A much better interview with Ingrid Betancourt. Say what you want about the Guardian, it knows how to get to the point in an interview, unlike Larry King.
For the past seven days Ingrid Betancourt has engaged in an extraordinary frenzy of tarmac reunions, presidential meetings and public addresses sparking an international outpouring of emotion, while readjusting to the oddities of sleeping in a bed and smelling perfume after six years held in jungle captivity by Colombian rebels.
But yesterday she admitted post-release euphoria was beginning to give way to exhaustion. "I know that it's like the roaring of the waves, I know it's coming and it's getting closer, I know that it's time for me to just stop. I don't want to be submerged by depression."
Betancourt, France's new Joan of Arc - and possibly Colombia's future president - was speaking in her first major newspaper interview since her release. Since landing in Paris to a rapturous reception last week, she has rushed between plush Paris hotels and parliament and senate buildings, all the time clutching the makeshift rosary that she made from string while chained up in jungle captivity. Her pallid skin and long, thin hair, and reported scars on her skin from chains are hard-to-erase signs of her six years in captivity. She will not cut her hair until all of the hundreds of hostages still held by the Farc rebels are free.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/11/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
Ingrid Betancourt says death was her "everyday companion" during the six years she was a hostage of a leftist rebel group in Colombia. Recently freed FARC hostage Ingrid Betancourt tells Larry King that her captivity was "hell." So, Ingrid...have you seen Hancock yet? Make sure you do. It's a great movie.
"I really couldn't even imagine that I was taking the road for seven years," she told CNN's "Larry King Live." "For me, I thought perhaps it could last for three months at the most. I couldn't imagine what was going to come." So, Ingrid, I guess that means you missed the Super Bowl, right? Too bad. One of the greatest upsets in sports history.
Betancourt, who has French and Colombian citizenship, was campaigning for the Colombian presidency when the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia abducted her in 2002. So what's that like?
Being abducted?
No. That dual citizenship thing. Sounds kinda confusing.
She was rescued July 2 in an elaborately planned ruse that hoodwinked FARC captors into giving up Betancourt and 14 other hostages including three American contractors. She spoke to King Tuesday from Paris, France. "In a way, I thought that [the rebels] knew what my struggle was," she said. "I thought they were wanting perhaps something like the things I was fighting for. I was fighting for social justice. I was fighting against corruption." How's the food in Paris, Ingrid? Any good restaurants there?
During the interview, Betancourt talked very slowly and appeared weary. She explained that it had been a long and arduous week. That's great. We'll be right back with the fabulous Rachel Ray...
Posted by: Fred ||
07/11/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
it is all of the numerous, equally valid answers that make the issue complicated. We have to accept that there are different answers for different people.
Here is one answer, translated from a post written by an American-raised Chinese on MITBBS (原贴):
I was eating lunch with a good friend (both a colleague and a classmate) a few days ago. He's a true Englishman, having lived in England from birth through university. Although he's now attending school with me in the United States, he naturally does so with the identity of an Englishman. Whereas I, as an ethnic Chinese person raised in the United States, have in his eyes been categorized as an "American". And I will often correct him by saying "I'm Chinese". This time, when the topic popped up again, he laughed and asked: "From your point of view, what is a Chinese person?"
I believe "Chinese" has three different meanings.
1) From a superficial point of view, it would mean the legal definition. If you are a citizen of the People's Republic of China, if you use a Chinese passport outside of China's borders, then this person from a legal point of view is Chinese. Based on China's constitution, if a Chinese citizen acquires foreign citizenship and a foreign passport, they automatically relinquish their Chinese citizenship. So, with this definition, you can only choose one between the identities "Chinese" and "foreigner". So, if you acquire American citizenship, you're no longer Chinese. But I don't believe the definition of "Chinese" is limited to this.
2) "Chinese" can also be defined on the basis of race and blood. If we talk a little loosely, all of the descendants of Yan and Yellow Emperors, all of the heirs of the dragon are Chinese. Just like the song goes, "always an heir of the dragon".
If we talk a little more tightly, if your bloodlines are 100% Chinese, then using this definition, you are Chinese, and this will never change. It doesn't matter what passport you hold, it doesn't matter what citizenship you hold, even if you grow up or are born in a different country and can't speak Chinese, you're still Chinese. But I believe that even this definition isn't the most important. Wen Ho Lee to a T.
