Hi there, !
Today Sat 03/04/2006 Fri 03/03/2006 Thu 03/02/2006 Wed 03/01/2006 Tue 02/28/2006 Mon 02/27/2006 Sun 02/26/2006 Archives
Rantburg
434786 articles and 1529116 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 76 articles and 478 comments as of 18:40.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    Non-WoT    Opinion            Posting Order
US journo trapped in Afghan prison riot
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 2: WoT Background
19 00:00 2b [540] 
1 00:00 .com [283] 
0 [288] 
17 00:00 2b [560] 
18 00:00 .com [323] 
6 00:00 Frank G [279] 
2 00:00 bgrebel [281] 
1 00:00 gromgoru [263] 
0 [268] 
4 00:00 bgrebel [287] 
7 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [426] 
1 00:00 bgrebel [295] 
6 00:00 Jackal [269] 
0 [265] 
2 00:00 Mike [270] 
3 00:00 DMFD [736] 
1 00:00 john [257] 
58 00:00 Bobby [500] 
9 00:00 wxjames [926] 
1 00:00 Ptah [266] 
7 00:00 2b [267] 
8 00:00 .com [256] 
1 00:00 .com [253] 
4 00:00 Zenster [262] 
1 00:00 Zenster [260] 
1 00:00 2b [264] 
1 00:00 .com [281] 
0 [248] 
3 00:00 .com [271] 
3 00:00 Zenster [278] 
5 00:00 Zenster [317] 
3 00:00 Fred [257] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
3 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [426]
2 00:00 Barbara Skolaut [280]
23 00:00 Zenster [1296]
8 00:00 Eric Jablow [275]
23 00:00 PlanetDan [300]
14 00:00 49 Pan [700]
11 00:00 Visitor [299]
11 00:00 JosephMendiola [288]
13 00:00 Hank [286]
2 00:00 Spoter Unatle4689 [274]
2 00:00 liberalhawk [282]
42 00:00 trailing wife [536]
1 00:00 Seafarious [280]
0 [283]
1 00:00 .com [275]
3 00:00 lotp [260]
0 [263]
9 00:00 6 [266]
5 00:00 Frank G [259]
3 00:00 Xbalanke [272]
Page 3: Non-WoT
8 00:00 3dc [432]
8 00:00 trailing wife [522]
3 00:00 trailing wife [269]
16 00:00 RWV [432]
1 00:00 Visitor [253]
2 00:00 Danking70 [264]
0 [264]
8 00:00 trailing wife [400]
Page 4: Opinion
7 00:00 Photle Graviger5976 [465]
6 00:00 Robert Crawford [270]
3 00:00 Bobby [286]
4 00:00 SR-71 [416]
2 00:00 2b [273]
11 00:00 .com [272]
2 00:00 Grunter [267]
3 00:00 Visitor [347]
0 [266]
7 00:00 .com [295]
4 00:00 .com [276]
0 [266]
2 00:00 Bobby [265]
2 00:00 .com [257]
4 00:00 Bobby [274]
6 00:00 gromgoru [267]
Africa Horn
UN deployment in Darfur uncertain: UN envoy
UN envoy Jan Pronk cast doubt on prospects for a robust UN force in Sudan's troubled Darfur province as he warned of growing anti-UN sentiment in Khartoum fueled by fears of a "conspiracy against the Arab-Islamic world". Pronk, the UN special representative in Sudan, also cautioned that sending a NATO-led force to protect beleaguered civilians in the western Sudanese province would be "a recipe for disaster". He spoke of rising anti-UN feelings in Khartoum as authorities there fiercely oppose plans to replace an ineffective African Union force in Darfur by a mobile, more robust UN contingent.

Pronk told reporters that while Khartoum did not oppose the use of NATO logistical capabilities to support a Darfur operation, it was dead against deploying a NATO-led force on its soil. A NATO-led force "would be a recipe for disaster... People would really start a Jihad (holy war) against it," he said.
"And somebody might get hurt!"
"The (Khartoum) government is taking a very strong position against the transition (to the UN) and that is new," he noted. "There is fear in Khartoum that the transition will be a conspiracy, which will bring Sudan in same situation as Iraq."
Personally, I prefer a climate of fear in Khartoum.
"The climate in Khartoum against the UN is heating up very strongly. There are threats, warnings," Pronk said. "They speak of recolonization, invasion, imperialism, (a) conspiracy against the Arab-Islamic world."
The dhimmis must be getting uppity again.
Pronk said there was "genuine concern" in Sudan about perceived ulterior motives behind a planned Darfur operation although he conceded that this concern could be "manipulated".
I submit that it's outcomes, not motives, that are causing all this concern.
He cited warnings he received from members of the Sudanese government and intelligence reports about threats from the Al-Qaeda terror network that prompted him to make security arrangements for his staff.
His aides (and families and goats) have all moved into the guest houses of the local holy men. For the, um...security arrangements.
Pronk also cautioned that the African Union Peace and Security Council might be reconsidering its January decision in principle to replace the African Union force known as AMIS by a robust UN force as demanded by UN chief Kofi Annan. The 7,000-strong AMIS, which was deployed in 2004, has been suffering from poor funding and inadequate resources to escalate contain the escalating bloodshed in Sudan's western region. "We do not know whether the African Union will reconfirm its decision (at its March 10 meeting). That is not certain any more," Pronk said.

Meanwhile two key members of the African Union, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi, Tuesday also rejected replacing the AU force in Darfur with UN peackeepers. The two leaders "stressed the importance of the African force's presence in Darfur without any outside intervention," the Egyptian ambassador to Libya Mohammad Rafaat al-Tahtawi told reporters after talks in the Libyan town of Misrata.
Posted by: Seafarious || 03/01/2006 01:22 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [287 views] Top|| File under:

#1  They shoot at blue helmets, don't you know.
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/01/2006 10:09 Comments || Top||

#2  But planning is going ahead full steam. Some UN guy told John Bolton, IIRC.
Posted by: Alaska Paul || 03/01/2006 13:54 Comments || Top||

#3  Several months ago ....
Posted by: lotp || 03/01/2006 14:18 Comments || Top||

#4  Khartoum and its dictator just want to be free to kill everyone they want at their own ease...
Posted by: bgrebel || 03/01/2006 14:30 Comments || Top||


Archbishop urges Sudan to return church lands
Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of more than 70 million Anglicans worldwide, urged Sudan to be more tolerant towards religious minorities in the mainly Muslim country and return confiscated church property. On his first visit to Sudan, the Archbishop of Canterbury will travel to both sides of a bitter north-south civil war to encourage progress in implementing a peace deal signed last year to end the bloodshed which claimed some two million lives.

“In the tragic years that have gone by Sudan has been known for conflict and for poverty,” he told reporters at a news conference in Khartoum, where Islamic Sharia Law is in force. “The question is how will the government ... of this country in the years ahead make sure that Sudan is known for creative, democratic, tolerant policies that will work for the good of an entire population,” he added.

Religion and the imposition of Sharia on the mainly Christian and animist south was a major catalyst for the outbreak of the civil war which forced more than four million people to flee their homes. Many of them sought refuge in slum camps around Khartoum, the base of the Islamist government which pursued a policy of Islamisation of the population. Despite the peace deal, Sharia is still in force in the national capital, where Sudanese of many religions live. A commission to protect the rights of non-Muslims in Khartoum, as specified by the peace deal, has yet to be formed more than year after it was signed.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [266 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Yeah, right. See how far ya get, Rowan.

That's a good Dhimmini.
Posted by: Ptah || 03/01/2006 12:48 Comments || Top||


Africa North
Tunisian Reformist Researcher on Discrimination Against Christians in Egypt
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/01/2006 09:07 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [263 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Fatwa in 5..4..3..
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/01/2006 10:07 Comments || Top||


Arabia
Kuwait court upholds jail terms for Iraqi “spies”
KUWAIT CITY - Kuwait’s supreme court on Tuesday upheld 10-year jail terms against three Iraqi nationals, two of whom were sentenced in absentia, for spying for the former regime of Saddam Hussein before the US-led invasion, a legal source said.

In May 2004, the appeals court passed the verdict on the three men -- Zuhair Fakira, Nazem Jawad and Mustafa Khalil -- two months after the lower court acquitted them of the charges. Jawad and Khalil, who worked as intelligence officers at the Iraqi embassy in Bahrain, were handed the terms in absentia. Fakira was accused of passing on information to the former Iraqi regime through the two Bahrain-based intelligence agents.

The appeals court also fined each of them around 18,000 dinars (60,000 dollars) for stealing a car and selling it in Iraq. But it refrained from issuing any sentence on a fourth accomplice -- a Saudi national -- because he only took part in transferring the stolen car to Iraq.

Fakira was arrested in Kuwait in February 2003, one month before US and British forces invaded Iraq from the emirate to topple Saddam Hussein. The two other Iraqis remain at large.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [265 views] Top|| File under:


Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia
Chechnya's Prime Minister Steps Down
The Kremlin-backed prime minister of war-battered Chechnya said Tuesday he was stepping down to give way to the widely feared head of a shadowy security service, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported. The news confirmed perceptions that deputy prime minister and local strongman Ramzan Kadyrov was consolidating power ahead of an expected move into the presidency.

Outgoing prime minister Sergei Abramov and Chechnya's president offered conflicting explanations for Abramov's stepping down, raising questions about a possible power struggle within the Moscow-backed administration of Chechyna, where separatist rebels have fought Russian troops for most of the past dozen years. Chechen President Alu Alkhanov said Tuesday that the prime minister was stepping down for health reasons. But hours later, Abramov said he was stepping down to give way to Kadyrov, the son of a Chechen president who was assassinated after winning a Kremlin-approved election that was widely regarded as fraudulent.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [295 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The elections in Chechyna were so completley fake. The Chechen rebels may be terrorists, but so are the Russians. The difference between the U.S.'s Iraq war and the Russian war in Chechnya is that our goal is to make Iraq a free democracy, while Russia wants to make Chechnya a permenant Russian state.
Posted by: bgrebel || 03/01/2006 14:24 Comments || Top||


China-Japan-Koreas
Cartoon war and unsolved murder
Worth remembering.
Though the violence continues to heat up over the Prophet Muhammad cartoons, it is widely seen in Japan as just a fire on the other side of the river; but it has evoked some bitter memories about The Satanic Verses murder.

Hitoshi Igarashi, Tsukuba University assistant professor of literature and translator of the novel by Salman Rushdie, was found murdered on the morning of July 12, 1991 near his office on the university campus in Ibaraki prefecture, 69 kilometers north of Tokyo. He was stabbed in the abdomen and his neck was slashed. Police found only footprints and stains of type O blood, which they believe belonged to the attacker. He was 44-years-old when he was killed. The case remains unresolved.

The Satanic Verses was first published in 1988. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran's political and spiritual leader of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, ruled that the book was blasphemous against Islam and issued a fatwa, or religious edict, calling for the death of Rushdie and all those involved in the book's publication with knowledge of its content. The Japanese translation was published in 1990.

An Italian translator of the book also suffered injuries in an attack in Milan several days before Igarashi's murder. In 1993, a Norwegian publisher was shot and severely injured in an attack outside of his house in Oslo. In Turkey, 37 people died when their hotel in Sivas was burned down by Muslims protesting against Rushdie's Turkish translator.

Several days after Igarashi's murder, an anti-Tehran Islamic group issued a statement claiming the Iranian government had dispatched an assassination squad to kill him. The Iranian Embassy in Tokyo strongly denied the allegation. To the indignation of the Japanese public, some Muslims in Japan applauded the murder and declared that even if the murder was not committed by a Muslim, God made sure that Igarashi "got what he deserved."

In Japan, the Muhammad cartoon issue has attracted a lot of media and public attention, but not as much as most other countries. That is primarily because the country has a very tiny Muslim population.

Although there is no official data, one unofficial estimate puts the number at about 200,000, of which 50,000 are Japanese that have converted.

Japan's Foreign Ministry was also quick to take a precautionary measure. It has requested that the Japanese media refrain from reprinting the cartoons. The ministry's top spokesman issued a statement on Feb. 6 expressing concern about the "difficult situation" over the publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad in newspapers and magazines published in Denmark and dozens of other countries around the world.

Arab envoys stationed in Tokyo have lauded the Japanese government's response to the cartoon dispute.

To be sure, the Muhammad cartoon wars have not sparked violence in Japan. But for many Japanese, violence and the freedom of speech-blasphemy debate in other parts of the world have served as a vivid reminder of the killing of Igarashi at a time when their memories of the case have been fading.

Coincidentally, in July this year, the statute of limitations on the case will expire. The victim's wife, Masako, is still calling for Japanese people to remember the case to put pressure on the police. She says she hopes that the case will not fade away.

The principal religions in Japan are Shinto, Buddhism and Christianity. Most Japanese are said to be exceptionally tolerant when it comes to religious beliefs. They do not think it strange to be involved in several religions simultaneously. The birth and marriage ceremonies of most Japanese are generally in the Shinto style, while funerals are usually in the Buddhist style.

A survey conducted last summer by the largest Japanese daily Yomiuri Shimbun showed that 75 percent of Japanese do not believe in any particular religion, and a majority, 60 percent, do not think religion is important.

For most Japanese, Islam has become a household name after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in the United States and the U.S.-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Many books about Islam have sold well in recent years. But many Japanese still do not know little more than the typical stereotypes; and that Muslims pray five times a day, refrain from pork and fast during Ramadhan.

Indifference or ignorance sows the seeds of trouble. Just a few years ago, Ajinomoto, the Japanese food-seasoning giant, got burned when it drew the wrath of Muslims in Indonesia, which has the world's largest Muslim population, for allegedly using pig enzymes in its flavor enhancing products.

Some experts point out that Japanese people need to face up squarely to Islam as the nation's population has begun to shrink and the number of foreigners, including Muslims, living in Japan is expected to grow in a way that makes up for a decline in the number of Japanese
Posted by: phil_b || 03/01/2006 17:40 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [288 views] Top|| File under:


Down Under
'Clash of cultures' led to bomb calls
She was raised as a law-abiding Muslim girl in Sydney's multicultural western suburbs.

But a "clash of cultures" has been blamed for an otherwise model citizen making a series of bomb threats to a Sydney shopping centre.
Ferda Uysalsoy, 24, caused the evacuation of a Myer department store and sparked huge police operations on two occasions.

Yesterday, a reason for her costly prank calls was given to a Sydney court.

A forbidden romance with a non-Muslim man - and the strict observance of her religion by her devout Muslim mother - led Uysalsoy to suffer a "psychosocial stress" disorder, it was claimed in Ryde Local Court.

As the teenage daughter of Turkish immigrants, Uysalsoy was a popular high school prefect, house captain and athletics star.

But her unblemished life took an inexplicable turn last October when she made the telephone bomb threats to the Carlingford Court shopping centre, where she worked as a waitress.
On October 17, security staff received a phone call from a female who demanded the centre be evacuated.

