Kuwait plans to increase oil output by 200,000 barrels per day. "We will have an additional output of between 180,000 and 200,000 barrels per day," Kuwaiti Oil Minister Ahmad Fahd Al Sabah said. Fahd said he did not expect the increased production to prompt a reduction in prices, Middle East Newsline reported. The minister said the rise in oil prices — which have exceeded $50 per barrel — stemmed from "international concern resulting from political factors." Kuwaiti officials said the additional production would begin by November when an oil well and facility was scheduled to resume operations. Kuwait has been producing 2.5 million barrels of oil per day.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 1:22:10 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
AL-QAEDA terrorists are at large in Russia's volatile North Caucasus region, the chief of Russia's FSB state security service said in televised comments today. "Al-Qaeda is not a myth, it really and truly is present on our territory," Nikolai Patrushev told NTV television, adding that some 10 al-Qaeda agents had been detected in the Caucasus region. We know them and we will take measures to neutralise their activity - either by destroying them, or detaining them and bringing them to justice." Several separatist chiefs in the war-torn republic of Chechnya were al-Qaeda members, including Khattab, Abu al-Walid and Abu Khabs, Mr Patrushev said. However, even though claiming that his secret service had prevented more than 500 terrorist acts this year alone, Mr Patrushev had to admit that "we do not work well enough to anticipate" terrorists, and "special services must work more effectively".
Mr Patrushev also acknowledged that the FSB had not so far managed to lay hands on either Chechnya's separatist president Aslan Maskhadov nor the fearsome rebel warlord Shamil Basayev, both blamed by Moscow for numerous attacks.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
10/06/2004 2:49:15 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Uri Party lawmaker Choi Sung said Tuesday that South Korea has been targeted by international terrorist organizations on at least eight occasions since 1994. During an audit hearing at the Foreign Ministry and in an interview with reporters, Choi said that planes bound for Seoul were targeted for attack by Al-Qaida in 1994. According to a book written by an FBI supervisor, the terrorist group as part of its Project Bojinka was to simultaneously blow up 11 airplanes, including some bound for Seoul. Choi added that Project Bojinka was explained again in a report on the 9/11 terrorist attack, released by the Bush administration earlier this year.
Based on information he acquired from a local intelligence agency, Choi claims that Al-Qaida number three Khalid Sheikh Mohammed once boarded a flight to Seoul from Manila in 1995 to assess airline security. In another case, Nizar Naouar, the man who executed a suicide bombing attack against Jewish synagogue in Tunisia in April, 2002, was ordered by an Al-Qaida military officer in 1999 to infiltrate Seoul to watch U.S. military movements in Korea. Choi said that a foreign intelligence agency informed the domestic intelligence agency of those Al-Qaida activities. Based on a book by a former UN anti-terror official, Japanese police discovered that a member of Al-Qaida had infiltrated Seoul for a month in August, 2001 to gather information on the country. The lawmaker said that ships delivering military supplies to the Zayitun unit in Iraq, airplanes traveling between Korea and the U.S., the U.S. Embassy in Korea and Korean embassies in the Arab region are vulnerable to possible terrorist attacks in the future.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
10/06/2004 2:54:50 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
South Korea's military authorities said yesterday they expected that China would be drawn inevitably into any war on the Korean peninsula because of a mutual assistance treaty with North Korea. 'China is expected to provide limited military support to North Korea, according to a provision of the mutual assistance treaty stipulating automatic engagement,' Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) Chairman Kim Jong Hwan told a parliamentary hearing. China would deploy some 400,000 troops in support of North Korea in case of war with South Korea, which would be backed by its ally the United States, according to JCS data provided to the hearing. China's support would include 800 planes and 150 navy vessels, the JCS data said. The South Korea-US combined troops would number 720,000, while North Korea's regular 1.17-million-men military would be reinforced with 6.34 million reserve forces, according to the data.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/06/2004 10:40:06 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Like I said, I hope we're 'spitting out' MOABs,JDAMs, and Cruise Missils as fast as we can, out the 'press'. China is hedging that we will want to keep this next war conventional, where all they would need to do is expedite a "Vietnam Style' protraction. I can't see how we could possible win without 'going nuclear', unless somebody eats alot of crow (ie China lets the NORKs go or we cut bait with the South)!
#3
I can't see how we could possible win without 'going nuclear', unless somebody eats alot of crow (ie China lets the NORKs go or we cut bait with the South)!
The NKPA, like any military force run by a dictatorship the commanders of which lacks the initiative and drive of US commanders. Well placed strikes on communications and supply nodes, and their heavy guns go silent because NKPA commanders who have no orders will blindly follow the last orders they have, firing off their ammo loads until they run out.
Don't get me wrong: An offensive by the NKPA would be bloody for South Korean civilians in the initial going, but this isn't 1950. In many ways our conventional forces have made advances in logistics, communications and general warfighting, the NKPA simply hasn't made. Modern wars tend to be rapid-paced and lethal, for both sides if both sides field modern armies.
But the NKPA is a 1950s army with 1980s equipment. The initial onslaught will be bad, but in the end the only armies still able to fight won't be North Korea.
#4
Does the China-Nork treaty say that China helps out under any circumstance (i.e., if Kimmie busts a move south), or only if the Norks are attacked? I think China is to cagey to let lil' Kim pull them into a war they don't need.
#5
I suspect the treaty will say whatever the Chinese want it to say at that point. As Badanov points out, the NorKs won't be able to complain afterward.
#6
I suspect the treaty will say whatever the Chinese want it to say at that point. As Badanov points out, the NorKs won't be able to complain afterward.
#7
What may shape up is that to stop Japan, South Korea, and especially Taiwan from building nukes, the Chinese lean on the Norks to stop and disarm. And, the Norks might be so crazy as to blow off China. From this, the most probable scenario is that China would quickly conquer Norkland and install a puppet regime that would be considerably more friendly with everybody. Still authoritarian, it would however be acceptable to both China and the South Koreans, with a really enormous trade route between SK and China, worth trillions of dollars. The US just shrugs off the deal as long as it doesn't interfere with open trade in the region, militarily pulls out of SK entirely, and everybody lives happily ever after for a few weeks.
#8
Actually, badanov, the problem is what while the NKPA may not have learned, the PLA most certainly has; that's why every report of them getting more "Americanized" (after the Gulf Wars) really worries me.
Posted by: Edward Yee ||
10/06/2004 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
South Korea has prepared secret plans to take control of North Korea and accommodate at least 200,000 refugees in the event of the communist regime's sudden collapse, a news report said yesterday.
They're secret. Don't tell anybody, okay?
Under one of the two plans disclosed during a parliamentary audit on Monday, Seoul's unification minister would take over as ruler of post-collapse North Korea, the Joong-Ang Ilbo reported. The other plan detailed Seoul's preparation for any mass defection and included contingencies for a possible civil war. The major Seoul daily said that the contingency plans concerning North Korea's collapse were first drawn up around 1994 when the founder of the Stalinist state, Mr Kim Il Sung, died. They have since been updated. Many officials and experts predicted the North's imminent collapse at the time. However, fears eased with the successful transfer of power to Mr Kim Jong Il. North Korea has since survived serious famine and natural disasters in the mid-1990s and a deepening standoff with the outside world over its nuclear weapons ambitions.
Details of the secret plans have been kept classified, but the Unification Ministry provided selective details to try and assure the public that Seoul would be able to cope with the possible collapse of the North Korean regime. The contingency plans were discussed in the parliamentary hearing on Monday at the request of opposition Grand National Party lawmaker Chung Moon Hun. Under one plan, code-named Chungmu 9000, South Korea would establish an emergency administrative headquarters in North Korea after the regime's collapse. South Korea's unification minister would head the agency and would have powers greater than a governor, according to the newspaper. Under a separate Chungmu 3300 plan, Seoul would prepare for any mass defection and include contingencies for a possible civil war. Mr Chung said the Joint Chiefs of Staff had been conducting exercises to prepare for mass defection since drawing up the plan in 1993. The programme's top priority is withdrawing South Koreans who are in the North at the time of any emergency. Operations include evacuations of South Koreans working at the inter-Korean Gaeseong Industrial Complex and of tourists out of the Mount Geumgang resort.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
10/06/2004 10:35:48 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Of course they have a plan. This is what governments are supposed to do. If the nation next to you is collapsing and illegals, er refugees, are flooding across the border.
#2
And the 'PLAN' for Mexico and Canada is........?
Posted by: dorf ||
10/06/2004 8:16 Comments ||
Top||
#3
And the 'PLAN' for Mexico and Canada is........?
In the case of Canada, Rantburg Special Operations Forces will strike north from Buffalo and Detroit to James Bay, cutting Canada in half. Western Canada will be invited to join the US. Quebec will be isolated and blockaded.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/06/2004 9:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
For Mexico it's a Marine landing in Vera Cruz followed my a high speed run to the City of Mexico a quick treaty and a higher speed run back to the coast, exit stage right.
#5
The plan for Mexico is much more complicated than Shipman lets on. The attack through Vera Cruz would be the main thrust, yes, but it would follow the initial attack from California and Texas which would cross the border and then pivot to secure all of the border towns on the Mexican side to restore order and prevent a flood of refugees into the US.
When/if the Mexican military moved North to do anything about it, the landings in Vera Cruz would begin.
A re-elected Howard government would establish a "spy school" in Australia to help train counter-terror intelligence officers from around the region. The spy school was part of a $30 million (Aust. $40 million) anti-terrorism package announced by caretaker Prime Minister John Howard as a close-fought Australian election campaign enters its final days. The spy school would be used to help improve language skills for Australian intelligence agents, particularly Indonesian and Arabic, as well as focus on technical and information technology training. The center would also host intelligence agents from "regional partners in the war against terror," such as Indonesia.
Indonesia's a "regional partner"?
"These agents will be trained in intelligence collection and analysis techniques, with which they can strengthen their country's capacity to disrupt the terrorist networks," the government's security policy release states. Australians elect a new government on October 9, with latest opinion polls suggesting the race between Howard's incumbent conservative coalition and the Australian Labor Party, led by Mark Latham, is too close to call. While the issue of national security has not played a major role in campaigning so far, Latham's lack of experience in government is considered a key weakness which the Howard forces are keen to exploit.
Posted by: Steve White ||
10/06/2004 12:09:28 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
A new book examining the antagonistic relationship between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush claims the United States bugged the French leader's phone to find out his moves in opposition to the Iraq war. American surveillance listened to what happened "in the privacy of the Elysee palace according to several French sources in the military and intelligence fields," claims the book, titled Chirac contre Bush: L'Autre Guerre (Chirac against Bush: The Other War). Released Wednesday, the work by French newspaper journalists Henri Vernet and Thomas Cantaloube said that an unidentified former senior French military official found out about the bugging during a Washington lunch with a Bush administration official. "The relationship between your president and ours is irreparable on the personal level. You have to understand that President Bush knows exactly what President Chirac thinks of him," the US official was reported as saying abruptly. The book added that the French official, who knew the American very well, understood the message immediately: "That the 'services' were 'listening in on' the private presidential telephone calls" by Chirac.
I just wish we had more efficient bugging of Zarq and Zawahiri's phones...
#1
The relationship between your president and ours is irreparable on the personal level. You have to understand that President Bush knows exactly what President Chirac thinks of him," the US official was reported as saying abruptly. The book added that the French official, who knew the American very well, understood the message immediately: "That the 'services' were 'listening in on' the private presidential telephone calls" by Chirac.
