15001. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:01:52 AM
They're saying there was no indication it was more than an accident, but I don't know how they could know anything yet.
15002. Erin R. - 11/12/2001 10:02:20 AM
How can they determine so soon that it is an accident. It just happened, right?
15003. Erin R. - 11/12/2001 10:04:26 AM
Headed to Santo Domingo? So, a transcontinental flight, plenty of fuel in the plane?
15004. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:07:36 AM
They got the flight number--567, I think. They said 246 passengers and 9 crew were on the plane.
15005. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:08:35 AM
It crashed almost an hour ago, btw, at 9:15, they said.
15006. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 10:11:30 AM
Jesus, I'm glad it was Webfeet who posted the news. She lives in Queens.
15007. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:11:44 AM
"Frankly, Andonly's fixation with blonde people worries me."
Everybody has to worry about something.
The period during which all my boyfriends looked like Nazi ubermenschen worried my parents. I never did manage to marry a Jew. (Fortunately for all concerned, the folks were placated by the fact that my mate possesses an advanced degree in a respectable but semi-arcane field of study, and although half German, is not blond...)
15008. Erin R. - 11/12/2001 10:21:06 AM
BBC reports two crash sites--one where one of the plane's engine's crashed, and another where the actual plane crashed.
Witnesses report an explosion in one engine, then the plane taking a nosedive.
15009. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:21:35 AM
When my sister finaly arrives, I am going to tie her to a chair. No more Turkish vacations until the security situation improves dramatically.
15010. Erin R. - 11/12/2001 10:21:38 AM
engine's=engines
15011. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 10:27:30 AM
AC,
Queens is very large, webbie lives quite far from the Rockaways. The area the plance crashed is rather unpopulated and open, by the way. It's on the outskirts of the airport. In a way it's fortunate the plane hit where it did, there are many places where the damage could have been much more severe.
How many planes is this down from JFK in the past two years, by the way? 4? 5? It's way too many.
15012. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:29:58 AM
I didn't say anything about it at the time, but Mose was going to Spain and France this spring, and since most of her friends have canceled she doesn't want to go now, either. I'm not pushing otherwise. I'm not afraid to fly anymore than I already was, but I certainly wouldn't push her to, although she doesn't seem to be nervous about it at all, just disappointed that so many people are canceling.
15013. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:30:29 AM
(CBS) Nov. 12, 2001
A plane crashed Monday morning in the Queens section of New York, and buildings reportedly were on fire in the neighborhood.
The plane crashed shortly after 9 a.m. and thick, black smoke could be scene in televised reports. Thick black smoke can be seen in the neighborhood of Beach Street and 129th street. Reports say there are a number of buildings on fire in the neighborhood.
The FAA said the plane was flying New York to Santo Domingo. The FAA said the plane was American Airlines flight 587, and it was an Airbus A-300, twin-engine plane.
Mayor Giuliani was headed to the scene.
All three of New York City's airports were closed.
There's LaGuardia, JFK, and--what? Are they counting Newark as one of "NYC's airports"?
15014. Jenerator - 11/12/2001 10:31:18 AM
Andonly, when you say Nazi ubermenschen, do you mean bad haircuts and closely cropped mustaches, too?;-)
I heard that the plane hit a gas station and several buildings are on fire.
15015. arkymalarky - 11/12/2001 10:31:22 AM
How many planes is this down from JFK in the past two years, by the way? 4? 5? It's way too many.
My lands. I wonder why?
15016. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:33:13 AM
yeah, alistair, marj is right.nowhere near it. but theres always next time. laguardia is just a few miles away.
french correspondent has just been informing aix of the news.
15017. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:34:39 AM
"Andonly, when you say Nazi ubermenschen, do you mean bad haircuts and closely cropped mustaches, too?;-)"
I'm not fond of facial hair. Or chest hair, for that matter.
15018. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:35:39 AM
I seriously feel like it's almost obscene to enjoy myself lately.
Everytime I give back a little and say 'oh, well, might as well go on with life--who knows when it will end?'--I read another devastating obit (well, they're all devastating) and now--this.
15019. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:36:29 AM
But back to important matters--does anyone know whether Newark has been shut down? I suspect if I try to call the phones will be jammed.
15020. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:37:09 AM
What's astonishes me is that fully 40 minutes and more after the crash only then did we know for sure the flight, the destination, and the aircraft, despite the networks working phones and contacts to get information. First reports that the plane was a 767-300 inbound were wrong; only that the plane was American is later proven to be true.
15021. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 10:37:16 AM
One was that EgyptAir plane that some suggest the pilot downed by himself. Another is that PanAm(?) flight off LI that there is no answer for but some suggest was downed by a missile.
It is not too early to start speculation about terrorist attacks, I think.
So, let's consider the following. It's highly unlikely that it took place like the previous ones. Rockaway is almost underneath the take-off area, there would have been a minute or two after takeoff to crash maximum. So, if it is a terrorist attack it was a bomb or some sabotage that took place immediately after take-off. Or a missile from the ground.
So, I'd say there is a strong chance that it is not a terrorist attack. Or, if it is, there could now be the possibility that ground staff or airport personnel are in on the scheme.
15022. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 10:39:17 AM
Loar,
I'm with you, the information infrastructure is appalling.
--
Andonly,
Newark is shut. I'd bet it's going to be shut through the day. All bridges and tunnels are again shut in and out of NY. They'll most likely reopen in a bit, I'm guessing.
15023. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:39:48 AM
Newark is shut down. So are bridges and tunnels and JFK and Lagaurdia.
15024. RustlerPike - 11/12/2001 10:39:55 AM
Planes should be outlawed.
15025. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:40:18 AM
echo
15026. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:40:49 AM
"So, I'd say there is a strong chance that it is not a terrorist attack. Or, if it is, there could now be the possibility that ground staff or airport personnel are in on the scheme."
If it was terrorism, surely the objective would have been to make sure the plane exploded over the continental US, the better to cause damage and instill fear.
15027. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:41:31 AM
The only one who cannot be persuaded by the evidence that EgyptAir 990 was downed by any other than the "cruise" co-pilot Gameel al-Batouti is the Egyptian government.
15028. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:42:55 AM
Thanks for the info, folks. Maybe my sister will be able to log on in Paris and we'll try to make make other arrangements.
15029. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:45:26 AM
Specialist an CBS says it fits the profile of 'catastrophic engine failure'.
15030. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:45:28 AM
Yasir Arafat expressed his "deepest appreciation" on Sunday for President Bush's public endorsement of Palestine as a state.
NyT
15031. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 10:46:20 AM
Well, Loar, I haven't read that famous Atlantic Monthly article, but i'm willing to believe it.
--
What is surprising and disappointing about the news coverage available right now, is that we're again reduced to panic over a long-shot of smoke rising from the ground. The details that come out are contradictory, and there is no authoritative official word. One hopes (a) that this shit ceases happening and (b) that the homeland security guys get their act together so that withing 20 minutes of something like this happening in the future there is a calm, informed, person in front of all the cameras telling us what is happening and all that we need to know.
15032. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:46:49 AM
goes onto say...Likely to be a 'terribly tragic accident'--consistent with eyewitness accounts of debris and engine falling.
15033. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:47:43 AM
Yes, if it were terrorism "surely the objective would have been to make sure the plane exploded over the continental US", except that the plane was going to Santo Domingo and so its flight path would not bring it over the continental US at low altitude except immediately after take-off, and despite man's (and terrorists) best intentions - shit happens - as the PanAm flight failed to explode over the Atlantic but inconveniently scattered evidence over Lockerbie because of a flight delay.
I don't know if this plane was downed by accident or intent and no one can now say for sure.
15034. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:49:06 AM
Speculation will prove worse than lack of immediate facts in this matter.
15035. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:50:04 AM
JABAL OS SARAJ, Afghanistan -- Anti-Taliban forces plowed across much of central and northern Afghanistan on Sunday, pushing south and west in a powerful offensive that opposition leaders claimed gave them control of more than half the country
Long Live Baba Jan!
15036. Andonly - 11/12/2001 10:50:38 AM
Loar, re Message # 15027, there's an article in the Atlantic about that (sorry I have no link). A former pilot assesses the black box info and concludes there's simply no way that crash was anything but a suicide mission.
15037. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 10:51:40 AM
Engine exploded? If it wasn't a bomb, then it's bad news for Airbus Industrie.
I'm booked to fly into JFK next month. On ...
(just checked) an Airbus.
15038. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:51:46 AM
We have liberated almost the whole of northern Afghanistan," said Haji Mohammed Mukhaqiq, one of the three Northern Alliance commanders.
and long may you live my brick-dust comrade!
15039. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:51:47 AM
Now theyre talking about the plane's 'ingestion of birds' as a possible cause...its apparently a real problem.
15040. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:53:25 AM
Yes and grace a dieu for that last Alistair!
Boeing's in deep doo since losing the Joint Strike K.
15041. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 10:54:00 AM
Yes, Andonly, I read The Atlantic Monthly of November 2001, pp.41-52, had referenced it before in this column, and my Message # 15027 was based on that article entitled "The Crash of EgyptAir 990" by William Langewiesche.
15042. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:54:48 AM
Abdullah^2 (NA FM) said, warning that the Taliban forces "have no escape"
15043. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 10:57:01 AM
Langweische saves his most damning evidence for the last paragraph. And it almost leaves you speechless.
15044. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:57:39 AM
"all my boyfriends looked like Nazi ubermenschen"
HOT!
Some girls have ALL the luck!
Well unlucky in love, unlucky in life..[sigh]
15045. jexster - 11/12/2001 10:59:13 AM
and I know its off topic but saw Private Ryan last nite..first time....
With memories of that SUPERLATIVE scene of SS Das Reich's attach on the 101 AB....Ando's now put me in heat
15046. Andonly - 11/12/2001 11:00:11 AM
"Yes, if it were terrorism "surely the objective would have been to make sure the plane exploded over the continental US", except that the plane was going to Santo Domingo and so its flight path would not bring it over the continental US at low altitude except immediately after take-off"
Sigh. Yes, that's obvious, but only means that if this is an act of terrorism, it involves a degree of technological precision not previously demonstrated by al Qaeda. Which would be bad news if we're looking at terrorism, yet at the moment suggests an accident. Rather the way the Egypt Air flight and the Long Island crash appeared to be accidents, and can never be determined with certainty to be otherwise.
I agree with Banks--it would help to have prompt and straightforward Homeland Defense spokesmen. A simple "We don't know yet what has happened, but here are the relevant details" ought not to be left solely to the electronic media.
15047. Andonly - 11/12/2001 11:01:52 AM
"Now theyre talking about the plane's 'ingestion of birds' as a possible cause...its apparently a real problem."
Boeing used to test its aircraft by hurling frozen chicken into jet engines in wind tunnels.
15048. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 11:02:11 AM
alistair, if you do go ahead with your plans, let us know. for now, our plans to visit aix before the holidays are postponed.
15049. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:02:52 AM
"We've all shaved our beards," one resident said. "It will be nice to kiss each other on the cheek again..
Mind still in gutter
15050. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:05:03 AM
"Public bathhouses, shut by the Taliban as spiritually corrupt, reopened over the weekend with prices jacked up 12 times--from 15 cents a sauna before the Taliban took control to about $2 on Sunday."
We don't even have those in SF anymore :(
15051. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 11:09:58 AM
CNN has eyewitnesses saying that an engine was on fire after takeoff (accompanying shots of engine lying four blocks from crash site) and that debris was flying off the plane before crash.
So, it's either a bomb (possibly a passenger with a small quantity of explosives strapped to his/her body, enough to blow a hole in the plane), or an accident involving a faulty engine.
15052. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 11:11:21 AM
Ahmed Massoud was killed by a person with explosives strapped around his body, apparently. So, famously, was Rajiv Gandhi.
15053. Andonly - 11/12/2001 11:11:35 AM
Or sabotage.
15054. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 11:13:22 AM
Well, yes, sabotage. I suppose the engine could have been "fixed' in a way that did not involve a bomb.
15055. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:17:35 AM
It was TWA, not Pan Am, and it was six years ago.
There have been three or four unexplained crashes on the East Coast over the last ten years; another writer in the Atlantic had a very interesting theory about it involving EMP and the military, but she ruined her credibility by trying to crunch the EgyptAir flight in. The Egypt Air flight was 90% proven suicide before the black box.
15056. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:18:51 AM
Arggh! before the voice recorder, I meant. In other words, the black box alone strongly suggested suicide. Too early in the morning for me.
15057. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 11:25:51 AM
I reasonably counter Andonly's wayward speculation that if this were a terrorist attack "the objective would have been to make sure the plane explodes over the continental US" with an alternative and I get a sigh and the discouraging Message # 15046 as retort, confirming my opinion that any correspondence with Andonly just isn't worth the discouraging results; it's just jaw, jaw, jaw.
To Everyone Else: I don't know if this plane going down is calculated or not. Do any of you?
No, I didn't think so.
15058. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:30:25 AM
The Rush to Loya Jirga - FAQ's - Diplomatic Editor, Times of London
15059. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 11:32:16 AM
Who could know, Loar? It is only a measure of where we are today that the first thought in my head after hearing the news of the crash was "thank God it was only in the Rockaways."
--
Meanwhile, Herat has been taken over by the NA. They're definitely on the road to Kabul.
15060. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:32:37 AM
I don't know if this plane is an attack or not, either. The thing that makes me nervous is that plane crashes into residences are extremely rare; plane crashes in general aren't all that common.
So in the current environment, a "natural cause" plane crash of this nature seems almost more unlikely than one due to terrorist attack.
15061. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 11:36:18 AM
Yes, CalGal, but what remains beyond the pitifully few details available is speculation, and not informed speculation either as no film or qualified eyewitness reports (that is, technically qualified eyewitness who could knowledgably interpret what they've seen) have arisen. Again, speculation will prove worse than immediate facts.
15062. ScottLoar - 11/12/2001 11:39:12 AM
Ah well, I've got work to do. I remain gainfully employed.
15063. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:40:01 AM
Is King Zahid Shah still an integral part of a future government?
"Mr Karzai is certainly working on the assumption that the former ruler is the one leader who can unite the country. Although he might not have any long term constitutional role he could convene the Loya jirga, or grand council, that would encompass all the country's leaders."
15064. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:41:24 AM
Looks guys this belongs in the dog bite thread...this isn't terrorism or we would have heard something from the Royal Minister of Homeland Defence....
Or would we?
15065. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:48:43 AM
"FOR the fourth time in as many minutes we dropped to the bottom of the narrow trench, curling up like foetuses and giggling like madmen as the growing screech above us signalled yet another incoming Taleban shell.
The noise petered out and the half-dozen Northern Alliance troops huddled in the trench fell silent, then sighed as the shell thudded harmlessly into the riverbank a few hundred feet in front of us.
Muhammad Ghawm and his comrades leapt out of the trench and stood astride the stony escarpment from which they had been watching the most ferocious aerial bombardment and artillery exchange they had seen in years of war.
“Perozi!” Abdul screamed in Persian — Victory! — and a childlike smile of delight spread across his face. As Alliance forces swarmed over the hills and through the ravines of northern Afghanistan yesterday, galvanised by the fall of Mazar-i Sharif the day before, a savage battle was under way to wrench the Taleban from their strongholds in two mountain ranges west of the city..."
Why does our media coverage suck so?
Times in the Trenches
15066. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:51:59 AM
Two ageing T54 tanks trundled slowly up the side of the escarpment to join in the bombardment and fired round after round into the Taleban positions.
One of their commanders, Abdul Dian, yelled above the din: “These aren’t Afghans I’m killing, they’re all Chechens and Pakistanis.” In Russian, he added: “I’m having a wonderful afternoon.”
15067. CalGal - 11/12/2001 11:52:28 AM
Scott,
I agree; I was just saying that a terrorist attack is not an unreasonable assumption, considering the alternatives.
THE FALL OF EGYPTAIR 990
The title is misleading; this is actually a theory about the cause of the TWA, SwissAir, and EgyptAir crashes. I think she makes a good case for TWA and SwissAir; her contortions to make EgyptAir fit are laughable.
15068. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:58:36 AM
Dieu et mon droit!
I have seen nothing even close to this quality in the US Big Three...not to mention this close to the battle...
One man had lost his right foot and all his fingers. Another had a gaping wound in his right hip. The corpse lay on a wooden table in the corner, covered in a heavy blanket. One of his friends, a boy of no more than 17, entered quietly and stood at his side. After a few seconds the boy slipped his hand under the blanket and held the dead man’s hand. Then he quickly raised his other hand and wiped his eyes, hoping that I had not seen his tears.
15069. jexster - 11/12/2001 11:59:31 AM
Flock o seagulls Cal
15070. jexster - 11/12/2001 12:09:04 PM
Ari Fliescher, the King's Minister of Information has issued a Royal Pronouncement...
"It was an accident America...all loyal subjects must get back to normal...work and shop til you drop"
15071. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:20:09 PM
There are fighter jets overhead right now, it's all making me rather jumpy. As is this snipped from a UK paper:
The Pentagon has confirmed that it had been aware of a problem with the flight and had an F-15 fighter plane in the area, but it could not reach the plane before it crashed.
15072. judithathome - 11/12/2001 12:24:12 PM
Banks, I guess this means Ari is lying. He's standing there right now urging people to travel and get on with thier lives....
15073. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 12:25:18 PM
Oh, where did you snip that from Marj?
15074. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 12:26:00 PM
... and what on earth could an F15 have done? Shoot it down?
15075. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:30:49 PM
I got if from the Guardian, and of course it may be premature or wrong.
People like Fleischer should be completely ignored. His concern is the financial markets (the Dow crashed over 100 points on the news) and his boss's flighty poll numbers.
15076. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:32:43 PM
"go about your business" is not a brave, or even worthy, leadership message at this moment. Yes, no one wants panic including those very near the crash site. You do want something a bit more reassuring than clearly risible claims and assurances.
15077. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:34:36 PM
Yes, I think the airlines now officially have a dire problem on their hands. No one will want to fly, I certainly don't.
15078. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:40:48 PM
I predicted a few days ago that it would be hard to control the NA from advancing willy-nilly if the situation was to their liking. It appears now that they are on the verge of entering Kabul, even as Bush declared that he was with Musharraf in desiring that they do not take the capital. You cannot ruly control a force like the NA, even if you're their own commander. If things go the way they have the last few days, they could already be infiltrating the Taliban lines, and Kabul could be in their hands through the winter. That would be bad news for everyone save the jubilant NA fighters.
15079. janjon - 11/12/2001 12:45:08 PM
I've flown six times now since 9/11, including twice last week.
The security at the airports, especially before check in, is appalling. Lots of unattended luggage around with no one paying the slightest attention. Granted, explosions at those areas of the airports would "only" kill or maim, say, a few hundred people. But the psychological impact would be immense.
I assume that the various xray machines are doing their jobs and that those looking at what they reveal know what to look for and so on, but I don't have any real confidence in that. And, standards certainly vary from airport to airport. LaQuardia actually was the "best" in terms of giving one a feeling that it indeed would have been hard for someone to get to the gate with "bad stuff" in tow.
However, when looking out at the planes on the tarmac, and seeing not one bit of visible evidence that anyone was even looking at the area (no doubt not true), it didn't add to one's comfort level.
Long and short -Life is a crapshoot. Don't take unnecessary risks but go on with it.
Meanwhile, midtown was quite a snarl shortly after the plane crash. But very very civil. People know that snarls go with the turf these days.
15080. Andonly - 11/12/2001 12:49:19 PM
""go about your business" is not a brave, or even worthy, leadership message at this moment. Yes, no one wants panic including those very near the crash site. You do want something a bit more reassuring than clearly risible claims and assurances."
The end of the world is surely nigh, no other reason I could posibly agree with Banks twice in one morning.
We could use Tony Blair as head of Homeland Defense just now. It would be good, too, if Ari Fleischer would develop some unphotogenic skin disease or something, the quicker to be rid of him.
Loar: It's good to know there's still one patriotic Murcan out there who is man enough to get about his bidnis as usual in between urging internet ghosts not to jump to conclusions.
15081. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:51:22 PM
I was interested in the lack of security at Newark when I flew to Europe last month. It was stepped up from before, but still totally cursory compared to the checks at virtually any European airport, or in India.