A short time later, a woman phoned back and announced: "You were told to clear it, you've got 20 minutes."

Three weeks later, another hoax call was received, with the caller stating: "I don't care any more. This time there will be one (bomb) in the upstairs car park and one in the downstairs car park."

Police identified Uysalsoy from security footage, which showed her making the calls from public phones at a nearby shopping complex and the Carlingford railway station.

When interviewed, she claimed she made the threats to "get out of work".

But during a sentencing hearing yesterday, a deeper cause of her crimes was put forward. Forced to hide her four-year relationship with her non-Muslim boyfriend from her terminally ill mother, Uysalsoy cracked under the pressure.

In a tendered report, psychiatrist Russell White said Uysalsoy's behaviour stemmed from her mother being diagnosed with cancer "coupled with having to conceal from her, her love for her non-Muslim boyfriend".

Solicitor Jonathon Anton described the cause of his client's crimes as an "unfortunate clash of cultures".

Convicting Uysalsoy and placing her on a two-year good behaviour bond, magistrate Joanne Keogh said a message had to be sent to the wider community.
Posted by: Oztralian || 03/01/2006 19:01 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [283 views] Top|| File under:

#1  YJCMTSU, Lol!

Sheesh.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 20:44 Comments || Top||


Muslim protestors target Peter Costello
A SMALL but vocal group of protesters has gathered outside Federal Treasurer Peter Costello's East Melbourne electorate office denouncing his recent comments on multiculturalism. The protesters, who held signs including Muslims are Welcome and Islamophobia is Racism were outnumbered by police 11 to nine.
And this is a news story?
Protest spokesman Jonathon Collerson, of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Judaea Socialist Worker Students Club, said despite the small numbers (of protesters) there was widespread opposition to Mr Costello's comments. "We think widespread in the community there is opposition to what Peter Costello is saying, we think there is opposition to Islamophobia in Australia.
Sounds like Collerson might be brain damaged. Some kind of Socialist Work Accident?
"Essentially, what Peter Costello said was that Muslims who are not prepared to compromise their religious beliefs should be stripped of their citizenship."
Sure. If their religious beliefs included cannibalism they wouldn't be allowed to eat people, either.
Mr Costello's controversial comments came during a speech to the Sydney Institute last Thursday when he said anyone wanting to live under Islamic sharia law should move to a country where they would feel "more at ease". He also referred to a "mushy multiculturalism" in Australia.
That caused the mushy multiculturalists to howl at his violation of political correctitude. All nine of them.
Posted by: Oztralian || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [256 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Welcome and Islamophobia is Racism were outnumbered by police 11 to nine.

From the looks of the photo - nine seems to be a bit of a stretch.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 0:18 Comments || Top||

#2  "Sounds like Collerson might be brain damaged."

Well, he is a member of the Socialist Worker Students Club - is that classic CogDis or what? Lol. I certainly hope Mr Costello needs oxygen to get over the fits of laughter. He's doing Good Work, lol.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 0:29 Comments || Top||

#3  "Being a Socialist Worker is like a full time job, man. All those protests and pickets and meetings to attend. Then there are the workshops. Got one this afternoon on heckling. Can't be a proper Socialist Worker if you don't know how to heckle, can you?

"What's that you said, about having to work in order to meet the strict definition of a Worker? That's bourgeois analytical thinking. Anyone can be a Socialist Worker. You just need commitment to the cause, man.

What do you mean and a loblottery? Is that one of those new ScratchnWin tickets. You think we should give them to new members, then?
Posted by: phil_b || 03/01/2006 1:37 Comments || Top||

#4  Heh. Helpful resources...

The Direct Action Handbook.

And don't miss the magazine:


Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 1:45 Comments || Top||

#5  LOL.
Posted by: Seafarious || 03/01/2006 10:06 Comments || Top||

#6  There is a really great article in there. The personal satisfaction in getting lots of little brown people killed in the name of peace.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 11:46 Comments || Top||

#7  nice herpes outbreak on her lip, PD!
Posted by: Frank G || 03/01/2006 22:13 Comments || Top||

#8  Geez, Frank! After-dinner coffee all over the place, lol!
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 22:17 Comments || Top||


Europe
Parsing the Discussion of Iran at the EU Tribune.
The Glittering Eye blogger has parsed a discussion on Iran and Nukes at the Eu Tribune. Quite interesting.

* Is Iran looking to build a nuke?
o Why?
+ Deterrence
# See North Korea
+ Offensive action
+ Another possible motivation is to gain prestige and influence in the region and within Islam as a whole.
o Dangerous?
+ Terrorists
The instability of the regime is of significant concern in this context.
+ Unreasonable action
# Fear that theocracy acts irrationally
o Is a civilian programme believable?
+ Peak oil
# Iran needs power in the future
This is not a credible explanation: the power that could be generated by utilizing the natural gas vented from its wellheads exceeds the power that could be generated by the nuclear reactor under construction over its lifetime.
# Strategic interest
* control of fuel cycle
This is also not credible: Iran does not have sufficient domestic uranium resources to achieve this objective.
# Would make Russian proposals or external control unpalatable
o Evidence of military intent
+ IAEA
# Casting of uranium
# Blueprints
* allegedly sold by CIA
# Secret facilities
+ Gas centrifuges
* Scale of problem
o Adds one more nuclear power to the region
+ Not very friendly to the west.
+ Widely seen as irrational players
o Would take at least five years, probably rather more
This is an incorrect reading of openly available intelligence. What the intelligence reports suggest is a timeframe of 3 years ± 2 years. That’s a significantly more urgent problem.
* Players
o Iran
+ Clergy
# Has authority over military
# Has issued fatwa against use or ownership of nuclear weapons
# How much of a challenge to the theocratic rule would developing weapons be in the light of that?
# Hard to say how much weight to attach to it.
+ President
# Acts crazy
# May be able to hold act against clerical power if he can hold popular opinion
# Wasn’t first choice of the clergy
# Has had trouble getting appointees through parliament
+ Popular Opinion
# Nukes seen a sign of strength in some quarters
o US
+ Administration
# Want to invade Iran
Is there actual evidence of this?
* Same pattern as in Iraq
o Part of PNAC programme
o Control over oil bearing area
o Good for associated companies
* Hide disaster there
* Help in October elections
Our elections are in November.
# Honestly consider Iran an imminent threat
* No evidence why they would
How about the repeated statements of several different members of the Iranian regime?
+ Cui bono
# Many interests
o EU
+ What are our interests?
Perhaps it bears mentioning here that Britain and France have made statements rejecting the credibility of Iran’s statements about its nuclear development program.

Posted by: 3dc || 03/01/2006 02:09 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [268 views] Top|| File under:


Carlos the Jackal Back in French Court
Either Carlos the Jackal or George Galloway. I'm not sure which.
The convicted terrorist Carlos the Jackal was back in court Tuesday for allegedly saying in a TV interview that victims of terrorism are never innocent. The 56-year-old Venezuelan, whose real name is Ilich Ramirez Sanchez, is charged with defending terrorism, which is against the law in France.
They don't have laws against being grossly stoopid, so they had to go with that...
Prosecutor Laurent Zuchowicz asked that the court fine Ramirez $24,000 for his stance in favor of terrorism in the March 2004 interview carried on the M6 TV station. The French Justice Ministry had pressed the complaint against Ramirez for a portion of the interview in which Ramirez said there were no innocent victims of terrorism. He expressed pleasure that "the Great Satan" was hit in the al-Qaida attacks, allegedly suggesting the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States were deserved.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [269 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Terrorist. In prison. Allowed to give TV interviews.

Brilliant.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 4:47 Comments || Top||

#2  Maybe he should send away for one of those "How to Be Radical Imam" correspondence courses.
Posted by: Unock Greatch1969 || 03/01/2006 9:52 Comments || Top||

#3  They're putting him on national television instead of leaving him in a jail cell for life, facing a maximum fine that he would never have to pay anyway.

Why do I suspect that somebody want to give him a free stage?
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/01/2006 10:07 Comments || Top||

#4  In 1997 he convert to islam in prison. I wonder what is his muslim name? Abdullah al-Jackali? Osama bin Lenin?
Posted by: ed || 03/01/2006 10:07 Comments || Top||

#5  He's also written a book on revolutionnary islam while in prison, claiming it will be the force that will ultimately defeat the West and capitalism.
For thoses who speak french (pity them!), article here.

Oh, and he married his ultraleftist lawyer, who also wrote a book about him. Busy little critter.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/01/2006 10:49 Comments || Top||

#6  No relation.
Posted by: Jackal || 03/01/2006 19:26 Comments || Top||


MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.

We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all.

The recent events, which occurred after the publication of drawings of Muhammed in European newspapers, have revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. This struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats.

Like all totalitarianisms, Islamism is nurtured by fears and frustrations. The hate preachers bet on these feelings in order to form battalions destined to impose a liberticidal and unegalitarian world. But we clearly and firmly state: nothing, not even despair, justifies the choice of obscurantism, totalitarianism and hatred. Islamism is a reactionary ideology which kills equality, freedom and secularism wherever it is present. Its success can only lead to a world of domination: man's domination of woman, the Islamists' domination of all the others. To counter this, we must assure universal rights to oppressed or discriminated people.

We reject « cultural relativism », which consists in accepting that men and women of Muslim culture should be deprived of the right to equality, freedom and secular values in the name of respect for cultures and traditions. We refuse to renounce our critical spirit out of fear of being accused of "Islamophobia", an unfortunate concept which confuses criticism of Islam as a religion with stigmatisation of its believers.

We plead for the universality of freedom of expression, so that a critical spirit may be exercised on all continents, against all abuses and all dogmas.

We appeal to democrats and free spirits of all countries that our century should be one of Enlightenment, not of obscurantism.

12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq

You can add my name to the list. Others are doing the same.
Posted by: tipper || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [926 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Count me in too.
Posted by: SPoD || 03/01/2006 1:50 Comments || Top||

#2  Man, I see the word "manifesto" and my eyes just glaze over. Even when it's something I can get behind.
Posted by: BH || 03/01/2006 9:47 Comments || Top||

#3  I'll get behind this BH when I'll see these people supporting me & mine right to exist.
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/01/2006 10:13 Comments || Top||

#4  Btw, I believe (given the presence of the obnoxious Philippe Val) that this is actually the same anti-totalitarian manifesto published today by the hard-biting french satirical leftist weekly "Charlie Hebdo", which had already republished the old mo' cartoons and a few of its own... so, this would be a french leftist initiative? Dang, my cognition, it's so dissonant...

Note I'm conflicted about this, seeing Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi Ali along with Bernard Henri Lévy (über pompous liberal jewish intellectual poser) or Antoine Sfeir (lebanese christian analyst having a remarkable grasp of the ME politics, but with a strong dhimmi streak) makes me feel all confused...



Posted by: anonymous5089 || 03/01/2006 10:33 Comments || Top||

#5  Another brave person...
VIDEO:
This woman is standing up alone on TV.
I admire her guts!!
Its a MUST SEE video!!

Watch nr 1050:
http://www.memritv.org/Search.asp?ACT=S6#

- Arab-American Psychologist Wafa Sultan: There Is No Clash of Civilizations but a Clash between the Mentality of the Middle Ages and That of the 21st Century



MC
http://ghomepages.googlepages.com/muhammedandcartoons
muhammedandcartoons@gmail.com
Posted by: MC || 03/01/2006 13:34 Comments || Top||

#6  hmph. I comment at my website, but the curious omission of communism as a totalitarian ideology, and the typical lefty mantra of "fears and frustrations" as the purported root cause of Islam's behavior, made me suspicious.

BH's comment is not that far off the mark, since the use of the term "manifesto" is a take off on "manifest": "our position is so obviously logical and manifest that only the perverse could oppose it". One thing then leads to another.
Posted by: Ptah || 03/01/2006 16:07 Comments || Top||

#7  MC - extremely compelling video of Wafa Sultan standing up to clerical fascists on their own turf! She is a shining example, not just for the Arab world, but for the West as well.
Posted by: ryuge || 03/01/2006 17:10 Comments || Top||

#8  12 signatures

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Chahla Chafiq
Caroline Fourest
Bernard-Henri Lévy
Irshad Manji
Mehdi Mozaffari
Maryam Namazie
Taslima Nasreen
Salman Rushdie
Antoine Sfeir
Philippe Val
Ibn Warraq
Mulay Achmed Mohammed el-Raisuli the Magnificent
Posted by: Visitor || 03/01/2006 19:36 Comments || Top||

#9  Yes, world class lefties, add to your manifesto how wrong you were about the right wing, and how sorry you are to have insulted such wisdom as the right posesses. Further kiss our arses with great sucking sounds repeatedly. When we OD on your ass kissing feeding frenzy, we'll allow you to join us in the great War on Terror.
capicce ?
Posted by: wxjames || 03/01/2006 19:52 Comments || Top||


Danes Push Democracy Project in Arab World
A Danish initiative to promote democracy and dialogue in Arab countries will continue in spite of Muslim anger over the Prophet Muhammad (may his jock itch recede peace be upon him) cartoons that first appeared in Denmark, Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen said yesterday.
"Ja, sure! Those sückers obviously need to wörk on their understanding of demöcracy!"
“The government intends to pursue dialogue with Arab countries within the framework of the ‘Arab Initiative’,” Rasmussen told reporters, referring to a program launched by his right-leaning coalition government in 2003 in an attempt to promote democracy and reforms in Arab countries. He added, however, that the dialogue “obviously needs to be seen in the light of what has happened” in a global row over 12 caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad (PTUI peace be upon him).
"Since they've demonstråted that they're nüts. When yøu're talking to a lunatic yøu have to watch whåt yøu say for fear of setting him øff..."
The drawings, considered by many Muslims to be blasphemous, have sparked violent protests and scores of deaths in Muslim countries since they were first published by the Danish daily newspaper Jyllands-Posten last September. Earlier this month, observers said negative Muslim sentiments toward Denmark could bring the Arab Initiative to a halt, but yesterday Rasmussen insisted that “Danish foreign policy remains unchanged, including its policy of international aid.” Denmark has said it will spend about 0.8 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) in 2006 on development aid.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [260 views] Top|| File under:

#1  "Vee vill geeve them one mure chance to zee the error of theeer ways and theen geet Viking all oveer them."
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 11:53 Comments || Top||


Writers slam Islamic 'totalitarianism'
The recent violence surrounding the publication in the West of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammed illustrate the danger of Islamic "totalitarianism," Salman Rushdie and a group of other writers have said in a statement.

Rushdie, French philosopher Bernard Henri-Levy and exiled Bangladeshi writer Taslima Nasreen were among those putting their names to the statement, to be published on Wednesday in the French weekly Charlie Hebdo, one of several French newspapers which reprinted the controversial cartoons.