This is what suffices for the French journalist's evidence? Assbites.
In truth, the Company added saltpeter to Chirac's foie gras. His mistress was not pleased.
Posted by: Matt Helm ||
10/07/2004 3:35 Comments ||
Top||
Hackers closed three Dutch government websites in action against plans to overhaul the social security system. The RVD government information service says its main websites were affected by an overload of page requests orchestrated by hackers since Monday. The government proposes to make early retirement more difficult and partial disability packages less attractive as part of an austerity drive. Ministers had to change mobile phone numbers after a list circulated on the Internet inviting protesters to send a barrage of text messages.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 8:09:23 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
OK, so much for Option #1 to Avoid Demographic Catastrophe (overhaul the pension and welfare systems).
That leaves Options #2 (ramp up economic growth through significant reduction in govt interference in the economy) and Option #3 (bring in a few million more young non-european immigrants).
#1
As the armada passes through the Straits of Gibraltar, panic sets in. French Riviera inhabitants begin fleeing north. The French president deploys armed forces along the coast. They are told to defend the country against the now imminent invasion of the poverty-stricken 1million from the Ganges. But their with ears glued to transistor radios, they heed Dufort's call not to oppose the landings. They desert en masse. Police open jail cells before shedding their uniforms and hotfooting it home to take care of their families.
Tipper,I thought you said this was fiction? Sounds pretty lifelike to me.
As the European Council prepares to decide on Turkey's membership of the European Union, the government of Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan is also trying to heighten his country's Islamic profile. It looks almost certain that EU heads of state, meeting on Dec.17 , will give the go-ahead for opening membership talks with Turkey. This has already been recommended by a special mission that the EU sent to Ankara last month. What was described as "the last hurdle" was removed in September when the Turkish Parliament approved a new civil code modelled on those in force in all EU member states.
But, even if the EU leaders approve the start of formal membership talks with Turkey, the process could take up to 20 years to complete. Turkey would be asked to implement massive economic, trade, legal, social and cultural reforms in the context of a program known as "mise-a-niveau", which means bringing it up to the current EU levels. At every stage of this long and fraught process any of the EU member states could delay Turkish membership by raising objections about this or that aspect of the "mise-a-niveau" program.
Although the strongest opposition to Turkish membership comes from Germany, Greece and France, it is not at all certain that those EU members, like Great Britain, that want Turkey to join, will be prepared to force a showdown on the subject. To make matters more complicated, France's new Foreign Minister Michel Barnier has dropped hints that Paris may propose that Turkey's membership be put to a referendum in all of the EU's 25 nations. With anti-Muslim sentiments in Europe at their highest level ever, and rising, such a referendum could only mean certain defeat for Turkey's European ambition.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
10/06/2004 12:25:43 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president.
Well, we knew that all along, but it's always nice to have confirmation.
The Massachusetts senator has made broadening the coalition trying to stabilize Iraq a centerpiece of his campaign, but at a town hall meeting yesterday, he said he knows other countries won't trade their soldiers' lives for those of U.S. troops. "Does that mean allies are going to trade their young for our young in body bags? I know they are not. I know that," he said. Asked about that statement later, Mr. Kerry said, "When I was referring to that, I was really talking about Germany and France and some of the countries that had been most restrained." "Other countries are obviously more willing to accept responsibilities," he added, as he took questions from reporters in a school yard in Tipton, Iowa.
I hear he's real friendly with Vietnam, maybe they'd like to pickup the load. And then there's always Cambodia.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/06/2004 4:02:04 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry conceded yesterday that he probably will not be able to convince France and Germany to contribute troops to Iraq if he is elected president."
No shit, Sherlock. You mean it's taken him all this time to figure that out?
I wonder if he'll also concede that as a consequence of this unfortunate reality, his entire criticism of Bush's war effort for the last umpteen months has been voided. But I won't hold my breath waiting to hear it from his lips.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/06/2004 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Combien de divisions?
Eh, so just why do we need these guys, John?
Posted by: chicago mike ||
10/06/2004 16:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Promise them all lucky hats, Jawn. Maybe they'll reconsider.
#8
After the Oil for Palaces⢠scam show ended, France and Germany realized that there was nothing more in Iraq for them. What was Kerry thinking about his internationalist cooperation? Kerry needed to noodle through some scenarios before he shot off his mouth, but that is not his M.O. When you serve meals without substance, all you get is diarrhea.
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
10/06/2004 22:06 Comments ||
Top||
Republicans Glad to Lose on Bill to Start New Draft. Actual headline, I kid you not. The article does not mention until the 16th paragraph that it was Democrat Charles Rangel who introduced the bill. THE REPUBLICANS DID NOT LOSE, THEY WON. With this absolutely obvious example of a poltically motivated Big Lie, the LA Slimes is following the purest tradition of the founder of activist media, Dr. Joseph Goebbels.
WASHINGTON — Seeking to dispel suggestions that the war in Iraq could lead to reinstatement of the draft, House Republicans on Tuesday hastily brought the idea to a vote — with the express intent of shooting it down.
The vote, launched with only hours of notice and no public hearings, was designed to put an end to talk that President Bush's foreign policy could overtax the all-volunteer Army that has been national policy since the end of the Vietnam War.
"It's putting a rumor to rest," John Feehery, a spokesman for House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), said even before the 402-2 vote to reject the bill that would have mandated two years of military or civilian service for all men and women 18 to 26 years old.
But congressional Democrats and activists elsewhere denounced the vote as an empty exercise that trivialized what many Americans believe is a real possibility.
An "empty exercise" and red herring that they initiated! This is beyond the pale, there are no dupes, all lefties are willful liars and deliberate terror-tools! Does anyone doubt now that the left's media gods are the real enemy?
#8
BigEd--Thanks for the great link! I see "Kerry" is, once again, missing from the list. He's doing one hell of a job representing his constituents in MA.
Posted by: Dar ||
10/06/2004 13:47 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Dar - I'd like to nail Kerry too, but that is the vote in the HOUSE...
#15
I really wonder if the 'internationalist' publishers who demand America be accountable to the world remember what happened to Julius Streicher and Hans Fritzsche? Now there is a precedent by an international body they can hang by.
Posted by: Don ||
10/06/2004 18:19 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Edwards came in second.
Cheney came in next to last.
By Michelle Malkin · October 6th, 2004
Unadulterated Dennis Miller on Jay Leno just minutes ago:
That's why I like Bush. He doesn't over-think it. He wakes up every morning, jumps out of bed, lands on his two feet, scratches his balls, and says, "Let's kill some f@#@$ing terrorists!"
And the crowd applauded.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 12:56:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
He was definitely on fire. Before he's been witty and caustic. Last night it was a revival meeting intonation. After all, it IS a big election. I think all of the talk of a Kerry debate victory got to him. He said it was all style v. substance and lit into K on his passing "global test" "everyone knows that means the UN"
Beautiful.
Posted by: chicago mike ||
10/06/2004 16:29 Comments ||
Top||
"Senator, frankly, you have a record in the Senate that's not very distinguished. You missed 33 out of 36 meetings in the Judiciary Committee. Almost 70% of the meetings of the Intelligence Committee. You've missed a lot of key votes on tax policy, on energy, on Medicare reform. Your hometown newspaper has taken to calling you Senator Gone. You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate. Now, in my capacity as Vice President I am the President of the Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."
"So they, in effect, decided they would cast an anti-war vote, and they voted against the troops. Now, if they couldn't stand up to the pressures that Howard Dean represented, how can we expect them to standup to Al Qaeda?"
Posted by: Fred ||
10/06/2004 11:22:51 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
49th National Prayer Breakfast 2001...there's even a pic
#2
I watched a repeat of the debate a few hours ago. Cheyne was sombre and steady. Edwards was slick, sophisticated and charming, like a top used-car salesman. They were quite well-matched.
What really irritated me was that, like typical politicians, they spent about 90% of their time avoiding the questions posed by the hostess.
#3
2001...there was a lot going on in 2001. Was it before 9/11 or after? I can see where the VP might not remember a brief encounter with a junior senator. He meets a lot of people. I met Cheney several years ago, talked with him. I doubt that he recalls that meeting.
Seems like the debates are moving towards more substance. However, I may need serious therapy after all the spin running up to the elections.
#4
I believe that Edwards takes the award for least number of questions answered. He was big on re-visiting old topics first and then dancing around the actual question at hand. The moderator should have kept both men on current topic.
Posted by: Tom ||
10/06/2004 8:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Every time the K/E gang drags out Haliburton I have to just roll my eyes. Wow! A VP that actually worked in a business! And worse yet the company made money when he was in charge. They act like these AMERICAN companies only draw money from the poor, destitute, or school funding. As far as track records go only Edwards can be tagged as a blood sucker on a private entity. It was Edwards that caused the cost of health care to rise for OB doc in his home state. This cost burden was then passed onto the people (and doctors) that have to pay both sides of the health care industry. Thanks to Edwards the people paying higher rates and its damn hard to find an OB doctor. On the flip side Edwards got the lions share of the settlement and made sure he laundered it AROUND U.S. tax laws. By his standards, Edwards should be a evil money grubbing Republican.
#7
I only saw the second half in which, from what I hear, Cheney actually lightened up on grabbing Edwards by the hair and repeatedly pounding his head against the table. In the half that I saw, Edwards acted like a silly girl.
If it was Cheney's goal to make Edwards look inexperienced - he succeeded far beyond what anyone had expected. Edwards was completely out of his league.
#9
I doubt that either Cheney or Edwards will move any swing voters toward their side. They're almost perfect emblems of the choice in this election: foreign policy hawkishness and focus vs warm and fuzzy domestic policy focus.
#10
SOMEWHERE, SOME DNC FLACK IS TAKING THESE NUMBERS SERIOUSLY
McAuliffe : Dammit! I want to have everyone possible spam those online polls, then we'll post our "results" to show that the evil Halliburton hack, Cheney, is a buffoon! {heavy breathing is heard}
Get that F*ing FOX out of there... You know how they are! {more heavy breathing} Sen Edwards only has 56%. Unacceptable. {McAullife collapses, exhausted}
#12
Indeed, Pappy nails it: the topic was performing his job as a US Senator. Neither of the Dhimmis have earned a paycheck in a long time. Skeery, shit, owes the people of Massachussetts a major chunk of change for being AWOL. As for his being a nitwit, fool, appeaser, tax-loving socialist, etc., well, they elected him multiple times. Edwards was going to get the boot after only one term.
#17
I must apologize to Mr. Edwards that I was unaware of our 3 previous, brief, encounters.
He's not usually at the weekly prayer breakfasts, that are held weekly, but apparently he did come ONE TIME back in 2001. I apologize that I failed to note him that ONE TIME, back in 2001.
As for the other two brief handshakes - what can I say. It's just not possible for me to remember the thousands of people I shake hands with and say *pleased to see you" at large public events such as these.
Posted by: Dick Cheney ||
10/06/2004 13:00 Comments ||
Top||
#18
anyone who has ever had to attend multiple civic functions in a leadership position- be it church, schools, govn't or local politics can appreciate why people like Cheney say "pleased to see you" instead of "pleased to meet you".
Apparently, Edwards hasn't attended functions enough to fully understand that concept.
#20
I give Edwards the clear edge in the "moisturized" category. If he lived in a large metropolitan area, I'd say he would be the quintessential metrosexual. As it is, Kerry himself is pretty close.
