952 replies to this topic

[bobdrake12]

http://story.news.ya..._eu/us_russia_2

Russian Decries 'Axis of Evil' Term (excerpts)

Wed Feb 26, 3:19 AM ET

By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A Russian lawmaker is urging his American counterparts to shun the term "axis of evil" as he defends his country's relations with Iraq, Iran and North Korea.

Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the foreign affairs committee in the Russian parliament's upper house, said his country's relations with the three nations are based on its own economic interest and not any hidden strategic ambitions.

"These relations do not threaten anyone's security," he said, in remarks prepared for a hearing Wednesday by the House International Relations Committee on Russia's policies toward the three countries.

U.S.-Russian relations have improved to a point unimaginable during the Cold War, with President Bush (news - web sites) stressing his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But tensions remain over Russia's relations with Iraq, Iran and North Korea — the three nations Bush dubbed the "axis of evil" in his 2002 State of the Union speech.

Margelov said he knows from his past experience "in the Soviet propaganda machine" that such terms can be useful public relations tools.

"However, I believe that politicians and especially lawmakers should not allow themselves to oversimplify the situation," Margelov said. "Simplification can be a serious sin when long-term decisions are at stake."

On Iraq, Russia has joined France and Germany in opposing military action against Saddam Hussein's government and advocates giving weapon inspectors more time.

"One can resort to force, but only when all other means have been exhausted," Margelov said. "I would hope this will not happen."

Russia is concerned that a war could lead to the country's collapse or its transformation into a fundamentalist dictatorship, he said. It could also lead to volatility in the oil market, which could hurt Russia's own security.

[bobdrake12]

http://story.news.ya...satoday/4907553

'We will disarm him now,' Bush says (excerpts)

Fri Feb 28, 7:15 AM ET

Judy Keen USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- President Bush spoke of war against Iraq in imminent terms in an interview Thursday. He said flatly that Saddam Hussein has no intention of disarming and must be forced to do so.

Bush has often said that time is running out for Iraq, but his remarks Thursday were the strongest indication he has given that he believes war is unavoidable.

The president expressed little concern about debate at the United Nations, the prospect of a veto of a resolution that would clear the way for war, or the opposition of some allies. Seeking a second U.N. resolution that could authorize war was ''a commitment to our allies and friends,'' he said. Regardless of the outcome, ''the most important part about whatever happens is that (Saddam) be disarmed.''

Edited by bobdrake12, 01 March 2003 - 04:21 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.alternet....l?StoryID=15221

When U.S. Foreign Policy Meets Biblical Prophecy (excerpts)

Paul S. Boyer, AlterNet

February 20, 2003


Does the Bible foretell regime change in Iraq? Did God establish Israel's boundaries millennia ago? Is the United Nations a forerunner of a satanic world order?

For millions of Americans, the answer to all those questions is a resounding yes. For many believers in biblical prophecy, the Bush administration's go-it-alone foreign policy, hands-off attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and proposed war on Iraq are not simply actions in the national self-interest or an extension of the war on terrorism, but part of an unfolding divine plan.

Medieval prophecy expounders saw Islam as the demonic force whose doom is foretold in Scripture. As Richard the Lionhearted prepared for the Third Crusade in 1190, the famed prophecy interpreter Joachim of Fiore assured him that the Islamic ruler Saladin, who held Jerusalem, was the Antichrist, and that Richard would defeat him and recapture the Holy City. (Joachim's prophecy failed: Richard returned to Europe in 1192 with Saladin still in power.) Later interpreters cast the Ottoman Empire in the Antichrist role.

That theme faded after 1920, with the Ottoman collapse and the rise of the Soviet Union, but it surged back in the later 20th century, as prophecy popularizers began not only to support the most hard-line groups in Israel, but also to demonize Islam as irredeemably evil and destined for destruction. "The Arab world is an Antichrist-world," wrote Guy Dury in "Escape From the Coming Tribulation" (1975). "God says he will lay the land of the Arabs waste and it will be desolate," Arthur Bloomfield wrote in "Before the Last Battle -- Armageddon," published in 1971 and reprinted in 1999. "This may seem like a severe punishment, but ... the terms of the covenant must be carried out to the letter."

The anti-Islamic rhetoric is at fever pitch today. Last June, the prophecy magazine Midnight Call warmly endorsed a fierce attack on Islam by Franklin Graham (son of Billy) and summed up Graham's case in stark terms: "Islam is an evil religion." In Lindsey's 1996 prophecy novel, "Blood Moon," Israel, in retaliation for a planned nuclear attack by an Arab extremist, launches a massive thermonuclear assault on the entire Arab world. Genocide, in short, becomes the ultimate means of prophetic fulfillment.

Anticipating George W. Bush, prophecy writers in the late 20th century also quickly zeroed in on Saddam Hussein. If not the Antichrist himself, they suggested, Saddam could well be a forerunner of the Evil One. In full-page newspaper advertisements during the Persian Gulf war of 1991, the organization Jews for Jesus declared that Saddam "represents the spirit of Antichrist about which the Bible warns us."

Prophecy believers found particular significance in Saddam's grandiose plan, launched in the 1970s, to rebuild Babylon on its ancient ruins. The fabled city on the Euphrates, south of Baghdad, which included one of the seven wonders of the ancient world, owed its splendor to King Nebuchadnezzar, the same wicked ruler who warred against Israel and destroyed Jerusalem in 586 B.C., for which impiety, according to the Book of Daniel, he went mad and ended his days eating grass in the fields.

In Revelation, Babylon embodies all that is corrupt, "a great whore ... with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication." It stands as the antithesis of Jerusalem, the city of righteousness, and Revelation prophesies its annihilation by fire. Since Babylon cannot be destroyed unless it exists, Saddam's ambitious public-works project is seen as an essential step toward prophetic fulfillment.

Charles Dyer's "The Rise of Babylon: Sign of the End Times" (1991) elaborates the theme. Along with the emergence of modern Israel and the European Union (forerunner of the Antichrist's world system), writes Dyer, Saddam's restoration of Babylon signals the approaching end and offers "thrilling proof that Bible prophecies are infallible." "When Babylon is ultimately destroyed," he continues, "Israel will finally be at peace and will dwell in safety."

That theme resonates powerfully with today's calls for Saddam's overthrow. Indeed, the cover illustration of Dyer's book juxtaposes Saddam and Nebuchadnezzar. Hal Lindsey's Web site recently featured a cartoon of a military aircraft emblazoned with a U.S. flag and a Star of David and carrying a missile with a label targeting "Saddam." The caption quoted the prophet Zechariah: "It shall be that day I will seek to destroy all nations that come against Israel."

To be sure, some current Bush-administration policies trouble prophecy believers. For example, the expansion of Washington's surveillance powers after 9/11 (led, ironically, by Attorney General John Ashcroft, darling of the religious right) strikes some as another step toward the Antichrist's global dictatorship. Counterbalancing that, however, other key administration positions -- its hostility to multinational cooperation and international agreements, its downgrading of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its muted response to growing Jewish settlement in Palestinian territory, and its unrelenting focus on Saddam Hussein -- strike prophecy believers as perfectly in harmony with God's prophetic plan: a plan that will bring human history to its apocalyptic denouement and usher in the longed-for epoch of righteousness, justice, and peace.

Academics do need to pay more attention to the role of religious belief in American public life, not only in the past, but also today. Without close attention to the prophetic scenario embraced by millions of American citizens, the current political climate in the United States cannot be fully understood.

Leaders have always invoked God's blessing on their wars, and, in this respect, the Bush administration is simply carrying on a familiar tradition. But when our born-again president describes the nation's foreign-policy objective in theological terms as a global struggle against "evildoers," and when, in his recent State of the Union address, he casts Saddam Hussein as a demonic, quasi-supernatural figure who could unleash "a day of horror like none we have ever known," he is not only playing upon our still-raw memories of 9/11. He is also invoking a powerful and ancient apocalyptic vocabulary that for millions of prophecy believers conveys a specific and thrilling message of an approaching end -- not just of Saddam, but of human history as we know it.


