured it in the ground. They did the same thing with the VX. Me: Dr. Blix, are you as gullible as you look?
TIME: Do you believe them? Me:Hell no! Blix: Well, I'd like to see evidence of it. See, I don't work by gut feelings. I have to be the lawyer. Some people say, jump at this. It's unaccounted for, so where is it? I say, where is it? It's unaccounted for. I'd like to see evidence. Where did it go? I'd like to interview the people. If they are scripted, we might learn something from it. If they have contemporary documents, we can read from that and establish whether the documents are authentic. Great, Blixie's the ideal combination of a lawyer and a store clerk.
TIME: So, the credible threat of force is necessary to get even minimal compliance from Iraq? Me: Is that a trick question? Blix: Just as Kofi Annan says, diplomacy may need to be backed up by force. Inspections may need to be backed up by pressure. Yes. I don't think there would have been any inspection but for outside pressure, including (the buildup of) U.S. forces. Finally, he got one right.
TIME: What will it take for you to say enough? Enough. You're dribbling this out. Blix: Well, we've only been drooling dribbling now for twelve weeks.
TIME: So you'd like to drooling dribble twelve more? Blix: I'd like to go on, yes. And on, and on, and on.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/24/2003 09:13 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
UPI Hears column - last item
As the United States increases its presence in the Philippines to help Manila combat the Abu Sayyaf Group guerrillas in the south of the country, Filipino intelligence is worried that the increased U.S. role could escalate the violence, particularly in the form of ASG suicide bombers in Mindanao. According to an anonymous Filipino intelligence officer, at least 50 ASG suicide bombers have been deployed in Mindanao since September. According to the officer, the would-be martyrs are "fresh recruits whose ages range from 18 to 35 years." The guerrillas also have the wherewithal to support and train others. Another intelligence officer said the military had been following up reports that a "large amount" of financial assistance has been transferred from the Middle East.
Posted by: Pete Stanley ||
02/24/2003 10:59 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
The military on Monday denied accusations by the separatist Free Aceh Movement (GAM) that troops had raided a rebel base in violation of a peace pact signed in December, AFP reported. "That is purely their (GAM's) claim. We are continuing to check the claim but I have just talked with the local subdistrict military commander who said there was no such raid in his area," an Aceh military spokesman, Major Eddi Fernandi, said. "Nope. Nope. Wudn't us. Never happened. Nope."
Amri Abdul Wahab, a GAM representative on the Joint Security Committee (JSC) overseeing the truce, said that dozens of soldiers raided a GAM base at Linge in Central Aceh on Wednesday, killing one GAM member and injuring five others. "They should come out with more facts to back up their accusations," Eddy said, adding that if the attackers were in uniform, GAM should know which units they were from. "If they were wearing name tags, you should know their names, too. If they weren't, they were out of uniform, and our guys would never do that..."
GAM said the incident had been reported to the JSC, which is supervising the implementation of the peace accord signed in Geneva on December 9, for them to investigate.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/24/2003 08:10 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Maluku Police said Monday they have arrested four Pakistanis who gave sermons at a mosque. The four were detained Saturday in Masohi on Seram island and were taken early Monday to the provincial capital of Ambon for questioning, said Maluku deputy police chief Sr. Comr. Anton Bambang Suwedi. I think we can imagine what they were preaching...
Maluku has been under a state of emergency since September 2001 following Christian-Muslim battles which broke out in January 1999. The government brokered a fragile peace accord last February but sporadic violence has continued in Ambon, the main island. Just the place to spray a bit of gasoline mixed with vitriol...
Bambang said the four, who were arrested after preaching at a mosque in Masohi Friday, had no permit to enter Maluku. Foreigners are required to have special permit to enter Maluku under the state of emergence. "They will be deported from Maluku immediately after their questioning is completed," Bambang said, without mentioning the names. "Go back to Peshawar and don't come back!"
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/24/2003 08:06 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Israel's centre-right secular Shinui party has joined Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Likud party in a coalition. The move gives Mr Sharon a slim majority in parliament that will allow him to form a government, a spokesman for the prime minister said. Mr Sharon's agreement with Shinui comes a day after the far-right National Religious Party also joined the government. The moves sank any possibility of a national unity coalition with the centre-left Labour Party, which opposed the inclusion of the NRP - the voice of the settler movement. That keeps Peres out of the government...