#21
Cheney lied when he said he had never met Edwards before, as the host of picures on the internet (post-debate) amply show. But Edwards did not have the courage to correct him on the spot either.
Rat vs. Mouse for Veep?
Posted by: Joseph L. ||
10/10/2004 15:24 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Seriously, can anyone imagine Thurston and Opie going toe-to-toe with the mullahs? Or with Putin?
#5
Rangel was dropped in the East River, on his head as a baby and never recovered.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 1:12 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I appreciate Rangel's service to our country while he was in uniform. Since that time he has done a great many disservices to our country. I look for that trend to continue.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/06/2004 3:49 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Well, there she is. C'mon, anti, you tricky, tricky girl. Time to change you. Pretty soon you'll be ready for adult diapers... and a fistful of barbituates.
#9
This was a smart move on the part of the Republicans. Rangel should be hauled before court on a treason charge for trying to sabotage the US armed forces in such a disgraceful way.
bill had 14 cosponsors - but only 2 voted yea. Results not up yet.
Looks like campaign advertising material to me.
Cut to photos of young students walking the hallowed halls of high schools and universities.
"These Democrats want you to be drafted against your will. The Military has said they have met all of their recruiting goals, the Commanders have said the draft is unnecessary and unwanted...yet these (scroll names and photos) Democratic Representatives, who support John Kerry, want you to be forced to join. Why?
heh...heh.. No law says you have to provide the infor on who actually voted for and against -this list of who sponsored and co-sponsored works just fine. Put the smuckoids on the defensive.
#11
This was an excellent move by the Republican leadership. You want to talk smack Charlie? You want to do an e-mail campaign based upon a lie Democrats? Well put up or shut up. BTW: Did you see this ANYWHERE today other than The Hill???? Doubt it.
Posted by: remote man ||
10/06/2004 14:59 Comments ||
Top||
#12
The ad 2b suggests would be devistating. They'd call it a dirty trick of course, but the fact is this draft measure was a dirty trick to begin with.
By Tom Mashberg /The Boston Herald
The Muslim organization behind a vast new $22 million mosque in Roxbury received a double blow yesterday after an Islamic scholar accused its leaders of tolerating ``hateful views'' and a city councilor ordered a probe into how the group acquired a choice piece of Hub-owned land at a bargain rate. Councilor Jerry P. McDermott (D-Brighton), vice chairman of the Post Audit and Oversight Committee, ordered city officials to explain why a 1.9-acre parcel along Malcolm X Boulevard, conservatively valued at $401,187, was sold to the Islamic Society of Boston for $175,000 and ``in-kind benefits'' to Roxbury Community College. The Herald reported last week that the land deal is the subject of a lawsuit asserting that it represents an unconstitutional government subsidy of a religion: Islam. ``We want a full accounting by the end of the month,'' McDermott said. ``If they can afford a $22 million mosque, why can't they pay fair-market value for the land?'' Boston Redevelopment Authority officials said they could not comment due to the litigation.
Also yesterday, a Muslim-American scholar joined the growing chorus of voices urging the Islamic Society's leadership to disavow any connections to radical Islam. At a press conference sponsored by Citizens for Peace and Tolerance (www.hatefreeamerica.com), Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour, an Egyptian-born political refugee once jailed there for defending moderate Islamic causes, said ``I am here to testify that this radical culture is here inside this society.'' Mansour, a former visiting fellow at Harvard Law School, said he went to the society's current headquarters in Cambridge a year ago and discovered ``Arabic-language newsletters filled with hateful statements against the United States.'' He also said the center's library housed books and videos ``representing fanatical beliefs that insult other people's religions.''
Representatives of the society have repeatedly declined to comment to the Herald since the newspaper, beginning in 2003, started highlighting ties between four of the mosque's key figures and Islamic radicals. They refused to comment yesterday on any matters. On their Web site (www.isboston.org), the society has posted rebuttals to the Herald articles. On Sept. 10, the society posted a ``values statement'' that says: ``We, the Islamic Society of Boston, practice and promote a comprehensive, balanced view of Islam. We strive to embody the middle path to which our scriptures call us, a path of moderation, free of extremism, and representative of the Islamic vision of a healthy community.'' But Mansour said he fears radical Islamists could gain an upper hand at the new cultural center. ``I'm not against the mosque,'' he said. ``I'm against the extremists.''
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 4:23:42 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Mr. Mansour,
Get that Kevlar vest. The only dialogue your opponents respect is an exchange of gunfire.
#2
Muslims who are willing to see and speak about uncomfortable truths risk death; of all the hero martyrs the ME drones on about, these actually may merit their people's honor for that title.
#6
Who are 'Citizens for Peace and Tolerance'? Their website's name - www.hatefreeamerica.com - can be construed to mean two things:
Their goal is an America free of hate.
Their goal is to hate a free America.
This confusion is of course caused by gross discrimination against that humble and hard-working little guy called the hyphen. Words like 'co-operation' and 'no-one' have become meaningless jumbled sounds: 'cooperation' now brings to mind the state of being cooped up or the process of making barrels, and 'noone' is completely nonsensical, unless one takes it to be 'noon' mis-spelled. Uh, I mean, misspelled.
Hate-free America is unambiguous.
The unceremonious dismissal of the hyphen has done a great dis-service, oh, OK, disservice to the English language.
Back to the topic, I often wonder why Muslims like the good Dr. Ahmed have been so backward in coming forward to condemn radical Islam. Why so little so late? And is the condemnation eclusively for the enlightenment of non-Muslims (or should that be nonMuslims) or is it also aimed at the Muslim world?
#7
PlanetDan, great minds think alike. I also thought at first that www.hatefreeamerica.com was the Islamic Society's website, but according to the article it's www.isboston.org (not that I'm in a rush to check out the crap they no doubt have on it. Besides, it's probably only in Arabic.)
#9
Where do you think the $22 million came from? Saudi Arabia????? My guess would be yes. That means that the power in that mosque, like many others, is Wahabism. As most R-Ber's know, Wahabism = radical Islam with a high terror potential. I hope the FBI has this place bugged.
Posted by: remote man ||
10/06/2004 20:35 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Dr. Ahmed Subhy Mansour - proving that some Mulsims do have honor.
Severely EFL
Former viceroy L. Paul Bremer did 14 months of hard service in Iraq, so it is a special shame to see that he is now squandering that legacy by blaming others for what's gone wrong there. All the more so when he doesn't even have the history right. That's our reaction to yesterday's political tempest over quotes from Mr. Bremer faulting the Pentagon and Bush Administration for having too few troops in Iraq. To hear Mr. Bremer's version of it, he arrived in Baghdad on May 6, 2003, to find "horrid" looting and instability, and an "atmosphere of lawlessness" that was allowed to grow because "we never had enough troops on the ground" to stop it.
Mr. Bremer revised his remarks slightly late Monday, saying in a statement that "I believe that we currently have sufficient troop levels in Iraq." But in a speech at DePauw University in September, Mr. Bremer said he had frequently raised the troop issue and "should have been more insistent about it," according to the local paper, adding that "the single most important change . . . would have been having more troops in Iraq at the beginning and throughout."
You get the idea: Mr. Bremer isn't to blame because he was tossed into a bad situation that only got worse while his pleas for more troops were ignored. And this indeed would be a damning indictment if it were true. Trouble is, we haven't found a single other senior official involved in the war or its aftermath--in or out of uniform--who attests to Mr. Bremer's version of events. "I never heard him ask for more troops and he had many opportunities before the President to do so," one senior Administration official tells us. Or to be more precise, Mr. Bremer did finally ask for two more divisions in a June 2004 memo--that is, two weeks prior to his departure and more than a year after he arrived.
Much more at the link
Posted by: badanov ||
10/06/2004 7:40:18 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/06/2004 9:41 Comments ||
Top||
#5
The MSM is conveniently missing the points that:
1. Troop levels were not Mr. Bremer's business. He headed the Coalition Provisional Authority, not the U.S. Army.
2. Any American civilian there would surely liked to have been surrounded by more American troops, even if there had been 50% more there.
3. More troops may have meant more American targets and more resistance to occupation. It's not like our troops are all fluent in Arabic.
4. We don't have endless funds.
5. We do have other military interests that require troops.
This is a non-story hyped up by the MSM in response to Bremer's ill-considered comments on the Monday Morning Quarterback lecture circuit.
Posted by: Tom ||
10/06/2004 9:42 Comments ||
Top||
#6
rc - im expecting people to THINK, and to reconsider some of the things ive been saying here. And maybe to get beyond the partisan sniping.
#8
Go check out belmont club
Looks like we all fell for a Dowdism here. Actually, I'm not sure it even qualifies as a Dowdism - since there is no quote. In the highest journalist standards of our MSM - they simply tell us what Bremer meant.
Sullivan's source for Bremer's remarks is the Washington Post which begins its story this way:
The former U.S. official who governed Iraq after the invasion said yesterday that the United States made two major mistakes: not deploying enough troops in Iraq and then not containing the violence and looting immediately after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. Ambassador L. Paul Bremer, administrator for the U.S.-led occupation government until the handover of political power on June 28, said he still supports the decision to intervene in Iraq but said a lack of adequate forces hampered the occupation and efforts to end the looting early on.
What Bremer actually said was:
"We paid a big price for not stopping it (looting) because it established an atmosphere of lawlessness," he said yesterday in a speech at an insurance conference in White Sulphur Springs, W.Va. "We never had enough troops on the ground."
#13
Another knock on Bush/Bremer: it was Bremer who moved to quash the Baghdad-based western auditors' efforts to get Oil-for-Fraud documents this summer. Bremer was clearly executing the wishes of the Bush admin, who were desperate to have the UN on board for the Allawi transition and didn't want any inconvenient publicity for the UN at the time. Bush's silence on Oil-for-Fraud is unfortunate, to say the least.
#14
Whether it's border security / immigration, Iran, the UN, "Ally" perfidy, etc. - it all comes down to the limitations imposed because we are in our silly season right now.
I doubt that anything has been said here on RB on any of the hot topics of our day that hasn't been beaten bloody from 10 different angles by the Bush admin. No matter what recommendations a working group forwards up the chain - it gets put under the political microscope... and tested for its effect upon Bush's chances for re-election.
Sad? Bad? Yes. But it's real-politik. His first term is over - and without a second term all of these hard-working people are pissing up a rope - and so are we. Faced with the closeness of the election, the leftover / fully incubated hatred & insanity of the 2000 election, and the fact that Skeery is truly dangerous to the US, I believe he is doing what must be done within the reality of what can be done, as the timeframe allows.
If Bush wins - and THEN fails to address the hot issues, then he IS a failure. I'll have no difficulty admitting it - reality just is.
It's the buffoons and trolls who demand microwaved results, insta-satisfaction, and politically suicidal actions who are dhimwits and jerkoffs. If it's not realistic, it's fantastic. That which does not lie within reality is, by definition, fantasy.
#15
Faced with the closeness of the election, the leftover / fully incubated hatred & insanity of the 2000 election, and the fact that Skeery is truly dangerous to the US, I believe he is doing what must be done within the reality of what can be done, as the timeframe allows.
what it sounds like youre saying, is that cause Kerry is a danger to the US, Bush is right to do whatever it takes to get reelected, including for example having appointed bremer in the first place, rather than a preferred individual.