Paul S. Boyer, a professor emeritus of history at the University of Wisconsin at Madison and currently a visiting professor of history at the College of William and Mary, is the author of "When Time Shall Be No More: Prophecy Belief in Modern American Culture" (Harvard University Press, 1992).

© 2003 Independent Media Institute.

[bobdrake12]

http://story.news.ya.../turkey_us_iraq

Turk: No Plan for Vote on U.S. Troops (excerpts)

SELCAN HACAOGLU, Associated Press Writer

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey's ruling party has no plans in the "foreseeable future" to seek another parliament vote for the deployment of U.S. troops on Turkish soil for a war with Iraq, a party leader said Sunday.

The announcement by Eyup Fatsa, deputy head of the Justice and Development party, came a day after the legislature dealt a serious blow to U.S. war planning by failing to approve a motion to deploy U.S. soldiers, weapons and equipment.

Washington for weeks had pressured Turkey to allow the deployment, aimed at giving the U.S. military a northern front against Iraq in the event of war.

But, by an overwhelming margin, Turks oppose a U.S.-led war on Iraq — including many lawmakers of the Islamic-rooted Justice party who voted down the motion. The party holds 362 of the 550 seats in parliament.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.strategyp...rget=RUSSIA.HTM

RUSSIA: Warships Head for the Persian Gulf

March 1, 2003: Two destroyers and a supply ship are on their way from Vladivostok to the Persian Gulf.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.sundayherald.com/31828

Bush and Blair to ditch UN if France blocks intervention (excerpts)

Iraq destroys four missiles, but Straw says it's just a 'cynical' move to divide UN

By James Cusick, Westminster Editor

AS hopes fade of winning a second UN resolution, Britain and the United States are now preparing the ground to argue that both governments already have the implied authority of the UN for conflict.

Sources close to Foreign Secretary Jack Straw yesterday admitted that if 'there was no prospect of winning a second resolution' -- due to the use of a UN Security Council veto by potentially France, Russia or China -- 'then we may consider abandoning it altogether'.

Washington also yesterday altered its strategy in exactly the same manner when Pres ident George Bush, referring to the existing Security Council resolution 1441, said the US was determined to enforce its terms, which demand that Saddam Hussein surrender his country's weapons of mass destruction.

Condoleezza Rice, the US national security adviser, called the new draft resolution presented to the UN last week simply 'an affirmation of the council's willingness to enforce its own resolution'.

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 March 2003 - 04:53 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://drudgereport.com/matt.htm



XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN MARCH 02, 2003 12:28:35 ET XXXXX

STANDING FIRM: BUT PAPER ADMITS TRANSLATION GOOF; WORDS IN ALLEGED NSA EMAIL ALTERED FOR BRITISH SPELLING

London's OBSERVER newssheet altered words of a "top secret" email from a alleged National Security Agency worker -- an email which detailed a U.S. plan to spy on key U.N. Security Council members!

"The email was originally transcribed with English spellings standardised for a British audience," the paper claimed on Sunday after the DRUDGE REPORT revealed the oddity of an American government worker typing favorable as 'favourable', recognize as 'recognise' and emphasize as 'emphasise'.

MORE

Other errors also appeared in the paper's online document of the purported email text. The spelling of the NSA official's name was strangely changed from "Frank Koza" to "Frank Kozu"; and the top secret marker of "Top Secret//COMINT//XL" should have read "Top Secret//COMINT//X1" to conform to any government coding.

The multiple errors immediately ignited questions about the authenticity of the email and raised credibility issues over the entire OBSERVER report.

"Secret document details American plan to bug phones and emails of key Security Council members ahead of crucial vote over war on Iraq,' splashed the OBSERVER in a world exclusive.

The compelling report took more than 3 weeks to develop, research and confirm, an OBSERVER insider said on Sunday.

Spelling alterations and typographical slip-ups not withstanding, editors of the OBSERVER are standing tough behind the results of the paper's investigation.

Impacting...

-----------------------------------------------------------
Filed By Matt Drudge
Reports are moved when circumstances warrant
http://www.drudgereport.com for updates
©DRUDGE REPORT 2003


**************************


http://talk.guardian...0@@.4a90d58d/22



Started by ObserverTalk at 10:50pm Mar 1, 2003 GMT

Tomorrow's Observer leads with the news that the United States is conducting a secret "dirty tricks" plan against other UN Security Council delegations. Details of the aggressive surveillance operation are revealed in a document leaked to The Observer.

Does the dirty tricks plan - along with US pressure and inducements to other Security Council members - mean that any vote for war would lack legitimacy? Or are these murky details about international politics simply the way of the world? Now that the plan has been revealed, will it backfire as the US seeks to win the UN waverers over?

The plan revealed: Observer news story http://www.observer....,905936,00.html

Read the memo http://www.observer....,905954,00.html

Focus: America the arm twister http://observer.co.u...,905755,00.html

Leader: Blair must win the argument http://observer.co.u...,905659,00.html



--- CLARIFICATION from MARTIN BRIGHT, The Observer

"There seems to be some confusion over the Anglicised (or Anglicized) spelling in our reproduction of the email online and on the front of the newspaper. This was done for editorial reasons to standardise (standardize) spelling throughout the newspaper. Following the many queries from the United States we would like to make it cleart that the original document had American spelling and this will be corrected on the online version of the email".

Edited by bobdrake12, 02 March 2003 - 08:53 PM.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.time.com/...-427975,00.html



Looking Beyond Saddam (excerpts)

If invading troops topple Iraq's dictator, Washington will inherit responsibility for a bitter, factious country. Here's TIME's look at the blueprint for remaking the nation—and the Middle East

By JOHANNA MCGEARY


Sunday, Mar. 02, 2003

One of the gravest reservations held by opponents of a new war on Iraq is what would happen afterward. Even if the Bush Administration proves correct in assuming a quick military success, the postwar peace, by all accounts, would be a messy affair. Yet some who support the war believe destroying Saddam Hussein's regime would bring sweeping benefits to the entire Middle East. Though it has leaked a satchel of scenarios for beating Saddam's army, the Administration has said barely a word about managing the perilous aftermath. So there was President George W. Bush last week, posed before a panoply of U.S. flags to spell out his grand vision for Iraq: a brutalized land remade by war in the American colors of democracy, prosperity and peace. The bold promise extended, he said, to the entire Middle East, where the "dramatic and inspiring example" of Iraq's liberation would set "a new stage for Middle Eastern peace" and "show the power of freedom to transform that vital region by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions."

With battle talk filling the air and the U.N. still holding out on approval, Bush offered up that expansive goal as the ultimate justification for the war. It's not just about disarming Saddam; it's about what the President considers a "battle for the future of the Muslim world." That stirring rhetoric may attract some wavering Americans, but it made little impact at the U.N., where the Security Council remained deeply divided. The Administration hopes to bring the diplomatic tussle over a new resolution censoring Iraq to a conclusion in the coming days. But Bush's speech made it clear that he plans to proceed toward war whether the U.N. goes along or not.

Bush's lofty aims were a departure for a country that has never much cared how Arab states were ruled as long as the oil flowed cheaply and for a President who came into the White House scornful of nation building. Yet the speech offered no concrete details on how this ambitious job would be done. Indeed, top Bush advisers spent much of the week knocking down news reports and sweeping aside official statements that hinted at just how difficult and costly it would be to achieve this post-Saddam vision. Here's a hard look inside the Administration's postwar notebooks.


Will Democracy Bloom?

Success in Iraq, the president asserted, could change the entire region's landscape in two ways—by inspiring sclerotic kingdoms and repressive regimes to embrace democracy and by helping "set in motion" peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Bush has embraced neoconservative theology here: the U.S. is invading a dysfunctional part of the world to fix it, and the shock of war will finally jolt the Arab world into better health. It's an audacious idea but not a working plan. Neither Bush nor any Administration official has detailed how the wave of democratization would occur.