In the wake of last month's general election, Mr Sharon had sought a wide coalition to include Labour. But the two parties disagreed fundamentally on how to deal with the Palestinian uprising, or intifada. The coalition gives Mr Sharon a one-seat majority in the 120-member Knesset.
Mr Sharon is expected to present his government for parliamentary approval on Thursday. The coalition marks the first time that ultra-Orthodox parties - the traditional kingmakers of Israeli politics - are not part of a Likud government. That's a really slim majority, but I think it's a good thing that the ulta-Orthodox aren't making kings, at least for awhile...
The spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, angrily referred to Mr Sharon as the "prime minister of garbage cans", Israel Radio reported. My! Aren't these grapes sour!
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/24/2003 09:27 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze has again promised to clear the Pankisi Gorge of international terrorists hiding in that part of Georgia. Yep. They're gonna get around to it any time now...
He said a new operation in the gorge was due soon. In an interview with the National radio, Shevardnadze said the new actions of the Georgian law enforcement bodies in Pankisi "will in their content and nature differ from the anticriminal and antiterrorist operation conducted in the gorge last year". How? They gonna catch somebody this time?
Chechen militants, as well as international terrorists linked to the terrorist center Al-Qaeda, had in advance withdrawn to hard-to-reach mountainous regions. Shevardnadze claimed then that "last fall the Georgian law enforcement structures cleared the Pankisi Gorge of armed formations that had come from other states". However, these allegations were not confirmed by Russian special services' data. Probably not by the Georgians', either...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/24/2003 08:50 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Don't tell me - show me.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/24/2003 23:41 Comments ||
Top||
Chechen religious leaders "have resolutely supported" the upcoming referendum on a draft constitution of the republic, head of the Chechen civil administration Akhmad Kadyrov said on Monday. Kadyrov said he had met with the imams of virtually all Chechen communities to discuss preparations for the referendum. The imams "clearly understand that a lot of the current problems in Chechnya cannot be resolved without a constitution and an elected president and parliament," he said. The Chechen imams "assume a firm civil position based on belief in the Most High and knowledge of the canons of true Islam and the situation in Chechnya," Kadyrov said. He called the imams "courageous people who explain the essence of events to the people every day at the risk of their own lives". I don't know how much of this is Kadyrov's propaganda and how much is genuine. It might be genuine, since the indigenous flavor of Islam in the Caucasus isn't wahhabi. But I don't doubt that the ones who favor some sort of normalization of the area are taking their lives into their own hands...
Talking about security during the preparations for the referendum, Kadyrov said a set of measures have been devised to prevent serious provocation on the part of illegal armed formations. "Separatist propaganda will not considerably affect the people's desire to come to the polling stations," he said. He's probably right about that. The Kashmiris voted in spite of the campaign against them by the jihadis.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/24/2003 08:46 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Every night for two months, Venezuelans knew where to find Carlos Ortega. The labor leader was sure be standing before cameras in Caracas, predicting the imminent downfall of President Hugo Chavez. "The dictator's days are numbered," Ortega would thunder at his news conferences, flanked by business leader Carlos Fernandez. Now Ortega, the leader of the strike that failed to oust Chavez, is in hiding, charged with treason and rebellion. Fernandez, accused of similar crimes, was seized by federal agents last week and is under house arrest. Chavez wants both men sentenced to at least 20 years in prison for inflicting pain and suffering on Venezuelans with a strike that crushed the economy. That's what Fidel would do, isn't it?
"See how the others are running to hide," he mocked in a speech after Fernandez's arrest. Though I don't think Fidel gloats quite so openly...
Hiding is uncharacteristic of Ortega, the most visible and pugnacious of Chavez's opponents. He is the only government opponent to claim a measure of victory against Chavez since the leftist president was elected in 1998 and re-elected in 2000. As president of Venezuela's biggest oil workers union, Fedepetrol, Ortega led a four-day strike in 2000 for back pay and a collective contract for 20,000 workers. Chavez ceded on both counts. I hope he can come out of hiding soon â to deal with Hugo's successor.
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/24/2003 08:17 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Got ourselves another nutcase down south. HEY - stop electing socialist lunatics OK? Not so romantic is it?