15082. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 12:57:09 PM
Over the weekend, I had the chance to see several interviews with various world leaders. Again and again, I was struck by how impoverished this country is in terms of talking heads articulating its point of view. You have the slimy spindoctoring of Fleischer, and then the frankly less-than-believable Rumsfeld, and then the infantile playing-at-cowboy Bush. Whatever happened to Cheney? He should be talking, he's at least believable and grown-up.
Powell was the exception. Grave, informed, no-bullshit. I saw him being interviewed about the Saudi FM's recent comments about the ME and how US policy was "enough to turn a sane man crazy" and Powell was excellent. This is the guy who should be speaking for the US, at home and abroad, on Al-Jazeera and on CNN.
Not sixgun and ten-gallon Bush, with his "he's an evil man and soon he's going to have evil weapons" cartoonishness.
15083. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:01:12 PM
Khatami, with whom two long interviews were broadcast (CNN, Charlie Rose), was excellent. That is a guy the US should be doing business with, much more than it has been anyway. I think it most probably is making overtures behind the scenes.
15084. EricCartman - 11/12/2001 1:05:20 PM
Urkel Message # 14989:
This is nifty of physiology. Translated, it states that no matter how insupportable your position, to criticize it is to hurt your feelings, and thus justify your temper tantrums....I shall refrain from further hurting your feelings.
Sigh. It was a JOKE, retard. Bush famously let that phrase crawl out of his mouth during one of the "debates" with Gore, like a wounded 3rd-grader. I thought you'd recognize it.
Never mind. Just continue on with your banal references to my "temper tantrums" and such, as if I'm a recalcitrant, emotionally volatile 7-year-old. I think you miss your Acehole, don't you?
Rask Message # 14991:
This criticism has been bandied around for decades, but I don't think these critics have ever successfully refuted the argument that there wasn't a hell of a lot the US could have done to prevent the Iron Curtain from closing short of outright war. The USSR got to almost all of the Iron Curtain territory first. We might have been able to alter the boundaries a little (mostly around Czechoslovakia and east Germany, as I recall), but I think there was some value in agreeing to boundaries before allied and Soviet troops actually met face to face.
That's basically my thought on it, too, which is what I pointed out to Davis.
15085. EricCartman - 11/12/2001 1:06:51 PM
Urkel Message # 14992:
The analysis also makes meaningless any workable definition of terrorism. Our inability or unwillingness to challenge the Soviets, our institution of slavery, our Colombia Plan, all are acts of terror. Thus, how can we possible not be chastened by the just retribution that was September 11th?
I assume this load of horseshit is aimed at me, and I can only tell you to read more carefully. I have already pointed out that I do NOT think that allowing for Soviet hegemony post-WW2 was terrorism. Nor dropping the bomb on Japan. I have not even mentioned slavery, nor Israel/Palestine, nor the heartbreak of psoriasis.
What I have said is that our recent -- and current, in Colombia -- funneling of money and training to right-wing authoritarian governments and paramilitary groups does seem to fall under our nebulous definitions of "terrorism", or as Bush repeatedly says, "eeevil".
I have stated time and again that I could be (and probably am) very wrong. Maybe terrorism is what we say it is, when we say it is, because winners write the rules. Maybe terrorism, by definition, cannot be committed by guys who wear uniforms or suits, because the conferrence of legitimacy automatically immunizes killers who went through the proper bureaucratic channels. I don't know for sure. Neither, it would seem, does anyone else.
I didn't think I'd have to hammer out every detail for you, because I do think you're smarter than the average bear. But I'm beginning to wonder if I need to slap you sober....
15086. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 1:11:16 PM
There are no previous A300 crashes which were anything like this one. The five which have crashed were all during landing phase, with dodgy automatism a likely contributor in several cases.
No fuel or engine problems.
I have no intention at this point of cancelling my NY trip. I feel it's my duty to support the US economy. Webfeet, how about taking me to Brooks Brothers or somewhere like that, and telling me what to buy?
On the other hand, I might be out of luck if the airline goes bust before then. Sabena crashed the other day, after the majestic Swissair bellyflop.
15087. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:21:33 PM
Connor,
My entirely baseless speculation at this point is that it was a suicide bomber, who detonated explosives secreted on his body. The limited (and unreliable) eyewitness accounts imply that there was a small explosion, then that debris was seen coming out of the plane, then that an engine or wing fell off. Reading all of this reminds me that Loar is right that speculation will be worse than the facts, but hey I'm speculating.
---
NYC is great during the holidays. Is this is family trip? I'll e-mail you later today.
15088. Andonly - 11/12/2001 1:22:07 PM
One of the engines was near overhaul status (in terms of flying hours). The plane had just been serviced; supposedly, recently serviced aircraft are most vulnerable, for whenever a mechanic messes with things, something right can be made wrong accidentally.
So far, the Authorities believe this was an accident, not terrorism. The lead investigative agency is to be the NTSB.
15089. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:27:54 PM
Calgal, it was Elaine Scarry who first wrote the piece appearing in the NYR of Books stating that electromagnetic interference caused by military activity in the waters off of long island was a possible cause for the downing of TWA flight 800 and Swissair.
She somehow got access to military logs which indicated activity on the dates of both crashes and at approximately same times (july 1996 and sept 1998). The real minutaie of this piece escapes me, but the general thrust was that both planes lost contact with air traffic controllers at approximately 7:15 pm for over fifteen minutes--at a time when the military was conducting tests with a submarine with hyper-sophisticated technology that Scarry believes caused interference with the transmissions of both flights. Flight 800 went down almost immediately after losing contact and Swissair came down 2 hours into the flight, a difference Scarry attributes to the ages of the planes. The Swissair plane was newer and by that logic, could withstand this scrambling effect a little longer.
Flight 800 has never been solved. Funding for an investigation into Swissair apparently never materialized. Part of Scarrys motive for writing the piece was to call attention to this with the hope that interest in it would be renewed. I dont know if this has come about.
15090. PelleNilsson - 11/12/2001 1:31:38 PM
I just heard on BBC the interesting factoid that on modern aircraft, the engines' attachment to the wing includes fuse pins, the purpose of which is to allow the engine to tear away without causing damage to the wing if subjected to unacceptable torque.
15091. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:34:40 PM
I would love to be your personal shopper and accompany you to brooks. I notice frenchman are into lavendar, at least the ministers are judging by the dashing attire of one of the members of the Concorde entourage which were photographed disembarking at JFK. As soon as I saw the lavendar pashmina, I thought 'so sexy, so french.' Perhaps we can do the same for you?
If you would like a place to rest your weary head, your welcome here. We have a happy little place --and you are invited to sleep in belle meres bed. I assume Lawerence et les filles are not coming?
15092. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:35:35 PM
Isnt it strangely cute that Loar and Banks agree on something?
15093. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:37:28 PM
Perhaps AC would like to purchase a handbag. All the "so sexy, so french" men seem to like them, perhaps Coach does one in trendy lavender.
15094. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:38:18 PM
Webbie,
Loar and I agree on almost everything. I find Loar to be a gentleman of great discernment.
15095. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:40:37 PM
You have to be really secure in your masculinity to wear lavendar. But I dont know if even Deardieu could pull off a Coach lavendar bagette bag. Or was that last year's? You know, I live in Queens so Im not quite up on these things anymore.
15096. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:42:00 PM
Oui, oui. Moi, aussi. But this time I think youre both wrong. And I usually agree with you on most things.
15097. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:43:27 PM
I don't recall quite completely, but I seem to remember AC toting a very chic little purse last time I saw him. It set off his shiny stiletto heels very nicely and so very useful!
15098. Webfeet - 11/12/2001 1:48:10 PM
Im going to dovetail into something totally inappropriate for this thread--but we saw a wildly entertaining western style burlesque with Bardot and Jeanne Moreau co-starring as road show strippers fighting a revolutionary war against corrupt spaniards.
It was called 'Viva Maria' and it was so bad it was good.
15099. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 1:51:19 PM
Aha, webbie. So you are having a little fun after all. I was worried by your earlier post.
I must run. In the meanwhile, please accept my heartiest condolences to the entire great borough of Queens. Our hearts are with you today.
15100. alistairconnor - 11/12/2001 2:15:40 PM
Viva Maria! I love that film! By Louis Malle, of all people.
(end of digression)
15101. CalGal - 11/12/2001 2:22:37 PM
Web,
I think the reasoning for both TWA and Swissair is excellent; I have seen no further comment on it since then. I wish she hadn't skewed her case by trying to make EgyptAir fit in. (I linked the article in later, did you see?).
I have always been skeptical of the NATSB's explanation for the TWA crash; I never wanted to believe in the missile, but it seemed at least as likely as their feeble effort. So 747s could explode at any time during the past 30 years (based on airline fuel usage procedures), and the airlines must change these procedures right away--but it never happened before and hasn't happened since? I don't think so.
15102. jexster - 11/12/2001 2:29:58 PM
Hi! slippy hitherao!
Water, get it! Panee lao!
"CHARIKA, Afghanistan, Nov. 12 – Afghanistan's opposition fighters today rolled over Taliban frontline positions and moved to within four miles of Kabul, meeting little resistance as they launched their long-awaited offensive toward the capital.
Continuing a remarkable string of victories that began with the capture of the key crossroads city of Mazar-e Sharif on Friday, Northern Alliance troops today also captured the key western city of Herat in a battle that began Sunday and was aided by local residents who rose up against the Taliban, according to an alliance spokesman.
In the advance toward Kabul, rebel forces advanced from two directions today, pushing their own front line forward about 3 miles from the Bagram airbase, and also moving across the Shomali Plains to Shaker Darah along the main highway to Kabul. Along that second front, which is the closest to Kabul, the opposition captured two Taliban-held mountainside villages, Estargich and Raesht, that had been the target of punishing American air strikes in recent days."
WPost
15103. Francis Urquhart - 11/12/2001 2:57:23 PM
Cart
"Sigh. It was a JOKE, retard. Bush famously let that phrase crawl out of his mouth during one of the "debates" with Gore, like a wounded 3rd-grader. I thought you'd recognize it."
I missed the joke, which is entirely my fault. Following up "Dewey Cheatem and Howe" with more sophisticated humor, however, is unfair, and I protest.
"as if I'm a recalcitrant, emotionally volatile 7-year-old. I think you miss your Acehole, don't you?"
I do miss him.
"I assume this load of horseshit is aimed at me, and I can only tell you to read more carefully. I have already pointed out that I do NOT think that allowing for Soviet hegemony post-WW2 was terrorism. Nor dropping the bomb on Japan. I have not even mentioned slavery, nor Israel/Palestine, nor the heartbreak of psoriasis."
Not everything, Eric, is about you.
"What I have said is that our recent -- and current, in Colombia -- funneling of money and training to right-wing authoritarian governments and paramilitary groups does seem to fall under our nebulous definitions of 'terrorism', or as Bush repeatedly says, 'eeevil'."
Having read the State Department defense and Amnesty International's criticism of Plan Colombia, your assertion, even in its qualified form, is immature and emotional.
"I didn't think I'd have to hammer out every detail for you, because I do think you're smarter than the average bear. But I'm beginning to wonder if I need to slap you sober...."
One or two facts dropped in the rants and yukkified prose couldn't hurt.
15104. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:01:59 PM
yukkified prose.
written by one who is intimately familiar with same.
15105. stostosto - 11/12/2001 3:11:12 PM
The plane that crashed in Queens was first reported to have been a Boeing 767 that was coming in to JFK. It turned out to be an Airbus 300 who was taking off from JFK. Why the misreporting? If they didn't know, then why not simply report they didn't know what kind of plane and which direction it was headed in? Is that common when such is reported?
15106. Cellar Door - 11/12/2001 3:21:31 PM
Factual errors are increasingly common in the News.
15107. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:28:02 PM
I was in transit when this plane crashed. Upon reaching my small office, I had brief (like one or two sentences) chats with four people before turning on the news. Each version of what had happened was different (including one when I was told that two planes somehow were involved and that a plane engine had fallen in Central Park). The common thread was conjecture as to whether terrorist acts were involved.
I haven't gone back to these four people and asked where they had first heard the news (and probably won't. Make that definitely won't, since my querry would be rather transparent.)
A natural consequence of living on the edge (as reflected by Marj's comments early on about how he sizes up what could be going wrong with planes in our New York sky).
15108. judithathome - 11/12/2001 3:34:19 PM
sto:
The media are more concerned with getting it first than with getting it right.
15109. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:36:25 PM
I dunno about all the sneering. I regularly check the news online and so long as they say "reports" or make it clear that it's preliminary, I figure that's fine.
15110. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:40:57 PM
Pelle,
About the engines--I believe that's so. Wasn't the big United crash in Chicago (1979, I think) because of that pin breaking when it wasn't supposed to?
The one time the tearaway isn't safe, of course, is takeoff. It's funny, because I can't remember the engine ever coming off when it was safe.
15111. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:44:42 PM
My understanding is that it is virtually impossible for even three or four engine jet planes to survive a disaster upon or shortly after takeoff when the disaster centers on one of the engines going kaput in a dramatic way, because kaput involves the destruction of essential hydrolic lines.
15112. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:47:01 PM
I don't know that the hydraulic lines are the issue; I'd always been told it was just balance. I'll see if I can find out which.
15113. judithathome - 11/12/2001 3:47:37 PM
Wow, they are showing ground zero film on CNN of right after the crash...it was brutal.
15114. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:49:51 PM
All aircrashes are brutal, even where there are survivors. Has there been any mention of ground casualties?
Janjon, I just did a search on "tearaway" and "takeoff" and came up with a NATSB report of a plane whose engine did tearaway during takeoff, and survived. Here
It's not what I was looking for, I just thought it was ironic.
15115. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:54:46 PM
Here is a story from the on-line version of the Times that talks about all the horrors that can ensue when an engine goes berserk on takeoff: It is Best Just To Tune Out When Taking Off, I've Decided
15116. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:56:35 PM
Yeah, takeoff makes me crazy. BTW, the Chicago crash I was referring to was American, not United.
15117. janjon - 11/12/2001 3:58:35 PM
I can't get the link in 15114 to open.
15118. CalGal - 11/12/2001 3:59:27 PM
The Chicago crash still holds the record for lives lost in a plane crash on US soil, actually--even after this recent one. I'm not counting WTC for obvious reasons.
15119. judithathome - 11/12/2001 3:59:47 PM
Take-offs don't bother me at all but landings do...
15120. CalGal - 11/12/2001 4:01:27 PM
Really? It opened for me. Here's the link:
http://www.canard.com/ntsb/CHI/89A046.htm
15121. janjon - 11/12/2001 4:10:47 PM
As someone above (webfeet?) has alluded to, there is considerable irony in the fact that this plane fell into the section of Queens known as Far Rockaway. Far Rockaway is a very isolated beach area, which is mostly single home and very suburban in feel. It is insular, too, in that it is an area where generation after generation of (mostly) Irish-American families pass down their homes. It is an area where many fire and policemen live. It lost a significant number of men on 9/11.
Apparently at least 60 people on the ground were killed. I will be surprised if there won't be at least one or two immediate family connections to 9/11. Adding to the sad irony.
15122. judithathome - 11/12/2001 4:12:13 PM
The homes in that area looked really nice in the video shot by one of the residents near the crash site.
15123. marjoribanks - 11/12/2001 4:19:36 PM
It's a low-to-medium income area, by NYC area standards.
Janjon, that's 6 people on the ground presumed dead, not 60.
15124. pseudoerasmus - 11/12/2001 4:25:13 PM
Hamid Karzai gave an interview to the BBC Pashto service yesterday, saying that the Northern Alliance victories were making his job in southern Afghanistan easier. Which is of course contrary to what I've been saying. I hope he's right and I'm wrong.
15125. janjon - 11/12/2001 4:26:35 PM
6? Thank heavens.
15126. pseudoerasmus - 11/12/2001 4:30:19 PM
Also, it emerged at the weekend that Rahim Wardak -- a Soviet-trained Afghan government army general who defected to the mujahiddin in 1980 -- slipped into Kandahar in mid October and attempted a coup d'etat against the Taliban in the name of Zahir Shah. He managed to escape, consult with the king, and is apparently now back somewhere in Afghanistan attempting a mission like Karzai's.
15127. EricCartman - 11/12/2001 7:20:06 PM
Urkel Message # 15103:
Not everything, Eric, is about you.
I was actually 50/50 on whether your Message # 14992 was a veiled swipe at my argument in particular. Maybe I made the wrong call, which would downgrade your post to a generic asinine swipe. You lumped several grossly disparate events/policies together and lobbed the lot of them, indiscriminately pasting presumably anonymous squawkers with the sarcastic tag of "just retribution". As if you'd recently encountered some asshole on the street spouting that 9/11 was payback for slavery or something. Okely-dokely.
And all without even having to offer a sliver of your own definition of what "terrorism" specifically is and is not? Just say that suits, uniforms, and a functioning institutionalized bureaucracy collectively absolve any proxy brutality and be done with it. Really, your effete circumlocutions make me want to watch Frasier or something, and I can't have that shit.
15128. EricCartman - 11/12/2001 7:20:22 PM
Having read the State Department defense and Amnesty International's criticism of Plan Colombia, your assertion, even in its qualified form, is immature and emotional.
Ah. I was waiting for it, the solemn pronouncement of my "immaturity and emotionalism", as if you were patiently lecturing a hysterical broad. This from a guy who has, in the past, asserted that The Corner is a rational argument against legalizing drugs; and that a political candidate who professed his atheism/agnosticism would not get your vote, because he couldn't possibly be as "good" or "moral" as a person of faith. Also, Algore is eeevil because he pimped his dead sister.
Alrighty then. Leaving aside such sterling examples of intellectual probity and sober objectivity, suppose you explain exactly where you think I'm being "immature" and "emotional" in my analysis of the repulsive Plan Colombia. No yukkified prose this time, Chief. Be a man. Spell it out.
15129. Francis Urquhart - 11/12/2001 7:35:01 PM
I'm glad your wait was not long.
Did you read the links?
If not, read them (I offered one from a friendly source - the State Department -and a critic - Amnesty International), and
1) Demonstrate that they support your claim of Plan Colombia as terrorism, or
2) Demonstrate that Plan Colombia is United States terrorism against Colombia by other source.
You are the petitioner. As a wise man once said, "No yukkified prose this time, Chief. Be a man. Spell it out."
15130. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:38:12 PM
What in the hell are you talkin about Pyle!
15131. Francis Urquhart - 11/12/2001 7:40:24 PM
Sir, the private said "no sir," sir!
15132. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:40:54 PM
15133. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:41:46 PM
Carry on Private
15134. joezan - 11/12/2001 7:44:15 PM
Listened to NPR all day long, and the reports from the ground were all (judging from posts made here) much more useful and cogent than what TV was offering.
Two different eyewitnesses independently reported that living right in the JFK flightpath and thus very used to the sounds and patterns of the planes, this plane caught their attention because of a strange rumbling noise it was making - "almost throbbing", one guy said - while it was still all in one piece.
Sounds like engine problems to me.
15135. joezan - 11/12/2001 7:46:35 PM
...also, both of these eyewitnesses reported the plane was flying very low, before it started losing parts.
15136. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:53:03 PM
We are the target of enemies who boast they want to kill-kill all Americans, kill all Jews, and kill all Christians," President Bush said Thursday. When did members of al-Qaida boast that they wanted to kill all Americans, Jews, and Christians?
Let's take these one at a time. If you parse Hamid Mir's recent interview with Osama Bin Laden, it's pretty clear that Bin Laden wants to kill all Americans.**
**I bet OBL's got an exception for the Bader-Meinhoff Memorial Cell of the Radical Green Socialist Workers' Peoples' Party - Chico, and its commander, Eric "The Red" Cartman.
Slate
15137. jexster - 11/12/2001 7:56:15 PM
It was a flock of seagulls I tell ya now back to the killin people!
Tryin to keep this thread on topic is impossible. Who moderates this mess anyway?
15138. joezan - 11/12/2001 8:00:45 PM
jex:
Just tryin' to to put an end to the speculation, Commander Cody.
15139. joezan - 11/12/2001 8:07:20 PM
Wait - just one more!
Also, the pilot dumped the fuel in Jamaica Bay.
15140. jexster - 11/12/2001 9:07:35 PM
Damn it Joe....the Talibees have just abandoned Kabul...people are shaving their beards, kissing each other on the cheeks and burnin their bazurkas...