Across the region, Arabs simply don't buy it. They don't trust Bush, and they're deeply skeptical of American attempts to impose democracy by force. Even if things could change for the better, says Khalil Shikaki, director of the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah, "one would have to be truly naive to believe that the current U.S. Administration will invest serious efforts in promoting good governance in the region." Among Arabs, the vision of a postwar Middle East is filled with dread. Many are convinced that a war would breed regional instability and spark a fresh burst of anti-American rage. Terrorist ranks would find fresh recruits to spread violence across the region. Fundamentalist forces could provoke crackdowns that stifle any political opening. Or if regimes allowed a tenuous democracy, well-organized fundamentalists could come to power. "The consequences of war," Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal tells TIME, "are going to be tragic." Bush's prediction that getting rid of Saddam would energize the Middle East peace process may be even more over-reaching. While Iraq's despot has rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, that money is hardly a significant factor in their enduring conflict with Israel. "When the dust settles on the war," says Richard Murphy, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, "they still have claims against each other they are not willing to compromise."

Bush's "personal commitment" to peace and to a Palestinian state was a welcome assurance from a President who has done virtually nothing to push along either. It was clearly meant to silence antiwar critics who complain that this issue is a more urgent priority than Iraq. Yet Bush offered no new plan, promising only that once Iraq was dealt with, he would begin to implement the long-promised road map for a settlement that his Administration has not moved on in eight months.

What's more, Bush may have further diluted his credibility with the Palestinians, who already distrust his Administration's tilt toward Israel. On a subject in which every presidential word is exhaustively scrutinized, Bush appeared to signal a step further toward Israel's position when he said Palestinians must adopt democratic reforms and stop the violence before Israel had to quit expanding its settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Before, Bush said settlement activity should halt as a first step toward progress.

Bush has set himself a high challenge. He has made the riskiest commitment by his country in a generation. He has promised Americans that this war will do more good than ill. The President sounded uncommonly confident as he spoke, but wishes are one thing and reality another, especially in a region accustomed to mirages.


—Reported by Massimo Calabresi, Michael Duffy and Mark Thompson/Washington; Helen Gibson/London; and Scott MacLeod and Amany Radwan/Cairo

[DJS]

As the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, put it in an interview with CNN, "If you achieve victory, and there is someone occupying Baghdad, just imagine what the reaction could be in the Arab and Muslim world to that fact alone." The Bush administration has said it could maintain occupation forces in Iraq for up to two years.

President Bush, in his radio address on Saturday, reiterated his intention to bring democracy to Iraq, once Mr. Hussein is deposed.

"It will be difficult to help freedom take hold in a country that has known three decades of dictatorship, secret police, internal division and war," he said. "Yet the security of our nation and the hopes of millions depend on us, and Americans do not turn away from duties because they are hard."

Prince Saud was disparaging of that idea. An American occupation will bring chaos to Iraq, not democracy, he predicted.

"It's going to be a mess, I think," he said. "If you get chaos, how will democracy flower in Iraq?"

Is it just me or do you also not trust Saud al-Faisal? Have you ever actually seen this guy speak? He looks kind of smallish, with a severly receding hair line (whats left of his hair is greased back). He speaks rather softly in very polished english that you can tell he cultivated at an Ivy League school. He is another that I wouldn't trust as far as I can throw.

Not surprisingly, Mr. de Villepin said he shared that view.

"Some countries may think that with force in Iraq, you are going to get the end of terrorism, the end of proliferation in the world," he said, "and like magic you are going to make peace in the Middle East. We don't agree."

This guy is such an idiot. The Europeans play all kinds of political games with their public statements. Have you ever noticed that? He is infering that we said Iraq will solve all of the problems of the Middle East. That is how the government and the media is framing the argument in France. We have never said Iraq was the only problem we are going to solve. There might be quite a few other problems that also need to be solved.

Americans in general just don't like the French. Of course, you could make the argument that this is unjustified. I would not. de Villepin is just so typical of the French intellectual. Were is the substance in his statement? There is none.

The Arab League, too, said it did not support the "regime change" idea.

A-duh? [huh]

"We are not concerned with the changes of regime," said Amr Moussa, the Arab League leader. "That is not our job."

Very well then Mr. Moussa. You are correct, it is not your job, it is our job.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.upi.com/p...03-102321-7319r

U.S. says war won't stop until Saddam goes (excerpts)

By Anwar Iqbal

From the International Desk

Published 3/3/2003 7:56 PM

WASHINGTON, March 3 (UPI) -- The United States said Monday that if U.S. forces entered Iraq, they would not stop until Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was removed from power.

"Nobody should think -- not even for a second -- that military action could be possibly taken to disarm Saddam Hussein that would leave Saddam Hussein at the helm for him to re-arm up later. No, that's not an option," White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters Monday.

Also, Fleischer said, "nothing less, nothing less, nothing less than complete, total, immediate" disarmament would allow Iraq to evade military invasion.

Earlier Monday, sources at the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission said Iraq will give the United Nations detailed documents about its past chemical and biological arms programs within the next week. The promised document, along with Iraq's last-minute agreement this weekend to destroy its al-Samoud 2 missiles, is seen by many as a stalling technique to deprive the United States and Britain of a pretext for promoting adoption of their Security Council draft resolution that could provide justification for using military force on Iraq.

Such reports, however, would not even delay a possible presidential decision on war, Fleischer said. "The president has said the timetable is weeks, not months. He said that just over a month ago and nothing has changed that timetable."

When reporters Monday again asked Fleischer if Saddam could stay in power if he accepts the U.S. demand, Fleischer said he would make no promises. "Well, let's first see him completely, totally and immediately disarm, and see if that takes place," he said.

Iraq destroyed 10 surface-to-surface al-Samoud 2 missiles over the weekend at a military camp at al-Taji, north of Baghdad. Amir Al-Saadi, Saddam's science adviser, promised that Iraq would produce two to six missiles daily for destruction under UNMOVIC monitoring. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix had given Iraq until last Saturday to begin destroying the weapons.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...o_do.guest.html



Saddam Murdered Missile Chief To Thwart UN

March 3, 2003

Why do we have to go to Great Britain to find stories on Saddam Hussein? The UK Telegraph - which is not a tabloid, but more akin to the Wall Street Journal - reported over the weekend: "If war comes to Iraq, the Kurds of Kifri will be right in the line of fire. Iraqi officials have threatened that the moment the first American bomb lands, they will reply with a chemical assault on the town."

I'd like these so-called inspectors and anti-American protestors to tell the Kurds quoted in this article that Saddam doesn't have any weapons of mass destruction. Of course, we all know that the same people who say Saddam doesn't have any weapons and the administration can't prove it, then turn around and warn that Saddam will use those weapons against our troops if we attack! Which is it? Another article reports that Saddam Hussein's top missile expert, General Muhammad Sa'id al-Darraj, has been murdered to stop him blabbing to the UN.

A British intelligence chief said the murder "was another example of Saddam's ruthlessness" and "underlined his total disregard for human rights." (At the very least!) Did you hear a word about this anywhere over the weekend? This general met with Saddam to discuss how to lie to the UN, and then realized his drink had been poisoned and told his family as much 24 hours later. The sickening truth is that this stuff gets treated as commonplace. It doesn't offend the left, anymore. It's not like Republican tax cuts or something. This is surreal.