How, prey tell, did Bush and co. know in May 2003 that Kerry was going to be the nominee? Is it possible that if things had gone better in Iraq that a more hawkish Dem would have won the nomination? IF you think that Bremer is largely responsible for the mess in Iraq (and i use that word without apology, though i think its a fixable mess, and a worthwhile mess) as some on the neocon side of things have said, these become important questions.
Would the US have been better off with a better CPA director than bremer, even if pissing off the State Department and UN had meant a greater likelihood of a Kerry victory? Hell, would it even have meant a Kerry victory - from the narrow political point of view, wouldnt Bush be better off having pissed off State, UN etc in May 2003, and being months farther along rebuilding Iraq and its military Iraq now?
#16
Bremer definitely had limitations to his effectiveness. Getting money through the system and out onto the ground was central to HIS failings. The DoD was much more effective in this regard and built significant relationships as a result. These evaporated when the CPA/Bremmer took over and the money went to trickle speed. More BS from State if you ask me.
Posted by: remote man ||
10/06/2004 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Both State and CIA could profit from a thorough housecleaning.
#18
bremer wasnt appointed by career FSO's. He was appointed by DoD with (apparently) pressure from Bush appointees at State, and MAYBE CIA. If this isnt Bush's responsibility, its certainly Rice's. Its up to the Pres and the Nat. Sec Advisor to reign in battles between DoD, State, and CIA.
#19
BTW, if anyone thinks im being hard on Bush (which i certainly am) this doesnt make a Kerry admin comforting either - while i may respect Holbrooke and Biden to some degree, at some point a Kerry admin WILL have internal disputes - it will be upto Kerry to herd the cats. I see no evidence Kerry will be any better at it than Dubya.
The debate on possible nuclear threats to America entered a new phase on Tuesday when US officials said a top Al Qaeda leader had tried to obtain radioactive material for smuggling a so-called dirty bomb into the United States. A dirty bomb is a conventional explosive laced with radioactive material and can have devastating effects if used in a densely populated area, particularly a large city. Although the nuclear controversy always had a simmering presence in the United States, it occupied the central stage last week when in the first of the three presidential debates both President George W. Bush and his challenger John Kerry said they regarded nuclear proliferation as the most serious threat to US interests in the near future. Both said they feared that terrorists might acquire nuclear technology from unsecured sources across the world and use it to threat US security. On Tuesday, US officials said that a top Al Qaeda leader, Adnan G. El Shukrijumah, was working on a scheme to obtain radioactive materials for a so-called 'dirty bomb' that could be smuggled into the United States.
Shukrijumah has attempted unsuccessfully to enter the United States using phony passports, US authorities said, adding that he had lived in South Florida before and worshipped at the same mosque as Jose Padilla, who is being held as an enemy combatant in a plot to detonate a 'dirty bomb'. FBI agents had arrested Padilla, a Muslim convert also known as Abdullah al Muhajir, in May 2002 at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport after a flight from Pakistan. He was allegedly carrying $10,000 in from his Al Qaeda handlers. Recent reports in US newspapers said Shukrijumah was observed last year during a trip to Canada, where authorities suspect he posed as a student at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. An FBI informant told US authorities the Al Qaeda leader was seeking material to build a dirty bomb. McMaster University has a five-megawatt research reactor, whose uranium-based fuel rods come from the United States. Canadian officials have denied any security breach of the McMaster facility.
Posted by: Dan Darling ||
10/06/2004 2:47:14 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I'm not sure that I agree that a dirty bomb represents proliferation of nuclear technology.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/06/2004 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
Sudanese President Omar Bashir yesterday fired Mubarak Al-Fadil Al-Mahdi, who served as his second vice president, palace sources said, without giving a reason. Mahdi took up the office almost two years ago after having led a breakaway group from the mainstream opposition Umma party which is led by his cousin, Sadek Al-Mahdi, a former prime minister. Mubarak Mahdi and a group of rebel Umma party officials returned to Sudan from exile and accepted ministerial portfolios, including the information and international cooperation posts. He was interior minister in his cousin's democratically elected government, which was toppled by Bashir in a 1989 bloodless coup. Yesterday's presidential decree targeted only Mahdi without mentioning his colleagues. It was not clear if the move signaled a tilt toward the Umma as part of a government effort to win over the party. The official SUNA news agency, quoting an unnamed presidential source, said Mubarak Mahdi was sacked because he was "operating outside institutions". It did not elaborate. As second vice president, he was the third most powerful figure in the executive after Bashir and First Vice President Ali Osman Taha.
I'm not smart enough to know the significance of this. Even though I'm trying to keep an eye on it, I know I'm going to be surprised if any significant changes, one way or the other. With a closed society like Syria, there's no way to form opinions on why things are happening...
Posted by: Fred ||
10/06/2004 9:04:50 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I wonder if it is somehow related to this: On Monday, Mr. Khatami held talks with his Sudanese host, President Omar al-Bashir.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 01:30 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"BEIRUT: Lebanon and Syria issued their formal responses on Tuesday to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan's report on Syria and Lebanon's compliance with the UN Security Council Resolution 1559."
I wonder how closely the verbage matches. Hopefully, there is some variation - it's disappointing to see a ventriloquist act performed unprofessionally.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/06/2004 2:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
SH, It must be that there are lesser axes of weasels as well as greater axes of weasels. It is easy to oppose the UN--there are no consequences. The UN is pretty much useless.
#3
After the Syrian Foreign Ministry examined the report of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan on UN Security Council Resolution 1559, the government of Syria praises efforts exerted by Annan to draft the report and reiterates its respect to the United Nations and its goals.
Oh, and by the way, Kofi? You can kiss our ass and Lebanon's. We told them it was okay.
Iran has increased the range of its missiles to 2,000km a senior official was quoted as saying yesterday.The range would put parts of Europe within reach for the first time. Military experts had earlier put Iran's missile range at 1,300km, which would allow it to strike anywhere in Israel."Now we have the power to launch a missile with a 2,000 km range," the news agency Irna quoted former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani as saying. "Iran is determined to improve its military capabilities." "If the Americans attack Iran, the world will change ... they will not dare to make such a mistake," Rafsanjani was quoted as saying in a speech at an exhibition on Space and Stable National Security.
In Washington, the US said that Iran's missile programme is a serious threat to the Middle East and US interests which is compounded significantly by its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. The State Department, speaking after Iran declared it had ballistic missiles with a range of 2,000km, said Washington would continue to work with other nations to address the concerns. "The United States has had and continues to have serious concerns about Iran's missile programmes," deputy spokesman Adam Ereli said.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 1:27:20 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Iran's fanatical Islamic leadership is a threat to global security ...right now!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 1:29 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Iran's fanatical Islamic leadership is a threat to global security ...right now!
Correction: they're a threat to European security right now and a potential threat to global security. One wonders how quickly sanity will begin to break out in Europe as they take their place under Iran's forthcoming nuclear umbrella.
#3
The question is do E.U. leaders fathom the threat Iran's missiles poise to their nations which are now fall under Iran's range?
Has Iran already supplied smaller missiles to international Islamic terrorists they either fund or control, or both? That is the global threat all of us are confronted with.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 1:53 Comments ||
Top||
#4
ha...it's hard to believe they will be able to pull their heads out of the sand and realize that America has been their steadfast friend - and get over their blame mommy and daddy America attitudes to get a grip on the real threats they face.
#5
Europe will just accept being under threat. What else can they do. I don't want to spend one dime defending France and were it not for NATO I would tell Germany, Greece and, Turkey to stuff it too. But the current range of 2000 km doesn't really put much of Europe in range. 3000 km will start to get Europes attention. Until then BBC and Europeans will blame "George Bush the United States and, Israel." Continued caving into and coddling of Iran by Europe will be the way chosen. Expect double dealing from the French in any and every case.
#7
Europe has no fear of Iranian missiles. For Europe the greater good is that Israel will be under the gun. Iranian missiles and nukes help neuter those pesky Jews in their shitty little country. That's what the Euros see.
#9
Since we all know that Europe can't help itself when it comes to selling everything but their last set of underwear to anybody who wants it, their only hope is to sell Iran defective guidance and propulsion systems so the missiles go off course.
UN atomic inspectors have returned to Iran and will be free to visit a disputed military site in their investigation of US allegations that Iran is seeking nuclear warheads, state television reported. US officials have accused Tehran of concealing parts of a clandestine atomic bomb programme at Parchin military base southeast of Tehran, a charge Iranian officials have dismissed. "So far they have not requested a visit to Parchin, but should they want to do so, there will be no problem," Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hassan Rohani told state television.
Iran says its nuclear programme is solely dedicated to meeting booming domestic electricity demand. Iran last month rejected a resolution from the International Atomic Energy Agency calling on it to reimplement its freeze of uranium enrichment activities as a sign of goodwill. Enriched uranium can be used in power stations such as the one Iran is building with Russian assistance at Bushehr on the south coast, or in arms if enriched further.
Rohani reiterated Iran's tough stance. "We clearly said we will not implement this part of the resolution because it has an obligatory tone," Rohani said. "We implemented the suspension voluntarily," added the mid-ranking cleric who is secretary-general of the Supreme National Security Council. Iran last year made a pledge to foreign ministers from Britain, France and Germany that it would suspend uranium enrichment activities. However, the pledge lapsed and Iran restarted making centrifuge parts and began experimental work at a plant that produces the feed gas for the centrifuges. Recent nuclear wrangles have lacked "smoking gun" evidence against Iran, but diplomats reckon Tehran's case is likely to go to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions in November because of a litany of past failures to disclose key parts of its atomic programme. Israel has also cranked up pressure on Iran's nuclear programme by buying in arms that target Iran's underground enrichment facilities.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 1:25:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has expressed confidence that the Sudanese government will be able to solve the crisis in the troubled Darfur region. Speaking before the Sudanese parliament on Tuesday, the second-day of his three-day visit, Mr. Khatami said Iran is ready to help Sudan solve the Darfur crisis. On Monday, Mr. Khatami held talks with his Sudanese host, President Omar al-Bashir. The Iranian president expressed support for what he said are Mr. al-Bashir's efforts to establish peace in southern Sudan. Southern-based rebel groups plan to resume negotiations this week with the Sudanese government on ending more than 20 years of civil war.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 1:23:52 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Months before the liberation of Iraq I wrote that we were about to have our great national debate on the war against the terror masters, and it was going to be the wrong debate. Wrong because it was going to focus obsessively on Iraq, thereby making it impossible to raise the fundamental strategic issues. Alas, that forecast was correct, and we're still stuck in the strategic quagmire we created. Up to our throats. So let's try again to get it right.
Like Afghanistan before it, Iraq is only one theater in a regional war. We were attacked by a network of terrorist organizations supported by several countries, of whom the most important were Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. President Bush's original analysis was correct, as was his strategy: We must not distinguish between the terrorists and their national supporters. Hence we need different strategies for different enemies, but we need to defeat all of them.
Afghanistan was the classic example, because the Taliban regime was at once home to, and sponsor of, al Qaeda. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11, and we responded against the terrorist organization and against the regime that supported it. Once the Taliban had been destroyed, and al Qaeda had been shattered, President Bush launched a political strategy: support the creation of a free Afghanistan, implant the basic institutions of democratic civil society, work toward free elections so that Afghans could freely govern themselves.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
10/06/2004 12:35:49 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
hmmmm...I don't know....sounds like a big dose of "if they only had listened to me, the world would be milk and roses".