"After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new global threat: Islamism," they wrote. "We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all." They added that the clashes over the caricatures "revealed the necessity of the struggle for these universal values. The struggle will not be won by arms, but in the ideological field. "It is not a clash of civilisations nor an antagonism of West and East that we are witnessing, but a global struggle that confronts democrats and theocrats."
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [317 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The celebrity of these talented people can help gather support against Islamic totalitarianism from heretofore unlikely circles (intellectual Westophobics). Well done.
Posted by: Jules || 03/01/2006 0:26 Comments || Top||

#2  fatwa in 5.....4.....3......

oops. too late. already is one.
Posted by: PlanetDan || 03/01/2006 9:18 Comments || Top||

#3  good point by Jules

Almost all of these people are far left (one a communist); some moderately left.

No neocons. No pro-Americans.
Posted by: mhw || 03/01/2006 10:16 Comments || Top||

#4  Note that this bunch of losers can't bring themselves to call the third scourge by its right name. They call it "Stalinism" instead. How about Maoism and Brezhnevism etc. were they okay?

No, this is just a bunch of Socialist/communist loving simps that finally caught on that the head choppers don't like THEM either. Rushdie must be pretty thick not to have figured that out before now. They even throw in some of the mandatory leftist buzz words like "egalitarian".

Glad for any help this may bring with the problem. But, while I'd let a mangy, flee ridden hound help drive off the bad guys; I wouldn't want him in the house.
Posted by: AlanC || 03/01/2006 12:19 Comments || Top||

#5  I'm still waiting for Rushdie's latest book:

Fatso - The Story of Buddha
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 21:50 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
Question for pro-UAE port control voters - What about Iranian investments in Dubai?
With Secretary Rice pushing to bring Iran before the Security Council, is the United States also willing to impose sanctions on Dubai? The sanctions against South Africa to end apartheid were effective because the financial interests of white South Africa were brought to their knees.

Before the Bush administration hands over key port operations to Dubai Ports World, someone in the White House ought to vet the considerable ties between Dubai and Iran. If we "follow the money" to punish Iran for non-compliance with IAEA requirements, then the money trail is going to lead straight to Dubai.

The Energy Information Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy reports that "Iran is one of Dubai's major trading partners, accounting for 20 to 30 percent of Dubai's business." The daily newspapers of the United Arab Emirates regularly encourage Iranians to travel and invest in Dubai. The UAE daily Al-Bayan writes:

Iranians can easily travel to Dubai. They can embark on a ship in one of the Iranian port cities and come to Dubai. They will arrive in Dubai within 45 minutes. The Iranian association in Dubai is larger than the associations of other countries. The Iranian association has a football field and traditional restaurants.

There are both public and private Iranian schools in Dubai where Iranian students can continue their studies at different levels. Iranian universities also have branches in Dubai. The Islamic Azad University's Dubai branch accepts students in various fields of study.


An Iranian Business Directory published in Dubai lists 7,073 Iranian companies operating in Dubai, in 31 different business categories ranging from banking and finance to oil and real estate. There is an Iranian Trade Center in Dubai that regularly holds international business shows and an Iranian Business Council operating in Dubai to promote Iranian investment in Dubai.

By the end of 2006, Dubai calculates that some $300 billion will have been moved from Iran to Dubai by over 400,000 Iranians. Hashami Rafsanjani – the former prime minister of Iran who began his career as a pistachio farmer and itinerant preacher in the rural mosques – is now a billionaire. In addition to stashing millions in bank accounts in Switzerland and Luxembourg, Rafsanjani reportedly owns whole vacation resorts on Dubai's world-class beaches.

Iran's ambassador to Dubai and the Sheikh Sultans who rule Dubai hold regular meetings discussing how Iran and Dubai can expand their trade relations, with Dubai holding an open door to the capital flight that has swept Iran since the ultra-conservative administration of President Ahmadinejad has taken over.

If the United States or Israel should get close to a military strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, we should not be surprised to see the wealthy mullahs and their cronies make their escape to their Dubai vacation homes. How possibly can we invite DPW to learn every intimate detail of U.S. port security when Dubai has such close economic ties to the top hierarchy in Iran?

In "Atomic Iran," I specifically chose the scenario that terror sleeper cells in America would seek to obtain an improvised nuclear device manufactured in Iran and shipped into the United States in a container delivered to a New York area port. This is a prediction I pray will never happen, but can the Bush administration assure America that terrorists supported by Iran will not penetrate DPW just to educate themselves on how porous our ports yet remain?

Let's return to the UAE daily Al-Bayan for more documentation of the Iran-Dubai nexus:

Since three years ago, when the purchase of houses was legalized for foreign nationals, Iranian investors have rushed to invest in housing construction. They even rushed to the stock exchange markets and bought major Emirati companies.

According to statistics, some 10 to 30 percent of real estate transactions are conducted by Iranians and even the tallest skyscrapers in the UAE belong to Iranians. Total real estate transactions with Iranians have increased 10 percent in comparison with last year.


So, the question to Secretary Rice is this: Are you going to sanction Iranian investments in Dubai, or not? Iran has nearly $200 million a day in windfall oil profits – a number that will only escalate if the Iranian nuclear crisis causes oil prices to spike even more.

With the average Iranian still living on under $2,000 in annual income, President Ahmadinejad has failed to keep his campaign promise to redistribute Iran's oil wealth to Iran's struggling population. No wonder Iran feels no pain at the prospect of Security Council sanctions. Not only is Iran in the final stages of concluding a $100 billion oil deal with China, there is always Dubai, where the investment climate is favorable and the sun always shines.

---------------------------------------------

How possibly can we invite DPW to learn every intimate detail of U.S. port security when Dubai has such close economic ties to the top hierarchy in Iran?

[Foghorn Leghorn]
Is any of this penetrating that pretty little blue bonnet of yours?
[/Foghorn Leghorn]

Especially when a most likely scenario involving a terrorist nuclear attack on American soil includes the way that
"terror sleeper cells in America would seek to obtain an improvised nuclear device manufactured in Iran and shipped into the United States in a container delivered to a New York area port".

The UAE are not our friends. They are facilitating the Iranian mullahs in outplacement of their corrupt wealth. Do we really need to find out that this Taleban supporting country where 18% of the people admire Osama bin Laden and over half consider themselves "Muslim first" is willing to export an Iranian nuclear to our shores? They will have access to containers being trans-shipped by friendly nations whose point of origin might not set off any alarms.

I repeat, this is a really, really bad idea. Do the supporters of this handoff still maintain that it is not fraught with loopholes and the potential for vital breaches in our nation's security?

Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 12:31 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [560 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Do the supporters of this handoff still maintain that it is not fraught with loopholes and the potential for vital breaches in our nation's security?

Yes, mainly because it has not been demonstrated that there are any.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/01/2006 15:12 Comments || Top||

#2  Howl at the moon, Zenster.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 15:51 Comments || Top||

#3  Repeat after me: the Iranian people are largely pro-American, pro-Western. It's the moolahs that need a bitch slapping.

I suggest reading some of Michael Ledeen's written work, take a valium, and call your physican in the morning.
Posted by: Captain America || 03/01/2006 17:03 Comments || Top||

#4  the Iranian people are largely pro-American, pro-Western.

Oh my. Someone's still living in a bubble.

This "support Bush at all costs" is getting way out of hand. Are you still holding out hope that Bush will strike Iran, .com? Or has that hope dimmed a little?
Posted by: Rafael || 03/01/2006 17:31 Comments || Top||

#5  Lol, Raphael. Take your meds Qanuck - and lay off the local Kool Aid. I'll take Bush's word over yours any day. Y'know, you've got that contrarian thingy down pat, now. Don't change. You 'n VBS are in competition for RB Jester.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 17:37 Comments || Top||

#6  I'll take Bush's word over yours any day.

A true believer, eh Yankee? Good. Don't change.

Y'know, you've got that contrarian thingy down pat, now.
True, if I see something I don't agree with, I usually speak out against it.

So seriously...you still hoping or what?
Posted by: Rafael || 03/01/2006 17:48 Comments || Top||

#7  Seriously?

Lol. Are you really this dense?

Of course - to both questions, yours and mine. Take another gulp, sonny.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 17:57 Comments || Top||

#8  Rafael, excuse my ignorance - I don't have time to read every post. But from previous posts of yours that I have read, I take it that you are not from around here, are ya? If true, why the Bush Derangement Syndrome? Wouldn't you be better off focusing on your own government, where your opinion actually matters?
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 19:17 Comments || Top||

#9  Yes, mainly because it has not been demonstrated that there are any.

So, I take it you don't regard the UAE not being required to keep a complete set of books in the United States to be a loophole that you can drive a Mack truck through? I do.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 19:44 Comments || Top||

#10  It's the moolahs that need a bitch slapping.

I agree totally. I would prefer that the mullahs all be taking the dirt nap as we type. Unfortunately, it is also the mullahs who have all the big bucks, the intention of acquiring nuclear weapons, the desire to attack America with those nuclear weapons and the connections within the UAE to make it happen (if, indeed, it can happen).

Knowing what sort of irrational hatred the mullahs possess for America makes it just a little too close to home and I elect to err on the side of caution. If terrorism has taught us to do one thing, it is to err on the side of caution.

Why do you think you never see me whingeing about the Patriot Act or domestic spying? I'd rather internal enemies be pursued in some manner than to see them go unaddressed. This is the same policy I carry forward with respect to the ports.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 19:55 Comments || Top||

#11  I take it that you are not from around here, are ya? If true, why the Bush Derangement Syndrome? Wouldn't you be better off focusing on your own government, where your opinion actually matters?

Hey, excellent questions. Here are my honest answers: You see, as a Canadian, my well being is tied to your well being, assuming you are an American, of course. This is something most Canadians don't realize (and most Americans don't care about, but that's how it goes). We do not live in a vacuum. Evidence of that is the morning of 9-11, when downtown Toronto emptied rather quickly and business quite literally, stopped.

I do not have Bush Derangement Syndrome. I supported and continue to support Bush on most everything. I still support Bush on the Iraq war, even after all this missing-WMD fiasco, bad intelligence, or whatever. I was ecstatic when Bush got elected over Gore in 2000. I was upset when Bush senior lost to Clinton. And you can trace this support all the way back to Reagan. The reasons for this are documented on Rantburg, going back to well before .com's days here.

There's one thing that I hold way above my support for Bush, however, and that's intellectual honesty. If something doesn't calculate, then I say it outright. Even if it's not popular with the Rantburg crowd.

I'm sorry but this just happens to be one of Bush's brain farts. Not long after he announces that America should strive for independence from middle eastern oil, he does this (the ports deal). Is he expected to be taken seriously?

Even if - ignoring the security aspects - there's nothing wrong with this, what is so wrong with wanting ports/energy companies/whatever to remain in American hands?

What if, after answering Bush's call to develop an alternate energy source, this technology is also bought up by foreigners. Is this okay too? Please. Everything has its limits.

.com and I haven't been able to connect on things right from the start. There's a history there. But so what. I don't like following crowds anyway.
Posted by: Rafael || 03/01/2006 20:57 Comments || Top||

#12  "Following crowds" .... not good, I agree.
Posted by: Visitor || 03/01/2006 21:01 Comments || Top||

#13  What if ... what if ... what if people BUY OUR PRODUCTS?

Huh, what then?

And what if ... what if WE BUY THEIR COMPANIES.

Oh, lordy, what a mess the world would be in.

An', an', an' ... what if ...
Posted by: Moon is Full || 03/01/2006 21:10 Comments || Top||

#14  Yes it is easier to be an ass than to engage in constructive, even if heated, debate.

Glad to see someone else is also thinking about these things: Pace of protectionism quickens

And btw, use your regular name, don't be a coward!
Posted by: Rafael || 03/01/2006 21:38 Comments || Top||

#15  Now, now, now....

I assumed Howl at the Moon was related to

"Howl at the moon, Zenster."

and you did too.
Posted by: Bobby || 03/01/2006 21:46 Comments || Top||

#16  2b, if I recall correctly, Rafael was born in Czechoslovakia (which gave me a thrill -- the trailing daughters still sing "Kola, kola mlinsky" with a Brno accent), then at some point made his way west, after he'd lived there long enough to thoroughly loathe Communism. I do hope I haven't been thrilled in vain. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/01/2006 21:54 Comments || Top||

#17  fair enough. I was wondering, that's all.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 23:50 Comments || Top||


"The Weakest Adminstration on Defense We Have Seen in Many, Many Years"
Howard Dean(!) castigating the GOP for being weak on defense.
"Karl Rove says that the Republicans are going to win on the issue of defense. I submit to you that if the issue is defense, the Republicans will lose because this is the weakest Administration on defense that we've seen in many, many years. What I mean is this. For five years this President has been in the White House. For five years North Korea continues to possess nuclear weapons.
You want to start a war in North Korea? Ask Jimmuah first if it's okay, 'k?
For five years this Administration has been in the White House, Iran moves closer every day to producing nuclear weapons.
Which they started on Bill Clinton's watch -- heck maybe on Reagan's watch. You want us to nuke them?
For four years, Osama Bin Laden has been decomposing on the loose and remains so. And today we see the specter, as reported in the Jerusalem Post- of a company that is about to take over American ports, which actively continues today to boycott Israel.

"The Democrats have a better idea. First we will conclude the negotiations with the Chinese and the North Koreans to disarm North Korea.
Uh-huh. Care to share how?
Secondly, under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.
Which is what Dubya said, but good, we agree on this, and that means we can quote you when Dubya takes action.
Three, we will kill or capture Osama bin Laden ...
Oh, so you're going to invade Waziristan? Capture Lahore? March on Islamabad. I knew you were nuts, Howie, but I didn't think you had those kind of stones ...
... and four, the authority and the control of the ports of the United States must be retained by American companies.
As opposed to British companies.
"We are not simply speaking about the United Arab Emirates -- we are also speaking about the western ports which are controlled by companies controlled by the Chinese government. Foreign governments of any kind ought not to be controlling American ports, especially when the Coast Guard already recommended that they could not guarantee the security of the ports.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeaarrrgh!"
Posted by: Jackal || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [500 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Wait a second here. I thought George W. McChimplerBurton and his shotgun-brandishing sidekick Chainey were unrepentant warmongers. Now you're bashing them for not bringing the hammer down on the North Koreans? Y'all need to get your story straight.
Posted by: SteveS || 03/01/2006 1:04 Comments || Top||

#2  Lawzy that is one dumb as dirt and dee-ranged induhvidual. How the fuck did he ever become a no-shit elected Governor?

I'll assume, for the sake of argument, that he was once sane, possessed some intelligence, and had rational mental processes. So what happened? *slaps forehead* Duh...

