| Author |
Message |
    
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10470
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 3:22 pm: | 
|
I hope that they are held accountable because they did, and continue to do, the right thing.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 271
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 3:52 pm: |
|
When you consider how Republicans have consistently weakened the country by focusing on pork-barrel weapons systems instead of genuine security needs, it's not surprising that people are concerned.
The country can only afford Republican fantasies for so long. Now that there are real threats to worry about, the country needs a President with a better grasp of reality. |
Diversity Man
Citizen
Username: Deadwhitemale
Post Number: 515
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 6:25 pm: |
|
Thiose pork barrel weapons systems give great video shots of the targets they obliterate.
And as for a Democrat's fantasy: Monica Lewinsky.
Gentlemen, choose your weapons.
DWM
|
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 272
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 6:55 pm: |
|
Like the stealth bomber that can't fly in the rain, for example, or ballistic missile "defense" that can never be tested (and that the attacker can defeat for pennies on the dollar).
The U.S. can no longer afford this kind of foolishness. |
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1909
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 6:57 pm: |
|
I somehow don't think that Montagnard was including precision-guided weapons and M-1 tanks with his list of pork-barrel weapons systems.
Actually, I think the only questionable weapons system is the Star Wars missile defense system. The problem with that deployment is that it represents billions that could perhaps be better spent elsewhere. More seriously, Star Wars raises the possibility that other countries will chose to increase the numbers of their missiles to defeat any defenses. Assuming, for example, that we don't intend Star Wars to counter any China missile threat, it is still the case that China must plan for and respond to the capabilities of any missile defense systems that we deploy. |
sbenois
Citizen
Username: Sbenois
Post Number: 10471
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:04 pm: |
|
Or the other weapons that have managed to reduce the number of our own casualties by roughly 8 million percent since we fought the last conventional war.
Monty, this kind of "foolishness" has saved countless American lives.
---> Brought to you by Sbenois Engineering LLC <-
Hey, it also wouldn’t look good coming out of a motel with your wife’s best friend saying you were just planning a surprise birthday party for her husband...- Arturo November '03
|
tjohn
Citizen
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 1910
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:06 pm: |
|
Dearest Sbenois,
I have already indicated in earlier posts regarding Iraq that, having grabbed a wolf by its ears, we cannot now let it go. I certainly hope the Democrats do not field a candidate who proposes to do anything like that. What I find worrisome is that, even if we chose to tough it out, we might still end up withdrawing without having achieved our mission. As I noted in an earlier post, Israel had far more pressing security reasons for being in Lebanon than we have for being in Iraq. Nevertheless, Israeli eventually tired of the steady attrition and pulled out of Lebanon. In any event, Israel did prevent Lebanon from becoming a country run by Palestinians and being used as a base for operations against Israel. |
Duncan
Citizen
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 1185
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:09 pm: |
|
Please get that concept deeply imbedded in your brain, if you have one.
Cliff.. can you find some other way to refute someones argument without resorting to the CONSTANT insults.
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take"
Wayne Gretzky
|
Brett
Citizen
Username: Bmalibashksa
Post Number: 444
Registered: 7-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 7:10 pm: |
|
Mont,
I have worked with these systems directly in the past. The US Navy has systems that can defeat any other countries systems hands down (with the exception of 1 missile that is still stoppable but complicated).
All of the systems you say don’t work, provide valuable research for other systems.
|
Dave Ross
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 5747
Registered: 4-1998
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 9:34 pm: |
|
Cliff's very existence on this board hinges on not inflicting one more personal attack. |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 273
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 10:00 pm: |
|
Tactical defense of ships and aircraft is very different from anti-ballistic missile defense. These weapons are known to be effective against certain attacks, so they allow the naval force to operate in areas where such attacks may take place.
This is very different from "strategic" anti-ballistic missile systems, which are inherently untestable, and can be foiled by any number of simple countermeasures. Their main purpose has always been to provide corporate welfare to defense contractors.
Now, of course, the nation needs this money for actual defense. It's time to stop the handouts and put the money towards things that are really needed. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 1551
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 10:46 pm: |
|
Can we find a way to make campaign contributors rich by inspecting container ships and air freight, please? |
Nohero
Citizen
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 2474
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, November 23, 2003 - 11:25 pm: |
|
Oh, Dave, don't threaten the existence of Cliff, the one real fan Sbenois still has in this crazy world.
 |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 86
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 8:14 am: |
|
We noted here last week that Iran has chosen quietly to
accept the newly installed ruling Council in Iraq as the
government there. This, we see, as an enormous first step
toward quieter circumstances in the months ahead. That is
one change for the better.