3) I believe the most important definition is understanding of China's language, history, and culture. Understanding of China's way of life. These people, even if they don't have Chinese citizenship, even if they don't have Chinese blood-lines, they can also be called Chinese. For example, let's talk about Dashan (ed: aka Mark Henry Rowswell). A hated man by all foreigners in China for being an Uncle Tom.
He's completely fluent in all things "China"; even if he doesn't have a drop of Chinese blood, when compared to those with Chinese blood but can't speak Hanyu, he's more Chinese. And from that point of view, someone can both be Chinese and a foreigner. Nope. Ask them if Mark Roswell could join the People's Liberation Army and you'd get laughs. Ask if he could work on China nuclear program and you'd get cold stares.
And I believe that because I grew up in the United States and understand American culture, I am Chinese, and also American.
On some discussion boards, some people argue endlessly over whether someone who's changed passports should still be considered Chinese. But I believe this is too rigidly claiming the first definition of Chinese to be the most important, or even the only definition of the term. Although I can't accuse them of being wrong, but I have my opinion on this point. Some people raised in China choose to give up their citizenship after going overseas for various reasons; some of these reasons I can understand, some of these reasons I can't approve of. But this doesn't represent that they've relinquished their Chinese blood, relinquished the Chinese culture that represents a part of themselves. If some people insist they can forget or discard everything that they learned from the age of 20, and can forget the Chinese language, Chinese culture, and all of the traces left on them by their lives in China... then they either have saintly powers, or are only in self-denial. Our China doesn't give us saints very often, so I don't think we need to discuss these people too much further.
In many of those threads discussing the changing of passports, someone will mention patriotism. Now, what kind of definition is appropriate? If you have a Chinese passport, that's proof you're a Chinese patriot? Maybe, but that's not a necessary condition. Many people say "I'm proud of being Chinese!" I often say this myself. But what layer of Chinese am I talking about? I believe the meaning of the first and second layers don't really apply. No one can choose their blood-lines and where they were born. Anyone that believes they and their descendants are superior to others on the basis of their blood-lines or their place of birth... to be honest, that's both superficial and pathetic. But to a certain degree, we can select our own culture. And I believe that, when I say I'm proud of being Chinese, I'm not expressing pride over my passport (after all, isn't it just a red-covered little book?), and I'm not expressing pride over my Chinese blood. Instead, it's because I was raised and live overseas, but have still maintained my Chinese language skills while trying hard to absorb the broad and deep expanses of Chinese culture that I'm proud... it's because that I still monitor China's development, and hope to one day contribute to China's development that I'm proud. Yup, to Chinese, renouncing your former allegiances mean nothing. A US passport is just a little book, it doesn't mean that you're not loyal to China. We're going to have huge problems with fifth columnists if there's ever a conflict. Of course, China will deport all non-Chinese at the drop of a hat.
#2
I was arguing with an Irish moonbat once: what infuriated her more than anything was when I told her that my ancestors came to America to get away from her ancestors.
Posted by: Steve White ||
07/11/2008 17:04 Comments ||
Top||
#3
My community has a large Chinese population. After a day of regular school, the children attend another couple of hours of "Chinese School". Even the Charles Schwab office has its sign in Chinese.
These kids consider themselves Chinese and that is pretty much normal for the first generation of kids born of parents who were born in China. The next generation, the children whose parents were born here, will generally identify as more American and the third generation usually doesn't even speak Chinese and identifies as American.
I was in a little dumpling shop and an Asian couple sat down. They looked Chinese. The owners of the shop are Chinese. The woman who co-owned the shop walked over to the couple and began speaking to them in Chinese. They gave her a blank stare and told her in perfect American English that they didn't speak a word of Chinese.
Her expression soured and she had this look as if that couple were some kind of disgrace to their race or something. I just kindof chuckled.
That kid who wrote the article is probably first generation. His kids probably won't identify as Chinese. And by the third generation they will be marrying Mexicans and pissing off their grandparents.
Zhonghua minzu, is the supra-ethnic Chinese nationality. But this is subdivided into the majority Han Chinese, and the Chinese minorities, the 55 other ethnic varieties of Chinese which comprise about 9.5% of the Mainland and Taiwan Chinese. There are also the Taiwanese aborigines, unrecognized ethnic groups, and foreigners who live in China.