This is your brain on BDS.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 1:05 Comments || Top||

#3  This is their party ledearship on BDS PB. I saw Harry Reid on TV today. He was saying teh same pure B.S. just in a different way. The problem is there are people who believe this and the MSM is pushing it.
Posted by: SPoD || 03/01/2006 1:09 Comments || Top||

#4  Umm yeah whatever happened to dean's presidential bid??? ohhh yeah I remember...
Posted by: bgrebel || 03/01/2006 1:39 Comments || Top||

#5  He's got a point about the Israeli boycott. Interesting possibilities for leverage on the UAE.
Posted by: phil_b || 03/01/2006 4:13 Comments || Top||

#6  This is simply the re-emergence of a time-honored Democrat party theme. Last time you saw this was at the Demo convention when Kerry got the nod. The theme is: "WE are NOT a bunch of PUSSIES!"
Posted by: Spoter Unatle4689 || 03/01/2006 8:53 Comments || Top||

#7  "We haven't seen an administration this weak since the Clinton years!"
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/01/2006 9:06 Comments || Top||

#8  And we're going to do all this without killing anyone except maybe Osama. Harsh language will be more than sufficient for our purposes.
Posted by: Matt || 03/01/2006 9:13 Comments || Top||

#9  Say what you want about Dean, but the fact remains that President Bush's poll numbers are in a free fall on job approval and support for the Iraq War. Even Congression Republicans are challenging and criticizing Bush on his recent performance.

The notion that republicans are "stronger on national security" is and continues to be a "myth".
Posted by: Common Sense || 03/01/2006 9:23 Comments || Top||

#10  This is the same old shit. They bitch and cry, but never once have I heard them say what they would do.
What's their plan???? It isn't enough to just say "we think you are a bunch of idiots", you have to have an alternate plan of attack.
Posted by: Unock Greatch1969 || 03/01/2006 9:45 Comments || Top||

#11  Oh, so you're going to invade Waziristan? Capture Lahore? March on Islamabad. I knew you were nuts, Howie, but I didn't think you had those kind of stones ...

"We're not just going to march into Waziristan. We're going to Lahore and Islamabad and Karachi . . . and Kashmir and Kathmandu, . . . and we're going to Bandar Abbas and Qom and Esfahan and Tehran! . . . And we're going to Panmunjom and Sarfwon and Taeondon and Pyongyang. And then we're going to Washington, D.C., to take back the White House! Yeeeeaaaaagggggghhhhh!!!"
Posted by: Mike || 03/01/2006 10:01 Comments || Top||

#12  "The Democrats have a better idea."

Heh!...Some people actually believe that load.
(#9: case in point)
Posted by: DepotGuy || 03/01/2006 10:10 Comments || Top||

#13  CS, the ONLY poll numbers I believe are those coming from actual votes. Is Bush a polarizing President? Yes, but so was Bill Clinton and Clinton NEVER broke the 50% popular vote. I suspect that if a election were held today, Bush would still best Hillary, Kerry, Gore, or Dean with better than 50% of the popular vote and the electoral college. Hell right after the election Zogby had a poll that said “Most Americans feel the nation is heading in the wrong direction.” If that poll were a true reflection of the President’s job approval, President Kerry would be in office. Getting back on topic, I couldn’t think of five people I served with that enjoyed having Clinton as the CINC. He didn’t promote any great project except the don’t ask/don’t tell policy. If there is something I missed please tell me.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/01/2006 10:25 Comments || Top||

#14  The notion that republicans are "stronger on national security" is and continues to be a "myth".

It's a "myth" in that Democrats believe it is mythical, but it in fact true.

I'm 35 years old. There was one day in my life when I could say Democrat politicians stood behind the defense of the United States. Then, on 9/12/2001, they went back to planning how they could screw the country to their advantage.

Vietnam? Hell no. Democrats cut off an ally and caused the murders of millions.

Islamic terrorism? Good lord, no. Carter was faced with a casus belli and he blinked. He and a Democrat Congress had so crippled the US military (out of revenge for not losing Vietnam sooner) he couldn't even pull off a raid.

Cold War? Hell no. Most Democrats were accomodationists, and a high percentage -- many still holding office -- believing the Soviets were the future.

Afghanistan? Hell no. The whole campaign was marked by Democrats declaring defeat on every stubbed toe.

Iraq? No. Do I need to explain this one?

The US in general? Hell no. Democrats routinely spit on this country, its people, and its traditions. Their strategy for my entire life has been to tell Americans how horrible things are, and how other Americans are trying to stab them in the back, to divide the country against itself and to make it clear to the rest of the world that America doesn't even like itself.

In 2004, the Democrats nominated for president a man who falsely accused the US of committing war crimes, who, bluntly, committed treason.

Democrats are the party of people who like the UN more than the US.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/01/2006 10:28 Comments || Top||

#15  Ah, our CS is back again. Hi, CS.

I'm disappointed in the leadership of the party with which I'm still registered, tho. Hey, Mr. Dean - you forgot to mention the ponies you will be giving out.

Can't have a defense platform without promising ponies too ....
Posted by: lotp || 03/01/2006 10:29 Comments || Top||

#16  Getting back on topic, I couldn’t think of five people I served with that enjoyed having Clinton as the CINC. He didn’t promote any great project except the don’t ask/don’t tell policy. If there is something I missed please tell me.

Does "Visa Express" count?
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/01/2006 10:30 Comments || Top||

#17  Continuous Bull Shit TV's latest poll has Bush's approval rating at 34%. what they don't tell you is of the 300 people they polled, 2/3 were Democrats yet they claim this is a fair assesment of the American people's views. Howard has nothing to add to the National debate.
Posted by: Deacon Blues || 03/01/2006 10:48 Comments || Top||

#18  To the fellow with the moniker 'Common Sense': just to add to other comments, a couple of points for you to ponder.

In 1983, a couple of leading academics and politicans, most of them Democrats, wrote a public letter to Pres. Reagan. In that letter they pointed out that the Soviet Union was a fact of life, that we needed to accommodate ourselves to that, and that in some ways the USSR was actually superior to us. It was therefore wrong for Reagan to refer to them as an 'Evil Empire.'

Seven years later the USSR was gone. And the people of Eastern Europe speak of Reagan as a savior.

In 1987 another group of academics and experts, this time within the CIA, issued a report about East Germny -- remember them, the 'Democratic' Republic of Germany (GDR)? In the white paper, they noted that the GDR had the 9th largest economy in the world, a content population and a stable political structure. They too urged Reagan to accommodate himself to this.

Twenty-two months after the report was issued, the GDR was gone. Gone.

Good thing Reagan listened to the experts, eh?

A third point to ponder: throughout the 1960s and 70s, and really well into the 80s, Democrats, liberals and academics stated, repeatedly, that Latin and South America wasn't ever going to be ready for democracy. There were all sorts of cultural, ethnic and economic issues that would prevent democracy from taking root there, and the best we could hope for would be some sort of socialist strongman, some socialist system that would 'redistribute' the wealth in a 'sustainable' way.

Today Latin and South American countries are, with a single exception, democratic and free.

Now the Democrats today are pushing the same, tired baloney in the Middle East and Africa. They aren't ready and won't ever be ready for democracy, for free markets, for personal liberty. Funny, Afghanistan and Iraq are already proving them wrong.

So given the miserable track record of Democrats on simple stuff like freedom, personal liberty and democracy, why should we trust you on defense?
Posted by: Steve White || 03/01/2006 11:15 Comments || Top||

#19  Bravo Steve! A great short history of liberal politics. You left out that many of the Academics saw nothing wrong with South East Asian country embracing Maxists policies. Of course we all can learn from the Combodian/Loas/Vietnam models. I think they had to stop counting after 1 million or so bodies. Also, I don't think any of them will have a good or sustainable economy ikn the near future.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/01/2006 11:25 Comments || Top||

#20  Seems to me that it would be Uncommonly Stupid to equate poll numbers with right or wrong.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 11:31 Comments || Top||

#21  Liberals are uncommonly stupid.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 11:34 Comments || Top||

#22  "In 1983, a couple of leading academics and politicans, most of them Democrats, wrote a public letter to Pres. Reagan. In that letter they pointed out that the Soviet Union was a fact of life, that we needed to accommodate ourselves to that, and that in some ways the USSR was actually superior to us. It was therefore wrong for Reagan to refer to them as an 'Evil Empire.'"

The most important policy in taking the USSR down was the aid to the Afghan rebels, initiated by Jimmy Carter. And the US recognition of China, also initiated by Jimmy Carter. The USSR was also brought down by its own failure, and the need to change to match the rapid growth of Japan(!). Most controversial Reagan policies, like in central america, had little to do with bringing down the USSR. The only one which may well have, was the ballistic missile defense program, and theres controversy among historians about how central a role that played.

Its nice that Eastern Europeans appreciate how Reagans rhetoric gave them hope. For the most part he was right to do so. Of course some Dems were quite talking about standing up to the USSR - Gary Hart for example.


"Seven years later the USSR was gone. And the people of Eastern Europe speak of Reagan as a savior.

In 1987 another group of academics and experts, this time within the CIA, issued a report about East Germny -- remember them, the 'Democratic' Republic of Germany (GDR)? In the white paper, they noted that the GDR had the 9th largest economy in the world, a content population and a stable political structure. They too urged Reagan to accommodate himself to this.

Twenty-two months after the report was issued, the GDR was gone. Gone.

Good thing Reagan listened to the experts, eh?"

Ya know, I seem to recall that it was the RIGHT that was mainly talking about how strong the Soviet military was. And using that as the basis for a huge and expensive military buildup. Turned out the Soviet military was a paper tiger, as much so as the rest of the Soviet state. As strong a patriot as Daniel P Moynihan pointed this out.


"A third point to ponder: throughout the 1960s and 70s, and really well into the 80s, Democrats, liberals and academics stated, repeatedly, that Latin and South America wasn't ever going to be ready for democracy. There were all sorts of cultural, ethnic and economic issues that would prevent democracy from taking root there, and the best we could hope for would be some sort of socialist strongman, some socialist system that would 'redistribute' the wealth in a 'sustainable' way."


Good thing Jimmy Carter didnt beleive them, and pushed for human rights and democracy in Latin America. It seems to me it was conservatives, notably Jeane Kirkpatrick, who said that authoritarianism was the only real alternative for Latin America, at least in the short to medium run.


"Today Latin and South American countries are, with a single exception, democratic and free."

"Now the Democrats today are pushing the same, tired baloney in the Middle East and Africa. They aren't ready and won't ever be ready for democracy, for free markets, for personal liberty. Funny, Afghanistan and Iraq are already proving them wrong."

Actually I see plenty of paleocons saying this, and few prominent Dems. And now even some not so paleocons are sliding over into the "If Iraq goes to hell its the IRaqis damned fault" camp. Hell you can see that here, stated by some of RBs most prolific posters.

"So given the miserable track record of Democrats on simple stuff like freedom, personal liberty and democracy, why should we trust you on defense"

Because skepticism about the spread of democracy is and has been widespread among paleocons, GOP "realists", burkeans like George Will, and "Jacksonians", while SOME democrats, true to their Wilsonian heritage, have been more strongly pro-democratization for a long time (and i include here both iraq war hawks, and a few Iraq war doves)
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/01/2006 11:42 Comments || Top||

#23  It's all ancient history liberalhawk. The bottom line is that today your party is a hollow shell that lives by the polls and elevates idiots like Howard Dean to positions of prominence. As this article illustrates, their only "plan" to win the war on terror is to say that that they could do it better than the Republicans - but they refuse to tell us how.

Today's liberal party is a joke. And not a funny one at that. Other than support of the environment, I can think of no liberal policy that has not resulted in making the problems worse, rather than better, because they demand unachievable, immaculate perfection that prevents people from making difficult leadership decisions to move toward a common good....except perhaps decisons on the environment.

The Democratic party is a corrupt arm of organized crime. Peace Activists are appeasement of ruthless dictator activists.

You're living in the past.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 12:01 Comments || Top||

#24  And Bush has done more to further fuel cell and alternative fuels than Clinton or any other president has ever done.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 12:03 Comments || Top||

#25  appeasers of ruthless dictators.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 12:06 Comments || Top||

#26  Good thing Jimmy Carter didnt beleive them, and pushed for human rights and democracy in Latin America.

You're really going to cite Jimmy "Dances with Dictators" Carter for a human rights record? The man who certified the fraud election in Venezuela? The man who thinks we should pump cash into Hamas?

Jesus, that's desperate.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/01/2006 13:01 Comments || Top||

#27  "It's all ancient history liberalhawk."

You will note it wasnt me who began the discussion of history. I was responding to such a discussion.

I certainly think it was a mistake to give Dean the DNC chair. The DNC chair is elected by the reps of state parties, who believed that Dean could do magic with fundraising, which was more important than anything stupid he said on policy. In fact, IIUC, he hasnt been such a good fundraiser. Those State party reps deserve a good kick in the pants. And the many folks in the Dem party who opposed Dean for party chair deserve an apology.

Fortunately Hillary will kick him out after she becomes POTUS :)
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/01/2006 13:03 Comments || Top||

#28  #26

I was referring to his actual acts in office, not his record since.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/01/2006 13:04 Comments || Top||

#29  The past?

William Buckley. Joe Biden.

Which one is calling for withdrawl from Iraq?
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/01/2006 13:06 Comments || Top||

#30  I wasn't aware that Buckley was an elected politician.

Besides, pointing fingers of blame at the republicans does little to change the fact that liberal policies and liberal politics have failed. I won't cite them ALL, takes too long, but I will note that the rise of Islam and its "tolerance" will be its legacy.

Today's true liberals (not just the appeasing tools raging against the machine) are like that activist who was killed by the grizzly - they want it to be so - and would rather die than acknowledge the fact that it simply is not.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 13:15 Comments || Top||

#31  It is impossible to imagine how the Democrats could further marginalize themselves. Perhaps they could form a caucus with al Qaeda, Hamas and the Iranian mullahs.

Back in WWII, much of the Democrats' behavior would have been seen as nothing short of treason. How they can suppose it is anything less right now is a measure of their collective cognitive dissonance, overall anti-Americanism and general self-loathing.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 13:17 Comments || Top||

#32  Besides, I find it funny that you look to Hillary as your savior. A woman who is nothing but raw ambition, and used every tactic that is a complete invalidation of everything you believe in; private investigators, background investigations, using the IRS to intimidate citizens, firing Billy Dale; promoting lying under oath for the cause of her husband providing postions in exchange for sexual favors (what about the woman who didn't get Monica's job because she didn't peform sex). And remind what her plan is for the war. Is she for it or against it today.

And now you are mocking George Bush's desire to promote democracy. You need a mirror.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 13:23 Comments || Top||

#33  Didn't Nixon go to China when he was still President? A classmate of mine sang in an opera of that name, back when the world was younger.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/01/2006 13:24 Comments || Top||

#34  got this from my niece recently:

A Marine squad was marching north of Basra when they came upon an Iraqi terrorist, badly injured and unconscious.

On the opposite side of the road was an American Marine in a similar but less serious state. The Marine was conscious and alert and as first aid was given to both men, the squad leader asked the injured Marine what had happened.

The Marine reported, "I was heavily armed and moving north along the highway here, and coming south was a heavily armed insurgent. We saw each other and both took cover in the ditches along the road.