But perhaps an even greater
change is that awaiting Yassir Arafat, for he is losing support
amongst the younger members of Fatah and the PLO, and it
is but a matter of time until this mass murderer and organiser of terrorism in the Middle East is forced from his
positions of authority and is replaced by younger men.
When he falls, he will fall hard and he will fall far... and when
he does it will very probably be because it shall finally be
proven that he has enriched himself and his family using
Fatah/PLO funds.
One by one we read of the younger Fatah members making
statements about Arafat that only a year or less ago would
not have been tolerated. One Fatah official last week said
that Arafat was the leader of the Palestinian revolution "for
more than thirty years, but he is a fighter, and this is no
good when you are trying to build a state." An even more
fascinating comment was made last week by another local
Fatah leader in the West Bank (a young man of only 41
years, who has been in Fatah for 26 of those years and who
served time in prison for his Fatah activities) who has been
amazed at the anti-democratic nature of Fatah's leadership.
He said that there was greater democracy within the prisoner
population in the West Bank. He called the Old Guard under
Arafat , who came to the West Bank and to Gaza from years
in exile in Tunis (many of whom were not Palestinians at all,
but rather were Egyptians, or Syrians, or Algerians) to be
utterly
lack[ing] in accountability and transparency. in
prison, if a leader made a mistake, we dismissed
him. The guys who came from outside Palestine---
they had an Arab concept of democracy. it is not
real democracy.
Once again, we see the Mohammed Dahlen's name rising to
the top, and we've see a new name, Qadura Faris, more and
more in the coverage of the West Bank and Gaza. Both are
in the early 40's; both will be forces to reckon with and with
the Israeli government to negotiate with for years into the future.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 88
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, November 24, 2003 - 9:40 am: |
|
We are changing," said Parviz Esmaeli, editor in chief of Tehran Times, which is controlled by the nation's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
"There is a spectrum of conservatives, among them many high-ranking officials, who realize they must have access to high technology and domestic and foreign investment," Esmaeli said. "The traditional clerics from the revolution are now at the age of retirement. There's a change of generations to a moderate center. In the next elections, you will see convergence of young moderate reformers and conservatives."
The end of extremism
Esmaeli and other hard-liners say that if they regain control of parliament they will focus on bread-and-butter issues, such as trying to reduce unemployment, which is officially 16 percent but widely believed to be about 21 percent. Many voters blame joblessness on the attempts by Khatami to reduce subsidies and privatize the huge number of unprofitable state-owned factories.
"The people are tired of extremisms, both from the fundamentalists and the reformists, and they just want problems solved," said one government official. "Everybody realizes that Iran has fallen behind economically, technologically and in many other fields."
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 111
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, November 26, 2003 - 1:34 pm: |
|
The more
we read obscure newspapers the more interesting becomes
the US' situation in Iraq, for one after another of the Middle
Eastern and/or Arab nations is signing on to the fact that the
Iraq Governing Council is the legitimate government in Iraq.
When reading many of the western newspapers or when
listening to much of the western television and/or radio
coverage from the area one is left with the notion that the
IGC is considered illegitimate and that it is doomed to failure.
As noted here last week, the government in Tehran has
chosen to accept the IGC's legitimacy. We considered that
as an enormous leap forward, but it has had little if any
coverage in the western media. Now we learn that Oman (the
nation that sits astride the northern and eastern portion of
the Saudi peninsula, governed by the Sultan of Oman, His
Majesty Qaboos bin Said) has chosen to recognise the IGC.
In a statement from the Sultan's Foreign Ministry,
"Oman recognises the Iraq Governing Council,
believe it represents the majority of the Iraqi people
and calls for the establishment of an Iraqi
constitutional organisation to end the occupation as
soon as possible and allow the Iraqi people to
administer their own country."
Oman's relations with Iraq under Saddam Hussein were
always strained. Now they are being normalised, and that is
yet another step in the right direction that would not have
happened had the US and the UK chosen to avoid the much need regime change there.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 495
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 1, 2003 - 2:23 pm: |
|
AP reports 101st Airborn captures what they believe to be 3 members of Al Qada in Iraq. Additionally, 10 members of Ansar Al Islam also captured -- this the group that was located in Northern Iraq, had experimented with the poison ricin and fought against the Kurds said to have ties to Al Qada as well.
.....when asked for a reaction, a relative of the captured terrorst Abu Abbas said "this means nothing." |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3956
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, December 1, 2003 - 3:04 pm: |
|
I have no doubt that Al Qada is active in Iraq at the present time under the theroy that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". However, it will be interesting to find out just when the three Al Quada members arrived in that country. Dollars will get you donuts, they arrived after the war.