The Chinese are also distinguished by "The Chinese Way", which is a China-centric worldview with very different axioms in viewing how the world functions.
For a great length of time, China's geographical boundaries were fixed, but it made an effort to export "The Chinese Way" to neighboring countries. Importantly, those that practiced "The Chinese Way" were left alone, even if otherwise troublesome. But those who did not follow it were seen as enemies.
The Chinese are also distinguished by the unifying factors of China, some of which date to the first Emperor. These include things like a standardized written language, even though there is wide divergence in spoken language; common weights and measures; and an educational system based in a select few number of standardized pamphlets that taught things like morality. No matter what part of China you lived in, you read the pamphlets and if you could write, you wrote in the standard written language.
The Chinese were further unified by the creation of a meritocratic bureaucracy based in Confucian philosophy. Any Chinese could take the bureaucratic exam, and if they passed, were elevated in rank to government office.
Confucianism was one of the three philosophies-religions of China, a middle class philosophy, alongside Taoism, the religion of the poor, and Buddhism, the religion of the upper classes. Each of the three appealed to the values of their class, but had little conflict with each other.
Socially, the individual in China has traditionally been less important than his extended family. This relationship stands apart from the individual-centric way of life in the West.
Chinese do stand apart from westerners for many reasons, and there is little clarity when and how people from one side embrace the totality of the other side, but it does happen at times.
Homeland Security: In a sign background checks are far too lax, an alarming number of Arabs and Muslims have landed sensitive government jobs only to be caught later spying for the enemy. Guarding against penetration by terrorist agents and sympathizers should be a top concern of public agencies, but it's not.
Guarding against charges of job discrimination is. Multiculturalism and political correctness have made it easier for the terrorists to use Arabs and Muslims to infiltrate the government and steal security secrets. In the latest example, a former city 911 operator faces multiple felony counts for allegedly searching the names of friends and relatives on the FBI's terrorist watch list. Nadire P. Zenelaj, an ethnic Albanian, says she's being singled out because she is Muslim. "I feel they targeted me because of my religion," she said. No, she was investigated for looking up classified information on her confederates. At least one of the 227 names she checked was on the terrorist watch list, according to Rochester, N.Y., police.
A D.C.-area cop recently was convicted of doing the same thing. Federal prosecutors say Fairfax County Police Sgt. Weiss Rasool, an Afghan immigrant, tipped off a fellow mosque member that he was under FBI investigation. When agents went to arrest the terrorist target early one morning they found him and his family already dressed and destroying evidence. They knew they had a mole and worked back through the system to find Rasool. Thanks to post-9/11 data-sharing, local police like Rasool -- as well as first responders like Zenelaj -- now have access to classified FBI files on terror suspects maintained with the NCIC, or National Crime Information Center system. Prosecutors said Rasool's actions "damaged the integrity of the NCIC system and jeopardized at least one federal investigation."
That's not all. In May, the Energy Department had to revoke the security clearance of an Egyptian-born nuclear physicist because of "conflicting allegiances." The FBI questioned Moniem El-Ganayni, also a Muslim prison chaplain, for allegedly inciting inmates to carry out jihad against the U.S., charges he denies. Still, such questioning should've taken place before El-Ganayni got acccess to nuclear secrets. It's likely his extracurricular activities would have been enough of a red flag to bar his employment. Same goes for an EPA toxicologist who turned out to be an al-Qaida fundraiser. Waheeda Tehseen would never have been hired at all if the feds hadn't cut corners on her background check. Not only did Tehseen's husband work for Pakistani intelligence, but she lied about her U.S. citizenship on her government application. EPA missed it.
Then there's the case of Hezbollah spy Nadia Prouty. The Lebanese immigrant also lied about her citizenship and was hired anyway by both the FBI and CIA. The good news is, these moles were caught. But they should have been screened out before they could ever get in and do damage.
The following was posted yesterday at Fullcomment.com, the blog of the National Post editorial board. The Canadian Islamic Congress gets all the press. But the Canadian Arab Federation (CAF) is making a strong case that it is every bit as radical and unhinged.