Howard Kurtz did an interview with Dan Rather on CNN's Reliable Sources, and Rather looked more uncomfortable than he was in the presence of The Evil One. Dan got very defensive, because it wasn't a Larry King interview full of Nerf softballs. Rather seemed to think to his critics: I was there and nobody else was. You go to the palace, sit in those circumstances and do a better job. It reminded me of former RNCer Clifford May's piece in National Review Online last week. He didn't presume to tell anyone whether Dan did a good job or not; he simply laid out the pathetic questions and let people make the obvious conclusion. Dan asked no questions about the Kurds like those in Kifri, none on the weapons. It just doesn't occur to the left to cover this stuff.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.rushlimba...edge.guest.html



You Don't Allow Kids To Make the Rules

March 3, 2003

My friends, you simply must listen to the audio links below. You need to understand why we don't heed those around the world who won't face the threat posed to us by the militant Islamists who want us all to live in the 14th Century. Once we've been threatened and attacked in the way we were on 9/11, we must act and protect ourselves. We must not listen to the French or German appeasers, or even the Brits and the Pope - God love them.

This isn't about making the world like us; this is about keeping the world from changing how we live our lives. We are at great risk in a dangerous world. Bush is not hesitating to act because of his faith and the "Thou Shalt Not Kill" commandment, as some of you fear. The president has a job that's different from the Vatican, the United Nations or these foreign countries. His job is to protect us and preserve our way of life.

This is why, over the weekend, the goalposts to avoid war shifted yet again. Now it's not enough for Saddam to disarm. He has to go into exile. Where are Dominique de Villepin, Herr Schroeder and all these namby-pamby wusses from the UN Security Council when they hear this? And why did we ever go the Colin Powell, UN route? Basically we were going to kick Saddam's butt just because we wanted to remake the Mideast - as Bush's AEI speech detailed. The president has linked American safety to this operation.

Protecting the American People is Not Subject to a UN Veto

I want you to get your hands on Forbes magazine or listen to me read the story "Five Vital Lessons from Iraq," by Paul Johnson - perhaps the preeminent historian in the world. Number three debunks the realpolitik wisdom that "the UN represents legitimacy and projects an aura of idealism." Number five reads: "The U.S. must not merely possess the means to act alone if necessary, it must also cultivate the will to act alone if necessary."

Again: you don't let kids determine the rules of how the household is going to be run. We're liberating people when we're "nation building," and anyone who's too ignorant or spoiled to see the distinction between that and "empire building" ought not be listened to. The Martin Sheens and Chiracs are not leaders. Like children, they play in blissful ignorance; and like a wise parent, a president must worry about dangers - and about keeping the wolf from the door. Had these people prevailed over the course of the last 40 years, the power centers of the world would be in the USSR and people would be miserable in their satellites.

Communist China would be even larger than it is, and there would be none of the capitalism that so shocked Castro on his recent visit. Even if 90% of the American people were against what we're doing in Iraq and against Al-Qaeda, and thought we should hold seminars on "why they hate us," they'd still be wrong. We can't allow people who are wrong, despite their motivations or good intentions, determine what we do to protect ourselves - not if we're going to sustain the things that have made this country great. FDR and Churchill didn't listen to the timid masses in the 30s. We must not listen to their intellectual heirs now.

[DJS]

Oliver North
February 28, 2003
Irrelevance or impotence

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For more than five months, President George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have tried vainly to drag the United Nations, kicking and screaming, back from the brink of irrelevance. Along the way, the assumption has been that others in the United Nations actually cared. Now, thanks to French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, we know better. They aren't concerned about the United Nations becoming irrelevant. What they want most is for the United States to appear impotent.

Undaunted by their growing estrangement from the American people (whom they lecture) and the recently liberated citizens of "new" Europe (whom they berate), Chirac and Schroeder last week dined at a Berlin restaurant aptly named "Final Appeal," where they broke bread and munched on pickled pork knuckles. Their objective was clear: Scheme up new ways to denigrate the unparalleled economic and military prowess of the United States. It apparently matters not a whit that in so doing they abandon the people of Iraq to tyranny and imperil the United Nations that they claim to support.

Chirac has opted to embrace that familiar French diplomatic contrivance: appeasement. "We want Iraq to disarm," the French potentate proclaimed in the finest tradition of Marshall Petain, "but we believe this disarmament must happen peacefully." Even by the fanciful-cum-farcical standards of his country's foreign policy, Chirac seems to be living on another planet. When was the last time an aggressive despot like Saddam Hussein "peacefully" disarmed? Time for a reality check, Jacques: Iraq does not play by Swiss diplomatic rules.

Never one to miss the opportunity to prove that accountability is always the enemy of empty promises, Chirac suggested that Iraq should be given a minimum of four or five more months to come clean. He then clarified his position, lest it be taken too seriously. "There is no deadline," he added. "Only the inspectors themselves can say when such a deadline is set and how."

This inane idea has been embraced by the German chancellor who has the hubris to propound his very own defeatist theory for European pacifism. "Deep in the consciousness, the collective consciousness, of the European people," Schroeder pontificated, "it has sunk in what war really means." Instead of making pompous existential pronouncements worthy of Bertolt Brecht, Schroeder could have held his own nation accountable for providing Saddam with the means to build an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. It is not the United States that invaded Kuwait, gassed Iranians and Kurds or took civilians hostages for use as "human shields."

Meanwhile, across the English Channel, Prime Minister Tony Blair offers a study in Churchillian political courage. While contending with a parliamentary revolt by Saddam appeasers within his own Labor Party, he does his best to shore up European support for the inevitable crackdown on Saddam. Responding to French demands for prolonged weapons inspections, Blair observed of the United Nations, "They are not a detective agency."

This may come as a surprise to chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix. A week after Saddam signed a new decree "outlawing" weapons of mass destruction, the Iraqis "discovered" documents proving that all weapons of mass destruction had been destroyed back in 1991! The Swedish lawyer professed to be elated: "Here are some elements that are positive." As he readies for the next update to the Security Council on March 7, it sounds like Blix is already breaking out the champagne (French, of course) to celebrate the demise of what little credibility the United Nations still has.

Saddam must be relishing a spectacle that he could not have instigated without the help of France and Germany. The United States and Great Britain appear marginalized. NATO is internally divided. Millions of Westerners are joining Neville Chamberlain appeasement clubs. And in a quest for higher ratings, network anchors continue their efforts to make Saddam appear credible. Last week, Dan Rather of CBS deadpanned the dictator about whether he really wanted to debate President George W. Bush on live TV. "I'm not joking," Saddam explained. "This is because of my respect for the American public opinion." And they call this "news"?

Despite all of this, to answer Yeats' famous question, the center continues to hold. The American-British-Spanish resolution will move forward in the Security Council because there is no moral alternative. With the exception of Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, and his domestic political partner ex-Gov. Howard Dean, D-Vt., Saddam has few defenders in the United States. Whether the world -- and some of our own citizens -- accept it or not, the United States has become the necessary superpower that is about to undertake a necessary war.

Because of two resolute leaders, George W. Bush and Tony Blair, irrelevance and impotence are not the only alternatives.

[kevin]

Bush is crazy like a fox... I don't think he has any intention of sacrificing unnecessarily the lives of the sons and daughters of Americans. He doesn't however, care much for world opinion and I think he has the kahones to do what needs to be done if Sadaam doesn't.

I congratulate him for standing up to a petty and dangerous dictator while the rest of the world stands by and wrings their hands in consternation, unable to act in concert as they, as usual, let the US do the expensive and dangerous dirty work.

I will say this however, it would behoove Sadaam, at the risk of his personal elimination, to listen to Bush and believe him when he says he must disarm or be disarmed. I believe that it is only the threat of his own personal death, as the deaths of others clearly don't mean anything to him, that he will disarm.

The pressure and promise of war that the US is offering to Iraq, should they choose not to disarm, appears to be working, albeit grudgingly and in fits and starts. It sometimes comes to my mind that the US is the outraged man being held back by his friends from pulverizing the source of a threat to his family. I hope the bonds of friendship are strong enough and that the threat of personal annihilation real enough for Sadaam to disarm before the US loses all patience. Indeed, I think that the intense pressure to disarm and the threat of a war which guarantees Sadaam's removal and probable death, is the only reason we are now seeing the tip of the iceberg of his deception to the world community. With each passing day, and with each new revelation of more undeclared weapons, the world MUST come to realize that he cannot be left to continue in power. No matter how it is arrived at, this must be the outcome.