Actually, the Ansar Al Islam group was protected from Saddam by the northern no fly zone. I doubt if that group would have been tolerated by the Baathists otherwise, although I know others will differ with me in that opinion. And yes, there are some Kurds in Ansar Al Islam, which is kind of interesting.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 496
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 1, 2003 - 3:27 pm: |
|
So...the northern fly zone prohibited land vehicles from going to Northern Iraq? Did the no-fly zone stop Ansar Al Islam from killing those who opposed them up there? Why would there be a peshmirga there defending the Kurdish populations if the no-fly zone stopped all fighting? Are you saying that there was no way that Saddam could 1) hit Ansar al Islam and 2) the Kurdish populations simply because the no-fly zone (not a no-walk or no-drive zone) existed?
It's interesting you post "the enemy of the enemy...." line of thinking because that argument was used to say that the secular Saddam would never work with the religous Al Qada.
|
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 119
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, December 1, 2003 - 3:33 pm: |
|
It was Saddam Hussein's last weapons deal - and it didn't go exactly as planned.
For two years before the United States-led invasion, the Iraqi leader's sons, generals and front companies held negotiations with North Korea to acquire missiles.
And not just missiles, but a full production line to make the North Korean system, which would be capable of hitting US allies and bases around the region.
The talks were mostly conducted in neighbouring Syria, apparently with the knowledge of the Assad Government.
But as the war approached, Saddam discovered what US officials have known for nearly a decade - the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, is a less than reliable negotiating partner.
In return for a $10 million down payment, Saddam appears to have received nothing.
"We've learnt this much: that Kim Jong Il took Saddam to the cleaners," said one US official.
With the invasion one month away, Iraqi officials travelled to Syria to demand that North Korea refund $1.9 million because it had failed to meet a deadline for the first delivery. North Korea reportedly replied that "things were too hot" to begin delivering missile technology through Syria.
advertisement
advertisement
The trail of the negotiations has been uncovered through computer files found in Baghdad by weapons inspectors and from interviews with captured members of Saddam's inner circle, say Bush Administration officials.
The officials have seized on the attempted purchase of the North Korean missiles, known as the Rodong, and an assembly line to buttress their case that Saddam was violating UN resolutions prohibiting missiles of that range.
The negotiations also established that Syria was a major arms bazaar for Saddam, in this case hiding an Iraqi effort to obtain missiles.
Investigators say Syria had probably offered its ports and territory as the secret transit route for the material, although it remains unclear what it may have demanded in return.
As well, the Iraqi official who brokered the deal, Munir Awad, is now in Syria, apparently living under government protection.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 125
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 10:04 am: |
|
U.S. May Have Captured 'Big Fish' in Iraq
MARIAM FAM
Associated Press
More photos
Al-Douri is No. 6 on the U.S. list of most-wanted Iraqis. KRT file
KIRKUK, Iraq - U.S. troops have captured or killed a "big fish" in a large military operation in Kirkuk, a member of Iraq's Governing Council said Tuesday. Other officials said Saddam Hussein's top former deputy Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri was the target.
The U.S. military, however, could not confirm that it was al-Douri - the top Iraqi fugitive after Saddam. The Americans have pointed to al-Douri as a coordinator of the insurgency against U.S. forces, and last week offered a $10 million reward for information leading to his arrest.
Mowaffak al-Rubaie, a member of the U.S.-picked Iraqi Governing Council, told the Arabic television station Al-Jazeera that there was "a very big military operation" in Kirkuk and that those killed or captured included a "big fish."
"We are trying to verify the identity of this important figure," al-Rubaie said. "Preliminary examination has been very positive."
A senior Kurdish official in Kirkuk said, speaking on condition of anonymity, said he heard al-Douri had been "killed or captured," citing sources in his political party. The official said family members of al-Douri bodyguards were seen crying and saying that al-Douri had been captured.
The official also said the family members were in Hawija, 30 miles west of Kirkuk, and that American soldiers had arrested dozens of people there in an overnight raid.
For months, U.S. officials have pointed to him as a coordinator of incessant attacks on American forces in Iraq - and that al-Douri could be working with the al-Qaida-linked militant group Ansar al-Islam.