#2
Imagine an America in the 40's where instead of unity, the MSM drums up a debate about the whether the war shoud continue after each island of the campaign in the Pacific.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/06/2004 4:09 Comments ||
Top||
#3
...and a debate about whether we should go after this island or some other island.
I share Ledeen's concerns. The Mad Mullahs need whacking, and they've needed it, in my opinion, every day for the last 25 years.
But Jeez Louise, would it really be asking too much to ask Michael Ledeen to just stuff a sock in it or something til after the election???? Every bit of FUD that gets sown now, well-intended or otherwise, just makes it that much more likely that John Kerry will end up as president-- and if he does, you can kiss any action against Iran goodbye for good.
Give it a break, Michael; let's resume the debate AFTER the election.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/06/2004 6:51 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Lets get this f-ing election over, Bush back in, and give a Thanksgiving surprise to Khatami and his gang of thieves...
#5
Not sure that an overt US hand in Iran is such a good idea. Not everyone there is too young to recall the shah. Let the Israelis take out Iran's nukes.
#6
Amen, Dave. Looks like Ledeen is (solely) for Ledeen - and one of those assholes who constantly reminds people how prescient they are, occasionally. If only they also fessed up on all the opinion pieces where they were substantially wrong. He just dropped 20 rungs, IMHO.
#7
Ledeen is correct. We need to debate before the election or the LLL will say Bush has no mandate to take action.
Remember that against Saddam Bush had only a truce in a war with 12 years of violations of UN Resolutions to justify taking action. And still the only way he could get the Democrats to go along was to schedule the vote just before the mid term elections. He can't wait two years to act on Iran, and he doesn't, whether you like it or not, have the credibility to take us into a pre-emptive war with Iran. The LLLs won't act till there's a mushroom cloud in CONUS, so he neds to build consensus now.
The obvious flip side is that appearing the warmonger may cost him the election. It's a risk he ought to take and that's what Ledeen is saying. Otherwise, he has no capital to support the war and gets left holding the bag.
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/06/2004 11:18 Comments ||
Top||
"A U.S. House of Representatives resolution last May 6 authorized 'all appropriate means' to end Iranian nuclear weapons development. The Senate is yet to vote on the resolution. But it leaves no doubt it is a green light for offensive military strikes against Iranâs three nuclear facilities."
Can one of you RB'ers with a link to Congressional legislation identify the House Bill he refers to - and take a quick peek to see if the Senate has voted?
#9
The election for me anyway is indeed all about Iran. In voting for Bush I am clearly stating my preference for aggressive deterrence instead of Kerry's "persuasion" and "engagement", ie appeasement.
I seriously doubt that most other voters do not also recognize this distinction. If Kerry wins, then I will grant that he has a mandate from the voters to "engage" and appease. If Bush wins, then he has a mandate to deter Iran with a serious, credible threat of force. To say otherwise is to deny that Bush won in the first place-- which is probably what many left-wing Dem Bush-haters will do regardless.
#10
Bush doesnt have to go making the case for regime change in Iran now. I can see the political rationales mentioned above. But that doesnt explain why the administration isnt doing more to spread info on things like the Iranian dissidence Ledeen mentions. To begin to put Iranian actions into context. Never too early to start that.
#11
If Kerry wins, then I will grant that he has a mandate from the voters to "engage" and appease.
umm...I disagree. Cause in the debates, both Kerry and Edwards promised to "hunt down the terrorists to the last man". You are right that it is abundantly clear that Kerry has no intention in doing anything other than appeasement and withdrawl. Anyone who believes otherwise is a fool - I agree.
But that's not the same as saying he "has a mandate", when his campaign is based on false promises he won't keep.
#12
Give Ledeen this much credit: he's keeping this, the most important issue by far, on the front burner.
Many of his peers (on all sides) would just as soon talk about stem cells or gays or we-didn't-have-enough-troops. For example, look at how far off course A Sullivan has veered. He's so unfocused and skittish, he's barely worth reading anymore. At least Ledeen has his priorities right.
#13
2b, Kerry stated his Iran policy very clearly: give the moolahs nuclear fuel, and shut down the B61-11 bunker-buster. He went far out of his way to raise the bunker-buster issue and talked about it at length, with a rare display of what looked like real passion and conviction. Kerry has signalled to at least 62 million Americans that, as regards Iran, he's committed to the peacenik approach he favored during the 80s vs the SU. Crystal clear. No one who votes for Kerry can say that he is not agreeing with this approach toward the most urgent foreign-policy challenge we face.
#14
Look, if you vote for Kerry, you get appeasement. You vote for Bush, you get pre-emption as a legitimate and credible option. No one can or should say later that he was lied to with your "false promises [the candidate] won't keep."
To do otherwise makes the entire election a joke. I doubt many Americans have reached that conclusion.
#17
"Give Ledeen this much credit: he's keeping this, the most important issue by far, on the front burner."
Yes, I'll give him credit for that, no argument there. But to think the administration can do anything bold about Iran-- or that we can hold any kind of meaningful "national debate" on the subject-- before this damned election is over is not realistic because of the Democrats' behavior. They are demagoguing ***EVERY*** issue, trying to get partisan advantage from everything from our overall, long-term strategic objectives all the way down to minutae like security lapses at a sewer-plant opening ceremony in Baghdad (that bombing a few days ago) and the misdoings of an out-of-control bunch of night-shift MPs at Abu Ghraib.
How are we supposed to have any kind of worthwhile discussion of the Iran issue in a climate like this? The answer is, we can't; and that's why I wish Ledeen, and others who share his concerns, would just hold their water until after November 2nd. All this caterwauling about how "Bush is doing it all wrong" just helps the Democrats.
And if Kerry wins we'll have much, much, MUCH more to worry about than just Iran: I think all hell's gonna bust loose, everywhere.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/06/2004 14:51 Comments ||
Top||
#18
In other words, the nation has not even begun to coalesce around a coherent strategic understanding of what war we're fighting.
Which is why I think the contributions of Ledeen and people like VD Hanson are valuable. We need to at least focus the discussion on the larger strategic goals so as to get some kind of national consensus as to which wars are worth fighting and which are not.
#19
Folks, it seems an argument has arisen on whether Ledeen should speak out or not. Let's be frank, is the MSM linking to him and asking any admin official to comment on Ledeen? No.
Ledeen has spoken about Mullahs since April 2003 and their intentions to see us go down in Iraq. That desire neatly matches that of France, China, and probably Russia. Can't we connect the dots here?
IIRC in his writings, he is not advocating a military solution, but rather has focused on getting USG to speak with one voice so that Iranian youth/freedom lovers don't get discouraged. How to help? Money? Computers? Hacking? A little subterfuge here and there? As a last resort (I think the time is coming soon; that's the rub) blast their nuclear facilities. Would I look forward to a world after that? Hell, no. Not with 3 sons of draft age, you can be sure. But what's the alternative? EU negotiations/IAEA inspections under Al Baradei? Kerry supervising nuclear shipments to Iran enabling the Mullahs just like Clinton did with NK? None of it is pretty folks but discouraging discussion from a guy at a thinktank it doesn't help. I would rather guys like David Kay, Paul Bremer, and Richard Lugar shut up for 2 minutes than Ledeen.
Posted by: chicago mike ||
10/06/2004 15:51 Comments ||
Top||
#20
What Mike said plus a robust enough ABM system to protect the US from a state, with 20 launchers combined with sniffing every container that's been with 200 miles of a moslem.
Two organisations representing more than 60,000 United Nations staff members urged Secretary-General Kofi Annan to pull all UN staff out of Iraq because of the "unprecedented" risk to their safety and security. In a joint letter to Annan, the staff organisations cited a dramatic escalation in attacks in Iraq and said the United Nations regrettably "has become a direct target, one that is particularly prone to attacks by ruthless extremist terrorist factions." "Just one staff member is one staff member too many in Iraq," they said. "We ... appeal to your good judgment to ensure that no further staff members be sent to Iraq and that those already deployed be instructed to leave as soon as possible."
Annan pulled all UN international staff out of Iraq a year ago, following two bombings at UN headquarters in Baghdad and a spate of attacks on humanitarian workers. The first bombing, on August 22, 2003, killed the top UN envoy, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and 21 others. In August, the secretary-general allowed a small UN contingent to return to Baghdad and imposed a ceiling of 35 international staffers, but he has been under pressure to increase the number to help Iraq prepare for elections in January. Robert Weisell, president of the Federation of International Civil Servants' Associations, and Rosemarie Waters, president of the Coordinating Committee for International Staff Unions and Associations, said they understand "the extreme political pressures calling for the presence (and an increased one at that) of the UN in Iraq." "While we understand that the people of Iraq deserve the support and assistance of the international community, we cannot condone the deployment of UN staff to Iraq in view of the unprecedented high level of risk to the safety and security of staff," the letter signed by the two presidents said. "Last year, we witnessed the tragic death of 22 colleagues in Baghdad," they said. "We do not wish to witness the same again. We do not wish to contemplate the thought of UN staff being subject to hostage-taking and threatened with execution at the mercy of those who know no mercy. We do not believe that we should wait for such extreme acts to realise that the time for deploying UN staff to Iraq has not yet arrived."
#5
Come down to Texas and we'll show you what no mercy really is, cowards.
Posted by: Laurence of the Rats ||
10/07/2004 0:00 Comments ||
Top||
#6
And what was the major factor in the UN bombing? UN stupidity. The Americans warned the UN that security was poor and offered to provide it. But the UN wanting to distance themselves from the US and appear open, instead found themselves dead.
Posted by: Matt Helm ||
10/07/2004 4:55 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Matt, allow me a contraction: "openly dead".
"Unable Nations, the final frontier, boldly surrendering where no one has surrendered before."
Edited for brevity. Hat tip: Drudge
Saddam Hussein was obsessed with his status in the Arab world, dreaming of weapons of mass destruction to pump up his prestige. And even as the United States fixated on him, he was fixated on his neighboring enemy, Iran.
That is the picture that emerges from interrogations of the former Iraqi leader since his capture last December, according to the final report of the chief U.S. arms inspector, which gives a first glimpse into what the United States has gleaned about Saddam's hopes, dreams and insecurities. The report suggests that Saddam tried to improve relations with the United States in the 1990s, yet basked in his standing as the only leader to stand up to the world's superpower. It says Saddam was determined that if Iran was to acquire nuclear weapons, so was Iraq. And it says he was a narcissist who cared deeply about his legacy, making sure bricks were molded with his name in hopes people would admire them for centuries to come.
Officials have said that interrogations of Saddam, first by the CIA and then by the FBI, have yielded little helpful information about weapons programs and the insurgency in Iraq. But Tuesday's report shows they have provided new insight into his thinking. Saddam was angry that other Persian Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, enjoyed good standing in the West. "His regime views the Gulf Arabs as undeserving," the report said. "They did not earn respect; the West simply wanted their oil."
Posted by: Dar ||
10/06/2004 9:07:25 PM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's all coming out. So wild stuff here, and a lot to think about.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 21:49 Comments ||
Top||
#2
"And it says he was a narcissist who cared deeply about his legacy..."
That rings a bell, somehow...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
10/06/2004 22:07 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Bunch of bullshit. If Saddam wanted to be friends with the west he could have done everything the UN wanted, got a clean bill of health by 1993, and removed sanctions and worked his way towards close friendship with the west as the bulwark against Iran. Saddam wanted power and couldn't conceave of bending to anyone elses will.