I yelled to him that Saddam Hussein is a miserable, lowlife scumbag, and he yelled back that Senator Ted Kennedy is a good-for-nothing, fat, left-wing liberal drunk.

So I said that Osama Bin Laden dresses and acts like a frigid, mean spirited woman!" He retaliated by yelling, "Oh yeah? Well so does Hillary Clinton!"

And there we were, standing in the middle of the road, shaking hands, when a truck hit us.
Posted by: lotp || 03/01/2006 13:31 Comments || Top||

#35  Yes TW Nixon DID go to China. The whole thing was termed "Ping Pong" diplomacy cause we played Ping Pong with them (I think it's their national sport).

The whole point was that ONLY Nixon (aka a conservative anti-communist) could open that door because any Democrat doing it would have been seen (correctly?) as treasonous.
Posted by: AlanC || 03/01/2006 13:33 Comments || Top||

#36  LOL LOTP!
Posted by: Cyber Sarge || 03/01/2006 13:34 Comments || Top||

#37  Of course Nixon went to China. And Carter was utterly surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, something that occurred in December of 1979. The majority of the US-funded/supplied counter-offensive against the them occurred long after Carter was out of office. We did not supply Stingers to the Muj until 1986. So crediting Carter with the fall of the Soviet Union is a complete belly laugh.

You make a lot of good points LH. This is not one of them.
Posted by: remoteman || 03/01/2006 13:51 Comments || Top||

#38  This war would have been over long ago if it weren't for the belief by terrorists that they can wait out George Bush get us to withdraw. Every made for television bombing that costs someone their precious life, for no reason, is due to that fact. If we were united in strength, then the war probably would not have lasted this long. But every day, Howard Dean and the liberal legacy of appeasement give the terrorists hope that we are weak and time is on their side.

The sad thing is they are wrong. Despite the voices from the left, the American people are not weak. We will not settle for Sharia or speech codes. The end result of not uniting behind George Bush and the war is that it will escalate and many will die.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 13:55 Comments || Top||

#39  "I wasn't aware that Buckley was an elected politician."

So what? Most (not all) of the dems calling for withdrawl arent elected politicians either.

"Besides, pointing fingers of blame at the republicans does little to change the fact that liberal policies and liberal politics have failed. I won't cite them ALL, takes too long, but I will note that the rise of Islam and its "tolerance" will be its legacy."

The rise of Islam took place in the 7 and 8 centuries, long before any kind of liberalism existed. What we're saying today is the turmoils of a civ thats anyting but on the rise.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/01/2006 14:00 Comments || Top||

#40  heh... are you talking about your cherished (but failed) 20th century beliefs or Islam?
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 14:03 Comments || Top||

#41  "Of course Nixon went to China. And Carter was utterly surprised when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, something that occurred in December of 1979. The majority of the US-funded/supplied counter-offensive against the them occurred long after Carter was out of office. We did not supply Stingers to the Muj until 1986. So crediting Carter with the fall of the Soviet Union is a complete belly laugh.

You make a lot of good points LH. This is not one of them."


Nixon went to China, but we did not grant them diplo recognition till Carter. That was a deliberate attempt to balance against the USSR.

And yes, more money flowed after Carter left office, cause there were more years after Carter left office. The policy however had been established by Carter, and in particular by Brezinski. Of course the policy continued to have bipartisan support through the '80s.


I am not crediting Carter with the fall of the USSR. Carter deserves SOME credit, as does Reagan. But most of the credit goes to the internal weaknesses of the Soviet economy, at the time that east asia was on the rise.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/01/2006 14:04 Comments || Top||

#42  "And now you are mocking George Bush's desire to promote democracy. You need a mirror."

When exactly did i do that?

I question the desire to promote democracy on the part of some folks who say that whatever happens in Iraq, its the IRaqis fault. Thats not Bushs position, AFAIK.
Posted by: liberalhawk || 03/01/2006 14:06 Comments || Top||

#43  whatever happens in Iraq, its the IRaqis faultand who said that? One poster? Funny, I've not found that to be the prevailing wisdom at rantburg.

And now you are mocking George Bush's desire to promote democracy

It is not fair for me to lump you in with the prevailing wisdom of your party and those who profess to be liberals. You can see that work needs to be done and as such you have supported the effort. I take it back.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 14:13 Comments || Top||

#44  Liberalhawk:

Revising history, are we? Carter did NOT fund the Afghan rebels. He weakly allowed the CIA to "give them some minimal assistance", which was greatly expanded under Ronald Reagan. Carter also did NOT open relations with China - it was Richard Nixon in 1973. Carter was the weakest, most arrogant, most insufferable idiot to ever be president of the United States. He caused more harm to the United States and world politics in four years than any president in US history. A friend of mine was appointed as one of Carter's military aides. He resigned from the Air Force in 1978 after 13 months in the job - he couldn't stand being in the same room with his "boss". Carter was a catastrophe, and we're still trying to recover (I.E., Iran).

Many things caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. The most important one was that the Russian people gave up on communism. Reagan's military buildup put the screws to the Russian equivalent of "guns and butter", and drove them to bankruptcy, but the death spiral had already begun - probably as early as the mid-1970's. Reagan's push kicked the final props out from under the dying regime.
Posted by: Old Patriot || 03/01/2006 14:21 Comments || Top||

#45  "Fortunately Hillary will kick him out after she becomes POTUS :)"

I, for one, appreciate the fact that we are given this heads-up with sufficient frequency to place the mountains of carfeully nuanced verbiage posted in proper perspective.

Thanks, lh. You're the most honest Moonbat I "know", heh. :-)
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 16:05 Comments || Top||

#46  Many things caused the collapse of the Soviet Union. The most important one was that the Russian people gave up on communism.

I would argue that this is not the most important reason. There is still significant support for communism in Russia, mainly due to nostalgia, and the simple truth that most people indeed had it better under communism.

There are two important reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union, besides the obvious pressure from the US: collapse of communist regimes in the soviet satellite states, and Mikhail Gorbachev. It is Gorbachev who started the ball rolling with his perestroika (sp?)which set the mood for the events to come. If it wasn't for Gorbachev, it is very possible that the Soviet Union might still exist today. Anyone else would have sent tanks in to crush the revolts in eastern Europe.

A third, private reason of mine, for the collapse of the Soviets is the realization of some big shots in Moscow that they could have it better if they just let communism collapse. Indeed, there are now 32 billionaires living in Moscow alone. This would not have been possible under communism of course. Sure, ideology can be so romantic, but nothing beats cold, hard, green cash.
Posted by: Rafael || 03/01/2006 16:08 Comments || Top||

#47  It is Gorbachev who started the ball rolling with his perestroika (sp?)which set the mood for the events to come.

Oops. I forgot about Glasnost c. 1985. Perestroika came later. Nonetheless, both were iniated by Gorbachev.
Posted by: Rafael || 03/01/2006 16:16 Comments || Top||

#48  initiated
Posted by: Rafael || 03/01/2006 16:17 Comments || Top||

#49  Just to throw my 2 cents in, the following is taken from a recent political discussion involving my father. Speaking to his sister, he said:

Well, Pete [his brother] and I aren't that conservative. I would say we were pragmatists. I think we both believe that you are your brother's keeper, and that those of us who have been more fortunate owe something back to the world and our fellow man. We just disagree on how to do that-at least with the "liberal" establishment. Having watched the Democratic party shift from ensuring a fair shake for the working class, protection from cartels and collusive business practices, and equal opportunity-not equal outcomes-to a bunch of nut cases screeming and shouting that everyone who disagrees with them is mean spirited and cruel, I am afraid that the only future for the Democrats is sequential self immolation, which they have done a pretty good job of. I don't think this is good for the country and I wish we had an effective opposition party. We don't.

Since Brown vs. Board of Education through the Great Society of LBJ, I have watched forty years of ineffective, socially destructive, socialist policies which have done far more to hurt those they were supposed to help, and little to "get" the villains "responsible" for these inequities. At a minimum, I would say that subsidized housing programs create slums, rent control destroys cities, educational reform has turned public schools-- in my mother's day the finest in the world-- into academic cesspools, equal opportunity advantages some while discriminating against others, and the ones being hurt are not the ones who discriminated against the ancestors of the ones being helped, medicare has dehumanized health care, and the last thing we need is more of the same. I also think there are some things worth going to war over, easy for me to say since I didn't have to--but Pete did. Moreover, having spent my life in the investment field I know that social welfare economies are bad for everyone, and more so for the ones at the bottom than the ones at the top of the economic food chain. High, redistributive tax policies have never worked, anywhere, and if you want to see the practical response of people who lived under a socialist regime, look at the tax policies in Eastern Europe, Russia, and China. None of them have income tax rates over 20%. I am not plumping for that to come true in the US, but I think the Democrats just keep beating on the gong of "the rich paying their fair share", which is fine as a truism, but who defines fair share? This constant demagoguing of one economic class against another is wrong headed, if not a purely cynical political ploy-which I think it largely is.

It is a fact that it costs more to do anything through the government than the private sector, the service is worse, and the alternatives nonexistant. It is a fact that third party payment systems don't work, and inevitably lead to rationing, whether it be housing, education, health care, or whatever. I do beleive that working class and middle class people are taxed too heavily, and the democrats have succeeded in ensnaring the broad middle class with it's attempts at engineering the tax code to punish the wealthy-- which, via the AMT, they are now doing to what used to be their voters. I am pretty laissez faire about matters of personal conduct which do not harm others, and should not be the subject of civil legislation. And I do believe that laws should be enacted by elected officials, not judges, government agencies, and bureacrats.

As to the matters you raised, I can't do much better than Pete did. I have no qualms over the Dubai ports company managing Ports Newark and Elizabeth, as very few harbors are managed by governments anywhere in the world, which is also true of many airports. And I am annoyed-- but not surprised-- at the irresponsible way the press has played this, since the Dubai ports company was thoroughly vetted, and only manages the business end of the ports, not security. It's sad to see the NY Times, which was once a fine-- if dull-- newspaper of record descend into a partisan rag for liberal political interests-- which the major networks have also done. Really, there is no fair and balanced newspaper of record anymore, anywhere in the world. And while you may not like Bush, how can you treat him as a fool? After all, he got better grades at Yale than Kerry did. So, if I were you I wouldn't move to another country-- the US is the worst, except for all the others. So Stay. We'd miss you if you left! Love to all...


I have to say, I think the man wraps it all up quite nicely.
Posted by: eltoroverde || 03/01/2006 16:20 Comments || Top||

#50  Wow, eltoroverde, that rocks!

He gets it - in spades. Thx for the post!
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 16:25 Comments || Top||

#51  Give Dean donkey ears and tail and you have the party of jack asses personified. He-haw...
Posted by: Captain America || 03/01/2006 17:07 Comments || Top||

#52  BRAVO!! I bow to dear ol' Dad.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 19:13 Comments || Top||

#53  The title of this piece reminds me of a used car salesman telling us that they don't make cars like this anymore. This will be a classic.

Push an absurd falsehood as if it was the hidden truth and let the suckers customers in on the secret. And fro an extra 50 dollars, we can make you a patron. Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.
P.S. Bring on Hillary......please.
Posted by: wxjames || 03/01/2006 19:44 Comments || Top||

#54  eltoroverde, how wonderful that you have such a wise and articulate father. And, how lucky he is to have offspring who appreciate him.
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/01/2006 22:04 Comments || Top||

#55  "The title of this piece reminds me of a used car salesman telling us that they don't make cars like this anymore."

..as he points to a '72 Pinto.

Posted by: Thraimble Greque5524 || 03/01/2006 22:08 Comments || Top||

#56  And if you listen to his spiel and buy you'll explode if rear-ended?

I agree. ;-)
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 22:10 Comments || Top||

#57  Are Communist-controlled/domin "Fascists", Nationalists, Rightists, and Conservatives, etc. in Russia STILL FASCISTS? STILL COMMUNISTS? CLINTONISM > BOTH? Rightist-in-Name = Communist-in-Name??? THE MOTHER SHOULD KNOW WHOM THE FATHER OF HER CHILDREN ARE!?
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/01/2006 22:36 Comments || Top||

#58  Spock - "Only Nixon could go to China"

I hadda have my wife explain it to me!

I miss Star Trek, but loved Mancini's "The Pink Panther" Seafarious!

Goodnite.
Posted by: Bobby || 03/01/2006 22:41 Comments || Top||


Home Front: WoT
VOA closing English language transmissions
Posted by: Shomogum Omeque1745 || 03/01/2006 11:45 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [279 views] Top|| File under:

#1  There are lots of people around the world almost in tears at the prospect of losing VOA shortwave. It was the one thing that helped thousands, even millions, keep their strength and sanity during endless years of communist oppression.

It is the death of hope. One less light in the world.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 03/01/2006 15:28 Comments || Top||

#2  What idiot came up with this bright idea?
Posted by: Evil Elvis || 03/01/2006 15:36 Comments || Top||

#3  Good grief, how stupid. Shit, $24 won't even build an on-ramp to Stevens' Bridge To Nowhere.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 15:53 Comments || Top||

#4  $24M
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 15:54 Comments || Top||

#5  I wonder if this is a response to the "oh my gawd the government is using propaganda" brouhaha of the last few years. Or maybe they feel other media are more effective now?
Posted by: lotp || 03/01/2006 16:46 Comments || Top||

#6  how many shortwave radios are still in use? Diverting to satellite TV may make some sense, as should web streaming audio
Posted by: Frank G || 03/01/2006 17:12 Comments || Top||


US Muslims seek Treasury meeting on charities
WASHINGTON - A coalition of US Muslim organizations on Tuesday requested a meeting with Treasury Secretary John Snow to discuss concerns that Muslim charities are targeted in the government’s counter-terrorism efforts. In a letter to Snow, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) said government closures of Islamic charities have hindered American Muslims’ ability to carry out their religious obligation to help the needy.
"Brussel sprouts, Ethel?"
"Brussel sprouts, Fred."
The coalition of 10 organizations referred to action this month against Kindhearts, a Toledo, Ohio-based Islamic nonprofit group, whose assets were blocked pending an investigation. The Treasury Department said Kindhearts had links to the Palestinian group Hamas, which Washington considers a terrorist organization.
Generously providing alms for Paleo bunnies.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks in 2001, the government has designated three major US Muslim charities as suspected sponsors of terrorism and frozen their assets.
It's a start, but I wonder if they're similar to the mythical Hydra ...
Muslim charitable giving has been in the spotlight since authorities discovered al Qaeda and other militants had established abused charities to fund attacks.

In the letter to Snow, AMT said most of KindHearts’ frozen assets were earmarked for earthquake relief in Pakistan and for a new division of terrorists in South Asia. “Although we understand the political climate of our country and support our government’s efforts to thwart terrorist financing; we find it unfair that our government has yet made another extrajudicial decision to effectively wipe-out more than five years of humanitarian assistance to the world’s needy by the mere stroke of a pen,” the letter said.
Then his lips fell off.
Molly Millerwise, a Treasury spokeswoman declined to comment on future engagements for Snow, but denied that Treasury was targeting Muslim charities. “The charge that they’ve made is completely untrue. We’ve worked very closely with the charitable sector and specifically with the Muslim American charitable sector to safeguard charitable giving against terrorist financing,” she said.