So what's up with this Thread?
Where are the rabid Motiers of 9/11? All frothing, foaming, blood and death....where are they now?
Its only you and me left so we shall celebrate...
A toast....Death to Taliban! Long Live Loya Jirga! May the Northern Alliance rule for a thousand years!
15141. jexster - 11/12/2001 9:13:03 PM
And I almost forgot 
God Save the Queen!
15142. joezan - 11/12/2001 9:13:18 PM
..or at least for the winter.
Salut!
15143. LadyChaos - 11/12/2001 9:17:02 PM
Khatami, with whom two long interviews were broadcast (CNN, Charlie Rose), was excellent. That is a guy the US should be doing business with, much more than it has been anyway.
Why? By having absolutely nothing to do with the Iranian government for over 20 years, we have (unwittingly) helped foster the most pro-American generation of any Muslim country in the world.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. It seems that, at this juncture, the best thing to do wrt Iran would be to wait until democracy has fully gained the upper hand over the mullahs before we start getting chummy with their government.
15144. jexster - 11/12/2001 9:22:33 PM
CBS ran an interview with an NA tankist. He proudly boasted of running over 27 Talibee prisoners with his old ratty T-54.
Bad ass.
I hope Spielberg doesn't try to do this as a war movie....
15145. LadyChaos - 11/12/2001 9:24:44 PM
Speaking of which, I saw a trailer last night for the latest BruckenScott production: Blackhawk Down.
It looked awful. But I digress....
15146. joezan - 11/12/2001 9:25:14 PM
jex:
If I remember correctly, the frothing and foaming was in reaction to the pantywaists who were whining and wringing their hands about how bloody and demoralizing to the US this, uh...war was going to be.
Now, I'm not saying that fortunes cannot turn, and jubilant men and women cannot put the music back in storage, grow their beards back and put their burqas back on.
But with the Talis abandoning even Kabul, and 15,000 of their number already having joined the opposition - all with not one allied casualty, the pantywaists have joined their Tali counterparts and deserted the thread.
15147. jexster - 11/12/2001 9:25:23 PM
Yea Khatami rocks! I read his NyT interview...gave me an attack of At-Least_He-Ain't-A-Moron Syndrome on Saturday.
His line about "self-mulitated moslems" was OOH SOOOO much better than that Howdy Doody Doo-doo about rootin out Evil from the face of the earth.
I'll take Mullah Khatami over Mullah Moron anytime
15148. Andonly - 11/12/2001 9:35:17 PM
"Also, it emerged at the weekend that Rahim Wardak -- a Soviet-trained Afghan government army general who defected to the mujahiddin in 1980 -- slipped into Kandahar in mid October and attempted a coup d'etat against the Taliban in the name of Zahir Shah. He managed to escape, consult with the king, and is apparently now back somewhere in Afghanistan attempting a mission like Karzai's."
Wow. But who is backing him, if anyone? Our spooks or Russian spooks or both?
15149. joezan - 11/12/2001 9:59:01 PM
I found myself liking Khatami, too. Of course, three years ago I posted in the Fray that he was certainly the most rational leader in the Muslim world, and admired his balls for standing up to the mullahs, the ayatullahs, and all the other 'lahs.
But I agree with LC here - leave well enough alone.
15150. concerned - 11/12/2001 11:34:31 PM
Message # 14982
Snowowl -
You miss my point. The US is essentially a nation of immigrants and patriotism in the US does not therefore equate with demonstrably dangerous European nationalism, not to mention that of most other nations. Furthermore, if you read what I posted, I specifically did not say that it was better to be patriotic in the US than any other country, now did I? So, please have the courtesy to acknowledge what I posted in truth.
Thank you.
15151. concerned - 11/12/2001 11:36:10 PM
I see PM also misses the crux of my argument regarding American patriotism.
15152. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:05:21 AM
I thought King Moron told the NA to stop short of Kabul...
KABUL (Reuters) - Fighters of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance entered Kabul early on Tuesday to the sound of small-arms fire as dazed residents emerged from their homes to see Taliban bodies on the streets and looters plundering government offices.
``We have taken Kabul,'' shouted one jubilant opposition fighter as he stood with a group of fellow fighters on a street in the city center.
Their vehicles were plastered with photographs of their legendary leader, Ahmad Shah Masood, who was assassinated in a suicide attack just two days before the September 11 hijacked airliner attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (news - web sites).
A few bodies of Taliban fighters lay in the streets and sporadic small-arms fire clattered in pockets of the Afghan capital as the opposition Northern Alliance entered.
``Down with the Taliban!'' and ``Welcome the Northern Alliance!'' shouted a few Kabul residents as they realized that the Taliban had pulled out of virtually the entire city in an exodus under cover of night.
Many others appeared dazed and confused, nervous about what to expect if the Northern Alliance had indeed captured the capital.
Small-arms fire erupted in some parts of the city, apparently coming from Taliban who had not managed to leave or had chosen to make a last stand.
Several bodies of Taliban fighters, distinguished by their mandatory black turbans, lay sprawled on streets.
Commander Baba Jex sez...King Moron...who he?
15153. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:07:53 AM
No Joe...CalGal..Francine....Concerned..AceyGirl...Pinched Dick all of em...talkin about golf and Columbian Drug Wars...
They ranted, they raved, foamed at the mouth...
But its the cold heart that kills not the foamy mouth.
You and I are the only real men on this thread.
15154. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:08:39 AM
First in War, First in Peace FIrst in the Pants of...
OH HI THERE THOMAS D!
15155. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:16:56 AM
MONDAY NOVEMBER 12 2001
Leading article
After Mazar
America must soon clarify what it wants from its Afghan allies
OOOPS...Looks like Commander Dotsum done Klarified our King!
15156. concerned - 11/13/2001 1:08:35 AM
Wassup, jex?
I would like to see the Bush Administration give the UN an ultimatum:
Either send peacekeepers (non US) to Afghanistan under UN auspices, or the US will pull out of Bosnia and Kosovo and will not pay any remaining UN dues.
I'd say that'd be a win-win situation for the US.
15157. concerned - 11/13/2001 2:22:43 AM
Reuters and other organizations are reporting that the NA has taken Kandahar Airport. Sounds like the Taliban may be about rolled up just in time for the start of Ramadan.
15158. concerned - 11/13/2001 2:31:05 AM
Apparently, Herat and Kabul have already been Tali-banned.
15159. concerned - 11/13/2001 2:35:07 AM
From AP: "Guard: Taliban take Aid Workers"
KABUL, Afghanistan, Nov 13, 2001 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- The sprawling detention center where eight foreign aid workers were being held was abandoned Tuesday. A guard said the eight foreigners, accused of preaching Christianity, had been whisked away by departing Taliban.
"With my own eyes, I saw them leave," guard Ajmal Mir said. Mir told The Associated Press that the Taliban loaded the four Germans, two Americans and two Australians into a black four-wheel drive vehicle at midnight and drove off.
"They said they were going to Kandahar," Mir said, referring to the Taliban headquarters, about 240 miles south of the Afghan capital.
Columns of Taliban troops headed south from Kabul throughout the night after the opposition northern alliance broke through their defenses and rushed to the edge of the city.
Just two weeks ago, American Dayna Curry celebrated her 30th birthday in jail in Kabul. She was arrested along with the other American, Heather Mercer, 24, on Aug. 3. The others were arrested two days later. They and 16 Afghan staffers were all charged with preaching Christianity in this strict Muslim country.
"This is a real mess," said John Mercer, Heather's father, reached by telephone in neighboring Pakistan. He was at the Taliban embassy in the Pakistani capital of Islamabad trying to find a Taliban official to speak to.
The aid workers were in good condition when they left, the guard said. He was uncertain which Taliban took the aid workers, whether they were from a government ministry or whether they were acting on their own.
15160. EricCartman - 11/13/2001 3:16:13 AM
Francis Message # 15129:
Fair enough. Rather than a cut-and-paste marathon from selected sources, or worse yet, another windy jeremiad from yours truly, I will try to make this as brief as I can.
First off, I want to make sure a few things are understood, so you don't waste your time making erroneous inferences:
15161. EricCartman - 11/13/2001 3:19:03 AM
So. Plan Colombia. I had read both your links, in addition to a great deal of other material (most of it State Dept.) over a year ago, when Clinton was moving to eliminate the human rights requirement from the document.
The AI link obviously damns the entire thing from top to toe. It is not explicit in mention of terrorism, but does mention the killing of civilians by right-wing paramilitary groups, under the tacit knowledge and acceptance of the Colombian military, and in turn, the government.
It's what one expects from Amnesty International, after all, so I won't dwell on any of it in detail, but I submit that they don't really have a vested interest in making shit up, or even exaggerating.
Your State Dept. link mentions Colombian President Pastrana as cracking down on rogue army officers. In "cracking down", he forced a general or two into retirement, and removed several dozen officers for "collaborating" with paramilitary groups in murdering Colombian civilians. I could not find any punishment harsher than "investigation". It's safe to say there is some gov't complicity in these civilian killings, another of which happened just Saturday, incidentally -- 12 villagers in the town of El Choco.
This State Dept. page has quite a few relevant links:
Plan Colombia Outline
Near the bottom of this page is a link to the State Dept.'s 1999 Human Rights Report. It's exhaustive, and exhausting to read. There's far too much stuff to even need to cut-and-paste; I wouldn't know where to begin. And it accounts a thoroughly corrupt military, and complicit government. It shows that we know exactly what sorts of people we deal with.
15162. EricCartman - 11/13/2001 3:20:24 AM
Considering that Plan Colombia was initiated less than a year after the State Dept. released this report, it takes an incredible leap of faith to consort with the Colombian military. But that's exactly what we're doing, sending Special Forces ops in for "counterinsurgency training". There is a human rights requirement outlined in the description of the project, but again, Clinton went out of his way to negate that in the summer of 2000. So much for trying to reform a thug nation.
So. You have cells of trained militia slaughtering civilians for political purposes, with the knowledge and tacit acceptance of the regular military and the government. You have regular army officers, many of whom trained with/by American Special Forces ops, caught collaborating with the killers, and getting no real punishment. You have an American President knowingly and willingly waiving a human rights requirement for aid, less than a year after his own State Department produced an exhaustive report detailing the Colombian military as one of the worst, maybe the worst, violators of human rights on the entire planet.
The connections are all there, and they're all well documented by the US Government. At the very least, it looks like guilt by association, which is basically why we're justifiably getting rid of the Taliban. So my question to you, Francis, is how all that does not comprise at least a complicit knowledge and acceptance of terrorist tactics?
This is not a ticky-tack finesse question -- if we are operating on principles in this war on terrorism, it would greatly seem that we are simultaneously flouting those principles.
And it can't be restated too often -- it's not as if Plan Colombia is the only choice we have, or even the best choice. We have other options, if we have the political and practical will.
15163. EricCartman - 11/13/2001 3:26:26 AM
Jexster Message # 15136:
Fuck you. Go back to your pretty pictures, numbnuts. As usual, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
15164. Khabees Khargosh - 11/13/2001 6:41:21 AM
Looks like Taliban are moving to the battle fields of their choice........the mountain ranges of Afghanistan, where they dont't just have to wait for the bombs to drop on them.
Cities don't have any importance per se. And it will be hell of a lot more difficult to track and attack scattered groups of people in the mountains probably looking to fight a guerilla war.
15165. Khabees Khargosh - 11/13/2001 6:43:03 AM
errrr....... guerrilla
15166. joezan - 11/13/2001 6:51:22 AM
I do think that most of the military elements of the current conflict have been handled very well thus far, with the expectation that we make a genuine effort to help the Afghans rebuild their nation.
Rebuild it to whose specs?
15167. PelleNilsson - 11/13/2001 7:00:26 AM
To US specs as per ANSI document XP3598d: Faraway, essentially harmless democracy, US-friendly when called upon to be so (AKA Australia). The Taliban can be cast in the role of aborigines with dedicated reserves in which to practice whatever they practice.
15168. joezan - 11/13/2001 7:37:15 AM
Northern Alliance Forces enter Kabul.
Well, it seems Kabul is now under the control of the opposition forces, its citizens obviously jubilant to see the Taliban gone - except for "the Shari Naw area, where hardline Arab supporters of the Taliban were believed to be hiding...".
My question for anyone who knows is, what happened to all the resistance the NA were supposed to have met here - not from the Talis, who have obviously headed for the hills -but from the citizens, who are reportedly fiercely pro-Taliban?
Was this support mostly instigated by the "hardline Arab supporters of the Taliban" mentioned above?
15169. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 8:12:58 AM
"My question for anyone who knows is, what happened to all the resistance the NA were supposed to have met here....from the citizens, who are reportedly fiercely pro-Taliban?"
Kabulis fiercely pro-Taliban? Who ever said that?
The NA has been expected to meet resistance in the south and the east.
15170. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 8:41:22 AM
15171. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:06:29 AM
That was a fine prediction, pseuder.
It was clear from the start that Bush's statements (made at the side of Musharraf) were unlikely and hopeful. It's hard to control a ragtag fighting force once it is on the move, and once resistance is sparse or neutralized. So, now the NA has Kabul despite Pakistani pleas that this not take place, and Bush's wishfulness.
You could deduce from this, also, that Musharraf has been essentially left out to dry by the "global coalition." The other partners, India and Russia particularly, openly back the NA and have secured promises that they will have a say as to the future Afghan government. It is entirely possible that they are now being catered to at the expense of Pak wishes.
This is not foolish per se. The Pakistanis have been widely accused of playing a double game, and even of covertly supplying the Taliban and of denying the US access to vital intelligence. The fact that Musharraf has taken his various pleas public implies that he is not getting a good-enough hearing in private.
But he will have a domestic backlash from the events of the last couple of days. He will be accused, with some justification, of having a lot less power and say-so in the the global coalition and with the US than he has advertised. And he will be accused of selling Pakistan short, of getting far too little in return for his rather unequivocal backing of US strategic objectives. He has a billion dollars to go back with to Pakistan, and a promise of more (including another billion pledged by various international parties including the Japanese and the ADB) but precious little in terms of the nitty gritty in Afghanistan.
15172. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:12:11 AM
I do give the US credit, today. Its approach may have been flawed, and there may be a certain hamfistedness to its policies, but it has managed to accomplish quite a significant change with a bludgeon in one hand and blank cheques in the other. There is enough promise of an unending gravy train, it appears, to persuade a significant portion of the hard-core Taliban's allies that it would be better to simply switch sides. This may well work in the south, esepcially as CIA-sponsored Pashtun former-mujahedeen are wandering about dispersing bundles of crisp greenbacks with the promise of more on the way.
The question remains about post-Taliban leadership, and interference from the neighboring countries. But today we have the clear indication of a largescale shift in the political and military scenario. The first part of the campaign worked. Simple as that, and if the NA can be persuaded (a fairly big if) to restrain itself in its re-occupation of Kabul, the poilitical impetus switches to the US and its allies.
15173. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:18:40 AM
Fisk, in his latest, effectively outlines the conundrum and dangers represented by a US-backed NA, if it does run rampant as per its established form.
he Northern Alliance's sudden victories in Afghanistan may be good news for the West but the bad news is not far behind. The Uzbek, Tadjik and Hazara gunmen who make up this rag-tag army have a bloody reputation for torturing and executing prisoners which – if resumed in the coming days – will plunge America and Britain into a moral abyss.
Chilling stories of more than 100 pro-Taliban Pakistani fighters shot dead after their surrender in Mazar-i-Sharif – and of Alliance gunmen "roaming the streets'' of the abandoned city – will not come as a surprise to those who are aware of the atrocities committed by America's new allies during the 1992-96 fighting in Kabul.
For the Americans – and for the minuscule British component of the West's military forces inside Afghanistan – the behaviour of the Northern Alliance presents a grave problem. As our "foot-soldiers" are in Afghanistan, we cannot disclaim responsibility for human rights abuses by the Alliance's gunmen; yet neither the Americans nor the British appear to have tried to control the army they are now helping. Indeed, it seems they may not even be able to prevent the Alliance from entering Kabul.
That last sentence, of course, has come true.
15174. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:26:38 AM
There are several stories circulating this morning, some of which are contradictory. All have rather large implications for this conflict. There is that report of nearly a hundred Pakistanis massacred after they surrendered in Mazar. Then, there is a somewhat less credible report declaring that the Taliban have retaken that city.
There is a claim by the NA that Mullah Omar has taken refuge in Pakistan. The NA hates Pakistan with a passion, so this may be discounted but not ignored.
There is also the statement by Hekmatyar (from Iran) that he is negotiating with the Taliban to form a coalition government. The Iranians do not want the King back at any cost, and they have major say-so with the NA. It appears that they are trying to supplant/subvert the US as key backers of the NA (and they have an inside track to do so). The next govt of Afghanistan, as far as they are concerned, will not be decided by the Americans but by the NA and specifically the part of the NA most loyal to Iran.
There is also this, which appears to further sideline the King. It may be an indication of what is in the NA strategy, and why the US's best wishes will go unrealized as facts are created on the ground despite its pleas and orders.
A top aide to the former Afghan king Mohammed Zahir Shah has accused the Northern Alliance of violating a prior agreement with the exiled monarch by entering the Afghan capital this morning. The aide, Abdul Sattar Sirat, said Zahir Shah was concerned about the safety of the capital's residents and that his entourage was surprised by the unexpected capture of the city by the Northern Alliance soldiers. "This was something new and beyond our expectations. It was agreed before that Kabul be demilitarised," he said. "We do not know the reason why they entered Kabul, but we are concerned about the safety of the people's lives and property."
15176. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:35:13 AM
Whether deliberate or not, the US should apologize for the following, as damge control.
The Kabul office of the Arab satellite channel Al–Jazeera, which the United States has criticized for its coverage of the Afghan campaign, was destroyed early on Tuesday by a US missile, the channel's managing director said.
No one was in the office when it was hit before dawn. The 10 staffers, including reporter Tasir Alouni, operating out of the office were believed safe, but their whereabouts were not known, said managing director Mohammed Jassim al–Ali.
"All our equipment has been destroyed, but we believe that all our crew are safe," al–Ali told The Associated Press in a telephone interview from Qatar, the channel's headquarters. He estimated the loss at dlrs 800,000.
This Alouni fellow is a bit of a hero in the Arabic-speaking world, he's become the eyes and ears of the Muslim world on Al-Jazeera, repeatedly and emotionally commenting on civilian losses and suffering.
15177. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 9:35:28 AM
Banks's repeat 15175 was deleted
15178. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:35:40 AM
Toys.
15179. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:37:21 AM
It should be noted that contrary to Urkel's trumpetings, the German chancellor is having a great deal of trouble mustering political support for his troops commitment to the US-led coalition. He's even threatened to resign if he's not backed.
15180. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:42:00 AM
Thanks, ducks. You run an impressively tight ship here. 
Kabulis bust out their radios, music is no longer illegal.
15181. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 9:44:36 AM
BBC World Affairs Editor John Simpson and a BBC team were greeted by jubilant scenes as they entered Kabul ahead of Northern Alliance troops. Travelling by foot, bicycle and taxi, Simpson described the scenes he and his BBC colleagues found:
"People are going absolutely crazy.
"It is quite difficult sometimes to get through the crowds. They want to touch us, push us.
You could sense the air of relief and gratitude and freedom
"They are chanting 'Death to Pakistan, death to the Taleban' and I'm afraid I think they probably mean it.
"I would not want to be a Taleban soldier on the streets at this moment.
"I've heard some shooting. Some of it was joyful shooting in the air, some of it was to kill people or execute them perhaps.
"I haven't heard any incoming fire which might have come from the Taleban themselves.
But arriving at the Intercontinental Hotel in the centre of the city, journalists spotted a group of seven Arab Taleban -trying to escape.
"Frankly there can only be one result.
"We have already seen Arab bodies in the streets and their lives must be shortened.
"They are not going to surrender and they are not going to be shown mercy if they are caught.