As his long range teeth are pulled one by one, demands for more and more co-operation should be stepped up. The ax is about to fall and the tug-of-war, which some may prefer to all-out-war, might be given a chance to work. More inspectors allowed to enter, occupation of his territories and facilities should be demanded, accompanied by and the slow inexorable removal of his means for war.

It just might work... ?

It's hard to believe that the only response to a threat such as Sadaam could be to throw lives at him and that all avenues and alternatives have been considered... I think Bush is crazy like a fox and is talking to Sadaam in the only language he understands, and although I know he has the conviction to carry out his promise, I hope he doesn't mean a word of it...

Is this view too naieve to contemplate?

Edited by kperrott, 04 March 2003 - 04:58 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

Nope not naive at all, I hope you are getting it.

You are describing the "Good and Bad Global Cop" scenario I am hoping will evolve out of the current state of affairs. It would be a valid outcome that I don't think reflects a loss of face for my Nation at all.

We can always finish the job but if there appears to be a constructive stand-down then we should accept victory graciously and move on smoothly (and swiftly) to the next challenge.

We don't need a bloodbath to accomplish the mission and certainly targeting Saddam, his family, and his complete upper echelon personally I do think got his attention. I hope that the Administration can appreciate the advantage it is garnering in the world community by demonstrating that We are responsive to rational intervention from our allies and considerate loyal opposition.

It is the mission that needs to be the focus not a demand for vengeance. I am also not desirous as a citizen of my Nation occupying Iraq, or ANY Nation and if we can keep many of its Domestic Political and Infrastructural Constructs intact, all the better. I for one don't think the United States is well served by insisting on occupying a Nation unless they have demonstrated a total unwillingness to act in a civilized manner with respect to regional and International Sovereignty and rational pressure.

Not only should we be turning the screws still, but we should be tightening them a little lest he think we aren't serious but I hope the administration also understands that there also comes a point where a stand down is warranted.

They to date, haven't given any inkling that they consider it possible to stand down, but that doesn't mean they couldn't still change their minds. This isn't about how reducing tensions at this point will play in the Domestic Market, this shouldn't be about Public Opinion Polls, it definitely should be about the mission.

And the mission is to remove the weapons First.

Second remove the Political Organization and Leadership responsible for generating this level of threat.

Third prevent the destabilization of the Region such that we would be generating more hostile force in a globalized grassroots manner and destabilized economies that begin a domino collapse leading to global depression..

Fourth, preventing that the area become a supply depot and way station for al Qaeda operations and operatives, as well as many of the organizations that are openly opposed to US Interests but we have to begin a dialogue with some opposing groups that DO represent legitimate Popular Interests and with Legitimate grievance and a concurrent right to standards that we profess to be the basis of our Social Contract.

Fifth, and here I put it last on purpose, because it may be the most important, but it most definitely of the greatest difficulty. Promote a socioeconomic change such that we are constructively engaging and eliminating the conditions that are the fertile ground of abuse, oppression, ignorance and abject poverty which have been the real reasons that it is easy to foment against not only this Nation, but all the beneficiaries of the First World. This last item is not THE most important reason for going into Iraq but it should become the Standard by which we define US Foreign Policy for many years to come.

We, in the First World (not only the United States) are going to have to grant that a History of exploitation has existed for some time with respect to the Colonized Third World but We are willing to alter this arrangement and go forward under circumstances that are more equitable and mutually respectful.

We cannot logically, and should not attempt to force change on these nations but we can make a serious attempt to foster it. In addition We can demonstrate that We have changed, and are still willing to. To do this we must abandon the principle of fostering and protecting regional dictatorships and in fact promote and defend Democratic Principle even when the Popular Opinion of these Democracies is in contrast to our own on various grounds, for example Socialist and/or Theocratic Principle.

Such systems of governance are however going to called to task to determine whether they are, or are not the actual will of any specific people as we move forward into this Dawn of the Age of Relativity.

[Lazarus Long]

http://story.news.ya...n_re_mi_ea/iraq

Iraq Tries to Prove It Is Disarming
AP - 1 hour, 27 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq (March 3) - Iraq crushed missiles, sliced casting chambers, unearthed bombs and sent scientists to talk with U.N. weapons inspectors Monday, all in a desperate effort to prove it is disarming before a crucial U.N. report at the end of the week.

France, Russia and China urged Iraq to meet every U.N. demand in hopes of staving off war, but the United States - which might wage war even without U.N. authorization - said the actions were too little, too late.

''Iraq is not cooperating,'' White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said Monday. ''Despite whatever limited head-fakes Iraq has engaged in, they continue to fundamentally not disarm.''

U.S. officials said a vote on a new U.N. resolution authorizing force would likely come next week, after chief weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei address the Security Council on Friday.

The U.S.-led military mobilization entered a critical stage Monday, with B-52 bombers landing in Britain and soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division setting up camp in Kuwait.

But the Turkish government showed no signs Monday that it would quickly ask parliament to reverse its refusal to allow in more than 60,000 U.S. troops ahead of an Iraq war. Washington's hopes for a Turkish-based northern front were dealt a blow when the parliament narrowly rejected a motion to grant the U.S. request.

Defense officials and analysts say American troops could seize Baghdad without a northern front, but at higher risk and with more difficulty.

As U.S. generals commanding about 225,000 troops in the region declare themselves ready to attack Iraq, weapons inspectors are suddenly receiving Iraqi cooperation on a swarm of issues that have dogged them for months.

Iraq met a Saturday deadline to begin destroying its Al Samoud 2 missile system, banned because its range may be slightly greater than allowed. It is slicing up banned casting chambers used to make another missile, the Al Fatah.

Workers have unearthed buried bombs they say are loaded with anthrax, aflatoxin and botulin toxin, and inspectors are analyzing the contents. Iraq is readying a letter to the United Nations that proposes verifying it has gotten rid of anthrax and deadly VX nerve agent.

Even Iraqi scientists who helped make missiles and chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction have begun to give private interviews to inspectors, something all but three had refused to do since December. Another scientist was interviewed on Monday, the fourth in as many days. The United Nations has asked to speak to more than 30 scientists since December.

Clearly Iraq is appealing to members of the U.N. Security Council, who are considering a draft resolution by the United States, Britain and Spain that would declare Iraq to be evading inspections, a step that would likely lead to war.

''The best time to press a point is when you have a meeting of the Security Council coming up,'' said Blix's deputy, Demetrius Perricos.

The United States expects a vote on its resolution ''quite soon'' after the chief inspectors report to the council on Friday, U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte said Monday.

''All indications are that the vote would be next week,'' a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

France, Russia and China - three of the five veto-holding members of the council - all pushed for more inspections instead of war.

''But Iraq must cooperate more, more actively,'' French President Jacques Chirac said Monday in Algeria. ''Together and in peace, we must keep strong pressure on it to attain the objective we have set: the elimination of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.''

But the new cooperation appears to be having little influence on the audience that in the end will mean the most - the White House.

After months of stressing disarmament, President Bush now speaks more frequently of ''regime change,'' saying that for Iraq to avoid war, Saddam Hussein will have to go - something few Iraqis can even imagine.

In a sense, the war has already begun. U.S. warplanes enforcing no fly zones in northern and southern Iraq have become much more aggressive in recent days, and have begun to go beyond their traditional targets of anti-aircraft weapons.

Now, they are now attacking surface-to-surface missile batteries they say are in range of U.S. troops in Kuwait or of positions U.S. troops could take up in Turkey - although the stated purpose of the no fly zones is to protect Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north.

An Iraqi military spokesman told the official Iraqi News Agency on Monday that a U.S. airstrike Sunday night killed six civilians and wounded 15 in southern Basra province. There was no way to verify the claim.

American warplanes attacked four more military communications facilities and one air defense facility on Monday, the U.S. Central Command said.

Iraq warned Sunday night that it could stop destroying its missiles if the United States decides to go to war without U.N. authorization.