“The Treasury has issued voluntary guidelines to strengthen transparency to help ensure money intended for charitable activities does not fall into the hands of terrorists,” Millerwise added.
The problem is that you're being reasonable in an unreasonable world ...
Many Muslim charities and organizations in the United States say they feel like targets of a government “witch hunt” since Sept. 11. Required by their faith to pay “zakat,” or alms for the needy, Muslims say the US government crackdown is intimidating donors.
Good. Give it to the Boy Scouts. The public library. The local senior citizens' council. The Katrina relief fund. Lots o' ways to be charitable in the U.S.
Posted by: Steve White || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [426 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Go ahead - prove you actually care about people and want your donations to do some good, give to the Salvation Army.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 0:51 Comments || Top||

#2  They can give to the United Way and meet their obligations. Otherwise no way Jose, so sad, too bad.
Posted by: SPoD || 03/01/2006 2:04 Comments || Top||

#3  Yep. Lots of worthy charities they can give to. Local food banks, for example.

Unless "zakat" doesn't exactly mean "charity" in the sense we understand it.
Posted by: Robert Crawford || 03/01/2006 9:09 Comments || Top||

#4  I have no doubt that in their minds tt is a charitable act to bring people to Islam, submission
Posted by: Nimble Spemble || 03/01/2006 9:20 Comments || Top||

#5  In their minds its a charitable act to get Muslim youths laid (72 virgins), NS.
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/01/2006 10:11 Comments || Top||

#6  In my mind it's a charitable act to choke off all overseas funding of Islamic charities so the day doesn't come when we finally deport all Muslims for their insistence upon promoting jihad though those agencies. These perfidious morons care not one whit if the money winds up being spent on Semtex or sesame oil. Otherwise, long ago they would have set up charities that were scrupulously supervised for transparancy and traced point of funding destination for all contributions. Do we hear of any such constructs? He|| no, that would be a productive measure and represent a single peep to interrupt the thundering silence of the Muslim world when it comes to abating international terrorism. Full transparency or the spigot is twisted (and welded) shut. Choose.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 11:02 Comments || Top||

#7  #3: "Unless "zakat" doesn't exactly mean "charity" in the sense we understand it."

Ya' think, RC? ;-p
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 03/01/2006 23:30 Comments || Top||


India-Pakistan
How to identify Danish products
The Association of Pakistani Professionals has called on Pakistanis to choose a more "civilised" way of protesting against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad (may his alibi check out)(pbuh). Association President Syed Asif Alam said that one way of a civilised protest was to boycott Danish products. He said that every product in the market contains a code that identifies the country from where it originated. The code for Denmark, he said, is 867-5309 570-579, which should be checked before purchase. The boycott of Danish products in a number of Arab countries has resulted in losses for certain Danish exports.
DanishNot Danish
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [736 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Pay close attention, folks. That green label Tuborg pilsner is simply some of the finest suds a body can pour down their neck. Look for these fine foods and other manufactured goods:

Brands
* Rosenborg - [aged blue cheese]
* Lurpak - [superb Euro-style butter]
* Dofino - [Havarti cheese]
* Denmark's Finest - [Havarti cheese]
* Mediterra - [feta cheese]
[Ful Sang - soft drinks]

Danish Crown (meat)
Emborg
Beautiful Denmark (Butter Cookies)
Famous Dane (Butter Cookies)
Danish Bacon
Thor Fish
Danisco Food

[Plumrose and DAK brand hams]
[Also look for Danish herring & remoulade sauce]

Candy:
Toms (chocolate)
Lagermann - [superb licorice & gummi candies]
Galle & Jessen - [superb licorice]
Ingeborgs Chocolate - [incredible chokkies]
[Toms - bon-bons and other candies]
[Haribo - superb licorice & gummi candies]

Beverages:
Tuborg Beer
Carlsberg Beer
Aalborg Aquavit (snaps)
Danish Distillers (Swedish Company some products produced in Denmark)
[Neptune - Beer & soft drinks]

Medicine:
Novo

Audio Equipment/Home Theater  (Theatre for those across the Pond):
Audio Vector
B&O (Bang & Olufsen) [Some of the world's very finest audio gear]
Cilo
Dali
DynAudio
Eltax
Jamo
Tangent
Vifa

Cigarettes:
Prince (Do not start smoking because of this fire!)

Clothing:
H2O
Hummel
Per Reumert
Munthe plus Simonsen
Bruuns Bazaar
IC Companies
In Wear
Matinique
Noa Noa
Sand

Shoes:
Ecco (USA Site)
Jaco
Dansko

Software:
EarMaster (for musicians)

Toys:
Lego (toys)

Furniture:
Fritz Hansen

Danish Design:
B & G Porcelain - [high quality porcelain]
Georg Jensen - [superb jewelery designs]
HTH- kitchen
Morsoe (Fireplaces)
Lindberg (Glasses)
PH-lamps
Pipes - [Larsen brand]
Raadvad (knives etc.)
Royal Copenhagen - [Finest Danish Porcelain]
Royal Danish Porcelain
Skagen (Watches)
Stelton
Trip Trap
Vesta (Windmills)
[Holmegaard - Superb designer glass]
[Kastrup - Superb designer glass]

Other:
Danish Yarn
Nexo Fireplaces
Nilfisk Vacuum Cleaners (USA site since I do not speak Danish)
Watco Danish Furniture Oil
Leitech (USA Site) Special "thread gage" used in quality control in the following areas of manufacturing; automotive, aerospace, medical, hydraulics, small and large engine manufacture.
Leitech (Danish Site)
Grund Foss ( Pump solution maker)
Dan Foss ( Valve manufacture )
GN ( Hearing aid, headsets and mobil headsets )
X-Yachts
[Wind power turbine generators]

From the Buy Danish site: [my additions in brackets]

http://buydanish.home.comcast.net/products.htm
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 11:26 Comments || Top||

#2  Thanks Zenster, that was helpful.

Someone I know just bought 2 pairs of ECCO shoes and he says they're the best he's ever had--look great, and able to stand up to the demands of trial work. Expensive, but worth it.

OTHER LINKS:

( Danish, Swedish, Norwegian Gifts/Products)

lundtrading

small treasures

ingebretsens

genuines candinavia

solvang gifts

scandinavian south

hemslojd

swedens finest

anderson butik

Posted by: ex-lib || 03/01/2006 14:45 Comments || Top||

#3  Ex-lib - second that on Ecco shoes. They are expensive but comfortable.
Posted by: DMFD || 03/01/2006 22:38 Comments || Top||


‘India’s success marred by social inequality’
The post-1991 dismantling of India’s nationally regulated economy has been accompanied by a rapid growth of social inequality and economic insecurity, according to an analysis published by the World Socialist Website (WSWS).
Right. We expect unbiased and objective analysis from the World Socialist Website.
Keith Jones
... of SF.Indymedia fame...
writes that in “democratic India”, hundreds of millions of people must struggle to survive on less than a $1 per day.
They had to do the same thing under India's nationally regulated economy, too. The only difference is that then there were more of them eking out a living and the Gandhi-Nehru dynasty was living large.
Education and healthcare for all intents and purposes have been privatized, with only the “poorest of the poor using the dilapidated public education and health systems”, he wrote.
It's only by coincidence that we could stop sending CARE packages to the starving children in India about the time the managed economy was dumped.
He said that a more important objective of Bush’s trip is to harness India – through increased military, civilian nuclear, and geopolitical collaboration – to Washington’s drive for global supremacy.
India, of course, gets nothing out of the deal...
In short, the US wants to transform a “rising India” into an economic, military and geopolitical counterweight to China.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [257 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Former Singapore PM Lee Kwan Yew had an interesting comment on the fabian socialist programs in India.

He said that he admired the intent, but he recognized that to share a cake, one first has to bake it, something Indian politicians did not. They were busy redistributing poverty.

So now, there is a large middle class but that is bad because there are poor people, as if these people were not there before.



Posted by: john || 03/01/2006 15:55 Comments || Top||


Bush tours South Asia
President George Bush left on Tuesday for India and Pakistan, a trip designed to cement two crucial US alliances and possibly hammer out a landmark agreement to share civilian nuclear technology with India. Bush kicks off his five-day visit to the region in India, where he will be greeted by business and government officials eager to boost trade and military ties - and by crowds of protesters, 1000 of whom gathered on Tuesday in Bombay, waving signs that read "Devil Bush Go Back."
Where does Bush go that the dirtbags don't coming crawling out from under their rocks?
The trip also comes amid political turmoil for Bush in Washington. He has been roundly criticized for his response to Hurricane Katrina and for a surge in bloodshed in Iraq. Most recently, members of the president's own Republican Party have revolted over a decision to allow a Dubai-based company to manage six major US ports.
That little tempest appears to be blowing itself out within the teapot...
This week's visit allows Bush to show India and Pakistan that the United States values relations with each, despite complaints about closer ties in all three countries. Pakistan is a key US ally, but many in Washington want to see Islamabad make stronger efforts to dismantle terrorist training camps.
Islamabad is an ally of convenience. They were necessary to get to Afghanistan, but once Iran falls they won't be needed anymore.
Bush has indicated he wants to make sure Pakistan elections scheduled for next year are free and fair.
Right. That'll be a first.
Critics say General Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistan president, who seized power in a bloodless coup in 1999, has refused to allow true democracy.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [257 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Debka is reporting Bush stoped in Afghanistan.

Bush: We shall not let Iran have the means, the knowledge to make nuclear weapon. This would destabilize the world

March 1, 2006, 2:32 PM (GMT+02:00)

US President George W. Bush spoke on this issue with unprecedented clarity when he made an unannounced first visit to Afghanistan Wed. March 1.

Tight security surrounded his five-hour visit to Kabul and the US base at Bagram, and his talks with President Hamid Karzai. Bush was also due to open the new US Embassy before flying off to India and Pakistan.

Tuesday, US Lt.-Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, told the US Senate in Washington that insurgents represent a greater threat to Afghan government authority across the country today than at any point since the Taliban government's overthrow in Oct. 2001. He predicted an upsurge of Taliban operations in the spring after a fourfold increase of suicide attacks in 2005 compared with 2004.
Posted by: 3dc || 03/01/2006 9:07 Comments || Top||

#2  stopped.
Posted by: 3dc || 03/01/2006 9:08 Comments || Top||

#3  We new tht.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 11:35 Comments || Top||


International-UN-NGOs
AIPU calls for UN resolution on vilification of religions
The Arab Inter-Parliamentary Union (AIPU) ended its 12th biannual conference on Tuesday with a joint statement calling on the United Nations to issue a resolution prohibiting the vilification of all religions.
What's that word I'm looking for... Oh, yes. "No."
During the past two days, Arab delegates have been discussing ways to lobby the international community on this issue. “Vilifying religions has become one of the plagues hitting the modern world, exactly like terrorism,” Deputy Mamdouh Abbadi (Amman Third District) told delegates at the conference.
No, it's not exactly like terrorism. Any corpses that result from a cartoon are self-inflicted.
Abbadi said the UN must take a firm stand against this practice, “which is being committed under the pretext of freedom of expression.”
It's not a pretext. It's an exercise.
He called on the Arab parliamentarians to lobby the International Parliamentary Union to support the move. Kuwaiti Parliament Speaker Jasem Khurafi said on Monday that he hoped the international community would respond positively to the Arab initiative.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [262 views] Top|| File under:

#1  LOL. I call for a chicken in every pot. And ponies, yay!
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 1:31 Comments || Top||

#2  I just issued this statment. FOAD. Pull the plug out on teh UN it's dead. Next call undertaker's because it's starting to smell.
Posted by: SPoD || 03/01/2006 1:54 Comments || Top||

#3  Then we'll need one against mockery of religions, too. 'Cause that's one funny religion ya got there, bubela.
Posted by: mojo || 03/01/2006 10:54 Comments || Top||

#4  Would some beneficent soul please photoshop Kofi Annan into that cartoon of a praying Muslim getting humped by a dog. Thanking you in advance ...
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 13:07 Comments || Top||


Iraq
US denies German agents provided copy of Iraq's war plans
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [270 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The lame attempts to "rehabilitate" the reputations of Germany and France, regards Iraq and the WoT, are at least as funny as they are pathetic.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 0:59 Comments || Top||

#2  "It wasn't the Germans, not at all . . . it was the French! Ooops. I wasn't supposed to say that, was I?"
Posted by: Mike || 03/01/2006 10:16 Comments || Top||


Sammy Sircus Continues
Saddam Hussein returned to court yesterday but his trial was quickly thrown into fresh disarray by his top defense lawyers who walked out after their pleas for an adjournment and the removal of the judge were rejected. Chief defense attorney Khalil Al-Dulaimi and his deputy Khamis Al-Obeidi staged another walkout after their attempts to win an adjournment and the expulsion of the Chief Judge Raouf Abdel-Rahman on grounds of bias were turned down. Their latest protest came minutes after they lifted a boycott and returned to the chamber. After three hours of proceedings the trial was adjourned until today.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [264 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I can't stand the suspense of not knowing if he is guilty or not.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 0:41 Comments || Top||


Talabani Criticizes Jaafari’s Turkey Visit
Iraq’s President Jalal Talabani yesterday criticized interim Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari for making a solo visit to Turkey without consulting other members of the government. Talabani, who is a Kurd from the north, presides over Iraq’s fractious political system, which includes a Parliament riven by religious and ethnic divisions. “The Iraqi government is not committed to any agreement which may be reached between the prime minister and the Turkish government,” Talabani said in a statement. Talabani said he deeply regretted Jaafari’s unilateral decision to make the trip without consultation. “We express our deep regret with this decision which does not meet with Jaafari’s assurance that he will commit to group work,” Talabani said a strongly worded statement.

In Ankara, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan called on world leaders to help defuse sectarian violence in Iraq, saying the crisis there could spread beyond Iraq. Erdogan, speaking in Parliament hours before a meeting with Jaafari, also called on Iraqi leaders to avoid provocations and work together to form a broad-based government that would avoid the supremacy of one group over others. “We want all international actors ... to help the people of Iraq and the government of Iraq,” Erdogan said.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [281 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Jafaari's a total partisan and pluperfect nitwit.

And Talabani's often a wet noodle, though this certainly indicates he has some spine, at least.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 1:34 Comments || Top||


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
UN warns of collapse in Palestinian areas
The UN on Tuesday became the latest international agency to caution that Israel and the West stand to unleash a crisis in Palestinian territories by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and tax transfers. The flow of money has been jeopardised by the Islamic Hamas group's landslide victory in January 25 Palestinian elections. The group has killed hundreds of Israelis in suicide bombings, and has refused since its election victory to abandon its calls for Israel's destruction.