"It shows there are going to be groups like this and they are going to be hunted down "
15182. Jenerator - 11/13/2001 9:47:35 AM
Concerned, 15183. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:49:14 AM The LAT says they were moved. Sorry Jen. 15184. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:50:41 AM Looks like the NA doesn't pay any more attention to Bush than Americans do, except that we're glad that he doesn't have anthrax and they don't care..... 15185. Jenerator - 11/13/2001 9:53:06 AM I believe that they were moved it's when they were moved that I question. My biggst fear is that the Taliban will place them in a dangerous place so that we will bomb them, then they could wipe their hands of responsibility and cry out against more injustices of the US. 15187. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:53:59 AM 15188. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 9:55:25 AM Jex's repeat 15186 was deleted as well 15189. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:57:47 AM Sorry... 15190. Francis Urquhart - 11/13/2001 9:57:58 AM Marj 15191. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 9:58:30 AM The NA forces inside Kabul are exclusively Tajik Jamiat forces. I wonder what may happen when Uzbek Junbish and Hazara Wahdat forces want a piece of Kabul. 15192. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:59:18 AM Sorry Duck..Eric the Red admonished me to post purty pictures.. 15193. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:01:17 AM Naaaa....they want bargainning chips... 15194. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 10:01:23 AM Jex: pics are fine as long as they are related to the thread topic, otherwise, they'll be moved. 15195. Francis Urquhart - 11/13/2001 10:01:38 AM pseudo 15196. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 10:04:32 AM Actually, I want all the Arabs killed by Afghans. 15197. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:06:14 AM Let's see..I am Abdullah-Squared...Foreign Minister of the NA, now of Liberated Afghanistan...my people have done all the fightin and dyin. 15198. JRoth - 11/13/2001 10:08:26 AM Now for Act II. But there are many loose ends. This guy Dostum is a nut-recently wanted us and Russians to outfit him with a nobile command post like an American division commander uses. A real megalomaniac and probably an alcoholic. His entourage has some scary types. Ismail Khan is playing a clever game. Many see him as the best counterweight to Dostum, but he has refused to take a larger role saying he wants to consolidate situation in the West. Perhaps he's doing the Caesar routine; "thrice offered..." 15199. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 10:11:51 AM Probably an alcoholic? Dostum is an alcoholic. This is widely known. Maybe American intelligence should read the press sometimes. 15200. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:12:42 AM Yea that Commander Dotsum is a real piece of work from what I have been reading.....apparently NA troops are following his fine example of running over POWs with tanks. 15201. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:14:28 AM Well Duck day late and a dollar short you are....more like a couple of weeks late..but better late than never! 15202. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:18:25 AM "Say..'Pervez'..that's a Mexican name ain't it? Why I knew a Pervez family down roun San Antone. You related? Ya know, I speak purty good Mexican. I layke you Pervez...Why you can come over and fuck my sister" 15203. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:18:30 AM "Say..'Pervez'..that's a Mexican name ain't it? Why I knew a Pervez family down roun San Antone. You related? Ya know, I speak purty good Mexican. I layke you Pervez...Why you can come over and fuck my sister" 15204. JRoth - 11/13/2001 10:20:42 AM PE, 15205. Francis Urquhart - 11/13/2001 10:23:11 AM Cart 15206. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:25:36 AM BTW, hats off to the Brits- these guys are pretty good 15207. jexster - 11/13/2001 10:30:43 AM 15208. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 10:35:13 AM Message # 15204 15209. concerned - 11/13/2001 10:50:33 AM The latest talk is of a joint Turkish/Pakistani peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, although the contributions of other countries, such as India, would be welcome, IMO. The Turks would undoubtedly be useful in counteracting the more erratic Middle East elements in any transitional Afghani govt., plus they have Islamic 'street cred'. 15210. Wombat - 11/13/2001 10:53:07 AM If NA forces limit themselves to killing Arabs and Pakistanis, they will not lose support in the cities they have taken. It might also discourage additional recruits. 15211. Wombat - 11/13/2001 10:57:48 AM Concerned: 15212. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 11:01:08 AM Everyone talks about Turkey as an ideal neutral but Muslim country but that is not at all the case. Turkey has been a major partisan in the Afghan civil war, siding with and nuturing Dostum's Uzbek Junbish militia. I don't think the Turks are a good idea. 15213. Wombat - 11/13/2001 11:01:40 AM It should also be clear that we have been doing far more bombing and terrorizing of Taliban fighters than any accidental attacks on civilians, and that if critics were intellectually honest with themselves, they would realize that. 15214. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 11:03:12 AM No country which has had a hand in the Afghan civil war should participate in any peace-keeping force in Afghanistan. Not Turkey, not Iran, not India, none of the Central Asian countries, certainly not Pakistan, and certainly none of the Arab countries. That leaves Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Albania and some African countries as the only disinterested Muslim countries.... 15215. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:06:53 AM First of all, putting the NA and the Paki troops into the same arena is ridiculous. 15216. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 11:10:22 AM "It's a fact, and it is a big part of all these defections you've seen to the NA." 15217. Wombat - 11/13/2001 11:15:19 AM Michael Ignatieff has a good piece in Salon. 15218. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:15:31 AM Well, the dollars-for-support campaign hasn't shown any concrete results among the Pashtun yet. But that is surely what Karzai is attempting, along with assorted others we have not heard about. 15220. concerned - 11/13/2001 11:16:10 AM (the US) has paid up all of its UN arrears,.. 15221. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:18:32 AM In the short term, it looks as though the US will reach its objectives quite impressively. It is the medium and long term that is so worrying, but it has to be admitted that the short term scenario has improved dramatically from, say, ten days ago when it looked like the Taliban and NA both showed no signs of moving and the TV screens showed only civilian suffering not the genuine civilian jubilation that the BBC (among others) has been broadcasting. 15222. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:19:43 AM It doesn't correlate. Over the weekend Powell said, unequivocally, that the US has settled its entire arrears to the UN and will not fall behind in payments again. 15223. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 11:22:33 AM i'm going to stop posting when i delete a repeat post. if you see a missing number without an explanation, 15219 for example, assume it was a repeat. 15224. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:24:26 AM There is a real fear, by the way, that what we are seeing is the first signs of a move to consolidate the Taliban into the rulers of a Pakhtoonistan. This would destabilize Pakistan quite thoroughly. I think the likelihood of such a state has gone up, now, from less than 1% to maybe closer to 25%. In other words, it is a genuine possibility that you'll see the Pathans rally together despite the international border separating their populace. 15225. concerned - 11/13/2001 11:30:04 AM Re. 15223 - 15226. concerned - 11/13/2001 11:37:27 AM Re. 15224 - 15227. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:47:42 AM You need only spend an afternoon walking through the Storytellers' Bazaar here in Peshawar, a few miles from the Afghan border, to understand that America needs to do its business in Afghanistan — eliminate Osama bin Laden and his Taliban protectors — as quickly as possible and get out of here. This is not a neighborhood where we should linger. This is not Mr. Rogers's neighborhood. 15228. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:49:47 AM The above should have been italicized, it's from today's NYTImes column by Friedman. 15229. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 11:54:35 AM Looks like the Taliban can't run away fast enough. Kandahar will soon fall to a southern rebellion if the NA doesn't get there first. Kabul accepted the NA in as liberators, not occupiers, as I knew it would. The previous chaos was the only reason The Taliban got into power to start with, not that Afghanistan supported their ideology of death. The only reason the Taliban was able to stay in power was massive support from Pakistan and because they had largely disarmed or driven off most of their potential opponents, not because they were particularly beloved. 15230. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:55:48 AM Pseuder, 15231. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 11:57:28 AM Also from the Guardian: 15232. alistairconnor - 11/13/2001 11:59:41 AM Well, that's a pretty impressive outcome for the first stage... an amazingly quick rout. I'm as surprised and delighted as anyone. 15233. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:01:09 PM And this, an Afghan makes a plea. 15234. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 12:03:10 PM Message # 15230 15235. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 12:06:03 PM The Pashtun have no great love of bin Laden or the Taliban. The Talioban is largely a foreign product, not a native one. They will happily follow an alternative Pashtun leader who doesn't lead them down the road of perpetual war. 15236. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:10:58 PM re 15234: 15237. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 12:14:22 PM There is a rebellion kicking up in Kandahar. It may all be over except the wrangling very soon. We need that Loya Jurga real quick. 15238. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:17:05 PM More on the defections. 15239. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 12:19:18 PM The Christian Science Monitor article in Marjoribanks's 15240. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:21:47 PM Kahlil Amid reports that there is chaos in the streets of Kandahar and Jalalabad; that his anti-talibists have been activetly engaged in covert operations in the south for the past 15 days; that there are massive defections among Talibees in response to a call to return to Pashtun tribal authority, and that Loyal Loya Jirgists are now in Kandahar. 15241. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:22:12 PM Mass executions reported in Northern Afgh. 15242. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:23:32 PM The NA is killin Khasmiri's and Chechens big time... 15243. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 12:25:05 PM Who the hell is Kahlil Amid? 15244. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:26:38 PM That would be Karzai, not Kalil... 15245. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:27:11 PM Hunood and Yahood same same 15246. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:28:28 PM And what is a Khasmiri? 15247. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 12:33:49 PM Well, things are happening so fast now that I'm not sure what to think. I wish Hamid Karzai was saying something different from what he's been saying for the past month. 15248. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:40:27 PM Hamid Karzai! 15249. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:40:48 PM He thinks the Taliban is kaput. 15250. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:41:57 PM And what is a Khasmiri? 15251. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:43:26 PM Welcome to Peshawar. Oh, and did I mention? This is Pakistan — these guys are on our side. Fat chance. This whole region of northwest Pakistan is really just an extension of Afghanistan, dominated by the same ethnic Pashtuns that make up the Taliban 15252. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:45:04 PM I must say I find Jexster's Gunga-Dinning of me rather funny. 15253. jexster - 11/13/2001 12:50:51 PM CNN is now running a report on Jen's fren 15254. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 12:51:15 PM BBC reports that there are unconfirmed accounts of "rebellion" in Kandahar itself. 15255. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:02:46 PM The aforementioned General Shah Namaz Tanai is also a former communist government army general. He defected only in 1990, when he attempted a coup d'etat against the communist government of Najibullah. He then joined Hekmatyar's mujahiddin, but after Hekmatyar's defeat, he joined the Taliban. The Taliban purged him from the ranks in 1998. 15256. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:07:03 PM Marjoribanks, at the weekend I read this book which I recommend: 15257. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:10:35 PM (but, as I said, it's badly written & organised.) 15258. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:10:59 PM Gen Shepherd, CNN: 15259. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:15:44 PM For a view contra, The Daily T.... 15260. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:17:39 PM They threw my man Kamal Hyder out of Khandahar for safety reasons this afternoon. 15261. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:19:19 PM He sees a split among the more moderate and more extreme elements of the Talibees and thus some some hope for the Loya Jirgist delegation now there trying to wrench Pashtuns away...or some of them....the rest headed for Paradise I guess. 15262. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:21:18 PM Kamal basically thinks that Pashtun domination must end or it will be hell to pay for Afgh 15263. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 1:24:40 PM I don't feel a great deal of hostility towards letting Afghanistan become two states if they will put an end to this incessant bloodshed. I don't think it will be neccessary though. They were quite prosperous and the closest thing to a liberal democracy in that part of the world prior to the coup asgainst the King. I hope it can be so again. 15264. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:28:28 PM I don't know where AuNaturel gets some of his odd yet confidentlty expressed ideas. Afghanistan between 1964 and 1973 had had a spell of constitutional monarchy with an elected legislature, but it's ridiculous to say it was the "closest to a liberal democracy in that part of the world". It's even more ridiculous to say that it was prosperous. Prosperous compared to now, of course, but it was still one of the poorest countries in the world. 15265. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:31:19 PM Hedayat Arsala, the former World Bank economist and Zahir Shah's chief emissary (and, as it also happens, Abdul Haq's first cousin), has announced that he plans to meet with NA leaders in Kabul. 15266. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:32:44 PM Message # 15263: "I don't feel a great deal of hostility towards letting Afghanistan become two states..." 15267. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:34:27 PM "QUETTA, Pakistan (Reuters) - Thousands of tribal fighters are advancing on the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar in southern Afghanistan after taking the nearby airport, witnesses said. 15268. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 1:35:31 PM If the above is true, and not just rumour, then the Taliban are more or less finished in the south. They will however persist in the hills, along with al-Qaidah. 15269. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:56:48 PM Exiled Pashtuns Preparing Return - Times of London 15270. jexster - 11/13/2001 1:58:19 PM A Visitor's Guide to Kandahar - Home of the Sacred Cloak of the Prophet 15271. Cellar Door - 11/13/2001 2:06:54 PM 15272. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 2:15:46 PM "but it's ridiculous to say it was the "closest to a liberal democracy in that part of the world"." 15273. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 2:17:02 PM And as PE says, propserous is relative. Relative to where they have been in the last 20 years they were indeed properous. 15274. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 2:18:16 PM "Every group except the Hazaras is opposed to a partition of Afghanistan." 15275. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 2:29:36 PM Message # 15272 15276. aunaturel - 11/13/2001 2:40:21 PM PE: 15277. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 2:41:08 PM Saw an interesting online poll that i thought i'd ask here: 15278. CalGal - 11/13/2001 3:01:02 PM I think Pakistan gets a higher grade than Saudi Arabia. 15279. rubberducky - 11/13/2001 3:02:55 PM well, not if they've been leaking to the Taliban, imo. 15280. CalGal - 11/13/2001 3:04:01 PM Whoops. Forgot to grade. 15281. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:18:46 PM Message # 15276 15282. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:25:51 PM He's in the Hindu-Kush foothills and he gonna die a martyr's death...Maj Gen Shepherd (CNN-Ret) 15283. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:25:55 PM Surely Pakistan would rate highest: The President of Pakistan has endangered the longevity of his own administration, he purged some of the highest ranking military officers for criticism of the US and implied support for the Taliban, he faced far more numerous and violent demonstrations against support of the US than any other country and quelled those demonstrations despite an opposition press and clergy; Pakistan most likely shared intelligence with the US, a delegation comprised in some measure of ISI members twice visited with the Taliban and Afghan mullahs to deliver the US ultimatum and persuade (unsuccessfully) the Taliban to hand over Osama bin Laden, and the Pakistan government not only allowed overflights but actually allowed US troops and aircraft on its soil. What have I forgot? 15284. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:27:15 PM What grade would you give the following countries with regard to the amount of help they have offered the U.S. in the war against terrorism? 15285. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:28:36 PM Of course Kashmir is part of South Asia: east of the Hindu Kush and south of the Himalayas. 15286. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:28:53 PM "Britain: A 15287. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:29:42 PM We haven't seen the pork that Putin of the Pure Soul has delivered to his buddy Mullah Moron....only hints...wait til cargo & fighter planes start flyin out of the old SAsian republics... 15288. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:31:22 PM Israel would get a C were it not for this idea that I have in my head, probably a fantasm, that the Mossadh is giving us intel... 15289. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:31:37 PM Message # 15285 15290. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:31:47 PM would = would not 15291. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:33:43 PM Kashmir...they make sweaters right? 15292. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:35:16 PM "TORKHAM, Pakistan (Reuters) - Anti-Taliban fighters reached the Afghan border post at the Torkham crossing to Pakistan at the western end of the fabled Khyber Pass on Tuesday evening, a Reuters cameraman said. 15293. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:39:25 PM CNN has an Afghan expert from one of the War Colleges on... 15294. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 3:41:57 PM Actually, south of the Hindu Kush doesn't work as a good geographical demarcation, because southern Afghanistan is a geographical continuum of the Iranian Plateau. 15295. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:47:48 PM The NA has asked the King to return to Kabul... 15296. jexster - 11/13/2001 3:49:23 PM I wish my buddy Fr. Bowersox hadn't passed earlier this year...I wish I knew what in the hell he and the Asia Foundation were doing in that shithole 15297. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:52:53 PM Arriving in Srinigar from Kabul by plane, then going by bus up to Gulmarg, I didn't conceive I was in the Himalayas because I was still below the treeline. Mountains, yes, but not in the very midst of that new mountain chain being pushed up by the collision of India with Asia. But coming down from Srinigar by bus to Jemmu I could appreciate how high I'd been. 15298. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:53:44 PM Actually, it was an Air India flight from Kabul to Delhi, then by another, smaller Air India plane to Srinigar. 15299. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 3:56:57 PM It's called buzkashi (or similar romanization) and the sport is a goat's carcass. I regret I never saw it while in Afghanistan; it seems it wasn't the season while I was there. 15300. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:02:12 PM Buzkashi is played all year around in northern Pakistan. 15301. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:13:52 PM A constitutional monarchy for Afghanistan eventually with Zahir Shah appointing his successor, perhaps? 15302. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:17:00 PM Are the Taliban fleeing Kandahar and Jalalabad? I haven't seen reports on that. 15303. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:24:00 PM MSNBC is reporting that the Taliban is fleeing Kandahar. The NA at least says they expect to take Jalalabad in the next day or so. 15304. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:24:37 PM Then there are the uprisings being reported in both cities. 15305. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:27:41 PM The NA enter Jalalabad? That should be interesting -- and quite revealing of what is to come in Afghanistan. 15306. janjon - 11/13/2001 4:29:03 PM any predictions about their reception, pseudo? 15307. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:29:25 PM From Reuters: 15308. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:31:55 PM Thanks for the book reference, Pseuder. 15309. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:34:52 PM What's so revelatory about the NA taking Jalalabad? 15310. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:34:57 PM "How can tens of thousands of Taliban + foreign supporters flee into the mountains to wage guerrilla war?" 15311. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 4:35:02 PM Pseudo: "Are the Taliban fleeing Kandahar and Jalalabad? I haven't seen reports on that." 15312. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 4:35:35 PM Yes, the vale of Kashmir, but beyond the treeline, well above Gulmarg and hard on the border with Pakistan I could look out to see hundreds of square miles below me. 15313. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:37:32 PM I've now seen a report that one of the causes of the sudden Taliban collapse may be that bin Laden and his little retinue has scampered down Pakistan way. 15314. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:38:43 PM "What's so revelatory about the NA taking Jalalabad?" 15315. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:39:25 PM I suppose the NA will weigh the value of the open pipeline of aid seriously, and allow a shura to take place in Kabul very soon. But winter is on its way, not to mention Ramzan. I think it is going to be difficult to dislodge them from territory now taken, in this dramatic sweep through much of Afghanistan, and it is going to be plain impossible to force them to desist from simply killing the remnants of foreign forces that they come across, including Pakistanis. 15316. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 4:39:45 PM Marj: I don't expect the core of the Taliban or of al-Qaeda to just give up without a fight, and as many of them are experienced guerrilla fighters, their planned course of action should be obvious. 15317. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:42:14 PM Pakistan has been thoroughly fucked in the way this campaign has turned out (as I posted earlier today), in that a group that hates it has taken most of Afghanistan's territory. Now, if those reports mentioned about Omar etc having decamped to Pakistani territory are true, the country is doubly fucked. However, Musharraf has a way of turning these situations to his advantage if not his country's. Perhaps that could happen here. 15318. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:44:47 PM No, Rask, the Arabs have to fight, as I posted above. But how effectively they can do this in a countryside which is itching to turn them in (for bucks) and without clear lines of supply and retreat, is another question. 15319. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 4:45:21 PM Marj: the report about Osama fleeing to Pakistan was an uncited claim by concerned. If ever the veracity of a rumor was to be doubted, this is it. 15320. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:48:41 PM It will be much more complicated to capture/kill bin Laden in the FATA. For one thing, he'll have much more local support than he would in the Afghan South. 