First came its recent sponsorship of an essay contest on "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine," in which it urged high school students to channel the group's own fervid hatred of Israel for prizes. Now, the group is promoting Sept. 11 conspiracy theories by announcing a July 14 Toronto speaking event entitled "The 9/11 deception continues." The two featured speakers at the event will be Bob Bowman, who believes that the U. S. government participated in the 9/11 attacks, and Michael Keefer, a University of Guelph English teacher who apparently is sympathetic to much the same view. The event is being facilitated by "The 9/11 Citizens Inquiry," which defines itself as "a collection of individuals, researchers and groups who question the governmental, mainstream scientific and media accounts of the September 11, 2001 attacks."
No one who values free speech would want to see this sort of crackpot festival shut down (if only because it would feed into the organizers' paranoid delusions of a 9/11 "cover-up"). But one must ask: Will it really further the CAF's self-stated mission -- "[to] represent Canadian Arabs on issues relating to public policy [and] raise awareness of domestic issues that affect our community" -- to promote an event at which a bunch of paranoid crackpots spout off about 9/11, particularly since those same crackpot theories mirror the conspiracy theories put forward by radical Islamists in the immediate wake of 9/11? (Remember the one about the 4,000 Jews?)
This is part of a larger problem. We are constantly being lectured about the dangers of "Islamophobia" and the racism endured by Canadian Arabs since September, 2001. But look at the people who Canadian Muslims and Arabs permit to represent them -- if only by default. The Canadian Islamic Congress' Mohamed Elmasry is a man who went on Canadian TV and condoned the terroristic killing of Israeli Jews over the age of 18. He recanted when an uproar ensued, but his group continues to embody the stereotype of Islamists as knee-jerk enemies of Western values -- including his censorship jihad against Maclean's magazine, and his recent newspaper column defending Robert Mugabe as a victim of Western racism and neo-colonialism. The CAF, which purports to represent Arabs (Christian and Muslim both), is now showing itself to be just as phobic.
No one elected their people, and the organizations themselves are tiny. But they do at least purport to represent the nation's Muslims and Arabs. The field is ripe for a well-funded, professional, sober competitor to challenge both groups. Yet none has emerged, so they essentially operate unopposed. How can members of the Muslim and Arab communities permit this to happen?
#2
"...The field is ripe for a well-funded, professional, sober competitor to challenge both groups. Yet none has emerged, so they essentially operate unopposed. How can members of the Muslim and Arab communities permit this to happen?"
1. because a lot of them either condon killing infidels or at least don't care if infidels are killed
2. because a lot of them are sacred s...less to oppose the jihadis amongst them
#4
Because obedience to God is overwhelmingly the most important thing on Earth, and therefore "the worst believer is better than the best unbeliever." Since Mohammadanism does not have a "if you did it to the least of these" it is straightforward to separate the "5 pillars" from how you treat your neighbor.
Posted by: James ||
07/11/2008 14:20 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Maybe Zawahri will find out about their little conference, get pissed off, and have some of his friends show up in Toronto with a swell prize for the participants?
According to the the url above, he's ALSO the second coming of Dubya, Kerry, Gore, Bill Clinton, George HW Bush, Dukakis, Mondale, Reagan, Ford, Nixon, McGovern, Humphrey, Johnson, Goldwater, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Stevenson, Truman and Dewey.
I do think McCain has a chance. McCain is a Blue Dog, no doubt about it. That approach to life is very familiar to me, I'll give you my heart but if you mess with me or my friends you better watch out. And I think he has a chance to win - and not because I'm a Chiefs/Royals fan (though the conditioning helps) but because bo is turning out to be a very unlikable person. To top it off, this community organizer can't take it to the next level and organize the democrat party dnc - no clue or care about his change of venue and how the logistics of such an event work. And he is planning a pandering at NASCAR? What is he going to say - glad you all are having fun but under my policies I'm going to have to shut this down. It will be like President Bush throwing out the first pitch but in reverse and much louder. Running ads in Missouri talking about his Kansas values, why not just go the whole 9 and Atlanta to talk about yankee values. He wants to remobilize the entire USA armed forces post haste through the p-gulf with iran openly threatening to shut the straits? What better target than troop transports loaded with tanks, men, equipment, etc? Gonna clog up the docks in Kuwait then when do the oil tankers get to traverse? A dipshit move. Hey Hitler, be a nice chap and just hold off while we evacuate Dunkirk. We'll give you Egypt...
Even his diehard supporters that I know are not even interested in talking about him though they had plenty to say during the primaries. Maybe the 60's gen already feel vendicated as it is and can now vote for a president who carries the democrat values they grew up with.