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/24/2003 23:51 Comments ||
Top||
Shepard Smith just broke a news bulletin 4:15PM PST that NK had launched a missile into sea between NKorea and Japan. The news came from an unnamed SKorean news organization
(developing......)
Must be starving (for attention?)
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 06:16 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Brinkmanship
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/24/2003 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
"The second is a major scare from North Korea. There may be a missile test (perhaps another over Japan), or a nasty incident at the DMZ (with GI casualties), or even a detectable underground nuclear explosion, I should think before next Friday. I would not be surprised to learn, eventually, that the regime of Kim Il-Jong was actually paid by Saddam in cold hard currency to perform such a stunt -- for it has a long track record of doing anything for cash. Those who think the present wild North Korean bellicosity is unconnected to developments in Iraq will be proved naïve."
Posted by: john ||
02/24/2003 18:56 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 19:52 Comments ||
Top||
#5
John, interesting. I thought of that prediction of David Warren's,too, first thing when I heard this news.
It sounds like it kinda wasn't a "success," though, didn't it?
#6
Let them lob a few in the water for Sammy. Their neighbors need a wake-up call anyway. My guess is that North Korea will quiet down a bit after Iraq is under occupatation and Sammy gets his due. Until then, let them waste all the missiles they want.
Kim Il-Jong obviously has a death wish. Right now, it's anybody's guess who is going to grant it.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/24/2003 19:59 Comments ||
Top||
The Ezzedin Al-Qassam Brigades, the armed wing of Hamas claimed responsibility for putting down an Israeli F-16 fighter-jet north of Jenin city in the west bank. In a statement by the Brigade, the group declared that two of its activists âopened fire from an automatic 250 mm gun against the military F-16 plane, which was flying low over Marj bin Amer zone, north east of Jeninâ. 250mm gun, was it? Don't think I'm familiar with that one...
The statement added that âthe operation was a gift to the family of martyr Thaer Mohamed Zakarna, the leader of the Brigades in Jenin, killed by the Israelis a few days ago. I'm sure they'll treasure it always...
For its part, Israel has not commented on the Brigades statement. According to Israeli military sources, the warplane crashed in Israeli territory to the northeast of the Palestinian town of Jenin in the northern West Bank. The pilot ejected and landed in Israel safely. The army said in a statement that the crash occurred due to a technical fault in the area of Afula, an Arab-Israeli town in the north. Air Force commander General Dan Haloutz ordered an investigation into the incident. I think I'd go with that explanation, rather than believe the 250mm AA gun story...
âThis operation was a success, due to Allahâs blessing. It is part of our resistance against the occupation,â Dr. Abdul Aziz Ranteesy, a Hamas ÃŒberfueher political leader, said. Responding to a question about whether the operation comes as a new strategy by Hamas to activate the Intifada, or it is âa loner, improvised, sudden actâ, Ranteesy said, âit was a planned operation,â adding that âthose who carried out the attack could not go out without definite planningâ. "Hey, Mahmoud! Let's go shoot somethin'!"
"You got a plan, Achmed?"
"Uh, yeah. Let's shoot up this time."
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/24/2003 06:03 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
250mm?
Reminds me of Michael Keaton in "Mr. Mom":
"220 volts? uh...220, 221... whatever it takes"
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 18:25 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Not just yer standard 250mm, but an automatic.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/24/2003 18:52 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Boy, 10" AA. Now that's a round! Wondered how they camoflaged that unit so the IDF could not see it?
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 18:18 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I was around 132mm guns. The do need a big base and they do make a big boom. I wonder where PA keep this almost twice as big a gun (automatic?) undetected.
Posted by: marek ||
02/24/2003 20:48 Comments ||
Top||
#5
For the real fireworks, wait till they unleash THE TESLA DEATH RAY on zionist entity fighter planes...
_________borgboy
Just to break the monotony of a steady diet of KCNA...
Tripoli / 24 An nowar / Jana
The Leader of the Revolution met professors and students of Libyan universities through the closed circuit television. The professors and students received the Leader of the Revolution with clamour reaffirming their deep belief in the thoughts of the great al Fateh Revolution and its pioneering revolutionary principles. They re-affirmed their readiness to defend the Revolution, its Leader and its achievements and they expressed their determination towards academic excellence to benefit the Jamahiri society orientations and contribute towards its progress and development. The Leader of the Revolution listened to a number of interventions by some professors and students regarding the educational process in universities and made a number of remarks in which he ra-affirmed the importance of the horizontal spread of education in the Great Jamahiriya in order to reach students whever they were in every village and city. He revealed that this orientation provides the radical solution for all problems that may face students and the students could dedicate themselves to education in a comprehensive manner thus participating actively in serving the development process. One thing you notice when you read JANA regularly: They don't know how to spell Qadaffi, either...