In a report released Tuesday, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs cautioned that non-payment of the tax and customs transfers would bring the Palestinian government to the brink of collapse by limiting its ability to provide basic services such as health, education, utilities, sanitation and policing. The transfers pay a large proportion of the salaries the Palestinian Authority pays to the 150,000 people on its payroll, the agency said, citing figures that are slightly higher than official numbers. Failure to pay salaries would strip an estimated 25 per cent of the total Palestinian population of their livelihood, because the salaries support extended families, the report said.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [267 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Tough shit. You makes your choices and you takes your chances.

Bad choices should bring pain. This is when people learn - when they are in pain. As a rule, at no other time does the human actually learn anything.

The UN and EU should fuck the fuck off. Let the Paleos feel the pain and learn. If they cry out and call for another election, lol, then we'll talk. Otherwise, fuck no. Let 'em learn.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 1:20 Comments || Top||

#2  Palestinian cause has been a money maker for UN since 1949. Not as lucrative as Oil for Food---but far, far more reliable.
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/01/2006 10:18 Comments || Top||

#3  Works for me. I have never seen a more deserving bunch of a$$holes.
Posted by: SR-71 || 03/01/2006 10:21 Comments || Top||

#4  Cheese, you say that like it's a bad thing...
Posted by: mojo || 03/01/2006 10:48 Comments || Top||

#5  ...to caution that Israel and the West stand to unleash a crisis in Palestinian territories by withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in aid and tax transfers.

The crisis is a government that supports terrorism, not the refusal to spend my tax dollars to support such a government.
Posted by: DoDo || 03/01/2006 11:24 Comments || Top||

#6  Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of turds. Enjoy your terrorist government, @ssholes. Prepare to become the largest collective bunch of cannon fodder ever assembled. Never has a more vicious bunch of unproductive bullies been of less use to this world. Suck hind t!t and like it, you wankers!
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 11:34 Comments || Top||

#7  well said, .com. If they want a new election fine. They've made their bed, let them sleep in it.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 12:11 Comments || Top||


UNRWA's donors to continue aid under Hamas-led gov't — official
UNRWA Commissioner General Karen AbuZayd on Tuesday said the humanitarian agency was not worried about the possibility of donor countries cutting off aid after a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority government takes over office. “We are not scared. Donor countries have not in any way said they will stop their aid to UNRWA. On the contrary, we were approached by many of these countries, even Israel, asking us to continue our services to Palestinian refugees and perhaps even extend these services to do things we haven't done before,” AbuZayd told a press conference yesterday.

There has been growing concern over a possible suspension of international aid to the Palestinians following Hamas' victory in the Jan. 25 general elections. Hamas, which has already control of the Palestinian parliament and named its leader Ismail Haniyeh as prime minister-designate, is considered by the US and the European Union as a terrorist organisation. Both the EU and the US have ruled out assistance to a Hamas-led government, which will succeed the interim government under Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

But the EU backed down agreed on Monday to grant 120 million euros ($143 million) in urgent aid to the Palestinians, in a move widely seen as aiming to prevent the possible financial collapse of the Palestinian Authority (PA).
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [253 views] Top|| File under:

#1  If true, then it's truly stupid.

The other day there was a lie, er, a story which said the US wasn't pulling its aid - that was a Saab Erakat lie, nothing more. A simple-minded tactic he (and his pals) thought would put pressure on Washington. It was refuted the next day, but many missed that fact - or ignore it in deference to their BDS.

If UNRWA bails out the Paleos we should pull the plug on the UN across the board so they can't shift funds around to advance their agenda with our money. Were it left up to the US House, we'd be there. Again, the problem is that bunch of pud-pullers called the US Senate. Someday, someday soon, the US will finally pull the plug on this disaster. It won't come a moment too soon.

My preferred solution to many problems the US faces, beginning with flushing the US Senate, would get me sink-trapped, lol.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 1:28 Comments || Top||


Lavrov to Meet With Hamas Leaders in Moscow on Friday
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said yesterday he would personally meet Hamas leaders when they visit Moscow on Friday — a higher level reception for the Palestinian group than many observers expected. “Talks with the Hamas delegation will take place in Moscow, and I will receive them,” he was quoted by Russian news agencies as telling reporters in Budapest of talks set for Friday.

Despite Washington’s nervous reaction to the Hamas visit, successful mediation in the Middle East could boost the international prestige of President Vladimir Putin, who made the surprise invitation earlier this month. Lavrov has said Russia at the talks will tell Hamas that it must commit to seeking peace with Israel to win international acceptance — the joint position of the quartet of Middle East mediators, which also includes the United Nations, the European Union and Washington.

Israel yesterday softened criticism of the visit, which it had previously likened to “stabbing Israel in the back,” with acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert saying he believed Putin was a friend of Israel. Hamas won a surprise victory in Palestinian elections on Jan. 25. Olmert met top officials to review policy toward Russia. Russia’s move challenged Israel’s US-backed efforts to isolate Hamas unless it recognizes the Jewish state, but Olmert toned down Israel’s earlier criticism of Moscow over the talks. He said in a statement after his policy review discussions that Israel’s ties with Russia “are important and ways must be found to improve them and tighten the understanding.” Putin was a friend of Israel and would not act against Israel’s interests, Olmert added in a statement.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [271 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Perfect pic. Molotov & Uncle Joe. A real pair of charmers, they were.
Posted by: PBMcL || 03/01/2006 0:55 Comments || Top||

#2  Putin was a friend of Israel and would not act against Israel’s interests
and then he burst out laughing.

As an aside, for some reason this graphic and article gave me a sudden feeling that this war is about to escalate in a very big way. Don't know why.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 1:04 Comments || Top||

#3  Prolly so. The BS mask of there being a difference between the the "Paleo Auth" and the terrorists who live to die killing Jooos has gone *poof* - so the next attack of substance and most every move they make is now, finally, viewed as an action of the "Paleo State".

If it's an act of war, then war it should be.

I firmly believe that there will never be a solution (i.e. peace) in this amazingly tiny little shitfest until one side is utterly and completely wiped out. Everything short of this is treading water.

The "election" of Hamas could be the first step toward finally popping this zit on the tip of the tail of the dog - which has wagged the Arabs and the First World for almost 60 yrs.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 1:12 Comments || Top||


EU grant boosts Palestinian funds
The European Union has agreed to grant $143 million in urgent aid for the Palestinian Authority before a government led by Hamas - which the Europeans consider a terrorist outfit - takes office. However, the EU kept silent on what it would do once the militant organisation assumes power.
My guess is that they'll continue shelling out. That way the puppies and kittens and baby ducks can be fed, and the Paleos can use all the money they get from Iran and Soddy Arabia to buy explosives...
Announcing the grant, Philippe Douste-Blazy, the French foreign minister, said the aid funds were required to avoid "economic chaos".
... which would complement all the other types of chaos they've got...
The European Commission has urged donor countries, which suspended Palestinian aid after Hamas's election victory last month, to follow suit.
"Yes! You should shuck your spines, too! Evil is a relative thing, y'know."
Earlier, James Wolfensohn , international envoy, warned that the Palestinian Authority faced financial collapse within two weeks because Israel has stopped reimbursing millions of dollars in customs duties. He said a financial crisis could lead to violence and chaos and urged the main international powers to develop an urgent strategy to address the Palestinian administration's plight.
Doesn't everything lead to violence and chaos there?
Wolfensohn, a former president of the World Bank, and appointed special envoy for Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip, made the charge in a letter to the so-called quartet, of the European Union, Russia, the United Nations and the United States.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [278 views] Top|| File under:

#1  And in the meantime the victims of arabo-islamist imperialism in Sudan are starving. Stop help to Palestine NOW
Posted by: JFM || 03/01/2006 9:46 Comments || Top||

#2  And I'll have eternal war with Amalek.
Posted by: gromgoru || 03/01/2006 10:24 Comments || Top||

#3  The EU richly deserves every iota of "violence and chaos" whose effective manufacture and importation from abroad they finance. Idjits.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 12:06 Comments || Top||


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
'Iran must not have a nuclear weapon'
US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that if Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

On a surprise visit to Afghanistan, Bush said Iran should be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program, but that the "world is hiding behind speaking with one voice" in opposing Iranian development of a nuclear weapon.

"Iran must not have a nuclear weapon," Bush said during a news conference in the Afghan capital of Kabul. "The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and the world is for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."

In Moscow, the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator said Wednesday that there was no need for Tehran to resume a moratorium on uranium enrichment activity, Russian news agencies reported.

"A moratorium is necessary when there is something dangerous. But all our activities are as transparent as our duplicity ," Ali Larijani said after arriving in Moscow for talks, according to the Interfax news agency.

Maintaining his poker face Larijani also said that Tehran agrees to all inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency if they are conducted in line with international law, the RIA-Novosti news agency reported.

Meanwhile, Russia's top diplomat reiterated Moscow's call for Iran to return to a moratorium on enriching uranium as a condition for taking part in a joint enrichment facility on Russian territory.

"I do believe that a compromise that would not allow any violations of the nonproliferation agreement is possible," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in Budapest, where President Vladimir Putin is on a state visit. "What is necessary is for Iran to come back to the moratorium, to accept the joint venture proposal as a package that would be supported by the members of the governors' board of the IAEA. I'm not saying that this is already decided."
Posted by: ryuge || 03/01/2006 11:44 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [540 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Lying Fucking Bush.

Rafael and Zen are right. Bush is an appeaser, a liar, a wimp who won't lift a finger to stop the MM's from acquiring Muzzy Viagra. He'll prolly secretly cheer when they vaporize a few square miles of tiny Israel. Might even help 'em. Fucking Jooos.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 20:29 Comments || Top||

#2  "The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and the world is for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."

If Bush knows this and understands that Iran has consistently sought to illegally acquire, clandestinely operate and belligerently utilize nuclear weapons, how can he justify leaving even the most rudimentary tools to facilitate such aspirations in Iranian hands?

Iran must be made to back down from their belicose stance and sponsorship of international terrorism. Anything less makes their continuing possession of even the most basic nuclear technology a mortal danger to America, Israel and many other countries.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 20:42 Comments || Top||

#3  Soon Zenster, it will happen soon.
Posted by: Visitor || 03/01/2006 20:44 Comments || Top||

#4  ummm ... just to clarify for anyone who's just stumbled into the 'Burg, .com's comments were written with heavy sarcasm.
Posted by: lotp || 03/01/2006 20:50 Comments || Top||

#5  :-)

I'm really a big, um, uh, er, (shit!), ah, a pussycat. Yeah, that's the ticket, lol.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 20:55 Comments || Top||

#6  I'm really a big, um, uh, er, (shit!), ah, a pussycat. Yeah, that's the ticket, lol.

Well, that sure is one he|| of a hairball you've hacked up on the carpet.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 20:59 Comments || Top||

#7  December booms on certain Iranian nuke sites, with Moolah regime change to follow thereafter.

Bush is play "the world" just as he did pre-Iraq. But "the world" is on the clock.
Posted by: Captain America || 03/01/2006 21:38 Comments || Top||

#8  Go to fucking hell .com! And I say it with a smile :-)

But just to be clear...I doubt Bush will do anything about Iran acquiring a nuke. This is Israel's problem, and Israel will solve it.
Posted by: Rafael || 03/01/2006 21:47 Comments || Top||

#9  Lol. Wotta fuckwit, Raphael! And I say it laughing out loud!
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 21:51 Comments || Top||

#10  As for the hairball, lol, for someone who's dropped as many turds on the Burg's living room carpet as you have, Zenster, that's purdy rich.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 21:54 Comments || Top||

#11  "Pussycat" is not the word the first word that comes to mind, .com. But you always put on your most charming manners when you come in for tea. It's good for a man to be multilingual in that way. ;-)
Posted by: trailing wife || 03/01/2006 22:11 Comments || Top||

#12  *blush*
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 22:16 Comments || Top||

#13  No pussycat is definitely not the word.
Posted by: Rafael || 03/01/2006 22:16 Comments || Top||

#14  C'mon Raphael, don't be shy...
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 22:18 Comments || Top||

#15  I am not convinced the Mullahs or MadMoud truly care about ISRAEL per se - the LT "Big Picture" is IRAN-CENTRIC, RADICAL ISLAM DOMINATED, REGIONAL [LATER GLOBAL?] FAITH-BASED TOTALITARIAN NUCLEARIZED EMPIRE WHICH ONLY THE HYPERPOWER+ USA AND ALLIED WESTERN DEMOCRACIES CAN PRECLUDE. The WOT > about what Nation(s) and -Ism(s) get to CONTROL THE WORLD, AND BY EXTENS FUTURE OWG - the USA keeps getting bigger vv enemies whom want what the USA-Allies have but are unwilling to reform or power-share", i.e. "liberalize" even for their own benefit/advantage. NO MATTER HOW MANY MILFOR CASUALTIES THE USA SUFFERS OVERSEAS, IRAN = NORKIES, ETAL. ARE JUST BLOODY, PC SIDESHOWS FOR THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA AND WASHINGTON. And remember, the Left's own scheme for the Battle for America INCLUDES ANTI-US "BRINKMANSHIP", "AMER HIROSHIMA(S), and MUTUALLY DESTRUCTIVE GLOBAL NUKE WAR BY OR SHORTLY AFTER 2020. AMERICA'S ENEMIES EITHER GET THEIR WAY, OR THEY'LL TAKE THE WHOLE WORLD WITH THEM TO HELL - you know, why the Left is no threat to America or anything; and why Left-beloved MULTIPOLAR/MULTIPLE CENTRES OF POWER = OWG = ONE SYSTEM FOR EVERYONE = AMERICA CANNOT BE GOVERNED/RULED BY AMERICANS, BY AND FOR AMERICANS = WHY RUSSIA-CHINA/COMMIE ASIA MUST DOMINATE AMERICA + WEST + THE WORLD!? Its NOT Socialism or Communism, its ANTI-FASCISM???
Posted by: JosephMendiola || 03/01/2006 22:24 Comments || Top||

#16  I suspect Bush is going to wait till after the November US election. If Bush were to act against Iran now, the Dems would go crazy (OK, crazier).

At least that's what I hope he has planned. Or hope he has a plan.
Posted by: DMFD || 03/01/2006 22:27 Comments || Top||

#17  I'm beginning to think that Joe secretly writes for Newsmax.
Posted by: RWV || 03/01/2006 22:40 Comments || Top||

#18  How about that we agree Rantburg must have nuclear weapons. Joe being a prime example of a quality nuke.
Posted by: 3dc || 03/01/2006 23:35 Comments || Top||

#19  I doubt Bush will do anything about Iran acquiring a nuke

good thing that you support Bush so well Rif Raf.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 23:56 Comments || Top||


'Iran must not have a nuclear weapon'
US President George W. Bush said Wednesday that if Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

On a surprise visit to Afghanistan, Bush said Iran should be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program, but that the "world is hiding behind speaking with one voice" in opposing Iranian development of a nuclear weapon.