''If it turns out at an early stage during this month that America is not going to a legal way, then why should we continue?'' asked Lt. Gen. Amer al-Saadi, Saddam's scientific adviser.

At the sprawling al-Taji military camp, 20 miles north of Baghdad, workers used bulldozers to crush six Al Samoud 2 missiles, inspectors' spokesman Hiro Ueki said. U.N. inspectors in blue baseball caps supervised the destruction.

Workers also destroyed two empty warheads made for the Al Samoud 2. Warheads for the crushed missiles - which were already armed - were removed for destruction later at another site because of the potential danger.

The workers destroyed four missiles on Saturday and six more Sunday, meaning that in three days, Iraq has crushed 16 of its 100-odd missiles. The United Nations says it expects Iraq to pick up the pace in the coming days.

At the Al Rasheed Company, 40 miles southwest of Baghdad, fountains of sparks rose as workers in welding helmets cut into refrigerator-sized sections of cylindrical casting chambers used to make the engines of the Al Fatah missile. Cement mixers drove up to the plant to dump their cargo into the chambers and render them useless.

Weapons inspectors ordered the casting chambers destroyed in the 1990s, but after they left in 1998, Iraq rebuilt them. This time, Perricos said, ''we are destroying them in a way that they cannot be rebuilt.''

AP-NY-03-03-03 2110EST

France, Russia and China urged Iraq to meet every U.N. demand in hopes of staving off war, but the United States - which might wage war even without U.N. authorization - said the actions were too little, too late.

Just one logical point of clarification: How could Compliance be too late?

"Too little" is subject to the larger perspective of the International Body not just the United States' opinon on this.

Not enough, yes! But some significant progress nevertheless. Keep in mind the Mission Profile.

[DJS]

Wrong, simply wrong. No significant compliance has been made. Where are the chemical and biological weapons stockpiles? Everyone knows that he has them, so the question is whether Saddam has made the decision to fully disarm. He has not. If he were serious we would know it. Lazarus, you should move to France. Your policies would be more appreciated there.

[DJS]

America doesn't need permission
George F. Will

WASHINGTON -- Counting from April 18, 1991, the 15th day after passage of U.N. Resolution 687, more than 4,330 days have passed since Iraq put itself in material breach of international obligations. It did so by ignoring that resolution's 15-day deadline for listing the locations, amounts and types of all its chemical and biological weapons, all "nuclear weapons-usable" materials, and for disclosing the location of Scud and other ballistic missiles with ranges above 90 miles. So the current "rush" to war has consumed almost half again as many as all the 3,075 days of U.S. engagement in World Wars I and II and the Korean War.
As the world waits to see whether the U.N. will cudgel Iraq with a "second" U.N. resolution, which actually would be the 18th, President Bush weighs when, not whether, he will order an attack on Iraq that Congress authorized by much larger majorities than his father achieved on Jan. 12, 1991, authorizing the Gulf War. And the president's domestic and foreign critics, showing an amazing tolerance for cognitive dissonance, fault him simultaneously for acting as though the United States can be the world's constable -- and for allowing Iraq to divert him from the task of solving the North Korean crisis.

Into this welter of foolishness has waded Conrad Black, a British citizen and member of the House of Lords who is a proprietor of many newspapers, including the Telegraph of London and the Sun-Times of Chicago. In a recent London speech to the Centre for Policy Studies, he noted that the United States, far from being the "trigger-happy, hip-shooting country" of European caricature, scarcely responded to the killing of dozens of U.S. servicemen at the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia and on the USS Cole in Yemen. "And when two of its embassies in Africa were virtually destroyed, President's Clinton's response consisted of rearranging some rocks in Afghanistan and blowing the roof off a Sudanese aspirin factory in the middle of the night."

Yet it is presumably to counter America's insatiable appetite for using its military that the idea has arisen that America should submit to plans to "collegialize" its power. The idea is that any use, even after successive acts of war against America, requires the permission of France, Russia and China, which have not sought U.N. blessings for their respective military interventions to discipline the Ivory Coast, to grind the Chechens into submission and to suffocate Tibet.

NATO's 16 European members have chosen to spend on their defense a combined sum a third less than the United States spends, and have used their spending so fecklessly that it purchases only about 10 percent of U.S. military capability. In an episode of what Black calls "the Ruritanian posturing of the French," President Chirac claimed that the European Rapid Reaction Force would "project European power throughout the world." Black notes that the force, a mere reallocation of forces from NATO, is "almost totally dependent on American airlift capacity, and is essentially a parade ground force to travel about Europe, marching down the main avenues of the capitals on their national days."

So Black is bemused by the moral calculus that produces the conclusion that the United States is morally obligated to use its military might only at the behest of, or with the permission of, nations that do not wish it well. These are nations that "do not share America's values, and that affect neutrality between a wronged America, a Gulf War coalition betrayed, and affronted international law on the one side, and the evil of Saddam Hussein on the other."

America has had "the most successful foreign policy of any major country" not just because of its strength but because "it has never had any objective except not to be threatened and when threatened, to remove the threat." And it "does not believe in durable coexistence with a mortal threat."

Black says that three of the greatest strategic errors of modern times -- Germany's unrestricted submarine warfare in 1917, Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, the Soviet refusal of postwar U.S. aid in exchange for liberality in Eastern Europe -- involved underestimating the dangers of provoking America. Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the authors of the fourth great error, the Sept. 11 attacks, may have belatedly understood that danger when, before dawn last Saturday, he stood in his underwear, facing the drawn guns of the men who told him America would like to ask him some questions.

[Lazarus Long]

Now for our next important Spin Off Topic Mr. Kissinger India and Pakistan. Pehaps even separately. Would you like to start it or shall I?

Wednesday March 5, 2:58 AM
http://in.news.yahoo...4/58/21rwn.html

The threat within from jihad
- Moderates rue missed chance to fight militancy on both sides
By Bharat Bhushan

Islamabad, March 4: Two important factors have contributed to creating a positive atmosphere in Pakistan for attempting to improve relations with India once again — the erosion of the national consensus on the centrality of the Kashmir issue; and the realisation that militancy undermines their own civil society.

"There is no way that you can today make a distinction between the jihadis who will operate outside Pakistan and those who will act only within the country," said a senior policy analyst who did not want to be identified.

Why then does Pakistan not put an end to the jihadi groups encouraging cross-border terrorism in India?

The analyst said: "If you have worked with these people, encouraged them and operated with them, you cannot divorce them overnight. Second, there is a feeling here that this is the only card that Pakistan has — if it gives this up then India will say there is nothing going on in Kashmir. So why should it talk?"

But he also thought "India will not talk to General Pervez Musharraf because it distrusts him. Musharraf is to blame for his own lack of credibility. Having said that he would act against the jihadis on January 12, 2002, he should have delivered".

He claimed that there was "a lack of courage" in dealing with the jihadis — although were Islamabad to act against them, it would undoubtedly succeed. "When Musharraf called a meeting of the maulvis and lashed out at them, not one of them spoke up. But our intelligence agencies exaggerate the threat from these people," he said.

Those in Pakistan who wish better relations with India claim that New Delhi has managed to get from Pakistan after 9/11 what it wanted at Agra. At Agra, Pakistan did not want to hear the word "terrorism" used in relation to Kashmir and did not admit to any cross-border infiltration.

Subsequently, however, it almost got breathless telling the Americans and the world that it had stopped all cross-border infiltration and that the jihadi factories in Pakistan were being closed. Now, Pakistanis say, it is time to move on and improve the relationship.

Opinion makers here feel that it would be wrong for India to wait for a "truly" civilian government to emerge at Islamabad before beginning a dialogue. "Even if General Musharraf were to go for some reason, the army will continue to be the real repository of power in Pakistan in relation to Kashmir, Afghanistan and nuclear weapons," they point out.

Pervez Hoodbhoy of Quaid-e-Azam University gives some persuasive reasons why India should talk to General Musharraf.