Posted by: Fred Pruitt ||
02/24/2003 05:56 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Horizontal spread female students sounds like good fun to me!
#2
Thanks for the posting, Fred. It certainly flows better than the KCNA stuff. I especially like the term "horizontal spread of education." It just does not have that KCNA bite, like a good beer's aromatic hops, so to speak.....
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Geez, these guys write like a bunch of American school board consultants.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/24/2003 22:04 Comments ||
Top||
Jordan, a key ally of Washington, said Monday several hundred U.S. troops were being deployed to run a newly delivered Patriot anti-missile system in anticipation of a U.S.-led war against neighboring Iraq. "These anti-missile systems are to be manned by U.S. troops with the help of Jordanian armed forces. There will be a presence of American troops in defensive air bases for this purpose only," Prime Minister Ali Abu Al-Ragheb said. "Nothing to see here, move along"
In the first public acknowledgement by the government of a highly sensitive U.S. troop presence in Jordan, he told the Dubai-based Al Arabiya television news channel that the U.S. contingent was small. "We are talking about a few hundred on the American side, but there will not be any large U.S. force in Jordan and it has no relation to any military campaign against Iraq," he added. "Nothing at all, nope, no relation."
Jordanian military sources told Reuters the kingdom had a number of AWACS surveillance aircraft in operation as part of an advanced U.S.-built air defense system installed ahead of possible military hostilities. There are AWACS operating out of Jordan? That's pretty close to the front lines. Maybe they are talking about a different model.
Military officials said the presence of U.S. personnel to operate the AWACS and Patriots meant the country was involved much more deeply in any war with Iraq than previously envisaged.
Abu al-Ragheb said Jordan had deployed the Patriot defense system for fear the kingdom could be caught in the crossfire if Iraq fired Scud missiles at Israel, as it did during the 1991 Gulf War. He did not disclose the location of the three U.S. batteries which Jordan asked Washington for last month during a visit by General Tommy Franks, the man who will lead any attack on Iraq. But diplomats say the U.S. troops are stationed along Jordan's desert border with Iraq in airbases whose runways have been expanded to accommodate heavier U.S. jet fighter traffic. Jet fighters? What jet fighters? Thought we just had AWACS and Patriot batteries?
The kingdom, wedged between Israel in the west and Iraq to the east, however publicly denies it will give Washington facilities for any campaign against Iraq. "We are not participating in any military campaign and will not be a launching pad for any attack against Iraq," Abu al-Raghheb said.
He said Jordan was compelled to seek U.S. anti-missile batteries when Russia abruptly pulled out of a deal to lease it an S300-V long range anti-ballistic missile system. Jordan has also agreed to allow the United States to carry out search and rescue missions from its territory during any military operations in eastern Iraq, and has offered allied planes free passage through its airspace, diplomats said. OK, the "jet fighters" will be protecting the AWACS and assisting in the search and rescue missions. Of couse, there is the problem of "Force Protection" for the Patriot crews. Maybe that's where the 101st is going, to provide defense in depth. Bet the cloaking device will be running full bore in Jordan again.
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 02:41 pm ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Sheeeet! The only place Saddam can be sure we won't invade from is Iran, and they're doing a little invading of their own.
A security guard found three rifles, ammunition and an apparent live grenade at a state office building Monday, causing it to be evacuated, officials said. Carlos Baixauli, an agent with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, said the items were found in a second-floor storage area said the guard found at about 8 a.m. He then pulled the fire alarm to evacuate the building. Police spokeswoman Katie Hughes said the building houses the Department of Children & Families along with some other state agencies. Further information was not immediately available. Someone's stash of weapons before a attack, or did a previous tenant (police/BATF, etc) forget them?
Posted by: Steve ||
02/24/2003 09:02 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
KCNA's magic word for today: "Brinkmanship".