15321. concerned - 11/13/2001 4:50:51 PM The good news for Pakistan may be that extreme Islamism is being discredited by the Taliban collapse, and that might quiet fundamentalist unrest within its borders, once bin Laden & co. are appropriately dealt with. 15322. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:51:05 PM If bin Ladin escapes to FATA in Pakistan, he will have many sympathisers but also as many people who would jump at the chance to collect a million+ dollar reward. One adjective one could apply to the tribes in FATA is: opportunistic. 15323. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:51:43 PM "The good news for Pakistan may be that extreme Islamism is being discredited by the Taliban collapse, and that might quiet fundamentalist unrest within its borders, once bin Laden & co. are appropriately dealt with." 15324. janjon - 11/13/2001 4:53:40 PM it makes much more sense that bin Laden, Omar et al have gone to Pakistan. 15325. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 4:57:28 PM Message # 15324: Only for a fool. 15326. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 4:59:27 PM The only real question that remains, if what appears to be happening is happening, is whether the US will now pump in Special-Ops and ground troops to rout out Al-Qaeda from the hills. It appears unlikely that the NA will stray very far from the cities, and even the ethnic Pashtuns now reportedly on its side aren't likely to want to tramp around the mountains during winter. It might be the job that finally calls for US troops, who will have a massive technological and psychological advantage when the winter starts in properly. 15327. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:02:19 PM "even the ethnic Pashtuns now reportedly on its side aren't likely to want to tramp around the mountains during winter." 15328. janjon - 11/13/2001 5:03:22 PM Only for a fool? 15324 wasn't addressed to you. And, it was conjecture, not stating that he had done so. 15329. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:03:29 PM I somehow feel it unlikely that bin Laden will now try to decamp for Pakistan. he may have gone already, that is possible. But the atmosphere now has soured, he carries with him the taint of defeat. Omar, yes. 15330. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:04:16 PM During the 1980s Soviet war, many of the tribes of FATA in Pakistan made their territories off-limits to Afghan mujahiddin. Abdul Haq and his band of mujahiddin were were once caught between a Soviet force and one of the FATA territories, but he was still not allowed inside. 15331. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:05:35 PM Marj: I don't know that much about Pakistan, but I know something about guerrilla warfare. 15332. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:05:53 PM (And the Afridis are nominally Pakistanis!) 15333. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:09:06 PM Pseuder, 15334. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:10:44 PM "Could you link to the reports you've read about this??? That is the one piece of information I'm looking for." 15335. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:12:21 PM Message # 15333 15336. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:14:01 PM All of this points to one essential fact about the tribals in Afghanistan and Pakistan that one tends to overlook, to the detriment of coherent analysis. They have a very astute sense of what is a winning hand, and they have a very astute sense of the value of money. They've all been smugglers and drug dealers for centuries. Have you ever dealt with a drug dealer? They're more money savvy than most Wall Streeters. The money, in this case, has put a nail in the coffin of the Taliban. Fuck ideology, dollars talk a lot more seriously. 15337. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:14:48 PM Rask, 15338. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:16:40 PM And you are right about Osama's flight not being a wild rumor. Dawn has a blurb about on their web site, citing an NA official in Tajikistan. But they also have a blurb that the Taliban claims to have retaken Mazar, so take it for what its worth. 15339. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:18:55 PM Oh, it is Omar, not Osama, who is rumored to have fled. My bad. 15340. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:23:52 PM All the Indian papers cite that same NA spokesman, who remains the one source for the story that Omar has gone to Pakistan. 15341. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:26:23 PM Well, one must wait for another source. The Times of India also reported the fall of Mazar -- four weeks before it happened. 15342. janjon - 11/13/2001 5:26:31 PM The local populace in places like Kabul certainly seem to think they've seen the last of the Taliban. One can always stop flying kites or listening to music, but it takes a long time to re-grow a beard. 15343. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:28:19 PM Hahahahahaha. And you say that the Indian papers aren't prescient or believable. 15344. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:30:01 PM I assume that the Taliban won't allow a sharp-looking goatee, or the Miami Vice "unshaven look"? It has to be the length of beard you accidentally piss on during the course of the day? 15345. concerned - 11/13/2001 5:30:05 PM Seems as if things are accelerating, if anything. 15346. janjon - 11/13/2001 5:30:16 PM I hear that all of the savvy short sellers on Wall Street have subscriptions to a number of Indian papers. 15347. concerned - 11/13/2001 5:31:16 PM Seems as if things are accelerating, if anything. 15348. concerned - 11/13/2001 5:34:56 PM In this context, it appears the Taliban is answering the old Tareyton cigarette commercial question: 'Would you rather fight than switch?' by switching;) 15349. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:36:03 PM In retrospect, it is a great pity that the US bombed the al-Jazeera offices yesterday. Now is the time that that channel should be broadcasting, unrestricted, from Afghanistan. The pictures are sure to be the kind that will amaze and shock the Arab world. 15350. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:36:37 PM I certainly hope Zahir Shah comes through this time, unlike in 1989 or 1993 when he was last called upon to be of some use to Afghanistan. 15351. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:40:25 PM The deck is actually loaded against Zahir Shah, it appears, despite his newfound alliance with the West. 15352. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:42:24 PM Zahir Shah has never once left Italy since 1973, except for visits to France. 15353. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:46:10 PM "there is a real resentment about him among the Pathans who fled to Pakistan over the years." 15354. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:48:06 PM Any party that the US (and the rest of the West, and Pakistan) now wants to be in on the next Afghan government will have to be shoehorned in. The NA will naturally hold some veto powers, and those countries who have been using it as a proxy (India, Iran, Russia) will have a great deal of say. 15355. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:49:56 PM Pseuder, 15356. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:52:12 PM Iran may have overplayed its hand with the backing of Hekmatyar, who appears to have done not much other than issue statements from Tehran. Pseuder, is part of the NA loyal to him above others? 15357. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 5:54:44 PM Hekmatyar has no following whatever inside the Northern Alliance. That's why he's been babbling about joining the Taliban (despite the Taliban death warrant on him....) 15358. janjon - 11/13/2001 5:55:48 PM Why would a man who is in his 80s and who has lived in Italy since 1973 want to come back to Afghanistan. His powers are bound to be fettered, and the prestige level doesn't seem to be terribly high. (let alone the survivability factor). 15359. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:56:07 PM Pseudo:"I also think that if the NA does decide to behave -- and it appears increasingly that is now the case" 15360. Raskolnikov - 11/13/2001 5:57:02 PM "It's good to be the king". 15361. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 5:58:57 PM More likely that the King is surrounded by opportunists who want a piece of the power and money pie that Afghanistan now represents. Look at the fellow on news reports, he doesn't look like he wants to leave his apartment, let alone the comforts of the West. 15362. janjon - 11/13/2001 6:02:45 PM ""We were not used to the burqa, so we were always tripping," she said. 15363. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:02:54 PM Message # 15358 15364. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:05:31 PM If Jalalabad and Kandahar fall to some kind of anti-Taliban force in the next few days, and the Northern Alliance really does forego any attempts to seize power unilaterally, then I will retract my criticisms of the strategy to date, apologise to Americans in this forum, and thank the USA. 15365. janjon - 11/13/2001 6:06:33 PM the wrongs I had in mind were broad in concept, such as in having been forced from the throne. 15366. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:08:59 PM God bless America, say it right now, Pseuder. 15367. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:11:00 PM By the way, my personal recommendation is that those two young fellows from the Taliban embassy in Karachi be included in the post-Taliban government. Nice, wistful, young men they were. I felt bad for the younger fellow from the first, surely there is a US-funded sop that can be found for him. 15368. janjon - 11/13/2001 6:11:56 PM remember - it won't be deemed complete until bin Ladin is, um, hunted down and brought to justice. 15369. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:14:39 PM Complete in the sense that the Taliban has had control of the territory of Afghanistan wrested from its hands, in a shockingly brief period of time after the NA started to advance and pick up defectors. 15370. concerned - 11/13/2001 6:15:39 PM I'd tend to guess that, at the rate events are occurring in Afghanistan, if the military exercise can soon be brought to a successful conclusion, the 'loya jirga' may have a better chance of creating a stable Afghani government. 15371. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:16:48 PM Terrorist attacks, I suppose are still a possibility. But the US has few or no personnel on the ground, so has nothing to lose if a rearguard action takes place of any kind. 15372. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:17:05 PM Message # 15367 15373. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:20:36 PM Really? He looked so very subcon. And why have you sic-ed my reference to Karachi? It wasn't Islamabad, I thought. The older guy was Zaeef, wasn't he? What was the younger fellow's name? 15374. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:33:22 PM Al Jazeera identified Taliban ambassador Mullah Zaeef as Abdul Aziz Musa al-Jamal, an Egyptian and a member of the Islamic Jihad who disappeared after Sadat's assassination. 15375. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:34:00 PM errata 15376. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:36:54 PM Interesting. The younger fellow isn't Zaeef, he may well be Pakistani. 15377. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 6:41:23 PM I don't know which one you consider to look older or younger, but Mullah Zaeef is the 34-year old and the one who speaks English is the Egyptian. Zaeef is definitely a Pashtun from southern Afghanistan. It is obvious from looks & accent. (When asked what he thought about the Durrand line, he said "Pashtunistan" rather than "Pakhtunistan", a sure sign that he's from southern Afghanistan. 15378. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 6:47:48 PM I meant the interpreter, hadn't seen your errata. 15379. joezan - 11/13/2001 7:07:27 PM pseudo - Message # 15169: 15380. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 7:28:16 PM http://jang.com.pk/thenews/nov2001-daily/14-11-2001/main/main8.htm 15381. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 7:31:47 PM Ugh. If they retreat to the Pakistani side of the tribal lands, that makes the task of defeating them more difficult and ugly and more complicated for pakistan. 15382. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 7:34:35 PM More from the above URL: 15383. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 7:42:38 PM This is all very premature, Pseuder. But I do hope you managed to extract your relatives from Peshawar. It seems oddly possible that the next step may be a pincer between Pak troops and the NA (and, finally, Western ground troops) to shake out the Pathan lands in the FATA and even the NWFP. 15384. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 7:48:10 PM Jexster is better suited to coupling with a Gurkha. 15385. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 7:51:03 PM Well, look at it in simple terms. Let's assume that the Jang report is 100% accurate. That means that the key part of al-Qaeda and the Taliban (and, prseumably, bin Laden) is now in Pakistan. 15386. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 7:54:15 PM Of course the Pak army is going to go after the Taliban and the Arabs IF they have in fact fled to FATA. The Pak air force has bombed FATA at least four times since 1947. There are precedents. 15387. ScottLoar - 11/13/2001 7:54:57 PM the Taliban have broadly hinted about their strategy to launch hit and run operations against the fixed and mobile targets. 15388. marjoribanks - 11/13/2001 8:11:06 PM It appears that it is a defeat plain and simple, and an outright retreat, Loar. What's a hopeful ISI guy going to say other than "they're regrouping for guerrilla operations." He can't bring himself to say "they're fleeing to the last available quasi-haven" which is closer to the truth. 15389. Andonly - 11/13/2001 8:33:21 PM "Pakistani intelligence sources near Chaman border in Balochistan and in Peshawar have received credible reports that scores of Arabs and Taliban militants had been entering Pakistan since Monday afternoon..." 15390. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 8:40:51 PM "I will recant my impression, solidified in the wake of the ambush of Abdul Haq, that every second Afghan is an ethnic zealot no better than Nazi-sympathizing Germans." 15391. Andonly - 11/13/2001 8:45:01 PM I hope I haven't mixed my point up among the cows--what I mean is that an ethnically representative coalition is yet to be established, human rights protections are yet to be guaranteed in Mazar, Kabul, and further NA conquests, aid must still be delivered throughout the coming winter, the Taliban's demise must be assured without sparking more unrest in Pakistan, the Arabs have to be found and dealt with, etc., etc. 15392. Andonly - 11/13/2001 8:45:54 PM "It was an idiotic impression anyway." 15393. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 8:55:18 PM I just wonder how long it will take for something to be put together to fill the vacuum, even if it's only intendended to be briefly transitional. I know they're working on it, but no one expected the Taliban to just pack up and leave Kabul. Everyone, including the UN, is talking about the need for urgency, but it seems like everything is moving in slow motion. It's been mentioned that US and British forces may have to move in in the interim, but there seems to be nothing but the shaky hope that the NA will, as PE put it, behave, at this point. 15394. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 8:58:02 PM Here is a useful map of the Northern Alliance operations. It's indicated that the Northern Alliance has taken control of the Afghan border post at Torkham Gate, the western end of the Khyber Pass. I cannot believe that is true, because it if it were true it would be all over the wires and Pak papers. 15395. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 9:01:34 PM I've taken note of what you've said about Jalalabad in particular. Does anyone know the situation with Kandahar at the moment? I've heard and read conflicting reports during the evening. 15396. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 9:02:35 PM Why are there no al Jazeera reporters in Kandahar and Jalalabad??? 15397. jexster - 11/13/2001 9:05:14 PM Amateurs talk strategy, professionals like JRoth & Commander Baba Jex talk logistics and intel.... 15398. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 9:05:30 PM I heard today that the al Jazeera center in Afghanistan had been destroyed. Maybe they can't get any news out of the country now. 15399. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 9:08:15 PM Something else of interest that the US keeps saying--I heard Rice say it yesterday and someone from the Defense Dept, iirc, today--that they have the knowledge that bin Laden is currently on the move. It may very well just be for effect, but I wonder what they know, if anything. 15400. joezan - 11/13/2001 9:53:53 PM Anyone see the video of the BBC guy sitting in a broadcast booth (in Kabul?), head in hand, looking as if he's about to nod off? 15401. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 9:55:25 PM BBC's Haroun Rashid, on the radio, just now: "We did not see any evidence of rebel activity at the Kandahar airport". 15402. pseudoerasmus - 11/13/2001 9:55:55 PM /bold 15403. joezan - 11/13/2001 9:57:42 PM Sorry 15404. Andonly - 11/13/2001 10:02:45 PM AP report: 15405. arkymalarky - 11/13/2001 10:13:42 PM I read somewhere that if it's caught at stage I it's generally treatable, but no one knows what it is at that stage unless they're looking for it. 15406. joezan - 11/14/2001 2:16:24 AM NYT article on southern tribes massing against the Taliban . 15407. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:18:40 AM I have been awake for 30 hours now glued to the news on radio, television and internet. I can't remember the last time I have felt so compelled to stay awake. 15408. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:21:19 AM I think the only reliable part of that NYT piece is the evacuation of Lowgar province by the Taliban. 15409. joezan - 11/14/2001 2:22:11 AM An NA spokesman (lawyerly-looking guy named Amin something) was on MSNBC around 11pm saying that southern forces had taken over the airport outside Kandahar. 15410. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:24:07 AM How would the NA spokesman know that, anyway? Did he ring Hamid Karzai or something by satellite phone? 15411. PelleNilsson - 11/14/2001 2:26:40 AM What surprises me is the speed of operations. The distance from Mazar-i-Sharif to Kandahar via Kabul looks like 1000 km or so and one assumes that the roads are bad. 15412. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:29:11 AM Well, activity in Kandahar, if there is any, is not being directed from Kabul. It would most likely be staged from Herat (from which there is a farirly good road to Kandahar), or by Pashtun tribal forces which crossed the border from Pakistan according Reuters. 15413. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:33:28 AM The commander mentioned in Marjoribanks's Message # 15236 was interviewed by French television yesterday. Haji Zaman Ghamsherik, a relatively minor commander still sitting on his arse in Peshawar, got nearly 5 minutes of air time. This is only because the French, having lost their beloved francophone Afghan Che Guevara Ahmed Shah Masud, has found yet another French speaker in Haji Zaman. This is the first time I've heard a Pashtun speak French. 15414. joezan - 11/14/2001 2:35:38 AM Actually, when pressed - "Are you saying that the airport has been taken over?" - the Amin guy kind of shifted in his seat a bit and said "the Taliban no longer control it." 15415. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 2:50:14 AM pe: 15416. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:54:20 AM The Washington Post has an article about the rumblings in Kandahar, with more details than the NYT article linked to by Zan. The WP artifcle also contains various anti-Taliban Pashtun commanders supposedly operating in Kandahar. 15417. PelleNilsson - 11/14/2001 3:18:13 AM So it would seem that your prediction of a de facto partition may come true. Alternatively there may be fighting in the south between the NA and the Pashtuns which would be tragic for Afghanistan and an unwelcome distraction for the US. 15418. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:19:48 AM Radio France International just interviewed what must have been half a dozen prominent ex-mujahiddin commanders in Pakistan. They predict the fall of Kandahar in 24 hours. 15419. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:21:00 AM http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/2001/11/14/FFX2530ZZTC.html 15420. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:28:08 AM Message # 15417: Well, I had predicted a de facto partition between an NA-controlled north and a Taliban-held south. That no longer appears likely at all. But there may still be problems between the NA and the Pashtun mujahiddin. Still, as I've said before, most of the Pashtun commanders who seem to be operating in eastern & southern Afghanistan have a history of cooperating with members of the NA. 15421. PelleNilsson - 11/14/2001 3:38:40 AM Yes, I should have said "Pashtun-held south". 15422. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 4:04:12 AM It does now look like the Taliban have lost four eastern provinces (Laghman, Logar, Kunar and Nangrahar) to the Pashtun mujahiddin group of Yunis Khalis, with which the late Abdul Haq and the aforementioned brother of his Abdul Qadir are associated. 15423. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 4:24:04 AM The man who "taught" most of the Taliban leaders, Maulana Sami ul Haq, who runs the "Harvard" of madrasas in the NWFP: 15424. jexster - 11/14/2001 5:58:44 AM Those he flunked.... 15425. jexster - 11/14/2001 6:03:52 AM CNN confirms evacuation of Jalabad. Talis crossing border into Pakistan raising exactly Marj's "fanciful" scenario...what I find hard to believe is anything that is remotely analytical from PE...as for the uselessly encyclopedic...hat's off Pierre! 15426. jexster - 11/14/2001 6:12:11 AM CNN also reports from Pakistan that its sources in Kandahar dispute US claims that the city is about to fall...further they maintain that the airport is solidly in TaliHands....and that the Talibees are CONCENTRATING forces in the City....hehehe...bombs away! 15427. jexster - 11/14/2001 6:17:26 AM 15428. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:13:25 AM PE: "Radio France International just interviewed what must have been half a dozen prominent ex-mujahiddin commanders in Pakistan. They predict the fall of Kandahar in 24 hours." 15429. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:15:28 AM News is still unaccountably patchy from the South of Afghanistan, with claims and counterclaims flying back and forth. Interestingly, the Taliban appears to no longer be able to speak for itself, claims on its behalf are being made by Pakistanis hundreds of miles away from the action. 15430. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:16:02 AM Also - 15431. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:22:23 AM I'm curious to know whether PE still thinks American bombing promotes anti-American sentiment among Pashtuns, or whether that tide has turned. 15432. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:29:10 AM I might venture an answer. The bombing has apparently either broken the back of the Taliban military forces, or caused it/them to entirely rethink their strategy, including the holding of cities. 15433. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:35:11 AM The US is a long way from being out of the woods in terms of civilian sentiment towards it. Yes, it has facilitated a stunning victory, or a series of stunning victories. 15434. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:39:36 AM It is useful to note that, despite the unfettered public and media jubilation in the Allied countries, Blair yesterday was treating the NA advances (into Kabul and beyond) as a slap in the face, a personal embarrasment. And also to remember that just the day before, Bush was glad-handing Musharraf and confidently declaring that the NA would basically halt outside Kabul until a suitable political plan could accompany it into the capital. 15435. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 9:43:53 AM Message # 15425 15436. Francis Urquhart - 11/14/2001 9:46:51 AM Mullah Omar, from CNN: 15437. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:47:16 AM Younis Qanooni, the newly appointed head of the opposition military commission for Kabul, told AFP the Taliban had lost Nangarhar, Kunar and Laghman provinces in the east along with Ghazni in the south and Farah in west. 15438. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 9:47:32 AM Message # 15431: Yes, I still think bombing promotes anti-American sentiment among Pashtuns. What was unexpected and surprising was the complete & sudden collapse of the Taliban. Which is of course what has brought the anti-Taliban Pashtun forces out. They didn't actively overthrow the Taliban. 15439. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 9:51:21 AM Taliban deputy ambassador Sohail Shaheen said on Wednesday that the militia was regrouping after a tactical withdrawal from major cities and was forming a new plan. 15440. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:02:36 AM Neither in Mazar nor in Kabul have there been any reports of ethnically motivated reprisals against civilians. All in all, the last 48 hours have seen little but good news. 15441. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:03:06 AM Southern Agfh in Chaos - ToL 15442. arheles - 11/14/2001 10:03:33 AM The Times is reporting that Al-Jazeera is reporting the fall of Kandahar. 15443. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:04:36 AM any fighter who deserts their duty "is like a slaughtered chicken which falls and dies 15444. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:05:18 AM Bombing promotes anti-American sentiment among the Pashtun who are or favour the Taliban, and for those who are against the Taliban obviously favour the deliverance of bombing, just like any one else regardless of their tribal or clan affinities. I mean, what kind of question and reply is all this? 15445. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:08:14 AM "...and for those who are against the Taliban obviously favour the deliverance of bombing..." 15446. Francis Urquhart - 11/14/2001 10:08:17 AM of course, all this success has devastated my unification/Afghanistan as training ground plan for the spring. I can no longer dole out these cities to our partners. 15447. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:09:08 AM "Afghan sources in Pakistan said that the airport in Kandahar was held by forces loyal to Arif Khan, a member of a southern Pashtun tribe. 15448. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:09:49 AM Those Taliban stuck in Kunduz, are indeed done for. 15449. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:10:28 AM Two things which detract from the good news: 15450. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:10:36 AM I've got not doubt that Pashtun (yes, even our very own Pseudoerasmus) who want the fall of the Taliban would cry - like the tribes of the Northern Alliance - "Allah is great!" when the bombs rip up the opposing forward edge of the battle area. 15451. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:10:51 AM THE collapse of Taliban resistance in northern Afghanistan and the fall of Kabul may stand as one of the most remarkable reversals of military fortune since Kitchener's victory at Omdurman in the Sudan in 1898. Then, another Islamic fundamentalist army, led by the Khalifa, a charismatic religious figure, was swept away on the battlefield and the capital recaptured. 15452. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:11:28 AM Okay, why is it completely false? 15453. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:13:12 AM Message # 15450 15454. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:13:46 AM Take up the White Man's burden-- 15455. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:14:27 AM Well, I must qualify my statement. Yes, I read in the Chicago Tribune of several days ago that a representative of a woman's group in Afghanistan lecturing at some university said she wanted the bombing stopped. Again, she wanted the bombing stopped. This of course was several days before bombing broke the Taliban's hold over most of the country. 15456. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:14:42 AM PE why are the Jamiats bad? 15457. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:16:13 AM I didn't say the Jamiat is bad. But if they don't relinquish military control of Kabul when the time comes, then that could be troublesome. 15458. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:17:10 AM I can only infer from your "Pashtun voices" that even if most Pashtun do not support the Taliban (and the degree of that support or lack thereof will become evident in the next few days) they still support their fellow Pashtuns and so want the bombing stopped? I find that fucking hard to believe. 15459. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:17:12 AM Masour Iiaz Today Show...the good news is the NA is in control, the bad news is the NA is in control 15460. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:18:16 AM Why? Just because they are one tribe and many must share???? No baby jirga? 15461. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:19:09 AM For Jen if she's around...a Frankfurt newspaper is reporting from German govt sources, the release of the 8 15462. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:21:02 AM It is going to be very hard to persuade people like Rabbani that they have to take a back seat to anyone, perhaps especially the King, despite the fact that their own troops occupy territory. 15463. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:22:27 AM Loar likes to argue in a vacuum of facts and, then when confronted with them, to bullshit them away. Every single anti-Taliban Pashtun commander has condemned the bombing. Afghan refugees streaming into Pakistan have decried the bombing. Al Jazeera had daily reported on the outrage the bombing caused in the streets. Abdul Haq reported on the outrage the bombing induced amongst eastern villagers. 15464. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:24:56 AM "Afghan mountain warriors, particularly the Pathans of the south, traditionally found advantage in fighting regular forces by presenting a poor target to organised fire power. Their organisation was the loose lashkar(!!!), which moved fleet-footed across country, avoiding roads, and their chosen method of fighting was that of the gasht(!), a raiding sweep. In the last few weeks, the Taliban seems to have made the mistake of constructing entrenched lines, which are clearly visible from the air and present attractive targets for precision bombing, even from 15,000 ft. The Taliban has also encumbered itself with tanks and four-wheel drive vehicles, which add little to its fighting capacity but signal its units' location to American aircraft" 15465. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:27:32 AM Message # 15464: Despite being Pashtun, the Taliban have little experience of traditional Pashtun lashkar-style warfare. After all, their entire military experience since 1994 has been of the conventional kind. 15466. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:30:47 AM Yes, it should be noted that the Taliban are not guerrillas, nor the hardened mujahedeen who faced down the Soviets. They're relative neophytes, who swept up most of Afghanistan thanks to Pakistani military support and the goodwill of a good section of the populace. 15467. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:30:48 AM Obviously, if they could foresee that the bombing campaign would be so effective in causing the Taliban to disintegrate, then they might not have opposed the bombing. 15468. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:33:51 AM Loar, 15469. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 10:41:15 AM Yes, I admit that the bombing "seemed that is was doing nought (sic) to dislodge the Taliban and when the only picture that emerged was of increase civilian suffering" was the simplistic picture and one that you yourself parroted here. 15470. Andonly - 11/14/2001 10:41:50 AM "Yes, I still think bombing promotes anti-American sentiment among Pashtuns." 15471. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:50:05 AM Loar, 15472. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:50:30 AM Oh I see, never mind. 15473. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:53:58 AM Message # 15469 15474. Andonly - 11/14/2001 10:57:03 AM Banks: "The fact is that every Afghan source, save the NA spokesmen, condemned the bombing when it seemed that it was doing nought to dislodge the Taliban and when the only picture that emerged was of increased civilian suffering." 15475. janjon - 11/14/2001 10:57:47 AM I would not want to be a sheep trying to graze in the hills of southern Afghanistan. 15476. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:58:52 AM Message # 15470 15477. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 11:00:49 AM errata Message # 15476 15478. stostosto - 11/14/2001 11:06:03 AM You gotta hand it to the USAirforce: It's apparently a lot more effective militarily than many of us (and many experts) have been fretting. 15479. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 11:13:07 AM One of the fears I expressed thousands of posts ago was re-fragmentation of Afghanistan, to the status quo ante of 1996. 15480. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:15:46 AM "We don't know yet the end result of that occupation." 15481. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:15:48 AM No, Pseudoerasmus, I didn't predict the immediate rout of the Taliban from most of the areas they held. In fact, I said again and again (but not to the metronome of insistence prevalent here) that I was not privy to US intelligence, nor to the Taliban's order of battle, nor to the results of those airstrikes and so I did not speculate on the military situation other than to remark that special forces were probably in the field to act as reconnaisance and forward observers for airstrikes. Do you want to go back and find those very words of mine? I did offer the speculation the Osama bin Laden had at the most months, perhaps weeks to live, and explained why. We will see what we will see. 15482. stostosto - 11/14/2001 11:17:56 AM Have no fear, Denmark is preparing to send 800 troops. 15483. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:18:21 AM I also remarked that the US would doubtlessly be obliged to create safe areas along the borders and within the country to stage the shipment and distribution of UN sponsored aid relief, for which I was thoroughly ridiculed as being a fantasy. 15484. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:19:25 AM Rather, the notion was ridiculed as fantastical. 15485. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:22:56 AM I also think the possibility of a sustained guerrilla war by the Taliban fantastical. I also think this war against terrorism is not the beginning of WWIII, is not the labour of a generation, and that Al-Qaeda is a ruthless but limited instrument and an anomaly in its ability to project terror beyond its base, and that it will be destroyed. 15486. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:34:34 AM But, I do admit, my thoughts and opinions are pretty much beggared by the wealth of facts on Afghan ethnicities, personalities, and Pashtun sensibilities paraded around here like battle penants. 15487. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 11:37:26 AM Corrigendum: pennants 15488. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:42:15 AM That is correct Scott...now to the board...write 1000 times, I will not misple. 15489. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:43:32 AM Panic in the Streets of Kandahar... 15490. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:45:46 AM Great news Sto! But I would feel more comfortable with a Dutch contingent if its all the same to you and a few Norwegians. 15491. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:47:42 AM I wanna marry Mathew Chance. 15492. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 11:54:07 AM Message # 15480 15493. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 11:54:15 AM Informative article from the Post. Good link, jexster. 15494. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:58:30 AM "I also think this war against terrorism is not the beginning of WWIII" 15495. sakonige - 11/14/2001 12:00:19 PM 15496. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 12:07:03 PM "Most of the bombing took place in Pashtun areas." 15497. sakonige - 11/14/2001 12:08:31 PM 15498. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 12:09:24 PM Sorry to disappoint, Andonly, but neither do I believe it is to be the labour of a generation; that was and remains your opinion, not mine. 15499. janjon - 11/14/2001 12:10:25 PM Before the Taliban assumed control of Kandahar in 1994, the city was divided into six zones, each controlled by a rival warlord. There were 18 checkpoints between the Pakistani border and the city limits at which armed men would extract bribes from travelers. 15500. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 12:12:43 PM Because you're Message # 15497 assumes 15501. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 12:13:35 PM Christ! I intended "your" and not "you're". I've been making that mistake a lot lately. 15502. jexster - 11/14/2001 12:14:59 PM "We need a broad-based government that will represent the will of all of Afghanistan's people, not just something that has been backed for the last two weeks by the U.S.A." 15503. jexster - 11/14/2001 12:16:30 PM We need the UN Security Jirga to get off its loya ass....just as Morton Halperin suggested on 9/12... 15504. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 12:20:37 PM 15505. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 12:24:37 PM I predicted all of this. 15506. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 12:26:05 PM 15507. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:26:07 PM Message # 15496 & Message # 15500 15508. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:26:59 PM Message # 15507 (continued). Most Pashtuns did not support the Taliban but your (a) through (c) ignore what I've already written. 15509. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 12:29:50 PM I donno. 15510. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:37:45 PM Message # 15507 15511. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:39:50 PM Someone called the US press "poodles". That's a bit strong but the American press does seem more compliant with US government policy than in a long time. Here's NYT article on on the press during this war. 15512. sakonige - 11/14/2001 12:41:49 PM Message # 15501 15513. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 12:43:00 PM By the way, it's possible to read Al Jazeera on the web in English. 15514. Wombat - 11/14/2001 12:59:38 PM As I am sure PE will tell you, the only information on the the war and air campaign that many Afghans got was through their own eyes, and what Taliban told them was happening. This would obviously affect their opinions on the bombing. 15515. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:20:14 PM (1) I was spectacularly wrong about how effective the US bombing campaign would be. I believed that the Taliban could not be routed by bombing alone, that the Northern Alliance would have to actively vie for the cities against the Taliban, and that the Taliban would dig in their heels. I did air in this thread the possibility that the Taliban might withdraw unilaterally from Kabul and Mazar to their southern redoubts, but I never ever imagined they would abandon Kandahar and Jalalabad as readily as they had quit Kabul and Mazar. Very few people believed differently than I did. 15516. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 1:20:25 PM Pseudoerasmus, n.b. 15517. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:21:29 PM errata: CHASTISED, not chastasised, which is the terminal condition of bovarian cancer when the patient is returned to a virginal state. 15518. CalGal - 11/14/2001 1:22:56 PM All this and Ramadan, too! 15519. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:27:30 PM Message # 15517: 15520. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:29:31 PM errata: CHASTISED, not chastasised, which is the terminal condition of bovarian cancer when the patient is returned to a virginal state. 15521. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:30:56 PM Message # 15517: 15522. janjon - 11/14/2001 1:31:32 PM bovarian? 15523. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 1:34:07 PM Yes, yes, yes. In time we will discover the exact consequences of the bombing, how many non-combatants were killed, how many and what type of areas destroyed or damaged, and the results to the civilian population. Now, we just don't know, because as I have said again and again public opinion formed by a few and narrow reporters may prove to be very much at odds with the reality. 250,000 refugees exited because of bombing? Or fear of bombing? Not for reason that transportation was disrupted, that aid relief was stopped? 15524. Raskolnikov - 11/14/2001 1:38:27 PM Pseudo:"The current outcome depended entirely on #1, which nobody foresaw as far as I can tell." 15525. sakonige - 11/14/2001 1:39:51 PM Message # 15515 15526. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:42:06 PM Message # 15523 15527. sakonige - 11/14/2001 1:43:13 PM 15528. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 1:44:07 PM I give up. 15529. stostosto - 11/14/2001 1:44:29 PM Great news Sto! But I would feel more comfortable with a Dutch contingent if its all the same to you and a few Norwegians. 15530. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 1:49:28 PM Reports about Kandahar may be premature: 15531. Al D - 11/14/2001 1:53:45 PM pseudoerasmus 15532. Al D - 11/14/2001 1:58:58 PM Several weeks ago we had dinner with one of our liberal friends, who assured us from what they were reading that bin Ladin was much loved in Afganistan. In fact women were enamored with him and did not object to the strictures put on them. They spoke about bin Laden's soft brown eyes and soft way of speaking. 15533. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:09:34 PM Message # 15531 15534. sakonige - 11/14/2001 2:09:43 PM What I did not want to see is thousands of Americans killed. It seems that objective will be met. 15535. Andonly - 11/14/2001 2:16:41 PM "Sorry to disappoint, Andonly, but neither do I believe it is to be the labour of a generation; that was and remains your opinion, not mine." 15536. Al D - 11/14/2001 2:19:13 PM I hope you're not implying I am such a person. 15537. Andonly - 11/14/2001 2:19:18 PM "I predicted all of this. I was just posting the opposite to test myself. I wanted to see if I could post the opposite of what I really thought without blinking." 15538. Cellar Door - 11/14/2001 2:40:53 PM 15539. judithathome - 11/14/2001 2:49:08 PM Where do sane people get the idea that people enjoy having their necks under someone's heal? 15540. Andonly - 11/14/2001 2:52:09 PM Raskolnikov: 15541. judithathome - 11/14/2001 2:52:56 PM When my liberal friends gave me their opinions I said when we make bin Ladin and his men crispy critters the Afgans will be waving American flags. Perhaps that is hyperbole, but not by much. Same thing would happen in Iraq, I do believe. 15542. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 2:56:33 PM More information on the second Pashtun force heading toward Kandahar. 15543. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:00:42 PM As I said here or somewhere else, I think Kaplan's views on Afghanistan are pretty sharp, but those on Pakistan are his usually formulaic Cassandra-type conflation of Yugoslavia and sub-Saharan Africa. I mean, does he ever say anything different about Senegal, Pakistan, Georgia or Egypt? 15544. alistairconnor - 11/14/2001 3:03:12 PM Message # 15506 Russ, isn't it time to wipe some of the snot off your webcam? Gives everything a fuzzy green tinge. 15545. thoughtful - 11/14/2001 3:42:10 PM Some clarity from experts please in pronunciation: 15546. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 3:59:05 PM The name of the largest ethnic group in Afghanistan is pronounced p'shTOON but p'khTOON in Pakistan. The better known word Pathan an Anglo-Indian term. 15547. concerned - 11/14/2001 4:09:34 PM 'In our name'?!? What slanted Idiocy are you spouting now, Fisk? 15548. concerned - 11/14/2001 4:10:16 PM Fisk goes on to drivel: 15549. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 4:23:34 PM Musharraf's woes. 15552. thoughtful - 11/14/2001 4:37:49 PM Thanks PseuE, I always learn so much from you. Is Usama U like Utah or ooh like oops? 15553. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 4:48:58 PM Andonly, Andonly, Old Anny, my prescription for international terrorism is quite separate from the military action in Afghanistan. Since September 12-13 I've advanced both the bureaucratic protocol as a means to eradicate international terrorism and immediate military action - unilaterally by the US if needed but I doubted it would come to that - against Osama bin Laden, Al-Qaeda, and the Taliban cadre, which doesn't seem so farfetched compared to your squallings about this all being the beginnings of World War III. 15554. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 4:53:17 PM And, so that no one misunderstands (as if anyone is reading this), I do not think the fall of the major cities the end of the action. Again, to my mind the mission is to destroy Osama bin Laden, the Al-Qaeda network and facilities in Afghanistan, and the Taliban cadre, which I have maintained since 12-13 September. 15555. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 4:53:46 PM Recently an Arab reporter asked Musharraf whether he had brought up Palestine with Bush. In fact Musharraf had been asked three or four times by Arab reporters in various locales about whether he had tirelessly championed the cause of Palestine. 15556. concerned - 11/14/2001 4:55:25 PM To Sakinage: 15557. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 4:55:35 PM "Muslim brotherhood" is a fraud perpetrated by Arabs to hoodwink non-Arab Muslims into supporting the causes that matter primarily to Arabs and, if needed, into being taken down with the Arabs. Just look at the irony of this current war. Most of the terrorists were Arabs, none was Afghan, and as far as I know no Afghan has ever been implicated in a terrorist attack outside Pakistan & Afghanistan. 15558. concerned - 11/14/2001 4:56:14 PM ...Sakonige.. 15559. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 4:57:50 PM Message # 15554 is so goddamned obvious it bears repeating only to avoid silly interpretations such as later issues forth from Andonly. 15560. sakonige - 11/14/2001 5:02:02 PM concerned - 15561. labwabbit - 11/14/2001 5:09:15 PM I just attacked and terrorized a crane mosquito...and on US soil to boot. 15562. labwabbit - 11/14/2001 5:19:58 PM Scott, 15563. concerned - 11/14/2001 5:21:28 PM Re. 15560 - 15564. concerned - 11/14/2001 5:30:17 PM Re. 15515 - 15565. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 5:42:08 PM Labwabbit, trumpets and flourishes to you, but 15566. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 5:53:46 PM Additionally, Fisk forgot to include his brilliantly superior alternate choice for alliance partner. The Pashtuns? Absolutely not. They're only starting to revolt now because of the well known Afghan propensity for ditching losers. 15567. concerned - 11/14/2001 5:54:53 PM The current outcome depended entirely on #1, which nobody foresaw as far as I can tell. 15568. concerned - 11/14/2001 5:57:57 PM Re. 15566 - 15569. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 6:06:01 PM Message # 15566: Who? 15570. ScottLoar - 11/14/2001 6:07:53 PM Throw in Message # 207 for good measure. More than that tires me. 15571. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 6:13:50 PM Message # 15567 15572. Property of Jesus - 11/14/2001 6:32:00 PM ABC is reporting that the six kidnapped Christian teachers (including two Americans, one a friend of Jenerator) have been released in Afghan. 15573. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 6:33:01 PM The situation in Afghanistan's South, including Kandahar, is so totally in flux that no report can be considered entirely credible until the press itself can get to that city. Al Jazeera, I'm guessing, will be first since it moved its offices there after the US bombed its Kabul base. But all the others were chased out or left as the Taliban fled, and that is pretty much all that we can know conclusively. 15574. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 6:51:11 PM Excellent columns in the Times today by Dowd and by Krugman. 15575. Absensia - 11/14/2001 6:58:12 PM CNN just reporting the 8 aid workers, were released by the Taliban and taken out of Afghanistan by US forces. 15576. judithathome - 11/14/2001 7:13:37 PM The local channel just reported that, too...they were doing a story on the church the two girls attend in Waco at the time, coincidently. 15577. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:14:10 PM Yes, it's true. I just got off the phone with a relative and they're free!!! 15578. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:15:04 PM I bet the folks at Antioch are on their knees. What a blessing. I am so thrilled, and tomorrow I am Waco bound. 15579. Absensia - 11/14/2001 7:15:27 PM I'm very happy for them, and happy for you too, Jen. I know you have been worried. 15580. judithathome - 11/14/2001 7:17:42 PM Jen, Gloria Campos was doing a story on the Antioch church...they had a room set up for prayer 24/7. 15581. concerned - 11/14/2001 7:19:07 PM Re. 15571 - 15582. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:21:36 PM Yes, Jimmy Seebert had the congregation pray for them 24 hours a day, everyday. My good friend Tina (who is also close with Dayna) prayed during the wee hours of the night, every night. They stood in the gap and prayed diligently. 15583. concerned - 11/14/2001 7:24:43 PM Re. 15577 - 15584. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:26:15 PM I cannot wait to watch them reunited with their familes. 15585. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:27:40 PM Judith, 15586. arkymalarky - 11/14/2001 7:35:18 PM I'm happy for all of you, Jen. Considering the instablility of the current situation, the outcome could have been very bad. I'm glad things turned out for them the way they have. 15587. Property of Jesus - 11/14/2001 7:38:24 PM Time to email drudgereport, Jenerator. 15588. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 7:40:52 PM I didn't contact them my friend. I only contacted Fox. 15589. bubbaette - 11/14/2001 8:08:17 PM I heard the news on CNN a little while ago and thought of you immediately, Jen. I'm happy for you and your friend. What a relief this must be for all of her friends and family. 15590. Cellar Door - 11/14/2001 8:14:41 PM It's pretty amazing, Jen. I thought for sure they were all goners. 