And what about McCain's happy ending story? Born into a life most people don't have and served anyways only to survive being shot down (after the Forrestal) and a long stay in Hanoi (I've seen the maison, it did not look comfortable), serve honorably in the Federal Capacity half as long as bo has been alive and has his own idea how to do things, which is why he is so much better than bo when off the script. McCain is the real 'next coming of JFK' with his background, service, and dedication except his is more mature and savvy with greater experience and grasp of history. And if he is elected and nothing happens in the next 4 years then I say great - washington is doing too much already. Maybe the change we are looking for is big government not getting so much bigger (at least as fast).
If people are wanting bo as president so that we may, may, get the next Reagan - well get rubbing on that monkey's paw because as we should be aware once government gets control of something it never reverts back nicely (I know repeal of prohibition but that wasn't exactly nice was it?). My generation is shouldering the harvest of Carter as we speak.
The best case is to put true republicans (I know the current batch of republicans are the new democrats) into congress but it is important to also recognize the role the next POTUS will have in the courts which is where the current agenda makers are battling it out - it is easier and more absolute to get a ruling through the courts than pass a law. I may or may not like whom McCain appoints but I am only sure about a few things with bo and that he will be a machine tool and nominate who he is told to nominate because he is weak and those appointees will be confirmed, especially if the democrats are elected a true majority. And Congress will because they have already demonstrated they don't give a rat's ass about approval ratings and will vote the machine no matter how many e-mails and letters they get. They are doing that already. Gonna have the entire running of the country handled by 7 judges and a figurehead, I would call politburo but bo is not a communist he is a national socialist (don't you just want to love your country more than anything? don't you just want to love me? Here, I'll give you money and make you proud of your country again..sound familiar but a big hug instead of a high five).
I think there is a lot to like by mature democrats in regards to McCain they just won't talk about it; maybe they are too embarassed. McCain is a good politician and will recognize that he needs the GOP's support to get elected especially for the second term and will have to honor that political trade if the republicans keep him honost during that term.
I'm just calling it how I see it, vote your minds and that is the point. How many opportunities do people get to choose their own boss? There is a lot of work to do - but that is life there is always work to do because it is in our culture. I'm not talking about the Tom Cruise pop-bullshit but the real culture of the United States of America. Hard working, big hearts, innovative, artistic - the prodigal son in the history of nations and peoples - and gracious. As bo pointed at that even those lucky few who are able to travel to France (I assume that is what he was referring to, though a good portion of the world speaks French) and have to ask a question in English we are polite enough to say 'thank you' in the local language.
#8
A 'cult of personality' is created when the media casts a leader in a heroic or godlike image, combined with unquestioning praise and flattery for that person. And that is clearly the case here - our media is no better then the tightly controlled Stalinist media in many places, when it comes to Barak Hussein Obama.
Millions of people rally behind this one man. From a string of faintings to the ovation over blowing his nose, there seems to be an unhealthy obsession with this personality. And the clincher, what really puts emphasis on the "personality" part, is the fact that he is popular BECAUSE of his personality.
His words have no substance. His "solutions" are nothing revolutionary. He and Hillary Clinton are cut from the same cloth, both politicians that pander. Visit his website for the details behind his words and they aren;t there - or they change from week to week depending on who has been thrown under the bus or which "pivot" (flip-flop) he is making.
His followers are consistently speechless when asked to name any one significant accomplishment of his.
Obama's charm and charisma are what propel him forward in the field. With a smile and an emtpy Maoist mantra of the words "change," "hope," and "yes we can," Obama hides the fact that he lacks political experience and has few answers and no new solutions. And his numerous devotees take it hook, line, and sinker.
A hallmark of dictatorships throughout history, cults of personality have been used to dupe the public (primarily the youth) into believing they're part of a movement, where they are fed empty slogans which they parrot without question.
See it in motion:
I don't agree with the bit of off-the-edge conspiratorial anti-capitilism towards the end, but the video does pack a punch - one that would hit the Obamessiah's worshipers hardest if they could be bothered to open their eyes and ears to what is truly happening.
#9
Be sure to take note of the Nazi/Stalin/Mao style of making Obama look like Che Guevera.
The fact that they immediately jump to such obfuscating cultic propaganda techniques is alarming, in that they NEED it to cover up the empty suit national-socialist that their candidate is, and they also need to conceal their intended power grab behind such smokescreens.