Some leading media in the western world are talking about the DPRK's "brinkmanship tactics" and "brinkmanship diplomacy" more often than not when commenting on the DPRK-U.S. relations. There are some points to be made clear before commenting on the viewpoints and stand of the western media and some parrots in Japan and South Korea who like to paint the DPRK's stand and attitude towards political, military and diplomatic confrontation with the U.S. as publicity stunts.
Okay. Guess you're gonna make those points, so go ahead...
They are so naive as to describe the DPRK's independent foreign policy and its principled stand and activities for its implementation as "brinkmanship tactics" only to betray their ignorance of the DPRK. This is baseless criticism of its just stand. The use of such phraseologies as "brinkmanship tactics" and "brinkmanship diplomacy" by hostile forces and their mouthpieces and parrots is designed to defile the nature of the DPRK's foreign policy and activities and tarnish its international image. Tarnish the NK international image? Oh, that'll be hard to do.
They are apt to consider the DPRK's stand and attitude toward the dialogue and negotiations with the U.S. as a sort of tactics to make a bargain with the former's playing card hidden behind. Huh???
They are, however, mistaken. The review of the whole process of the DPRK-U.S. negotiations proves that their contention is absolutely groundless as it is based on extremely superficial assumption and sheer lie.
"Lies! All lies!"
The nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula emerged as the U.S. deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea and increased nuclear threat to the DPRK. Therefore, it is the U.S. which has posed a threat to the DPRK. The nuclear crisis in 1993 and the present crisis have not changed at all in their nature. In 1993 the U.S. misused the international atomic energy agency to attain its sinister political aim and gravely infringed upon the sovereignty and the security of the DPRK, thus compelling it to take the measure of withdrawing from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It's all your fault, Imperialist Yankee Dogs!!!
I feel sinister!
I feel sinister!
I feel sinister and nasty and fo-o-o-oul!...
It was none other than the U.S. that sparked the crisis by posing a nuclear threat to the DPRK and internationalizing it and drove the issue to the extremes. Then who has actually resorted to "brinkmanship tactics"?
I confess! I did it! I did it, and I'm glad! Glad, y'unnerstan'?
Later, the DPRK-U.S. negotiations took place to cross over the crisis and the DPRK-U.S. joint statement was adopted on June 11, 1993 and the DPRK-U.S. Agreed Framework on October 21, 1994. The U.S. consent to the AF was not a sort of concession to the DPRK nor its interests were infringed upon unilaterally. But at that time the U.S. conservative hard-liners distorted the reality, saying that they suffered a loss, caught in by the DPRK's "brinkmanship tactics".
Did any of that make sense? (Didn't thinks so...)
The AF which called for the U.S. provision of light water reactors in return for the DPRK's nuclear freeze only resulted in bringing a huge loss of electricity to the DPRK due to the U.S. insincere attitude toward it.
Attitude, as we all know, is everything. Good thing the U.S. attitude wasn't "do or die."
However, the U.S. conservative hardliners, republican hawks in particular, resorted to brazen-faced and mean operations to totally scrap the AF as they were displeased with the DPRK-U.S. negotiations from the outset.
"I'm mean,
I'm mean,
Ya know whut I mean?"
The republican-dominated U.S. congress session convened in 1999 called for reassessing its Korea policy as if it had been deceived by the adoption of the AF. The "Armitage report" worked out by them at that time clearly shows the root cause of the U.S. mistrust and hostility toward the DPRK which is also reflected in the Bush administration's Korea policy.
I think they're mad that we don't trust them because they lied to us...
All these facts...
Notice they actually haven't presented any facts, only an interpretation of motives?
...clearly tell why the U.S. has not honored the AF since its adoption and why the Bush administration has pursued the hard-line and hostile policy toward the DPRK since its emergence, talking about the "reexamination of the Korea policy," "part of an axis of evil" and "preemptive attack." The U.S. was compelled to respond to the DPRK-U.S. negotiations in the past by the DPRK's patient efforts and the world peace-loving people's strong call for averting a war on the Korean Peninsula and ensuring peace and stability in the region. Pay no attention to those couple of nukes sitting in Kimmies garage...