"Iran must not have a nuclear weapon," Bush said during a news conference in the Afghan capital of Kabul. "The most destabilizing thing that can happen in this region and the world is for Iran to develop a nuclear weapon."

In Moscow, the chief Iranian nuclear negotiator said Wednesday that there was no need for Tehran to resume a moratorium on uranium enrichment activity, Russian news agencies reported.

"A moratorium is necessary when there is something dangerous. But all our activities are as transparent as our duplicity ," Ali Larijani said after arriving in Moscow for talks, according to the Interfax news agency.

Maintaining his poker face Larijani also said that Tehran agrees to all inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency if they are conducted in line with international law, the RIA-Novosti news agency reported.

Meanwhile, Russia's top diplomat reiterated Moscow's call for Iran to return to a moratorium on enriching uranium as a condition for taking part in a joint enrichment facility on Russian territory.

"I do believe that a compromise that would not allow any violations of the nonproliferation agreement is possible," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters in Budapest, where President Vladimir Putin is on a state visit. "What is necessary is for Iran to come back to the moratorium, to accept the joint venture proposal as a package that would be supported by the members of the governors' board of the IAEA. I'm not saying that this is already decided."
Posted by: ryuge || 03/01/2006 11:44 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [323 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The most amazing aspect of this whole war is that the Russians do not see the monster that they are creating will undoubtably turn on them and a vicious war against them.

Same mistake they made with Hitler. Must be some flaw in their society that they don't grasp the downside of feeding a lion and attempting to keep it as pet.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 12:17 Comments || Top||

#2  and wage a vicious war

darn, too much caffeine. Need to go burn it off.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 12:18 Comments || Top||

#3  They should watch this movie and learn.

link
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 12:21 Comments || Top||

#4  try this instead


Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 12:25 Comments || Top||

#5  Bush said Iran should be allowed to have a civilian nuclear program

And this is where Bush is totally off of the rails in appeasing Iran.

Until Iran stops funding international terrorism, withdraws its threats to "wipe Israel off of the map" and renounces its intentions to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, they should not be allowed to have even enough isotopes to power a hospital x-ray machine.

No nuclear power, no experimental equipment, no yellow cake, no uranium mines or purification facilities. NOTHING.

Iran is the biggest threat to world peace since Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany. Why should they be appeased in any way shape or form? Bush is dead nuts wrong. I'd love to hear any arguements otherwise. Everyone here knows d@mn well that Iran will use whatever nuclear facilities it is allowed to retain for the purpose of building nuclear weapons. Their track record conclusively shows this and their rhetoric back this up. Any takers?
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 12:58 Comments || Top||

#6  The biggest threat to world peace at the moment is the USA. Everyone knows it but you.
Posted by: Chans Omeating5673 || 03/01/2006 13:49 Comments || Top||

#7  "all I'm saying is ....
give head-in-the-sand a chance "
Posted by: lotp || 03/01/2006 14:17 Comments || Top||

#8  lopt - lol!

Zenster, your point would carry more weight if your whole world view wasn't based on blaming Bush. The fact that he's not God, and like any other war time president doesn't always peform immaculately, doesn't mean that he isn' doing a good job.
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 14:24 Comments || Top||

#9  2b - Zenster makes a lot of good points, but he hates GWB because he is a Christian. Just take that into account when he posts. Most people have blind spots of one type or another.
Posted by: SR-71 || 03/01/2006 15:59 Comments || Top||

#10  Iran is a signee of the NPT. They are, indeed, entitled, due to this, to be "given" the info for peaceful nuke power technology. Fact.

Zenster knows this - or should if he's going to pretend to be informed enough to preach his screeds, he's just letting his inner BDS child run wild and practicing his demogoguery skills.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 16:01 Comments || Top||

#11  Lol!
Posted by: 2b || 03/01/2006 19:22 Comments || Top||

#12  Zenster, your point would carry more weight if your whole world view wasn't based on blaming Bush.

And what exactly do I blame Bush for? Please be more specific.

Zenster makes a lot of good points, but he hates GWB because he is a Christian.

How refreshing that, at least, you are more specific. Even if you are completely wrong. Please find a cite for this blatantly false statement or retract it immediately.

Iran is a signee of the NPT. They are, indeed, entitled, due to this, to be "given" the info for peaceful nuke power technology. Fact.

Fact, Iran has already stated its intent to violate the NPT (Muslim countries to be given nuclear technology, etc.) and thereby has forfeited its entitlement to possess nuclear technology. Threatening to wipe Israel off of the map sort of zooms them to the top of the denial list as well, or do you disagree? Finally, a consistent track record of obscuration, deceit, illegal acquisition and flat out lies makes Iran slightly less than worthy of possessing nuclear technology.

Finally, for some reason, many of you seem unable to comprehend my concern over how badly Bush has eroded the separation of church and state in America. His recent flirtation with Intelligent Design should serve as adequate example if not the Office of Faith Based Giving.

Do any of you recall me saying that "the best man won" the 2004 election? No? Go back and look in the archives, it's there. While I'll concede that some execution of foreign policy has been ham-fisted at best, I still remain staunchly behind most of how the global war on terror is being addressed.

For obvious reasons, I feel that Bush's religiosity has marred his perspective on things like the cartoon crisis and the responsibility Islam bears in cleaning its own house. I also think that this administration has so blatantly ignored not just conflict-of-interest, but also even the appearance of conflict of interest as to be ridiculous. It is irresponsible in the extreme for the executive branch to ignore public perception in this respect.

Question. Do any of you see me calling for Bush's resignation or impeachment? No you do not, because I do not feel there are any valid grounds for doing so.

As to me hating Bush because he is a Christian, this is pure horesh!t. Either find where I have said so and cite it or withdraw such a totally false allegation. I defend freedom of religion every bit as much as any other fundamental right and have said so repeatedly. Yes, I have strong issues with fundamentalism because I feel it is the root of most terrorism and represents an inappropriately hidebound attitude with respect to religious practice. That is my opinion and it will not be easily changed.

Nowhere do I expect Bush to be perfect. But he has also demonstrated a willful blindness towards his willing erosion of the separation of church and state which I view as largely treasonous. Personally, I think many of you seek some central point of disagreement so that you are not obliged to consider or think through my own points of view. So be it, it is a free country and thank goodness we can agree to disagree. Just don't look for a lot of respect out of me if you chose to disregard my positions because you elect to believe your own suppositions with respect to my stance.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 19:34 Comments || Top||

#13  One of the hallmarks of demogoguery is to reframe the "debate", move it onto safer ground. Bonus points for recasting it in a moral or emotional light - much more gray area to maneuver. But Super-Duper bonus points if you can manage to exchange the incovenient terms for convenient ones. This you have done. You're a pro. You're an asshole for doing it, but plaudits for your BS skills.

You've attempted to:

1) substitute the nuke weapons programs for peaceful nuke technology

2) cast this as Bush appeasement - which is demonstrably false... no, make that total BDS Bullshit

3) recast the argument by appealing to emotion and moral outrage.

You have graduated to the New Aris.

"And this is where Bush is totally off of the rails in appeasing Iran."

This is what prompted the BDS response. He is not appeasing anyone - and you're a BDS-addled asshole.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 19:52 Comments || Top||

#14  You've attempted to:

1) substitute the nuke weapons programs for peaceful nuke technology


Let's get this straight. You do not think that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons?

If you do think so, how can you approve any concessions of nuclear technology to Iran in light of that? Iran's bellicose rhetoric alone disqualifies it from possession of nuclear technology.

If you don't think so, you're your own worst enemy, but that's more of a your-own-problem thingy.

2) cast this as Bush appeasement

I firmly believe that Bush is intelligent enough to know that Iran flat-out seeks nuclear weapons. Given this, the only appropriate stance is one that denies Iran all access to nuclear technology. Eff knows they've disqualified themselves on so many other levels that it is ridiculous. To permit Iran any retention of nuclear technology is to facilitate their continued clandestine pursuit of acquiring nuclear weapons. What part of this is unclear?

no, make that total BDS Bullshit

So, how do you reconcile your accusations of BDS with the complete absence upon my part of any calls for Bush to resign, be impeached or face charges for war crimes? Aren't those the hallmarks of such behavior? Or are you willing to just tar away with total disregard? I do not tar Bush with a broad brush, unlike so many of his detractors. I have very specific issues that I'm willing to address without all the hysteria and outright irrationality that liberals exhibit.

3) recast the argument by appealing to emotion and moral outrage.

What part of seeking simple self-preservation and antagonism to Islamist atrocities qualifies as "appealing to emotion and moral outrage"?

You have graduated to the New Aris.

I'm confident that Aris and I disagree on enough topics where he might resent that. As for myself, I can only say that you've reduced yourself to name-calling which is something I generally eschew hereabouts.

.com, you're working overtime to offend someone who actually agrees with a lot of what you say, even some of the more extreme atitudes that draw flack around here. No, you do not ask for any support from me. No, I don't seek to be your cheerleader. I just happen to think that identifying common ground is one hell of a lot more productive pursuit than the baseless vilification that's going on here.

Personally, I feel that I have been more than clear about my positions to the point where accusations of sophistry are nothing short of hilarious.

Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 20:30 Comments || Top||

#15  More disinformation. I know the MM's are after nuke weapons. Duh. Your post, despite the wowser length, is still the same manuevering I pointed out.

Please, RBers - tell us what you think. Am I wrong that Zen trotted out his BDS here and has played the demogogue?

If they say so, then I'll leave the 'Burg.


Raphael's voice doesn't count, lol. He's got the same sort of truthy problem you do, Zen.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 20:35 Comments || Top||

#16  I'll put it this way, .com. I'd rather that you continue to (wrongly) think I blindly hate Bush, than for you to leave Rantburg. Your input has been of extreme value to me in overcoming horsesh!t spewed by the mainstream media. Likewise, your tracing of exactly how radical Muslims come from moderate Muslims is pure gold.

These are not compliments, they are facts. Your leaving Rantburg will only help our mutual enemies and hurt what Rantburg has to offer our friends.
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 20:48 Comments || Top||

#17  Boys! Boys!

Can't we all just be friends?

We all have two ears, but only one mouth.

Does that suggest anything?
Posted by: Bobby || 03/01/2006 21:59 Comments || Top||

#18  Lol, Bobby!

No.
Posted by: .com || 03/01/2006 22:02 Comments || Top||


Iran: No Need to Stop Uranium Enrichment
The chief Iranian nuclear negotiator said Wednesday there was no need for Tehran to resume a moratorium on uranium enrichment activity, setting the stage for tough negotiations with a Russian delegation at a central Moscow hotel.

The two sides met at the Golden Ring Hotel in Moscow for a third round of talks and to exchange cash filled luggage on a Kremlin proposal to enrich uranium for
Iran on Russian territory.

Moscow's offer to host Iran's uranium enrichment program has been backed by the United States and the European Union as a way to provide more assurances that Tehran's atomic program could not be diverted to build weapons. Iran insists its nuclear program is only to generate power, but many in the West fear Iran is aiming to develop atomic bombs.
Posted by: ed || 03/01/2006 09:12 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [281 views] Top|| File under:

#1  (After one of my favorite bumper stickers.)

KEEP ENRICHING, I'M RELOADING
Posted by: Zenster || 03/01/2006 11:37 Comments || Top||

#2  That pretty much sums it up Zenster.
Posted by: bgrebel || 03/01/2006 14:28 Comments || Top||


Lebanese Factions Launch Dialogue Amid Dim Hopes
Lebanon’s political factions yesterday launched the most high-profile talks since the end of the civil war, but hopes are slim that they can find a way out of the country’s worst political crisis in the last 15 years. The talks are expected to tackle contentious issues that have threatened to paralyze the government and block much-needed reforms for the past year, including the fate of pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud and that of Hezbollah guerrillas’ arms.

Both issues have come to the fore since last year’s killing of ex-Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, which led to Syrian forces leaving Lebanon after three decades and an anti-Syrian coalition sweeping to victory in general elections. Most Lebanese leaders — Christian and Muslim, pro- and anti-Syrian — are to attend seven to 10 days of talks, the most high-profile meeting since the end of 1975-1990 civil war. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri says “national dialogue” was the only way out of the deadlock, but diplomats and analysts say wide differences among the parties may hamper its success. “The talks can succeed only when each party realizes that it cannot settle the situation to its favor without offering compromises,” one Arab diplomat told Reuters. “Until now it does not seem that they have come to this conclusion.”

The left-wing daily As-Safir was more negative. “The question we should be asking is: What will be the likely scenario after the dialogue’s failure?” asked Joseph Samaha, the newspaper’s editor. “Seven or eight days of talks could end by reaching a calm or a truce, but saying it will offer cures to Lebanon’s problems is an illusion.”

The anti-Syrian coalition raised the stakes this month when it launched a campaign to remove Lahoud who, backed by Syria, has vowed to stay in office till his terms ends in 2007. Analysts say a key reason for pessimism over the talks is that Lebanon has become a front in the ongoing dispute between Western powers on the one hand and Syria and Iran on the other. The United States and France co-sponsored a 2004 UN Security Council resolution which demanded the disarmament of militias, including Hezbollah which is backed by Syria and Iran. Syria still wields strong influence in Lebanon. Washington also accuses Syria and Iran of interfering in Iraq and backing Palestinian militants against Israel.
Posted by: Fred || 03/01/2006 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [248 views] Top|| File under:



Who's in the News
76[untagged]

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog
Hair Through the Ages










On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
Pappy
lotp
Scooter McGruder
john frum
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark
Alaska Paul

Two weeks of WOT
Wed 2006-03-01
  US journo trapped in Afghan prison riot
Tue 2006-02-28
  Yemen Executes American Missionaries’ Murderer
Mon 2006-02-27
  Saudi forces clash with suspected militants
Sun 2006-02-26
  Jihad Jack Guilty
Sat 2006-02-25
  11 killed, nine churches torched in Nigeria
Fri 2006-02-24
  Saudi forces thwart attack on oil facility
Thu 2006-02-23
  Yemen Charges Five Saudis With Plotting Attacks
Wed 2006-02-22
  Shi'ite shrine destroyed in Samarra
Tue 2006-02-21
  10 killed in religious clashes in Nigeria
Mon 2006-02-20
  Uttar Pradesh minister issues bounty for beheading cartoonists
Sun 2006-02-19
  Muslims Attack U.S. Embassy in Indonesia
Sat 2006-02-18
  Nigeria hard boyz threaten total war
Fri 2006-02-17
  Pak cleric rushdies cartoonist
Thu 2006-02-16
  Outbreaks along Tumen River between Nork guards and armed N Korean groups
Wed 2006-02-15
  Yemen offers reward for Al Qaeda jailbreakers

Better than the average link...



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.
3.233.221.149
Paypal:
WoT Operations (20)    Non-WoT (8)    Opinion (16)    (0)    (0)