#10
Media celebrity is a fleeting thing, even when the media embarrass themselves in their unrelenting desperation to maintain it. Obama's charisma will fade by November and he really, really has nothing else to offset his many negatives.
My prediction: Obama will be the Democrat Party's biggest loser since Jefferson Davis.
#11
The downside to being a messiah is that, like standing at the North Pole, every direction is down. He is toast, and will become darker starting the day after the election. A messiah can do no wrong, but risk becoming a common man. Assuming that has already started, AC may be correct, and McCain will inherit his earth. I have already started dressing in black to mourn the loss of the Forrestal America.
Perhaps we should start calling ourselves the Hizb-ul-Muhajireen" (Party of Exiles or Refugees), the Hizb ul-Mujahideen's Rawalpindi-based 'supreme commander', Mohammad Yusuf Shah aka Syed Salahuddin joked to a confidante last month. Shah's playful use of words didn't conceal the bitterness behind his remark: the feared army of Islamist guerrillas he had once commanded has now degenerated into a 'party of exiles', unwanted in both India and Pakistan. ...and then he led everybody in a rousing redition of "Sunrise, Sunset".
Although elections to the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Assembly are still three months away, both the National Conference (NC) and People's Democratic Party (PDP) have held dozens of rallies in preparation for what all the actors know will be an intense contest. Islamist leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani is also campaigning vigorously, calling on his supporters to boycott the elections. High voter turnouts are, nevertheless, expected.
From his headquarters in Pakistan, Shah had shaped the outcome of the last elections in 2002, using his terror squads to attack NC activists and coerce its rural supporters. One hundred political workers, mainly from the NC, were killed during the election process — adding to 61 claimed by terrorists in the election process of 1996, 57 in 1997, and 76 in 2001. Helped by the Hizb-ul-Mujahideen's (HM's) not-so-tacit support, the PDP surged past J&K's traditional party of government in several key constituencies.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
07/11/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
One of the most notable events of the G-8 meeting in Tokyo this week had little to do with economic growth. In a conversation yesterday, U.S. President George Bush and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh discussed a civilian nuclear deal that has been in the works for nearly three years. The pact, known as the 123 Agreement under U.S. law, would allow American firms to invest and trade in civil nuclear technologies with India -- a significant event if it occurs, given that India hasn't signed the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and has not allowed full inspections of its nuclear plants.
With only months left before Congress breaks for the U.S. Presidential elections, the time needed to finalize the deal this year may be running out. In addition to securing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) approvals, U.S. law requires Congress to pass a joint resolution of approval.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: john frum ||
07/11/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
ION INDIA, WAFF.com > "BALKANIZING" OF INDIA: NAXALITE/NAXHALITE REBELLION CAUSING LARGE CRACKS IN DEEP CAVITIES.
Sign of the Apocalypse No.???, or in the altern 2008-2012 [2016?] > SOCIALISM-GOVTISM IN AMERIKA > FORMER "TEXTING"-HAPPY 'NET GOES [Pert/Govt-style]LONG TITLE-ING???
*RENSE/REDDIT > US MILITARY TO PATROL THE INTERNET.
From In from the Cold...
Todays Jerusalem Post reports that Israeli warplanes have been practicing in Iraqi airspace and landing at U.S. bases in that country, preparing for a possible strike against Irans nuclear facilities. The Post account is based on shaky sources: "former" Iraqi military officers in Anbar Province, who spoke with a local news network. Media outlets in Iran have also picked up the claim. The JP says it cannot confirm the veracity of the report, but that didnt keep them from running the story. So much for journalistic discretion.
According to Iraqi sources, "massive" nocturnal activity by Israeli jets has been noted at several "American-held bases," including "measures by the U.S. Army to increase security around the bases." The former Iraqi officers report that IAF jets arrive during the night from Jordanian airspace, enter Iraqi territory, and land on a runway near the city of Haditha. The sources estimate that IAF pilots are rehearsing for a potential raid against Iranian nuclear sites.
By any reasonable standard, the credibility of this report is decidedly low. Given their status as former officers, its likely that the Iraqis are out of the loop, and may have an axe to grind with the U.S. military and their own nations security services. Gossip about Israeli jets in Iraq will cause problems up and down the chain-of-command, so its a convenient way of exacting revenge against U.S. and Iraqi authoritiesthe same folks who ended the officers military careers.