It did so not out of any "good faith" or "generosity". The adoption of the AF, certain progress made in the bilateral relations in the period of the Clinton administration and a new phase of reconciliation opened between the north and the south were all attributable to the DPRK's fair and above-board, principled and consistent policy, not a product of such a bargaining strategy as "brinkmanship tactics." Ah, the Clinton- Carter days.When we could do whatever we wanted. Can he be President again?
The people in the DPRK are making legitimate efforts to build a powerful nation on the socialist land chosen and built by themselves and achieve reunification and peace of the country. As far as the bargaining tactics is concerned, it is none other than the U.S. which has employed it with rare zeal. The U.S. double-dealing policy based on upperhand in strength is a bargaining strategy based on threat, blackmail, appeasement and deception.
I think he just looked up words marked as "bad thing" in his style book...
It is foolish of the U.S. to think this strategy will work on the DPRK. It is only wasting its time. The long history of the DPRK-U.S. relationship and bilateral confrontation has already proved more than once the truth that the U.S. can never bring the DPRK to its knees.
#1
I truly don't understand. Give them their wish. We can never bring them to their knees, ignore them. Oh, and by the way no more free food and oil because we respect the North Koreans
#3
More banging their spoon on the tray of their high-chair....We are playing this exactly right - don't negotiate with blackmailers - make them a regional issue requiring regional (and UNSC) solutions and get to work on that ABM defense asap. Delay is in our favor. China in the end is the one to resolve this, and the heat needs to be raised on them by SKorea and Japan, their major trade partners
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 9:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
"Brinkmanship" Yes. Sounds like KCNA has been sending their people to the Barbara Streisand School of Diplospeak.
Let 'em squirm.
Posted by: Rex Mundi ||
02/24/2003 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#5
I think that we are making progress on this problem, really. Look through the article. Yes, they are ranting and raving, but there are no references to "sea of fire", winning atomic war, glorious people's army victory, etc.etc. So maybe they realize that hazmat rhetoric won't work so they are toning it down. Or maybe I am deluded and full of it. Boy, reading their stuff critically messes up one's head.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 13:16 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Paul, I think this was their diplomacy-based policy rant as opposed to last week's army-based policy KCNA rant
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/24/2003 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Or maybe it is the good-nut bad-nut routine. Thanks,Frank!
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
02/24/2003 14:23 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Er, ah...are you children so young you've never heard of "brinkmanship"? Google has 25,500 hits on it; 5,250 on "brinksmanship", which was my second choice of spelling.
Why, in my day we had classes in brinkmanship. I took 3rd place in the Missouri High School Brinkmanship Championships for 1978. I remember when...
We never got to be parrots and mouthpieces, though. The younger generation has it made.
#9
Well, there was Eddie Brinkman, a good field- no hit shortstop for the Senators and Tigers in the 60's and 70's? What's North Korea got against him?
Yeah, dammit. We had to make do with running dogs and lackeys. These kids don't know how easy they have it.
My Mom was so proud when I got my letter for brinkmanship. We were state champs for three years running. Once we brought an entire South American country to its knees in 30 minutes flat.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/24/2003 16:40 Comments ||
Top||
Military officials in Colombia say fierce fighting is taking place with left-wing rebels who are holding three US Government employees hostage. A Colombian army officer said that, according to intelligence reports, soldiers were closing in on the guerrilla group holding the men. US President George Bush is sending 150 extra troops to Colombia to help the search operation. Colombia's largest left-wing rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), said on Saturday it had the Americans, accusing them of being CIA agents. Washington has denied the men were CIA agents, and said they were contractors for the defence department. Colombian politicians on Sunday expressed concern at Mr Bush's decision to send in US troops. "This is not Afghanistan, this is not Iraq, this is not Vietnam," said Congressman Gustavo Petro, a former guerrilla. "If Americans get more deeply involved, it's going to get worse." Man knows his geography; not sure how much worse things could get...
There are several hundred US military personnel in Colombia, including some special forces, but they are not allowed to take part in combat. The US has spent $2bn in recent years to help Colombia tackle its illegal drugs trade, and recently lifted restrictions stopping the use of that aid against the guerrillas. This is the first time that US Government employees have been captured during Colombia's four decades of civil war. The Colombian Government has offered a $345,000 reward for information leading to the safe return of the missing men who have not been identified.
Posted by: Bulldog ||
02/24/2003 09:09 am ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One question: Was "rescue missions" covered in their contract?
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.