"He is a pragmatist without any strong ideological convictions — when faced with the anger of the Americans, he jettisoned his Taliban allies and joined the international coalition against terrorism. He is a liberal with a secular lifestyle. India would be much better off dealing with him than an elected Prime Minister like, say, Qazi Hussain Ahmad (of Jamat-e-Islami), whose ideological persuasions would make negotiations even more difficult. I think it serves no purpose to dwell endlessly on Kargil and General Musharraf being its author. That episode brought nothing but damage and disgrace to the country," he argued.

Many in Pakistan believe that if the two countries had come to the negotiating table after the banning of Islamic militant groups in the spring of 2002, the jihadis would have been crippled. The initiation of a peace dialogue would have helped General Musharraf deal with the jihadis effectively. But by that time India had already sent its army to the border.

An intellectual disappointed with the developments claimed, "The BJP government in India has in effect prevented the demise of the jihadis in Pakistan through its actions of heating up the border and constant belligerence."

Imtiaz Alam, senior editor with The News, who shared this disappointment, said: "Now Atal Bihari Vajpayee's potential for peace has been exhausted. Party politics has become more important than a possible role he might have had in history. He did make some very daring peace gestures but today he has even lost his liberal credentials under pressure from the Sangh parivar."

While urging those with the interests of the people of India and Pakistan in mind not join in the chorus of jingoism which marks the relationship today, he said: "My worry is that in the present international situation, a single agent provocateur can lead our countries to war."

That is why, he argued, "India should not close all doors of communication. Let people-to-people contact take place; let land, air and rail links be revived; let diplomatic links be there — and at the same time the BJP can continue with its politics. The two things can run in parallel. Cutting off all links only strengthens extremist forces in the establishments of the two countries," he said.

[DJS]

A whole thread for India/Pakistan? Not neccesary.

Musharraf is an apparently benevolent dictator. We must maintain him in power so he can continue to weed out the Al Qaeda network which is within his country. It seems that our relationship is working out rather well. If you disagree please lay out your case.

India-Pakistan relations are of not much concern to me. Both are armed with nuclear weapons. Both can destroy each other. The US influence in this continuous conflict is negliable. We have more pressing concerns.

Our main goals should be to

1. Keep Musharraf in power.
2. Keep the Kashmir question status quo.

The more interesting case study, I think, is why terrorism is sponsored by Pakistan and not India. Is terrorism predominantly an "Islamic problem"? Or is terrorism the result of the inequities of geo-political relationships? Or a mixture of both? -- As the article above said, if Pakistan discontinued terrorism as a policy to deal with the Kashmir issue it would have no leverage in forcing somekind of resolution to the conflict. Therefore, skirting the line between supporting terrorism/turning a blind eye/coming down hard on terrorism may be the approach that Musharraf decides is in Pakistan's national interest.

Edited by Kissinger, 05 March 2003 - 05:31 AM.

[Lazarus Long]

We hopefully won't have to keep him in power he was doing just fine without our help.

He is however facing a growing ground swell of democratically inspired discontent. If that happens then we will have a full blown situation, as we are forced occupy a third Islamic country in order to maintain order and look bad to boot. This is assuming that you are right that by then we will already be occupying Afghanistan, Iraq, and then protecting Musharraf's back.

But let's be clear, the price tags for these Strategies are in the many hundreds of billions and the timetable must be measured over a decade. Nothing this prolonged will have high probability of a positive predictable outcome if the Peace cannot be returned to the region very quickly, as in months after this starts and this isn't likely.

For the moment we are fortunate to have him on our side but the way politics works for this region is through assassination. I think he can keep himself covered however because it is clear he was successful early on in containing the amount al Qaeda was able to compromise his Intelligence Services. But he suspects sleepers in his Services and has watched a few mysterious plane crashes of late take some of his upper level staff. He is uneasy about travelling and his security is very tight, but driveing isn't an option for this man. He can barely control the high mountain region along the Afghan border and the current increase in the global volume of opium traffic is a direct result.

BTW, since we took out the Taliban and aren't paying the opium lords to stop growing it, Afghanistan has moved back into its premier position as one of the world's largest opium growers and now under apparant defacto US protection for this source of Asian Heroin traffic.

Do the Opium Wars of Great Britain's 19th Century China Expedition ring a bell?

We seem to be getting involved in just such a quiet debacle if we aren't very careful. The Opium Warlords control the mountains not the Pakistani army or US.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.timesonli...-600029,00.html

March 05, 2003

UN leaders draw up secret blueprint for postwar Iraq (excerpts)

From James Bone in New York

US forces will hand over three months after Saddam is defeated

THE United Nations has drawn up a confidential plan to establish a post-Saddam government in Iraq in a move that suggests its leaders now consider war all but inevitable.

The plan, obtained by The Times, has been produced in great secrecy over the past month, even though Security Council approval of a “war resolution” hangs in the balance.

The UN is breaking a taboo, and arguably breaching its charter, by considering plans for Iraq’s future governance while it deals daily with President Saddam Hussein’s regime as a legitimate member.

The 60-page plan was ordered by Louise Frechette, the Canadian deputy of Kofi Annan, the Secretary-General, and was drawn up at the UN’s New York headquarters by a six-member pre-planning group. It envisages the UN stepping in about three months after a successful conquest of Iraq, and steering the country towards self-government, as in Afghanistan.

The plan resists British pressure to set up a full-scale UN administration. It also says that the UN should avoid taking direct control of Iraqi oil or becoming involved in vetting Iraqi officials for links to the President or staging elections under US military occupation.

It proposes instead the creation of a UN Assistance Mission in Iraq, to be known as Unami, to help to establish a new government.

UN sources expected the plan to be implemented even if the US goes to war without a UN resolution authorising military action. It recommends that the UN immediately appoint a senior official to co-ordinate its strategy, who would become the UN special representative in post-war Iraq.

Sources said that Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN troubleshooter who organised the creation of the Government in Afghanistan, would be approached about a similar role in Iraq.

Mr Brahimi, a former Algerian Foreign Minister whose journalist-daughter has been reporting for the CNN television network from Baghdad, is said to be reluctant to take on a major assignment at the age of 68 but is expected to accept.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.nytimes.c...&partner=GOOGLE

Top General Sees Plan to Shock Iraq Into Surrendering (excerpts)

By ERIC SCHMITT and ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, March 4 — The nation's top military officer said today that the Pentagon's war plan for Iraq entailed shocking the Iraqi leadership into submission quickly with an attack "much, much, much different" from the 43-day Persian Gulf war in 1991.

Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declined to give details. But other military officials have said the plan calls for unleashing 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles in the first 48 hours of a short air campaign, to be followed quickly by ground operations.

"If asked to go into conflict in Iraq, what you'd like to do is have it be a short conflict," General Myers told reporters at a breakfast meeting. "The best way to do that would be to have such a shock on the system that the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on the end was inevitable."

General Myers gave a stark warning that the American attack would result in Iraqi civilian casualties despite the military's best efforts to prevent them.

He said disarming Iraq would define victory, not capturing or killing President Saddam Hussein. He also added that American forces would open a second front from the north against Iraq, with or without Turkey's help. "It'll be tougher without Turkey, but nevertheless it'll happen," he said.

With 200,000 American military personnel in the Persian Gulf and 60,000 more on their way, General Myers declined to give a timetable for war other than to say that the military was ready to attack on President Bush's order.


Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

Edited by bobdrake12, 05 March 2003 - 06:46 AM.

[bobdrake12]

http://story.news.ya...5/wl_nm/iraq_dc

U.N. Split on Iraq, Annan Wants Compromise (excerpts)

By Alan Elsner and Jonathan Wright

UNITED NATIONS/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States said it was gaining support in the U.N. Security Council for a resolution against Iraq (news - web sites), as Turkey gave Washington hope it could be allowed to open a northern front there for any invasion and the and the American troop buildup intensified.