Beyond that, its extremely unlikely that the U.S. would allow Israeli jets to enter Iraqi airspace, or land at one of our bases. The geopolitical consequences are simply too great. Having worked for years to liberate and bring stability to Iraqwhile maintaining critical alliances with the other Gulf Statesthe United States cannot afford to risk it all by allowing the Israeli Air Force to operate from our bases in the region.
Besides, it would be virtually impossible to conceal IAF night ops at Al Asad or any other American airbase in Iraq. Those installations, like their counterparts in the United States, operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Hundreds of airmen are awake and on duty in the middle of the night. Some of them would witness the arrival and departure of Israeli F-15s, F-16s and other aircraft. In fact, a number of Americans, ranging from air traffic control specialists to maintenance personnel, would likely come in contact with the Israelis at our bases in Iraq. And despite the secrecy that would accompany IAF operations, word of that activity would eventually leak out, through U.S., rather than Iraqi channels. So far, we havent found a single American account that verifies the JP report. If the Israelis are operating in Iraq, they arent utilizing U.S. airfields.
Ordinarily, those facts would be enough to completely discredit this account. But like all good rumors, this one is vaguely plausible, if you consider a slightly different scenario. First, not all airfields in Iraq are under U.S. control. There are Saddam-era bases that remain unoccupied, or theyre under the control of other elements within Iraq. Flying through Jordan (one of the most likely transit corridors for any IAF strike against Iran), advance elements could deploy to an empty airfield in western Iraq, or one in the Kurdish region, further north. The Iraqi installationoutside U.S. controlwould serve as a forward operating base (FOB) for the attack on Iran.
Interestingly enough, that subject came up in an exchange between Israeli and U.S. military officers more than two years ago. During a general discussion of the Iranian threatand Tel Avivs potential plans for countering itan Israeli officer volunteered that the "problem" of forward basing for an Iran strike had already been solved. His comment stunned the Americans, who were not aware of any U.S. plans to allow IAF access to our bases. Further comments from the Israelis made it clear that the planned FOB would not be a U.S. installation, and that the airfield would be used for commando and search-and-rescue forces, deployed in support of an Iranian mission.
But that raises the question of how the Israelis would sneak helicopters, transport aircraft and even jet fighters into Iraqwithout our knowledge. While it is true that U.S. AWACS aircraft left Iraq several years ago, we have an extensive network of ground-based surveillance and air traffic control radars that monitor the nations airspace. To get around that obstacle, the Israelis would probably fly, at low altitude, from bases in southern Turkey (where they routinely deploy), to airfields in the Kurdish region.
Readers will note that none of those possibilities are mentioned in the JP article, or the Iraqi media accounts. They depict the United States. as a willing participant in an Israeli for a strike against Iran, providing basing support for IAF jets at some of our key installations in Iraq. But that type of assistance simply isnt in the cardsand the Israelis understand that. While the U.S. will be viewed as complicit in any Israeli strike against Iran, evidence of direct support would only make matters worse. Thats one reason that Israel has pursued other basing options for an Iran mission, understanding that it would be impossible for Washington to say "yes," and fearing that word of any agreement would be leaked to the press.
In fact, the real issue for the United States isnt basing for Israeli jets bound for Iran. Its what we do when those ground-based radars detect an Israeli tanker and fighter formation, heading east across Iraq. Flying through Jordanian and Iraqi airspace offers the most direct route to Iran, reducing flying time and fuel requirements. Will we scramble fighters from Balad when those blips appear on the radar scope? Or will the Israeli jets simply "squawk" the right IFF codes, and proceed with their mission? Thats the type of assistance that the U.S. might be willing to provide for an raid on Iran. But the notion of more direct supportincluding base access in Iraqis simply ludicrous.
ADDENDUM: For what it's worth, both the Pentagon and the Iraqi Defense Ministry have denied the report.
#1
Israel needs to be part of a global alliance against the enemies of democracy. However, NATO is no longer that tool since some of those "democracies" are being actively undermined by the very enemy we need to face.
Pull the plug on the UN and NATO. Their time is over and create a new global alliance with the true democracies of the world.