#4
good point RJ. I noticed it's Yahoo Asia. Every headline I read on Yahoo seems slanted to favor Kerry - though it's more subtle than CBS.
Is this just an attempt to build on the liberal meme that Sadaam wasn't a threat to us? Iraq was stable - but now it's chaos. He was only trying to reign in that mean old Iran. yadda yadda
Someday, these people who now make the argument for leaving Sadaam in power, will have to answer questions from their grandchildren as to why they were willing to look away from the state sanctioned rape rooms, tortue and genocide. Just like the Germans who apologized for Hitler - those who excuse mass-murderer Sadaam will have to face the look of disappointment in the eyes of their grandchildren, who will be unable understand the reasons for their moral cowardice.
EFL.I blame Ashcroft. Or Bush. Or Chaney. The filmmakers behind 'Team America' want to get an NC-17 cut to an R, but the MPAA objects to an explicit scene.
They call it puppet love. But the folks who determine film ratings call it NC-17. The filmmakers behind "Team America: World Police," an action-genre satire featuring a team of muscular marionettes that save the world, are butting heads with the Motion Picture Assn. of America over the film's proposed rare rating, which would bar admission to anyone younger than 17. At the heart of the dispute is a scene in the film that shows simulated sex between the puppets. Thus far, the production team has submitted the scene nine times — each progressively less graphic — to the MPAA board, said Scott Rudin, the film's producer. Each time, the MPAA insisted that the NC-17 rating would remain unless further cuts were made, the filmmakers said. The MPAA did not return phone calls late Monday. Before you know it, puppets will want to get married and stuff.
"It's something we all did as kids with Barbie and Ken dolls," said Trey Parker, the film's director and co-creator of the animated TV show "South Park." "The whole joke of it is that it's just two dolls flopping around on each other. You see the hinges on their legs. [The MPAA] read into it way more than we ever didâŠ. They said you can't do anything but missionary position." Among other things, the offending material includes shots of a male puppet simulating oral sex. The production team has already excised explicit scatological puppet sex acts in its attempt to gain an R rating, allowing entrance to teenagers under 18 when accompanied by an adult. Scatalogical puppet sex acts. Is there a big market for that?
"There's nothing we're asking for that hasn't appeared in other R-rated movies, and our characters are made of wood and have no genitalia. If the puppets did to each other what we show them doing, all they'd get is splinters," Rudin said. He may have a point...
"Team America" features violent scenes in which a Tim Robbins puppet is set afire and a Susan Sarandon puppet is dropped off a 20-story building — all acts that passed MPAA muster. "We blow Janeane Garofalo's head clean off, [but for the MPAA] it's all about the positions of the dolls having sex," Parker said. "It's not funny — it's tragic." I certainly have no problems with those scenes.
There once was a movie where a mannequin came alive as Kim Cattrall (pre-Sex & the City) and rolled around with the Male lead, only to return to wood status when other people were around...
Hmm - Puppet sex without the implements. And MPAA is upset? Odd people to be getting prudish these days...
#3
BigEd: Are we thinking of the same movie? 'Cuz I don't remember KC getting peed on in Mannequin. Maybe that was the director's cut. I do remember how impressed I was with the special effects; that is, my own wood status was inversely proportional to hers. ;)
#5
Tim Robbins puppet is set afire , Susan Sarandon puppet is dropped off a 20-story building , "We blow Janeane Garofaloâs head clean off"
Now that's what I call entertainment!
Posted by: Steve ||
10/06/2004 15:08 Comments ||
Top||
#6
"Team America" features violent scenes in which a Tim Robbins puppet is set afire and a Susan Sarandon puppet is dropped off a 20-story building â all acts that passed MPAA muster. "We blow Janeane Garofaloâs head clean off, [but for the MPAA] itâs all about the positions of the dolls having sex," Parker said. "Itâs not funny â itâs tragic."
I'm gonna see it just for those scenes.
But to get past the MPAA, they should do what Mel Brooks did in "Blazing Saddles" -- fade to black and let the soundtrack suggest what's happening.
("It's twue! It's twue!")
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
10/06/2004 15:13 Comments ||
Top||
#7
We blow Janeane Garofaloâs head clean off
{Snicker}
Those words remind me...
"Ah Ah, I know what you're thinking, punk. You're thinkin', 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Now, to tell you the truth, I've forgot myself in all this excitement. But being as this is the .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
And they say that if you're persuaded to change your vote because of a puppet movie, there may be something wrong with you. "If anyone walks out of this movie, or a Michael Moore movie, thinking about voting a certain way, then they're [bleeping] stupid and shouldn't be voting," says Stone. "If this movie makes you think that much, then you're too weak-kneed to vote."
Abstracting sexual acts using puppets carries huge connotations regarding the objectification of sexual relationships in general, and promotes abuse-oriented consequences for women (having to do with the objectification of women) and deconstructs normative cultural taboos regarding sex with children.
This claim probably doesn't make sense to very many here , and I don't have time for a dissertation to prove my point, but NC-17 is the right call. The kind of "humor" the director is going for belongs (if it belongs at all) within an ADULT context, because adults (hopefully) possess the cognitive and emotional ability to put it in the proper frame of reference.
The makers of the film want an R rating so they can make more money--AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON.
#15
The makers of the film want an R rating so they can make more money--AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON.
Good for them. I'll go pay to see the R rated movie, and then I'll buy the Unrated DVD to see all the graphic, bad puppet sex. Can't wait. Thank God for the Sneak Preview this weekend.
#16
nada quotes ex-lib: Â The makers of the film want an R rating so they can make more money--AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON.And, then nada adds:
Good for them. I'll go pay to see the R rated movie, and then I'll buy the Unrated DVD to see all the graphic, bad puppet sex. Can't wait. Thank God for the Sneak Preview this weekend. As Cartman would say, "Suck my balls."
Ah, did I miss something?
As I read ex-libâs post, she isnât saying a damn thing about censoring the film. Her only point was that The MPAA is totally correct on this.
If we set up organizations like the MPAA, Iâd like to think they work. I donât want to take my kid to a âPG-13â rated movie, only to find out that it should have been rated âNC-17â or âXXX.â I may even want to see a âXXXâ rated movie, but not with my kid. Similarly, just imagine your disappointment going to a âNC-17â movie that should have been rated âPG-13.â That would just suck, now, wouldnât it?
IMO, ex-libâs other points go to why movies are rated what they are rated. I donât think she likes the promotion of casual sex and objectification of women. So what? Thatâs got to at least be a valid viewpoint. But, then again, maybe ex-lib's opinions can't be "allowed" if you find yourself feeling threatened by points of view contrary to your own.
#17
nada--(which I presume refers to your brain or, more precisely, the lack thereof)--suck your own balls, twerp. I'm a big Southpark fan, so, STFU. You missed my point, and have now been officially entered into the anti-intellectual poster category at Rantburg University. And so what if you're going to go see the movie--I probably will too.
For everyone else: My point about them wanting to make more money with an "R" rating (when they know their film is really an NC-17), even though they're "arguing" that their film is an "R" film, is just them trying to garner more cash because R-rated films can draw a larger audience. THAT'S THE ONLY POINT I WAS MAKING about that. I thought it was pretty much like those guys to try to get what they can get. And I don't really blame them. (You've got to visit Southpark, Colorado, to really understand why that is.)
Frank G.--I presume you're telling me to "get a life" because you couldn't follow the points I was making if your life depended on it. (See note to nada, above, and apply to self).
#18
The MPAA is upset that these guys last movie had a subtitle "Bigger, longer and uncut" that is a penis joke and they didn't get it until the film screened. They felt like fools and the petty dictators are now taking it out on a technicality because they can.
Sudan's U.N. ambassador challenged the United States to send troops to the Darfur region if it really believes a genocide is taking place as the U.S. Congress and President Bush's administration have determined.
Sounds like an invitation to me...
Elfatih Mohamed Erwa was asked Tuesday about the effect of the U.S. "genocide" designations when both Bush and his Democratic challenger John Kerry ruled out sending U.S. troops to end the 19-month conflict in their debate Thursday. "If it is really a genocide they should be committed to send troops," the Sudanese ambassador said. "This is why I don't think they're genuine about its being genocide."
I'd say it's more an indication that he thinks U.S. troops are too tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan to actually do anything...
Would U.S. troops really be welcome? "I won't say that I welcome them because I don't have the authority to say that, but if they want to do that, let them talk to us," Erwa said.
"Yo, Erwa! We're gonna come into your country and kill as the janjaweed, okay?"
U.S. Ambassador John Danforth, when told that Erwa raised the possibility of discussing the deployment of U.S. troops, said: "I've never heard of such a thing before. It's certainly an attention grabber. It's a curious idea, but I don't think it has a future."
"But just in case it does, remember, they asked for it..."
Danforth noted that U.S. troops are now in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hotspots and said the United States is strongly supporting the speedy deployment of an expanded African Union force to help end the Darfur conflict. "I think really the focus has been on the AU and that's where the focus should be ... because that is the most promising source of troops," he said, adding that an African force "would offer the most credible source of assurance for the people of Darfur."
"But if they'd really rather have the 82nd Airborne and the Rangers, just let us know. I'm sure we can work something out."
Posted by: Fred ||
10/06/2004 11:54:36 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A rudimentary African Union force of 5000 combined with USAF support could mop the floor with the Sudanese army.
If the African Union says they want this, I'd agree to it in a NY minute.
#2
Just once I'd like to hear a US diplomat or ambassador publicly chastise no-action countries in the world (and we know who they are-the big talkers) for their parasitic lifestyles and catatonia in the face of crimes against humanity.
If the US military feels it can afford 5000 troops, then maybe mhw has it right-it could be worth it. But in doing so and not holding up the poor example of so many other "advanced" countries in the world, we are reinforcing an already dysfunctional behavior-the US fixes the world's problems while other countries are exempted from contributing their blood, their money, their sweat.
#5
Jules i agree with ya and if anyone at the UN has anything too say well tell them too kiss our ass. Also Just go ahead and AC 130 a couplke of those shitheads a couple times and they will shut their mouth and that including their leadership.
October 6, 2004: More details have come out about the "losing" performance of U.S. F-15Cs (from the Alaska-based 3rd Wing) against India's air force in the Cope India air-to-air combat exercise earlier this year. The Air Force and some members of Congress have used the "failure" to justify the need for new F/A-22 and F-35 fighters. Some are calling the results a demonstrated weakening of American air combat capabilities
Two factors have been cited as major reasons why the 3rd Wing took a drubbing. None of the participating American aircraft had the latest long-range AESA radars, although some of the F-15Cs of the Wing had this equipment. A decision had been made beforehand not to send the AESA equipped planes to India due to the additional maintenance package required to support them. A total of six F-15Cs were sent to India, each equipped with a fighter data link, short-range AIM-9X heat-seeking air-to-air missiles, and the U.S.'s helmet-mounted cueing system.Â
Secondly, at India's request, the U.S. agreed to mock combat at 3-to-1 odds and without the full range of capabilities of simulated long-range radar-guided AIM-120 AMRAAM missiles. U.S. fighters could not use the active on-board radar capability of the AMRAAM, and the missile was limited to around 32 kilometers range and required the use of the F-15C's onboard radar to target Indian aircraft. In standard use, AMRAAM has a range of over 100 kilometers and is a fire-and-forget missile that doesn't require additional guidance from the F-15. Practiced tactics by the F-15 crews mix two AESA-equipped F-15Cs with two stock aircraft. The AESA aircraft take long-range missile shots to thin out and disrupt the formation of a numerically superior force before the two sides close up for closer fighting.Â
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
10/06/2004 10:10:26 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I found it strange that they F-15C didn't best the 2nd rate junk flown by the IAF. Now I know. Sounds like the pilots were told to fly blind and naked but the opposition did not. This is a tactic that they use at begining Red/Green Flag exercises. First the enemy is weak and they become stronger as the exercise plays out. If we were playing the 'enemy' then it makes since they would 'hobble' our forces.