In the latest such violence, a U.S. soldier from the 4th Infantry Division was killed Tuesday near Samarra, the site of weekend fighting between American troops and guerrillas, the military said.
to all my thoughts, add to the end:
or not.
|
ashear
Citizen
Username: Ashear
Post Number: 812
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 1:54 pm: |
|
Or not: U.S. Denies Capture of Top Saddam Deputy
To get back to the original subject there is an excellent analysis of the Iraq-Al Qaeda link memo here: http://www.spinsanity.org/posts/2003_11_23_archive.html#106965028380818766 |
bobk
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 3964
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, December 2, 2003 - 2:20 pm: |
|
Cjc - Yep the no fly zone kept Saddam from going after the Kurds who have no known air capability. If the government put a Brigade or two on the road north it would have maybe made 20 miles before it was set upon by F-16s and Tornados.
|
Michael Janay
Citizen
Username: Childprotect
Post Number: 91
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 10:41 am: |
|
Ashear,
That analysis is far from excellent. Like this passage...
"Yet many of the memo's pieces of evidence come with caveats. For example, in regard to several meetings, the memo states that "None of the reports have information on operational details or the purpose of such meetings" (which are obviously crucial to establishing an "operational relationship" between Iraq and Al Qaeda). "
The meetings establish the relationship. No one but the participants know what was discussed, but that the heads of IIS and Al-quaeda met is more than enough. What do you think, IIS met with them to discuss how peaceful Iraq is and to try to convince AQ to love the US like they do? The simple fact that we don't know what is said in secret meetings is not enough to call the reports in to question. Exactly what was said is irrelevant, the meetings establish the relationship.
And then this paragraph...
"The connections reported between Iraq and Al Qaeda after Sept. 11, 2001 are also vague and far from conclusive. They include an alleged offer of safe haven in Iraq to Al Qaeda members, the provision of weapons to "Al Qaeda members in northern Iraq" beginning in "mid-March," roughly the time of the beginning of US military action; and assistance provided by an Iraqi intelligence agent to Ansar al-Islam, an Al Qaeda-affiliated group which operated prior to the war in Kurdish-controlled northeastern Iraq."
So why are these vague and inconclusive as this author asserts? They seem quite specific to me, safe haven, assistance, and weapons... along with dates and locations. The author does not call the accuracy of these reports in to doubt, how could he? It is also rather conclusive evidence.
And then this...
"As Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball have pointed out, the memo also omits evidence that casts doubt on some of its claims. For example, while the memo details a meeting between Iraqi intelligence officer Farouk Hijazi, Isikoff and Hosenball note that "as Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA counterterrorism official, says, the Feith-Carney memo omits the rest of the story: that bin Laden actually rejected the Hijazi overture, concluding he did not want to be 'exploited' by a regime that he has consistently viewed as 'secular' and fundamentally antithetical to his vision of a strict Islamic state.""
The author fails to point out that the offer of assylum came when UBL was choosing where to go from Sudan. His choice was Iraq living under Saddam, or Afganistan where he could effectively rule the country. His rejection of assylum in Iraq is far from a rejection of Iraq. Not to mention the very fact that Saddam OFFERED assylum to UBL is enough of a connection. AND Cannistaro confirms that the offer was actually made! That corroborates the memo! Does the author point that out?
Then the author makes this leap...
In short, the evidence remains contested, and the memo itself does not demonstrate the sort of high-level coordination between Iraq and Al Qaeda implied by phrases such as "operational relationship."
So what exactly does Offers of assylum, supplying weapons and training, and meetings between high ranking officials of both groups over a 10 year period demonstrate?? The author does not even venture in to that.
And then this gem of analysis...
"Yet several pundits have implied that the memo documents such a connection, often including the suggestion that the memo justifies military action in Iraq."
Heck, I say bomb the hell out of any country that says bless you after UBL sneezes.
The funny thing is that this guy closes with this sentence "In such a heated debate, commentators must note caveats about such information and fairly represent it to the public rather than making sweeping claims that distort the facts."
He should take his own advice. |
Kenney
Citizen
Username: Kenney
Post Number: 133
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 10:48 am: |
|
A massive U.S. raid in a northern Iraq village led to the arrests of 34 people and the confiscation of dozens of guns, the American military said Wednesday. Residents accused soldiers of excessive force.
Initial reports said the troops were hunting for Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, a top ally of Saddam Hussein who is considered a key planner of recent attacks. U.S. officials, who have posted a $10 million bounty for al-Douri, suspect he could also be working with the al-Qaida-linked militant group Ansar al-Islam.
The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 509
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, December 3, 2003 - 10:52 am: |
|
bobk -- the Iraqis had Republican Guard face-up with the Kurdish border in the north. I'm not aware of any US or coalition bombing of troops movements. They didn't have the French on board to do that as this article suggests back in 94-95. The French didn't authorize impeding Saddam's ability to move troops within his own country. The best they could do was say they were concerned, or wouldn't be 'indifferent' to troops movements, etc etc if I read this correctly.
I think Saddam could move bands of troops into the peshmirga points and kill them without getting the US and Brits firing at them.
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N50/iraq.50w.html |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page