Despite U.S. confidence it would get enough votes for a U.N. resolution authorizing war with Iraq, positions hardened among the main protagonists with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) pleading on Tuesday for a compromise.

"I am increasingly optimistic that if it comes to a vote, we will be able to make a case that will persuade most of the members of the Security Council to vote for the resolution," Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told the French television station France 2 in an interview.

While the United States is given a good chance to get the minimum nine votes needed for adoption in the 15-member council, diplomats believe that point has not been reached. There is also a strong chance France and Russia would use their veto power to kill the measure.

Edited by bobdrake12, 05 March 2003 - 06:58 AM.

[DJS]

Why shouldn't we go into Iraq?

I believe that is the question that should be asked.

Is Saddam our enemy? Yes.

Does he have WMD? Yes.

Does he have links to terror? Yes.

Would the world be better off without him? Yes.

Would the Iraqi people be better off without him? Yes.

Could toppling the regime of Saddam Hussein be the first step to real reform in the Middle East? Yes.

Does the US have the right to defend its interests and defeat its enemies? Yes.

Would the US be viewed as weak if it were to step back now from the brink of war? Yes.

Is a pro US Iraq in the US' interest? Yes.

Again, why shouldn't we go into Iraq? Is the only legitimate argument out there that occupying Iraq will increase terrorist recruitment? Can this be proven? Can it be quantified? Couldn't it be that the "forces" giving us this opinion have a vested interest in keeping the status quo?

And then there is the oil argument. This is more of an accusation if you ask me. It is also one of the methods Saddam has to insight division within the international community. Think about it. What better way to create suspicion about the aggressor nation's motives. Also, what better way to foster relationships with nations that are the competitors of the US. China, France, Russia--they all have contracts with Iraq to develop Iraq's oil fields. These contracts were made while Iraq was under UN sanctions and US companies were forbidden from attaining similar contracts. Even if this were about oil, it would only be us leveling the playing field to make up for the fact that other nations have been cheating in the past.

Now you can either believe that the Administration is stupid or devilishly clever. I subscribe to the latter. In my opinion, the Administration has intentionally backed itself into a position that it has to follow through on. This makes its supporters rally to the causes and its detractors fall in line. Unless the detractor is Lazarus who will not fall for such carefully laid traps. If you analyze the possiblity of war in Iraq objectively you should come to the conclusion the war is inevitable regardless of your opinions on the matter.

[DJS]

U.S. plans to make short work of Iraq
By Bill Gertz
THE WASHINGTON TIMES

"If asked to go into conflict in Iraq, what you would like to do is have it be a short conflict," said Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "And the best way to do that would be to have such a shock on the system the Iraqi regime would have to assume early on that the end is inevitable."
Gen. Myers spoke to reporters during a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor newspaper.
He provided the first peek at the military's war plan for Iraq, which would involve massive strikes with precision-guided bombs and missiles.
"It would not be the template of Desert Storm," said Gen. Myers, referring to the 1991 Persian Gulf war.
"And we can't forget that war is inherently violent and people are going to die."
Pentagon war planners will try to minimize civilian casualties and damage to nonmilitary structures, but that "will occur," he said.
The four-star general said the war plan will employ a concept dubbed "shock and awe" to finish a conflict quickly. "Some of those techniques will be used," he said.
Harlan Ullman, a former Navy pilot and National Defense University specialist is a key architect of the shock and awe concept, which calls for achieving "rapid dominance" on the battlefield.
It calls for intense bombing that inflicts both physical and psychological damage on an enemy, including both high-explosive bombs and electronic-pulse weapons designed to cause widespread electronic failures.
Gen. Myers did not provide operational details of the war plan but said a key difference is the goal of disarming Iraq and disabling the Iraqi leadership.
Military planners also hope to resolve differences with the Turkish government over the use of bases there by U.S. forces to invade Iraq.
However, with or without the Turkish basis, the military will have a northern front in any war with Iraq, he said.
"In any case there'll be a northern option with or without Turkey," Gen. Myers said. "Obviously it will be tougher without Turkey, but nevertheless it'll happen."
One way to solve the problem is to decrease the ground troops and increase the air power, Gen. Myers said.
He also said President Bush has not made a decision on the use of force against Iraq.
Recent leaflet drops and radio broadcasts in Iraq are meant to "keep the worst case from happening," he said.
"And the worst case would be the use of biological or chemical weapons on the Iraqi people or coalition forces," he said.
He said there are some signs the propaganda is "having some effect" on the Iraqis.
Gen. Myers also said U.S. forces are prepared to take action now if Iraq decided to attack any of its neighbors in advance of U.S. military action.
"We're ready today," he said.

[DJS]

If we can give the Iraqi people what we have it will change them. It will change the region. The average person wants freedom and prosperity. If they are given this they will develop into responsible citizens of the world. With prosperity, religious extremism will be moderated by the overwhelming force of modernity.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.washingto...6-2003Mar5.html


U.S. Plans Heavy Bombing Campaign in Iraq (excerpts)


By ROBERT BURNS
The Associated Press
Wednesday, March 5, 2003; 4:14 PM

U.S. forces would hit Iraq with 10 times as many bombs in the opening days of an air campaign as in the 1991 Gulf War in an assault meant to "shock and awe" Iraqi defenders, officials said Wednesday.

Many more of the bombs would be guided by lasers or satellite signals, too, adding to accuracy, one official said.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, meanwhile, and the commander who would lead the war, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, met with President Bush to discuss war plans for ousting Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Both said after the White House meeting that Bush had not yet decided whether to order an invasion. But Franks said the U.S. forces now arrayed against Iraq, said to number at least 230,000 with many more on the way, are prepared for the go-ahead.

"Our troops in the field are trained, they're ready, they are capable," Franks said at a Pentagon news conference.

If war comes, U.S.-led airstrikes with thousands of bombs and missiles would be combined with quick ground assaults - a combination aimed at overwhelming Saddam's defenses, preventing him from retaliating with chemical or biological weapons and crushing Iraqi morale.

[bobdrake12]

http://www.smh.com.a...6826442114.html

We will win council vote, a confident Bush claims (excerpts)

By Caroline Overington, Herald Correspondent in New York

March 6 2003

The United States believes the United Nations Security Council will sanction a war on Iraq by the end of next week, despite what appears to be overwhelming opposition from France and Russia.

The White House spokesman, Ari Fleischer, said on Tuesday that President George Bush was "confident in the outcome" of the vote on the second UN resolution to authorise the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein.

Russia and France have vowed to veto the second resolution, but Mr Fleischer said: "We've seen this pattern before, where people believe it's impossible" for the US to get the support it needs.

Mr Fleischer said the US would "listen to the Blix report, and then give members the opportunity to say what they think, and to act". Mr Bush regarded a vote on the second resolution as "desirable, but not mandatory".

He said that did not mean the US would withdraw the resolution, even if it looked like a majority of members would not vote for it. "We are proceeding with all the plans for the vote."

The US position has been complicated in recent days by Iraq's decision to start destroying its illegal Al-Samoud 2 missiles. France has said that this is a sign that Iraq is willing to disarm peacefully. However, the pace of destruction has been slow, and Iraq has said that it will abandon the process if the US refuses to back away from war.

Copyright © 2003. The Sydney Morning Herald

[bobdrake12]

http://ap.tbo.com/ap...GA82U3DXCD.html

Powell Tells Russian TV That U.S. Ready to Proceed With Iraqi War With or Without U.N. Consent (excerpts)

The Associated Press

Published: Mar 5, 2003

MOSCOW (AP) - Secretary of State Colin Powell told Russia's state-controlled television that the United States was prepared to lead a war against Iraq with or without the consent of the United Nations.

Powell said that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein "must be disarmed ... and he will be disarmed - peacefully, hopefully, but if necessary, the United States is prepared to lead a coalition of the willing, a coalition of willing nations, either under U.N. authority or without U.N. authority, if that turns out to be the case, in order to disarm this man."

© 2003, Media General Inc.