#2
They also admit they underestimated the training and tactics of the Indian pilots. Indian air force planners never repeated failed tactics and were able to change tactics as opportunities became available, mixing things up and never providing the same tactical "look."
High time we started to take seriously the notion of close cooperation, if not an outright alliance, with this talented and capable frontline democracy.
#3
CS, I think you're missing the point. They weren't blind, although they weren't as armed as they'd like to be. Key phrases--"don't normally train," and "underestimated." The Indian AF is on its way to becoming a very powerful, Western, data-linked and aggressive AF. The Mirage is a match with our F-16, and the Su-30MKI is a very dangerous bird with a lot of Israeli upgrades. With waves of Flankers to one northern border and hair-trigger nukes to the other, they have to be good. India is a democracy, and is not doctrinally or socially hidebound like most of our opponents are. Soon they will be working off of steel decks, too. The good thing--they're on our side.
One other consideration--what aircraft could the Indians be preparing to fight that has limited data link and radar range, no AWACS support, no active or semi-active radar missile? Sounds to me like the USAF agreed to simulate a regional threat, and whether or not it's apparent here, all sides benefited greatly.
Not entirely true as regards Iran (yet), but in general, they can and should be enormously helpful to us in the regions they adjoin. Apparently their navy is already pulling a lot of weight in combatting piracy across Asia; perhaps they can also step up their role in combatting rogue state and proxy WMD threats to slip dirty nukes into container ships.
More than anything else tho we need to get the Indians off of their appease Iran kick. Perhaps a mix of very large economic and other carrots in order to build a united anti-Iran front with Israel and perhaps even Russia?
#5
Yes, "on our side" is probably an overstatement. They certainly aren't our enemy, and probably not an adversary. They are an English-speaking democracy, and as such are pretty much natural allies. From a strategic POV, India is essential to controlling the IO and the Malacca Strait, and is a severely underrated buffer between the Arab/Persian muslim world and the Asian muslim world. And the more buffer between them, the better we all are.
#6
What are the prospects for real and serious US-Indian military cooperation in the next few years? I know the Pakistan angle is difficult but Bush/Armitage have done an excellent job positioning the US as an honest broker, and I assume Musharraf's regime can be managed or soothed.
You mention India's increased capabilities, incl in the data management sphere. Is their military inter-operable with ours? Aren't the Indians already stepping up their cooperation with Israel?
Also, any links to good websites that focus on this topic would be appreciated.
#7
I couldn't talk about prospects, just don't know. I think it's inevitable, but currently delayed for various reasons, including the need to secure Pakistan's nukes. As for DL, you'd need to research Israeli products. Without extensive, expensive retrofits, I don't know how you'd get any DL to work between Mirages, Fulcrum, Flanker, and Floggers, but they know how to use what they have as effectively as it can be used, and not according to Soviet doctrine.
#8
Let's not forget that the Indians thoroughly understand that it's called the Indian Ocean for a reason. Should they want to throw their weight around, there is very little we could do to stop them.
One of the Harpoon series computer games had a number of scenerios based upon a war with India, and Tom Clancy seems to feel it's possible, as well.
The dollar may fall for a second day against the euro in Asia after oil prices rose to a record, raising concern the U.S. economy may slow. Oil costs have been negative for the economy, and an increase in first-time jobless claims last week may mean job growth will be less than forecast, Robert McTeer, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, said yesterday. U.S. service businesses expanded at the slowest pace in 16 months, while an index of consumer confidence fell, reports yesterday showed. ``Soft U.S. data is pressuring the dollar versus the euro,'' said David Mozina, currency strategist in Sydney at ABN Amro Holding NV. ``With oil over $51 a barrel it has a taxing effect on the economy. Dollar weakness is coming back.'' --------Snipped-----
Enough with all the oil futures, Mark!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 1:49:25 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
this article may well be true, I don't know - but it falls clearly into the "never cry wolf" category.
MSM has been spinning good news as bad for so long - that if it actually is bad news, no one will believe them.
#2
I know that I am economically retarded, but it seems to me that 'dollar down'= 'U.S. exports up'. Surely this isn't a bad thing for the economy, not to mention domestic employment numbers.
#3
What this report is saying is that much of the world's economy revolves around the price and availability of oil. OPEC, particularly our good friends the Saudis, want payment in dollars. With the high US deficits, both internal and external, the dollar is worth less, so the OPEC countries want more dollars for their oil in order to get the same bang for the buck, further depressing the dollar's value.
If you want a real nightmare scenario, forget the Iranians getting nukes. Try this instead: the Saudis begin to demand payment in Euros rather than dollars.The crashing sound you would hear in the background would be the world economy self destructing.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/06/2004 7:45 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Try this instead: the Saudis begin to demand payment in Euros rather than dollars.The crashing sound you would hear in the background would be the world economy self destructing
More like a comedy routine. The Saudi putting a currency pegged on a near socialist economy teetering now was we speak on recession, would spike hyperinflation in Eurostan. You add to that American traders with a strong sense of revenge would make certain the Euro fails.
There is a trader's axoim: The action on the downside can be as good as the action on the upside.
#8
the Saudis begin to demand payment in Euros Why wouldn't that just be an additional sur-charge for an enterprising country to make the conversion?
What's really going impact things is when oil becomes expensive enough, the US will turn to domestic and alternative sources and kiss our foreign sources goodbye. It won't take long when the price goes high enough. Then the sound you hear won't be our economy crashing.
#10
Key player's not the Sauds but the central banks of China and Japan. So long as they retain confidence in US treasuries, and prefer those to higher-yielding Euro-denominated govt debt, we're OK. But not something we should take for granted. Wouldn't be all bad to have divided gov't again in Washington, if divided gov't's what it takes to bring our deficits down.
Otherwise, we may be risking a triple whammy: pressure on Treasuries from an unsustainable debt; pressure on the dollar from rising oil prices, thereby (causing an increase in the foreign portion of our debt obligations; rising interest rates needed to compete with non-dollar debt investments, causing slowed economic growth and a higher deficit, and on we go.
#11
hey...just keeping it simple, I think you are all underestimating the power of the market.
Supply and Demand baby. We have the technology to obtain alternative sources. Right now there isn't the will or the economic incentive. Dry up the supply and the demand will remain, with all those profits still to be made.
The best thing that could happen to us, in the long run would be for the oil cartels to make it worth our while to develop domestic sources and alternative fuels. And when the price of oil gets high enough it will happen.
It's wrong to consider the supply side to be limited to oil from the non-domestic sources.
#12
Agree major threat is the Japanese and Chinese central banks. I was simply sticking to the immediate subject and giving an example of a different currency. All the chinese/SA/Japanese have to do is stop accepting payment in $ and demand another currency. Any other currency. OR: the same group could announce they were no longer going to buy US treasuries. Very bad news either way.
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/06/2004 11:11 Comments ||
Top||
#13
you guys are losing the forest through the trees. It's like you are trying to predict which way the wind will blow by sticking your fingers in the air in Asia.
In the US, there is demand - there is supply. We have both in the US. Now it's just a matter of price. That's the problem with a little knowledge - it's a dangerous thing.
#14
We have the technology to obtain alternative sources. Right now there isn't the will or the economic incentive.
Well it's a bit late in the day to keep waiting for the miraculous market to save us. It's obvious we need to reduce our dependence on imported oil. So let's f***ing get on with it. Nuclear, wind, solar, drill in ANWR, any and all of the above.
#15
Agreed! - The economic incentive gets great enough it will occur. Look at the bright side. The more the Arabs and Socialists try to bring us down by witholding their oil, the sooner they will self-destruct.
#16
The Chinese continue to have the largest stock of U.S. currency reserves, and have their currency tied directly to the dollar. Why? Because we are just about the only nation running a trade deficit with China. They need vast quantities of dollars.
Chinese demand for oil is up at least 20% this year. They are the world's largest consumer of copper, 20% of demand, and consume 25% of the world's aluminum production. Their economy is predicted by the IMF to expand 9% this year versus 4.3% for the United States. Inflation is running at a seven year high of 5.3%.
China imports 90% plus of the oil it needs. China's importation of wheat increased 180% in the last year, and it is now running a deficit in agriculture. Its grain production has decreased 15% since 1999.
China needs dollars to feed and fuel itself. That's why it is resisting our demands that it untie the yuan from the dollar and float it.
14% of our oil imports are from the Saudis, and it's old oil, which takes significant refining to be usable. The US gets 49% of its imported oil from the Western hemisphere. The Saudis make a fine scapegoat, but they are no longer a major player in the U.S. economy. China is, and that is a scary thing. LINK to my blog post
#18
The Saudis make a fine scapegoat, but they are no longer a major player in the U.S. economy. China is, and that is a scary thing
True. We're focusing way too much on OPEC and Europe. China is the relationship that matters above all others. Utterly ridiculous that we have G8 economic "summits" each year with a group of nations that excludes the nation that's more crucial to us than all the others (exc maybe Japan) combined.
#19
Monitor in green......you really mean 'Enough with the oil'? No further postings on the subject oil prices? I wonder if everyone else agrees?
Wow, in the 'future' I'd better start using orange juice in my gas tank. So should all you 18 people (thus far) posting comments to this worthless, fish wrapping rubbish, after all nobody really cares what they shell out at the gas pump....... do they?
Throons Ebboose8966, your well thought out comments, #3, should be reviewed, among many other postings like Chuck Simmins, Lex & Badanov plus many more.
Throons: "What this report is saying is that much of the world's economy revolves around the price and availability of oil. OPEC, particularly our good friends the Saudis, want payment in dollars." You & others fully grasp the tinkering global economic situation in relation to the rising cost of petroleum & energy in general.
Bingo! Badanov: "The Saudi putting a currency pegged on a near socialist economy teetering now was we speak on recession, would spike hyperinflation in Eurostan. You add to that American traders with a strong sense of revenge would make certain the Euro fails. There is a trader's axoim: The action on the downside can be as good as the action on the upside."
Perfecto! Right on target!!
Opps, I almost forgot, we are not allowed to talk about anything relating to 'crude oil futures' ..............correct?
It's a shame only (((one))) guy, which does not see any relevancy what-so-ever in discussing in public the one volatile, geostrategic commodity everyone in the entire world utilizes, should ban the topic from discussion(??).
[Yes] or [No] Monitor? I want it said in pain English and a credible, logical reason why, so everyone comprehends?
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 13:36 Comments ||
Top||
#20
Mark, I counted at least three oil stories from you today. Most duplicate the same information. One will be enough to discuss the problem, that is all I meant in my comments.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/06/2004 15:12 Comments ||
Top||
#21
How many people think the SA or the Chinese wouldn't refuse payment in dollars or stop buying treasuries if they thought it would wreck our economy, even if they took a big hit at the same time?? Put another way: how many people think these guys are our friends?? Hmmm???