#2
One day, someone might actually wake up and discover the wonders of territorial status of the United States. And we're not discussing something specific about Israel. The international organizations suck for security which in turn have to lean on the US for real results. Cut the middlemen out, saving time, money, and lives. It would also have remarkable effect on pathetic neighborhood saber rattlers. You retain significant local autonomy but give up foreign affairs and your monetary unit. In return you get as good as security as there is in the world today.
#3
Procopius2k, I have thought that for a long time. Does anyone doubt that the US would defend Puerto Rico? Puerto Rico can do what they want, have their own language and culture, and have the trade and stability that has made them a giant in the carribean.
Other nations could easily do the same thing. I don't think the US would begrudge further territories if they joined voluntarily and if they still had the same process towards becomeing states.
I don't think that we need any more "territories" or "states", especially non-English speaking ones that don't have a similar mindset in regards to basic Constitutional rights (the right to own a gun, search and seizure, etc.)
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/11/2008 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
If you cut out the leftis elements Blondie, I think most of the people in the world feel that way. I think the western hemisphere is a better place to look for friends than europe or africa. But I think I see where you are coming from with the mindset thingy. The oriental mindset is just too different from ours, for example.
#6
I believe territories have to accept the Constitution. They are unable to vote for national elections. Language is only an issue if they are to become a state. People with a drastically different mindset would never consider voting anyway.
If a country votes that they want to dump their leadership and join the US I'm all for it.
#7
Unlike Blondie I believe we have come nowhere near achieving our manifest destiny. Any nation that has incorporated the Bill of Rights into its national constitution should be granted provisional territory status. After five years it should be eligible to apply for statehood.
Language is not an issue for me. I have no idea what language they speak in Puerto Rican government and I could care less. If they want to spend their lives as landscapers, they can speak Spanish. Hell, if they want to send a senator who speaks only Spanish to the Senate, that's OK. The bozo won't be able to accomplish anything, but if it makes them feel good, OK.
Nothing would so quickly return the Federal government to its proper size and purpose as the expansion of the union. Repeal the 16th & 17th Amendments and we'd be back in business.
There would be really no way that we could accept in a large bloc of people who don't speak English without experiencing the kind of lovely situation that the Canadians enjoy with Quebec. No thanks. We would have to recognize their language somehow officially, and that would be a major headache.
Besides, if they want to be Americans that damn badly, there is a way to do that already. It's called immigration.
Yes, it's confusing, irritating and a royal pain in the ass (don't I know it!) The system we have now desperately needs to be reformed. Unfortunately, no one in government is currently willing to get serious and do the necessary work.
But I would rather have people who honestly, truly want to be here and want to contribute than a possibly significant minority who did not want to give up national sovereignty and would resent us taking over.....possibly to the point of rebellion.
Posted by: Swamp Blondie in the Cornfields ||
07/11/2008 19:59 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Ideas matter, not language.
There would be really no way that we could accept in a large bloc of people who don't speak English without experiencing the kind of lovely situation that the Canadians enjoy with Quebec.
That is a cultural issue, not a linguistic one. If we can accept the people in Louisiana and Puerto Rico, we can accept just about anything. They won't all progress at the same rate, but as long as they accept and implement the Bill of Rights, they're on my side. (I also think you underestimate how radical and difficult to accept the Bill of Rights is for most people and their governments.)
I think we should be a big tent country. One of the great tragedies of the Civil War was that the variation in state cultures was legally curtailed.
Immigrants are wonderful, but they're not the only way to gain citizens. We should be open to them all.
I would rather gain land. And we will no longer do so by conquest. So the only other way is voluntary incorporation. Or you want the bad guys to inherit the rest of the earth because all the good guys immigrate here?
#3
I like the big picture geopolitical sweep, but much too infused with PCism.
The notion that stronger powers can gain by conceding to weaker powers is utterly false. It merely strenghtens the weaker power. History shows the only solution to intractable conflicts is complete defeat of one side by the other (in some geographic area).
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.
The following was posted yesterday at 
Perhaps we should start calling ourselves the Hizb-ul-Muhajireen" (Party of Exiles or Refugees), the Hizb ul-Mujahideen's Rawalpindi-based 'supreme commander', Mohammad Yusuf Shah aka Syed Salahuddin joked to a confidante last month. Shah's playful use of words didn't conceal the bitterness behind his remark: the feared army of Islamist guerrillas he had once commanded has now degenerated into a 'party of exiles', unwanted in both India and Pakistan. 