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/06/2004 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#22
Al, the single greatest purpose in life for both the Sudi and Chinese leadership is the continuance of their existance in power. As gratifying as they might see an economic slap at the United States, it won't keep them in the positions to which they've become accustomed.
That said, I would never discount the ability of any human or group of humans to be totally stupid.
#23
Steve, I was not aware of your name otherwise I would have addressed you more properly on the issue.
Being involved in energy/commodities, at times I encounter people who are exclusively in the 'stock world' which strongly dislike any discussions of the 'commodity world' since it's like vicious cats and attacking dogs within the overall financial trading world. This is in no way the case here.
Although each of the articles posted, and I do agree they had an abundance of 'trade talk' which may be a bit of mumbo jumbo to some unless in the field, but there was also various, broader based, economic viewpoints regarding numerous energy producing nations, with different outlined current trending developments, coupled with future projected causes & effects concerning 'petrol-inflation' along with the generalized and specifics of the global topic of rising energy costs.
Since you fully explained you position, I stand corrected and offer an apology for being on the harsh side & a posting putz. I believe it was due to thinking I needed to schlep out this joint & fill her up, again today, with high-test no less :)
=================================================
Wierd Al, they are not are friends. The Euro would have to totally devastate the U.S. Dollar from present levels before those guys would refuse to except $$$'s.
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 16:16 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Mark: I certainly defer to your expertise. Let me put out a more personal scenario and hear your thoughts. You are a moderately wealthy saudi businessman, who for years has been taking your honest bribes in dollars and putting them under your pillow. Your Swedish mistress is expecting a very nice present. You decide to buy her a 911 Targa. Costs 80k Euro. Four years ago, you would have needed 72k dollars to buy it. Now you need 98k. Are you happy? Multiple by a million or so, and you have a bunch of unhappy people. Couldn't they convince OPEC to cut production 10%, demand Euros, and sell to the Chinese, taking their currency and using it to buy their goods? Doomsday scenario, but totally impossible?
Posted by: Weird Al ||
10/06/2004 16:27 Comments ||
Top||
#25
Mark, no problem with your posts, there were just a lot on same subject today. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
Posted by: Steve ||
10/06/2004 16:42 Comments ||
Top||
#26
I think the old cranium is about to go the way of Mt. St. Helena.
This is something to really think about. I shall endeavour to add some humour. First off, placing myself as a semi-well healed Wahhabist ..oy no ..ok if I must, here goes, I am a secular Saudi, London educated, in the clothing trade, with a moderate amount of dough on hand. I like to play the horses and dogs too, that's why the money department is only moderate.
Mmm, ok, ok, let me locate that gold plated calculator that rich Kuwaiti gave me, the one my cousin introduced me to last year, while we were at a party in the Sheraton Kuwaiti Hotel & Towers. Ah, for the love of Mike, what's his name, oh yea, Abdallah Abd al-Rahman al-Tawil, the minister of Trade & Industry for Dawlat al Kuwayt. He is the one I gave an incredible deal on Gucci suits and all those Prada , Fendi, & Ferragamo shoes for his four wives. As I now recall this Kuwaiti Minister was so delighted with the suits & shoes, when all of us departed from the Sheraton he placed Fendi hat on his favourite camels out in the camel portion of the car lot. I think that schlemiel was so happy because he drank all the punch, one full glass after the other, when there was nobody looking of course.
The idea of converting my higher worth Euros (current valuation equals $1.22 USD for every Euro) then U.S. Dollars begged against the Mainland 'Red' Chinese Renminbi (yuan) currently is about 1:8.3 (1 dollar = 8.3 yuan,) Hay.... this is too confusing. Better not do that yuan, it's making me sleepy just saying it. I'll stick with Eruos and U.S. greenbacks.
Ah yes, I have it by George, open two trading accounts, one in Euros for North Sea Brent and the second in Dollars, to trade theNYMEX, plus, think of this, I will be out of arms way if once those boys in Tehran go on a jihadic kick.
Let's see now, with oil being about $52 in NY if those mad mullahs push the panic button I could double my money quickly. Maybe two Targas could be ordere , but they are sooooo small!
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 20:28 Comments ||
Top||
#29
Steve, sorry for the delay. Everything is ok :)
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 20:29 Comments ||
Top||
An upbeat Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi pledged "new plans" on Tuesday to crush insurgents before promised January elections as he met British Foreign Minister Jack Straw on a surprise visit here. As Allawi again expressed optimism following a lengthy international tour that government control could be restored nationwide in time for the polls to be organized, fresh unrest rocked rebel strongholds north and west from the capital. "We must have a suitable atmosphere for the conduct of election and the security situation requires exceptional" forces, Allawi told Iraq's interim parliament. "Therefore, the government has decided to establish new plans for achieving the security and for chasing those who are trying to prevent us from achieving this national job," he said.
The hawkish premier, who spent two and half weeks abroad including talks with his top U.S. and British allies, did not elaborate on his plans. He stressed that his government was still maintaining its January target date for the elections, despite growing doubts that they will be able to go ahead on a credible basis nationwide. Allawi's comments came as U.S. and Iraqi troops mopped up the last redoubts of resistance in the Sunni Arab town of Samarra, stormed last Friday in one of the largest counter-insurgency operations since last year's U.S.-led invasion.
The resort to force in a densely populated city of 250,000 people sparked criticism from Sunni leaders. The U.S. military said Tuesday that 127 insurgents and 20 civilians had been killed in the operation to retake Samarra, north of Baghdad. Twenty-four foreign fighters were captured, the military said, although it added that it had failed to capture any top suspects and was only just beginning the daunting task of winning over a largely hostile population. "It's not going to happen overnight," Colonel Randy Dragon, commander of U.S. forces in Samarra, told an AFP reporter on the scene.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mark Espinola ||
10/06/2004 1:32:17 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
What's next? Fallujah? Ramadi? or Sadr City? and when? My guess is Ramadi end of next week.
#1
where voting has always taken place through the paper ballot, with reports of mass rigging, successfully implemented electronic voting through the use of simple to operate machines.
Soooo....a country with "mass rigging" embraces it. And we are to be assured that e-voting stopped the rigging...how? I guess because the correspondent says so.
#3
If you've got nothing to say, don't say it here.
Posted by: Fred ||
10/06/2004 10:00 Comments ||
Top||
#4
'This has led to a popular joke in Venezuela: "Of course Chavez won. The casino always wins!"'
A Latin American version of Stalinist humor.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/06/2004 21:28 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"Various analysts, media persons and election watchers in the US have expressed interest and are surprised that a developing nation such as India, where voting has always taken place through the paper ballot, with reports of mass rigging, successfully implemented electronic voting through the use of simple to operate machines."
THE Elbow Room bar is the place to be seen sipping cocktails, while the Gator club and restaurant offers a fine range of caviare and Cuban cigars. For brunch, why not linger over an imported cappuccino at the Flower Street cafe, and if you're still feeling delicate from the night before, there's a Thai massage available at $25 (£14) an hour. But this is not a chic metropolitan corner of Edinburgh or London. Welcome, instead, to central Kabul where, in a land still very much part of the ancient, Muslim East, an influx of foreign aid workers has brought the pamperings of the 21st century, liberal West.
Three years after the Taleban finished pushing life back to the Middle Ages, the clock has wound forward with equal speed as Kabul sees a plethora of stylish restaurants, bars and night spots catering to Western tastes - and foibles. Despite the odd car bomb, rocket attack and threat from Taleban remnants, the Lai Thai restaurant apparently has some of the best spring rolls outside Bangkok, while at the German-run Deutscher Hof, a mini-version of the beer-swilling Munich Oktoberfest has just got underway. And for those who overdo it, either in work or play, a trained counsellor from Chicago offers personal analysis sessions - and twice-weekly Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.
But with most Afghans struggling beneath the poverty line, the birth of "Islington-on-Kush", as one aid worker dubs it, has not been universally welcomed. Among locals especially, criticism is now mounting that the country's estimated 2,000 aid agencies and non-governmental organisations - NGOs - spend too much time and money enjoying themselves and not enough on those they are here to help. "Most will not give ten Afghani [11 pence] to a beggar, but they will spend a hundred times that on an evening out," said Najeem Massoud, a taxi driver.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: tipper ||
10/06/2004 12:29:30 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It confuses me to no end when Americans get a bad rap for alienating the downtrodden with our extravegant life-styles. Couldn't they have just installed a Blockbuster and rented movies? I guess it's good for the local economy eventhough the actions of these people re-inforce everything that the Taliban taught about Westerners.
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/06/2004 3:41 Comments ||
Top||
#2
C'mon, Super Hose! In America poor people have televisions, homes, more than one change of clothing, and are fat. In India, poor people don't even have their own piece of sidewalk, and a decade ago 70% of the population was economically uninvolved. Even our poor are extravagantly wealthy ;-)
#3
TW, don't I know. I have been to a bunch of places and seen real poverty. What I mean is: isn't this the type of extravegant activity that Patty Murray and her ilk say breeds hatred in the 3rd world against Americans. Yet its never the Americans getting the Thai massage. We get the rap but not the massage. Where's the justice? :-)
Posted by: Super Hose ||
10/06/2004 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
I was being a bit silly, Super Hose. I have to admit that I've never seen real poverty -- my husband won't let me join him when he goes to places like India because he thinks I'll get too upset, and try to take care of them all (I still cry over the stray kittens he won't let me adopt).
We do get an unfair rap -- I know I never swilled champagne and caviar in front of starving locals, or at home either -- but they see American TV shows and movies, so they don't need real Yanks to get mad at. Besides, hating and despising America[ns] is the international sport -- reality has never entered into it.
The only justice here is continuing to do more, better, faster and cheaper, and seeing them choke on their bile as they buy it. And, when we colonize other worlds, most will be from the U.S., because we like doing things like that. I hope that isn't too bitchy for you!
From BBC News
She was a diplomat's free-spirited daughter who had travelled the world and was in Czechoslovakia meeting her father when news came that Russian tanks had invaded her homeland, Afghanistan. Mina Sherzoy, 43, remembers the time vividly in the winter of 1979 when the family decided not to return to a home invaded by foreigners. She was 18 and a graduate of a high school in the Afghan capital, Kabul, when the family began their exile.
The family took a train from Prague to the German city of Frankfurt in West Germany and from there a plane to London. They flew on to California, which was to become home for the next two decades. In the US, Ms Sherzoy adapted quickly to a new lifestyle, working hard, marrying an Afghan man and looking after their two daughters. She worked as a drug store cashier, an attorney's secretary, and a systems analyst before ending up selling luxury homes in the San Francisco Bay area. In exile, she found success and wealth, a world apart from the millions of her countrymen struggling in refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran. .....
Two summers ago she and an American friend decided to take a trip to Kabul. .... During her three week stay, Ms Sherzoy decided it was time for her "to give back something to Afghanistan". ....
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/06/2004 12:00:00 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In the title, please change the second Woman to Women.
.
Posted by: Mike Sylwester ||
10/06/2004 1:36 Comments ||
Top||
#2
More than 10,000 women have signed up with her - only 400 of them are literate
Where the f*** are the western sister suffragettes when it comes to applauding and encouraging the remarkable turnaround in women's fortunes in Afghanistan? This story has been buried by the MSM, whose bleatings on Afgh are limited to opium production stories and "where's Osama?"
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.