15591. ronski - 11/14/2001 8:19:01 PM I heard one of the relatives tearfully thank all the people who prayed for their release. I don't know if it helped that we did, but I am happy about the outcome. 15592. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 8:24:17 PM I've never told y'all this before, but it was Dayna who led me to the Lord. I met her my first week at Baylor and she came up to me saying that she felt the Holy Spirit lead her to me. Dayna is incredibly intelligent and she was such a great Christian example. I have not done her any service by my example; she is leagues above me when it comes to understanding scriptures and demonstrating Christian love and virtue. 15593. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 8:25:43 PM ronski, 15594. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 8:30:33 PM Something else that has been exciting, is seeing all of my friends at Antioch on television. 15595. Andonly - 11/14/2001 8:33:26 PM Has anyone else heard it reported anywhere that 100 Taliban students were killed after the takeover of Mazar? I heard something about this but had the impression that the dead had been Taliban fighters holed up in a school. But it turns out they were "young", according to FT reports, which also say the UN has confirmed they were massacred. 15596. bubbaette - 11/14/2001 8:40:35 PM I fear that in the Northern Alliance we're chasing the devil we know with the devil we don't. 15597. Snowowl - 11/14/2001 8:46:36 PM Andonly 15598. CalGal - 11/14/2001 8:50:25 PM If they are murderers who let women walk about without fear of death, then it puts them above the folks who they drove out. 15599. CalGal - 11/14/2001 8:50:43 PM Thanks, Snow. 15600. ronski - 11/14/2001 8:51:44 PM Jen, 15601. sakonige - 11/14/2001 9:02:09 PM 15602. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:03:24 PM That's dumb Sakonige. We have bombed the tar out of Afghanistan and we rescued the workers. 15603. sakonige - 11/14/2001 9:05:57 PM 15604. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:13:06 PM From an FT editorial by John Thornhill and Farhan Bokhari: 15605. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:13:25 PM What's actually interesting is that the piece goes on to say Iran might be open to moderate Talibani being included in the next government. So "the liberal Hayat-e-Nou newspaper" has advocated, anyway. Put this together with that suspicious Telegraph report of a meeting between Iranian and Taliban officials last week--keeping in mind Iran has long been an NA supporter and, as far as I knew, staunchly anti-Taliban--and reports of recent US-Iranian handshaking, and something curious may be emerging; I'm just not sure what. 15606. bubbaette - 11/14/2001 9:20:29 PM I saw a Nat. Geo. that featured an afghani tribal warlord who grew up in Detroit and is now fighting for the Northern Alliance. If the dynamics of that guy's tribe are common, then I don't hold out much hope for a coalition government. It seems like the lifestyle is based on different forms of fighting and fueding. If there's not an external enemy to fight with, then they fight amongst themselves. Maybe it's just that the culture is so alien to me, but all things considered the NA don't look much better than the Taliban as far as the prospects for peace and stability are concerned. 15607. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:23:20 PM Jenerator, 15608. sakonige - 11/14/2001 9:24:12 PM 15609. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:26:38 PM (Prayer Joke) 15610. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:28:38 PM (Oh, actually that was Ronski's thing about it not hoiting.) 15611. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:35:17 PM Andonly, 15612. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:36:16 PM sakonige, 15613. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 9:36:22 PM Congratulations Jen! 15614. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:37:26 PM This is severely off-topic, but did anyone here know that former Intel head Andy Grove used to be "Andrejs Grof" (don't trust my spelling), a Hungarian Jew who lived through both Nazi and Soviet occupation, and whose father just barely survived internment under Stalin? 15615. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:38:39 PM Rp, 15616. bubbaette - 11/14/2001 9:40:30 PM Whoever gained their release, I'm glad that they're out of harm's way. I suspect that they'll have quite a bit to get over, having been held in awful conditions under tremendous stress and uncertainty. 15617. joezan - 11/14/2001 9:41:55 PM Jenerator: 15618. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 9:42:44 PM Another one: 15619. joezan - 11/14/2001 9:43:19 PM Ha! Good one, Ando. 15620. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 9:43:40 PM Jen: 15621. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:44:03 PM What's interesting, is that my greatest fear (that I mentioned in here several times) was that they - the aid workers- would be placed in a building that would be bombed by the US so that the Taliban could wipe their hands of responsibility and blame more injustices and atrocities on the US, and the president believed the same thing. He said this in the NYTimes: 15622. joezan - 11/14/2001 9:46:02 PM Ando: 15623. Al D - 11/14/2001 9:48:43 PM G.W also gave credit to the Red Cross. Of course as all on the Mote know, he is an idiot. Thank God he didn't prattle "I felt their pain." 15624. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 9:51:20 PM Thanks AlD. 15625. Al D - 11/14/2001 9:52:02 PM Judith 15626. Andonly - 11/14/2001 9:56:17 PM "Aren't the Taliban, by definition, charter, and deed anti-moderate?" 15627. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:01:41 PM I have no idea why whatever Iran might be doing with respect to Afghanistan should undermine my views about the myth of Muslim brotherhood. After all, Iran and Afghanistan have ties which go well beyond a common religion. 15628. sakonige - 11/14/2001 10:04:22 PM 15629. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:05:37 PM Message # 15596: I fear that in the Northern Alliance we're chasing the devil we know with the devil we don't. 15630. CalGal - 11/14/2001 10:05:58 PM And, 15631. joezan - 11/14/2001 10:09:07 PM It doesn't really bother me to have discovered in the course of this war how cold-blooded, murderous and hypocitical Christians can be. 15632. pseudoerasmus - 11/14/2001 10:10:00 PM The problem with the Northern Alliance is not what they represent. For most of the NA groups are not extremists, from the religious point of view, and most of them actually have a record of effective, competent, even enlightened administrations in the 1992-96. The only exception is Kabul, where the NA factions fought over territory and destroyed the city. 15633. sakonige - 11/14/2001 10:12:22 PM Message # 15631 15634. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 10:15:18 PM Jen: 15635. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 10:16:07 PM If they do, be sure to wear a 'www.themote.com' T-shirt. 15636. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:17:16 PM sakonige, 15637. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:18:01 PM Rp, 15638. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 10:18:04 PM Whoops - I was out of line there, sorry. 15639. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:19:34 PM Rp, 15640. RustlerPike - 11/14/2001 10:20:39 PM Jen, 15641. CalGal - 11/14/2001 10:21:27 PM And, 15642. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:35:19 PM THOUSANDS more British troops are about to be sent to Afghanistan, Tony Blair announced yesterday. 15643. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:35:56 PM congrats Jen! 15644. sakonige - 11/14/2001 10:38:29 PM 15645. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:42:06 PM She was probably deeply saddened when she heard about it and scared that she would be killed. Dayna is the peaceful type and so she'd want the terrorists to be stopped by the Lord. 15646. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:48:25 PM ck your e-mail Jen...speakin of... 15647. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:49:07 PM (AP- Washington) 15648. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:53:23 PM Right back to ya Jex. 15649. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:55:15 PM Now this is no joke.. 15650. marjoribanks - 11/14/2001 10:55:51 PM Pseuder, 15651. jexster - 11/14/2001 10:56:17 PM 15652. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 10:57:32 PM 15653. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:00:25 PM I knew that Marj. 15654. sakonige - 11/14/2001 11:01:44 PM How about you, what are your feelings about the aid workers being released? 15655. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 11:08:57 PM From the Dallas Morning News: 15656. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 11:10:09 PM Sakonige, 15657. Snowowl - 11/14/2001 11:10:46 PM It demonstrates a sense of decency and a respect for human life in the Taliban. 15658. Jenerator - 11/14/2001 11:12:42 PM SnowOwl, 15659. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:19:30 PM Andonly: "It could be that Iran is playing things righteously for a change, with the welfare of Afghans considered a priority along with Iran's own interests. That, if true, could become a hopeful thing, and would undermine PE's observation that "Muslim brotherhood" is a crock. 15660. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:19:49 PM Whatever interests Iran shares with Afghnanistan, they probably can't be realized over the long haul without someone building an ideological bridge of some sort. It looks like it could be pan-Islamist. Iran has been touting its grave concern for Muslim safety against US bombing since shortly after 9-11, has always insisted only the UN should go into Afghanistan, has in fact taken a seemingly principled, coherent stance on western intervention against Muslims. 15661. sakonige - 11/14/2001 11:21:12 PM 15662. CalGal - 11/14/2001 11:22:23 PM All-Negative, All the Time 15663. Andonly - 11/14/2001 11:25:49 PM "Well, the Time piece says it was after. Although the Intel museum said he "fled" before the invasion, I'll figure Time is right." 15664. Snowowl - 11/14/2001 11:28:10 PM Very funny, Cal. If we could just make PE Fabled Newscaster Sakonige would be perfect as Desperate. 15665. Snowowl - 11/14/2001 11:28:18 PM Very funny, Cal. If we could just make PE Fabled Newscaster Sakonige would be perfect as Desperate. 15666. CalGal - 11/14/2001 11:32:14 PM Oh, I know he was there for the Nazis. As for life in Hungary after the Soviets came, either way he wasn't there very long--not to minimize it, of course. But he left about the same time the Soviets entered Budapest. 15667. CalGal - 11/14/2001 11:35:08 PM Snow, 15668. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:37:52 PM HERE, said my friend Rudi, as he prepared one of his patent lamb kebab sandwiches. What happened in Afghanistan, eh? One minute the Taliban were in charge, and then phwoom. 15669. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:38:18 PM toys 15670. Absensia - 11/14/2001 11:38:29 PM Hahaha, wonderful article. 15671. jexster - 11/14/2001 11:41:24 PM ROFLMAO Cal...was that Marj sportin the mullet look? 15672. joezan - 11/14/2001 11:47:20 PM Good article, jex. 15673. Al D - 11/14/2001 11:47:46 PM Ronski certainly is the voice of reason on the Mote. But what the Mote really needs is the return of Bobba Fett. 15674. joezan - 11/14/2001 11:49:53 PM Here, here, Big Al. 15675. concerned - 11/14/2001 11:53:09 PM 15628. sakonige - 11/15/01 3:04:22 AM 15676. concerned - 11/14/2001 11:58:36 PM Well the Russian line is that "moderate Taliban" is a contradiction in terms. 15677. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:02:06 AM 15636. Jenerator - 11/15/01 3:17:16 AM 15678. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:05:31 AM I am also pleased that the Taliban effectively extinguished the bombing campaign by suddenly abandoning the cities. 15679. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:16:26 AM From Khaval's forum: 15680. CalGal - 11/15/2001 12:21:19 AM I saw this moronic post over at the Rant . 15681. Al D - 11/15/2001 12:24:01 AM Jenerator 15682. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:24:32 AM Noam Chomsky's wisdom from Yahoo India News: 15683. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:24:44 AM CalGal, 15684. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:25:45 AM AlD, 15685. CalGal - 11/15/2001 12:26:33 AM Jen, 15686. CalGal - 11/15/2001 12:28:19 AM Ack! I hate this Linux interface. Wiped out a sentence and posted inadvertently all in one faulty click. 15687. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:29:50 AM Girls getting 'hardons' because of their 'prostelitizing activities'? 15688. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:30:32 AM Girls getting 'hardons' because of their 'prostelitizing activities'? 15689. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:30:36 AM Ca;gal, 15690. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:35:45 AM Al D - 15691. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:37:00 AM And you blame the US? 15692. Andonly - 11/15/2001 12:39:07 AM CalGal "Actually, he fled right before Stalin showed up. Don't know about his dad. Went to CCNY and was Employee #1 at Intel. ... Well, the Time piece says it was after. Although the Intel museum said he "fled" before the invasion, I'll figure Time is right." 15693. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:40:37 AM 15694. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:42:12 AM UNICEF expects 100,000 Afghan children to die within six weeks if the bombing continues. 15695. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 12:42:30 AM "Chomsky finally comes out of the crypto-socialist-anarchist closet." 15696. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 12:43:07 AM From MSNBC 15697. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 12:43:30 AM Message # 12660 & Message # 12661 15698. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:45:31 AM You're free to move to a differnt country 15699. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 12:46:09 AM Why is everyone talking as if the war is over? We are no nowhere near to being out of Afghanistan. 15700. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 12:46:30 AM Message # 15650: I think Bernard Lewis went senile circa 1990, because since then he's been writing the same book and article over and over again. The themes in that article have been repeated ad nauseam in most of his books written since The Muslim Discovery of Europe, one of the best books on Islamic history I've ever read. 15701. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:49:19 AM Sakonige doesn't want to move to another country because when she starts talking trash over there, as she will, she'll be invited to an obligatory stay in a closed cell at government expense. 15702. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:54:11 AM 15703. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:55:39 AM Which part? 15704. sakonige - 11/15/2001 12:57:04 AM 15705. Andonly - 11/15/2001 1:00:49 AM "Millions, old man. Up to 7 million Afghans dead of exhaustion, exposure and starvation by UN estimates. 5 million by conservative estimates less than a month ago. UNICEF expects 100,000 Afghan children to die within six weeks if the bombing continues." 15706. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:01:44 AM Message # 15659 15707. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:02:50 AM At least one poster (PE) and several links here have stated that taking the cities in Afghanistan is a fairly easy task, militarily. 15708. CalGal - 11/15/2001 1:03:44 AM Andonly, 15709. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:05:01 AM Things have improved considerably for starving Afghans, Sad Sack. Try not to sink into too deep a depression over it. 15710. sakonige - 11/15/2001 1:10:41 AM Message # 15709 15711. Andonly - 11/15/2001 1:15:10 AM "So what? Many Muslim countries use pan-Islamist rhetoric without meaning it. Iran is especially keen on the rhetoric because as Shiites they are estranged from the rest of the Muslim world. But Iranian external policy usually follows a pro-Shiite line or national self-interest." 15712. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:17:47 AM Bush just cannot stop making an ass of himself, can he? I saw him on television saying that he "looked Putin in the eye" and he'd only but the deal down on "a piece of paper" as a formality. Just how juvenile is this guy? 15713. Andonly - 11/15/2001 1:23:46 AM "There is no evidence of any Iranian-Taliban rapprochement, other than some meeting reported in the Daily Telegraph." 15714. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:30:37 AM And if the U.S. gets lucky, and the Taliban falls, the political process moves forward, and we nab bin Laden and his senior lieutenants, what next? 15715. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:34:11 AM Hey, buck up, marg - 15716. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:34:31 AM We have no allies there and we have practiced such a timid diplomacy in the wake of 9-11, that no one in the region is afraid of the U.S. 15717. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:36:18 AM Wrong. Iraq and Syria, to name two putative terrorism sponsoring states, may well have good reason to be concerned about which actions the US will take in the not too distant future. 15718. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:37:12 AM PM - 15719. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:41:53 AM By the way, ITN's evening news from Wednesday had interviews in the street with Jalalabadis who were cursing the USA for the bombing campaign. I've no idea whether their opinion is representative or not. But it is apropos to what I was arguing with Andonly and Loar about earlier. 15720. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:41:56 AM The U.S. has no diplomatic support to go against Saddam. None. Zero. I don't even think the British would join us there. And I'm not even sure where "there" is since only Kuwait would probably allow us to launch an attack against Iraq from their soil, and even that is not a certainty. 15721. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:42:00 AM Re. 15717 - 15722. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:44:25 AM "In case you weren't paying attention, The Arab states made a big show of saying they could grudgingly accept U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, but they would not allow an attack against a fellow Arab nation. " 15723. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:45:21 AM PM jumps in and whines that 'everybody' is 'assuming' that the war in Afghanistan is 'won'. 15724. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:45:26 AM Buy more oil from the former Soviet Union. 15725. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:46:29 AM Promote investment in energy projects in Siberia, which have somewhat stalled. US and Canadian companies were prospecting in Sakhalin, but that has slowed down. Subsidise such investments. And fuck Saudi Arabia. 15726. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:46:48 AM Concerned, 15727. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:51:11 AM Why would there be any necessary assumption that actions against terrorist groups in any given country would result in an overthrow of its government, anyway? 15728. concerned - 11/15/2001 1:54:33 AM 15727 is effectively an answer to 15726, although a xpost. 15729. Andonly - 11/15/2001 1:54:46 AM "I cannot believe after all this time you can't figure out what it is. What is the major commonality between Iran and Afghanistan other than religion? Afghanistan (plus Tajikistan, "Kurdistan" and western Pakistan) are what Iranologists call l'Iran extérieur. Iran and Afghanistan are respectively Shiite and Sunni manifestations of the same Iranic civilisation." 15730. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 1:59:11 AM PE -- 15731. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:00:16 AM Yes, those Arab fuckheads. Bomb Saudi Arabia. 15732. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:01:04 AM Concerned -- 15733. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:02:07 AM PM - 15734. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:04:17 AM "By the way, ITN's evening news from Wednesday had interviews in the street with Jalalabadis who were cursing the USA for the bombing campaign." 15735. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:05:16 AM Concerned -- 15736. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:09:38 AM Re. 15730 - 15737. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:11:15 AM "And have we found the source of the Anthrax attacks? As I told Andonly, I thought this was just a dry run. Whoever sent the stuff is probably working on a new, more effective way to disperse it. And if he isn't, someone with ill intentions towards the U.S. is." 15738. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:13:47 AM "only Kuwait would probably allow us to launch an attack against Iraq from their soil, and even that is not a certainty." 15739. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:15:46 AM Concerned -- 15740. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:16:04 AM "Buy more oil from the former Soviet Union. Promote investment in energy projects in Siberia, which have somewhat stalled. US and Canadian companies were prospecting in Sakhalin, but that has slowed down. Subsidise such investments. And fuck Saudi Arabia." 15741. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:17:39 AM What is it going to take for you to criticize George Bush?! 15742. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:17:49 AM It may have escaped notice, but Iraq lobbed a couple of mortars into Kuwait yesterday or the day before. Very little mention in the press. 15743. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:19:29 AM Here's the article on the deployment: 15744. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:20:02 AM Bell said he could not confirm reports that the battalion to brigade-sized force, which is anywhere from 1,200 to 5,000 soldiers, was deploying to Kuwait, nor that the deploying units were part of the 1st Cavalry Division. 15745. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 2:22:58 AM Pincher, I assume you mistakenly addressed me in Message # 15730? 15746. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:26:02 AM Concerned -- 15747. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:27:29 AM PE -- 15748. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:28:26 AM Re. 15739 - 15749. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:30:25 AM Re. 15746 - 15750. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:34:03 AM Concerned -- 15751. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:35:29 AM Yes, my apologies. I was going to write you a post and decided it would be more enjoyable to insult Concerned, instead. 15752. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:35:39 AM Don't expect me to take this post of yours seriously. 15753. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:37:57 AM Concerned -- 15754. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:40:06 AM PM - 15755. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:42:30 AM Pincher, 15756. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:46:42 AM Concerned -- 15757. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:50:36 AM By the way, am I alone in thinking our bombing al Jazeera was a bad move? The US does all sorts of things for good or ill that get demonized and harped on indefinitely in the Arab press. But bombing the Arab free press, propagandistic though it surely is, is sort of like begging for about five hundred years worth of shitty publicity. 15758. concerned - 11/15/2001 2:54:31 AM RD - 15759. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 2:55:57 AM Andonly -- 15760. Andonly - 11/15/2001 2:56:03 AM That question hanging in midair, 15761. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:04:49 AM Re. 15756 - 15762. Al D - 11/15/2001 3:10:45 AM Come home Bobba Fett. We need some civility here. 15763. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 3:14:17 AM Just recently, many relevant posts about Afghanistan, including the first accurate prediction of US actions. 15764. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:34:40 AM Re. 15763 - 15765. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:35:47 AM Since I have posted about TR on several occasions and not only to you,... 15766. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 3:54:27 AM It was at the beginning of this thread and possibly before. IAC, I posted on 9/11 (actual) that I believed the US ought to require the Taliban to surrender bin Laden and step down, which is the closest early suggestion in this forum of what now appears to be transpiring. 15767. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 3:54:49 AM Furthermore, I said TR set Taft up and then screwed him over, and now you object because I also said, in effect, that Taft would have been preferable to Wilson in 1912. Just goofy. 15768. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:13:24 AM Re. 15766 McKinley 15769. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:15:20 AM Now, I'd like to see PM justify the value of his posting as I have mine and prove to us how impeccable his political credentials are. 15770. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:18:49 AM It was at the beginning of this thread and possibly before. IAC, I posted on 9/11 (actual) that I believed the US ought to require the Taliban to surrender bin Laden and step down, which is the closest early suggestion in this forum of what now appears to be transpiring. 15771. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 4:21:30 AM Something about the American spirit in Message # 2184 in thread 113. And a question. 15772. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:22:17 AM You know what they say about hindsight being 20/20. 15773. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 4:22:39 AM A meltdown over Taft and McKinley! Great! 15774. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:25:06 AM Now, I've backed up most of what I've been challenged on by PM in detail. But, do people really want to read this rehash? I doubt it. That's the real reason I think PM should tone his little bulldog act back. Simple consideration for other Motiers. 15775. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:27:47 AM Think I'll step up my political posting some. Then PM can get into some ankle chewing about recent news. 15776. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:28:51 AM Notice that PM seems to be fine with anything jexster has to post. KM the 1st, whatever. 15777. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:38:27 AM Starting to kick in PM's skull about US plans for Iraq 15778. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:44:46 AM To those interested, please note that I already posted in another thread that sufficient diplomatic and economic pressure might well be enough to cause Syria to cease supporting terrorism. 15779. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:45:53 AM Concerned -- 15780. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:47:58 AM Well, actually, if you read back, it stands out as being the first statement of that level of accuracy in this forum, period. If you disagree, provide cites, or else retract. 15781. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:50:47 AM Concerned -- 15782. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:51:23 AM Correction: 15783. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:51:46 AM test 15784. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 4:57:15 AM Now, I've backed up most of what I've been challenged on by PM in detail. 15785. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:00:13 AM Btw, Clowntoon administration bungling (enforcement laxness interspersed with one or two cruise missile attacks) was largely responsible for the cessation of the Iraq UN arms inspections. Hardly a 'victory' in the 'war' against terrorism. 15786. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:00:17 AM Concerned -- 15787. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:01:52 AM Go ahead and look for it. 15788. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:03:20 AM I'm making you look really pathetic, PinchskullMoron 15789. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:06:13 AM I don't know what WorldNetDaily, but I've met Bill Gertz and read one of his books, and he's another clueless partisan -- especially when it involves China. 15790. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:06:52 AM Indeed, rather than comparing you to Sakonige.. 15791. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:07:54 AM Zippy - 15792. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:09:14 AM How come I'm pro abortion & pro affirmative action, Zippy? 15793. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:14:10 AM Well, I'm gone for now. Fabricate anything you are able to, Zippy. If there's at least a grain of truth to any of it, I may respond, if I even bother to read your disgusting drivel, but I think you're about cashed out, so don't hold your breath. 15794. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:18:49 AM Constipated 15795. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:20:48 AM Correction: more than 200 Marines died in the Lebanon bombing, still more Americans than died in the two African embassy bombings. And what did Reagan do: he turned tail and ran out of Lebanon by declaring victory in Grenada. 15796. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:22:04 AM Message # 15788 15797. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:27:29 AM Anybody who would say that Clowntoon was as effective as Reagan against terrorism is just being silly. Compared to only Beirut during Reagan's term in office, can we say WTC I US embassy in Kenya, Dharan barracks bombing, US embassy in Tanzania, Waco? Well, most of us can. The ones who have functioning cortexes. 15798. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 5:32:47 AM Why did you remind him? He'll bring them up next time he's off on one of his rants. 15799. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 5:33:41 AM Hahaha! 15800. Adrianne - 11/15/2001 6:37:39 AM 15801. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 6:42:18 AM I know Bill Gertz rather well, and he's partisan, true. But he's not clueless...far, far from it. 15802. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 6:45:19 AM He also uses sources in an "irresponsible" way. 15803. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 6:48:22 AM He even has refers to sources in the back of his book that are blank pages, except for where it reads: "At the request of the Central Intelligence Agency, the publisher has withdrawn a classified document that was to appear on this page." 15804. Adrianne - 11/15/2001 6:56:50 AM 15805. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 7:06:19 AM Adrianne -- 15806. Adrianne - 11/15/2001 7:13:36 AM PM 15807. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 7:40:12 AM Scott Loar seems to think the entire war on terrorism is over, ridiculing the notion that the war on terrorism will even last a generation, even though the idea has been put forward by the nations's leaders. 15808. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 7:46:46 AM Where has anyone said that the war on terrorism has ended? Both PincherMartin and now Adrianne claim so, but where has anyone said or implied it is done? 15809. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 8:00:52 AM PincherMartin, begin at Message # 193 and read through about Message # 259. In that light now go back to your comment about my opinion. 15810. joezan - 11/15/2001 8:02:03 AM I happened to catch a couple of minutes of an interview (on Nightline?) with a former Talibani who had joined up with the NA along with the rest of his unit, as the NA was about to roll through Mazar. Anyone else see this? The guy was like a cartoon character - powerfully built, completely bald except for his big bushy beard, with a tiny, ornate skullcap, wearing a beautifully embroidered silk vest over his massive torso. On one hand, all he had were a ring finger and thumb (the rest having obviously been chopped/blown off). And a patch covering one eye. 15811. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 8:14:46 AM Well, the German aid workers sure don't look undernourished. 15812. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 8:16:18 AM JoeZ: OK, OK already. So you guys did the right thing and you did it well and you beat the Tallies. No need to get all proud and shit. 15813. Wombat - 11/15/2001 8:38:56 AM What an entertaining exchange, PM and Concerned. Guess who I agree with? 15814. stostosto - 11/15/2001 8:58:31 AM Yes, it was an amusing exchange. 15815. bubbaette - 11/15/2001 9:00:47 AM Our own Barry Lyndon. 15816. Property of Jesus - 11/15/2001 9:32:05 AM 15817. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 9:32:40 AM Re: Message # 15758, concerned. 15818. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 9:32:57 AM Rp, 15819. glendajean - 11/15/2001 9:45:47 AM Jen -- they literally only had a prayer to escape. And they did. 15820. glendajean - 11/15/2001 9:46:48 AM Here's the link: 15822. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:50:25 AM I posted yesterday...hahaha 15823. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:52:31 AM Rp.... 15824. jexster - 11/15/2001 9:56:53 AM WASHINGTON -- President Bush's executive order authorizing special military tribunals to try suspected terrorists was sharply criticized Wednesday by legal experts who said it flies in the face of world opinion, international law and American standards of justice. 15825. bubbaette - 11/15/2001 9:57:53 AM Don't forget about his war on peace demonstrators in his hometown. Surely that counts as part of the war effort. 15826. Andonly - 11/15/2001 9:58:55 AM All the "I was right" shit is a bit of a bore. 15827. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 9:59:44 AM Well, lucky for my status as Most Likely to Become a Hebrew Prophet, I didn't have a clear prediction of what would happen, though I did warn that fighting the ObL bunch in the hills would become a shitty war with many losses. I could turn out to be wrong on that. Could be that'll turn out to be pretty doable too. Certainly looks easier now than it did a week ago. 15828. Andonly - 11/15/2001 9:59:45 AM Message: 16 15829. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:00:45 AM 2. Battlefield Intelligence: The Soviet Army relied 15830. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 10:01:29 AM Jex: 15831. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:01:52 AM 3. Night Capability: The Soviets had little means to 15832. glendajean - 11/15/2001 10:02:09 AM Andonly -- couldn't you link back to something that you had already posted? 15833. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 10:02:19 AM Okay, I really must get going, but here's some information that you may or may not hear from the networks in the future. 15834. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:02:45 AM 4. Weapon range: The Soviet Army was traditionally 15835. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:04:33 AM 6. Enemy morale: The Soviet Army fought a highly 15836. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:04:59 AM Like any conflict, this one will come down to a test 15837. jexster - 11/15/2001 10:09:11 AM "Pakistani border officials and intelligence sources said that Taliban defectors from the Kandahar region, many with their distinctive black turbans, have increased markedly in number. Several hundred Pakistanis who had entered Afghanistan in recent weeks to bolster the Taliban crossed back into Pakistan late Tuesday night, the officials said. " 15838. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:11:01 AM 15839. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:12:43 AM Excerpt from FT briefing above: 15840. jexster - 11/15/2001 10:15:54 AM Message # 15830 15841. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:21:29 AM "couldn't you link back to something that you had already posted?" 15842. glendajean - 11/15/2001 10:25:43 AM I assume that we are deciphering like mad any documents found about the terrorists network. I am hopeful that that the information uncovered will aid in rounding up cells in other parts of the world. 15843. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 10:37:22 AM Evocative article on Kandahar, by Fisk. Blurbs from the Pak International News: 15845. stostosto - 11/15/2001 10:52:12 AM The closest I have been to making predictions: 15846. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:54:44 AM I think the 9-11 death toll is down to 4,500 or so now. 15847. stostosto - 11/15/2001 10:59:05 AM Oct. 10th: 6,000 15848. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 11:03:48 AM Marj: 15849. Andonly - 11/15/2001 11:03:52 AM "And don't believe all they hyperbole about 'the day that changed the world' and all such media babble." 15850. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:05:23 AM The Ottoman Umpire 15851. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:09:52 AM 15814. stostosto - 11/15/01 1:58:31 PM 15852. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 11:11:40 AM Slightly dated, but perceptive - Rashid's latest. 15853. RustlerPike - 11/15/2001 11:12:06 AM You know, it's way not over. Just because there hasn't been a revolution in Pakistan and the Tallies have been driven into the hills doesn't mean it's over. 15854. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:13:53 AM For instance, would you agree with PM that the last administration was every bit as good as the Reagan administration, in controlling terrorism against US targets, or would you accept the five examples I provided of terrorist acts, of which two were on US soil during the Clowntoon administration versus only one during the Reagan years? 15855. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:18:42 AM I also fail to see what is 'impressive' about another Motier deliberately and repeatedly misrepresenting posts I made from years ago, and in also crudely misrepresenting my political viewpoints in the face of my repeated remonstrances, unless one is willing to abet bullying and dishonest behavior based on mere personal preferences. 15856. stostosto - 11/15/2001 11:19:34 AM I expect ObL to be hanged from a lamp post by a buch of wild-eyed Afghanis, and that'll be the end of him. 15857. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:22:28 AM It also seems dishonest (to me) to ignore the fact that a number of Motiers discussed the possible scenarios regarding US use of nuclear arms in the days after the initial WTC/Pentagon mass murder. But honesty may not be important in those who are inclined to bully, as I'm well aware. 15858. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:26:18 AM I don't really expect stostosto to seriously respond to the content of my post 15851, btw, because of the fact that he probably knew he could do no more with such an inaccurate statement as he made than attempt to provoke. 15859. stostosto - 11/15/2001 11:32:45 AM connie, 15860. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:43:18 AM Re. 15859 - 15861. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 11:46:13 AM again, people, if you want to discuss past administrations and various reactions to past terrorism not related to 9/11, please take it to Politics. 15862. stostosto - 11/15/2001 11:48:22 AM I expect ObL to be hanged from a lamp post by a buch of wild-eyed Afghanis, and that'll be the end of him. 15863. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 11:48:59 AM moving on, United Airlines Putting Stun Guns in Cockpits 15864. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:49:35 AM I also offered the link to Salon(!) from the time of the Clowntoon cruise missile retaliations for the 1998 terrorist incidents which gave a chillingly prescient account of the probable results of Clowntoon's totally inappropriate and worse than ineffective response. 15865. concerned - 11/15/2001 11:50:47 AM Re. 15861 - 15866. ronski - 11/15/2001 11:57:24 AM Omar to Gilgit? 15867. stostosto - 11/15/2001 12:03:24 PM concertina 15868. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 12:15:04 PM I'm inclined to support all-out war against all Arabs. They have some kind of short-circuit in their brains, rendering them incapable of rational, critical thought. In this era of increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, we should not have to tolerate such a threat on the face of the planet. 15869. concerned - 11/15/2001 12:20:05 PM Re. 15867 - 15870. janjon - 11/15/2001 12:33:03 PM people - take note, careful note, of the import of these new military tribunals the Administration has just authorized/established. 15871. ronski - 11/15/2001 12:42:01 PM I keep thinking I should feel really, really uncomfortable with the military tribunals plan, but I don't. I think the comparison with the execution of five Nazi spies during WW2 is an appropriate one. But I'm glad Safire, who describes himself as a libertarian conservative, has spoken out. 15872. ronski - 11/15/2001 12:43:56 PM (He also calls himself a contrarian.) And I liked his book on Job, which I think is now out of print. I lent it to a Presbyterian minister friend of mine and never got it back. But I refuse to hold a grudge against Calvinists. 15873. Andonly - 11/15/2001 12:44:13 PM Janjon: "people - take note, careful note, of the import of these new military tribunals the Administration has just authorized/established." 15874. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 12:44:33 PM I have to agree with Sto on this. 15875. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 12:46:35 PM "I expect ObL to be hanged from a lamp post by a buch of wild-eyed Afghanis." 15876. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 1:06:37 PM The special tribunal bugs the hell out of me too. I don't like it. That's the kind of crap I expect out of the UN, not a liberal democracy. 15877. Wombat - 11/15/2001 1:36:02 PM Better not to bring Bin Laden to court at all. Better to have the US explain his death at the hands of Afghans or in battle, than to justify his execution or incarceration after what will be portrayed as a "kangaroo" court, whether it is a military tribunal or federal court. 15878. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 1:41:47 PM I would not want to be a civilian in Kunduz, right now. The situation is worrisome for any number of reasons, besides the fact that the media is watching it all from just across a bridge not too far away. If the NA take over and massacre thousands, in this small bastion of the Pashtuns, it will be remembered forever, kind of a Pashtun Alamo. 15879. ronski - 11/15/2001 1:42:29 PM Shot while trying to escape always works well. But bin Laden is not the issue, since he will probably kill himself before being found or handed over. The problem is all the other guys that will be caught in the next four years. 15880. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 1:44:07 PM And what the fuck is up with that report at the end of the article that the US allowed two Pak planes to land in Kunduz and take away Pak and Taliban officials? What game is being played? 15881. CalGal - 11/15/2001 1:44:12 PM But let's get to the target that this blunderbuss order is intended to hit. Here's the big worry in Washington now: What do we do if Osama bin Laden gives himself up? A proper trial like that Israel afforded Adolf Eichmann, it is feared, would give the terrorist a global propaganda platform. Worse, it would be likely to result in widespread hostage-taking by his followers to protect him from the punishment he deserves. 15882. Cellar Door - 11/15/2001 1:45:00 PM The ACLU weighs in 15883. Property of Jesus - 11/15/2001 1:49:19 PM It's no wonder that Pakistan is so nervous. Documents in Kabul will show that most of their secret police are actually Taliban. 15884. ronski - 11/15/2001 1:49:33 PM marj, 15885. Wombat - 11/15/2001 1:50:16 PM The worst part of a trial is that--in the absence of other than circumstantial evidence--he might be acquitted. 15886. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 1:50:23 PM Hazara forces of Hisb-i-Wahdat are heading for Kabul, armed with much more than they need to "help police the city" which is their claim. 15887. Wombat - 11/15/2001 1:51:56 PM Or for Pushtun Talibans to turn on their "foreign" comrades. 15888. CalGal - 11/15/2001 1:51:57 PM Cellar--no, I think their concerns are warranted. I just don't see anything wrong with declaring terrorists a military issue. It's not like our military courts are of the kangaroo variety. 15889. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 1:58:18 PM Wombat, 15890. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 2:01:34 PM Never mind, found it. 15891. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 2:02:48 PM Marj 15892. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 2:05:07 PM Thanks snowowl. It is not a pleasant picture. 15893. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:07:20 PM The acts of the Hazaras, and God knows how many more, are inevitable -considering the history of Afghanistan and in such a time of flux which equates to both opportunity and fear of being opportunized. These are not factions/tribes/etc. who are going to trust one another easily if at all. 15894. Property of Jesus - 11/15/2001 2:17:21 PM Rush! is pumping up Andrew Sullivan's web site today. 15895. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 2:17:24 PM ISLAMABAD, Nov 15: An army spokesman today termed as "total rubbish, hogwash" a news item carried by CNN and AFP in which they had quoted a general of the Northern Alliance claiming that two Pakistani aircraft had gone to Kunduz to evacuate Pakistani military personnel. The spokesman categorically said that there was absolutely no truth in the news report. "There are no Pakistani personnel, whether military of non- military in Afghanistan," he emphatically said, adding: "hence, the question of airlifting of Pakistani personnel simply does not arise." In Islamabad, the diplomatic sources termed the allegation as astonishing and fabricated, stating that while US planes were carrying out air strikes, how is it possible that any transport aircraft could fly and land in Afghanistan. 15896. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:19:12 PM That indeed was quite a harrowing escape for the eight detainees. Here's an excerpt from a story on-line in the Washington Post: 15897. Cellar Door - 11/15/2001 2:21:07 PM Ashcroft's physical resemblance to a kangaroo hasn't been noted as much as it should. 15898. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:22:06 PM A local commander who was among town citizens who rose up against the Taliban then found shelter for the eight at the local offices of an aid organization. With the International Committee of the Red Cross acting as an intermediary, messages were dispatched to the U.S., German and Australian embassies in Islamabad. Because of the difficulty in relaying messages and answers, it took nearly 24 hours to organize the rescue efforts by U.S. special forces based in Pakistan, according to the aid workers and diplomats. 15899. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:22:20 PM U.S. Ambassador Wendy Chamberlin accompanied the two American women's parents to the airport in Islamabad to greet them. 15900. sakonige - 11/15/2001 2:23:57 PM 15868. LadyChaos - 11/15/01 9:15:04 AM 15901. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 2:24:57 PM i wondered about that myself, actually 15902. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 2:29:42 PM Message # 15893 15903. Wombat - 11/15/2001 2:31:47 PM It merits the same sort of attention that your ravings do. Very little. 15904. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:33:25 PM well, I meant recent. But didn't say it. So, point well taken. 15905. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 2:35:18 PM Thank you for posting that JanJon. I just got back from Waco, what an emotional visit. 15906. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 2:36:19 PM I'll post more of what I know in the Religion thread. 15907. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:37:35 PM yeah, well, it was quite an escape. And, we all are glad they are safe. 15908. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:40:28 PM lady c - 15909. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 2:42:54 PM JanJon, 15910. glendajean - 11/15/2001 2:45:40 PM I had said prayers for them. I think once our government asked them to leave, and they refused, they were on their own, so to speak. Their presence couldn't paralyze our actions to respond to the terrorists. But I am glad that they got out alive. Regardless of one's belief, it is indeed a fortunate thing for these people. 15911. janjon - 11/15/2001 2:46:00 PM because drivel was a kinder word than what I was really thinking. 15912. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 2:46:05 PM Attempts to help by endangering others are ill-conceived at best, if not plain stupid. They're alive, which is good, but nobody will know the fate of those they endangered by their activities. I hope they've learnt their lesson. 15913. glendajean - 11/15/2001 2:54:37 PM The endangerment would have been in our risking troops to save them or to have postphoned actions because of their imprisonment. We didn't. 15914. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 2:54:52 PM The more I read about Iran's recent diplomacy, the more it becomes self-evident that it has been motivated by a suspicion of the sudden and very visible presence of the USA in Central Asia. And if and when there is a US-friendly government in Kabul, then the various Central Asian pipeline deals now on hold may very well go through Afghanistan and Pakistan and built by US companies. This is something Iran has fighting for the last 10 years. 15915. Wombat - 11/15/2001 3:02:23 PM The only advantage to running a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan (to Karachi?) would be that it avoids the Persian Gulf. But mountains, deserts, unrest, lack of unified control? Don't see it. Don't see it in Iran either, until there is more of a rapprochement. 15916. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 3:04:57 PM That's not what I'm talking about, glendajean. The missionaries endangered the lives of those they worked with, and those they proselytised, to say nothing of putting at risk those whose only aim was to genuinely distribute aid. 15917. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 3:09:59 PM Wombat, you should tell that to Unocal and Bridas, two oil companies which conducted several years' worth of fierce, competing negotiations with the Taliban and the Northern Alliance to build a pipeline through Afghanistan in 1995-97. 15918. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 3:10:31 PM I meant to delete the last paragraph. 15919. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:11:07 PM I'm inclined to support all-out war against all Arabs. They have some kind of short-circuit in their brains, rendering them incapable of rational, critical thought. In this era of increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, we should not have to tolerate such a threat on the face of the planet. 15920. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 3:12:09 PM Anyway, I was only talking about Iran's perceptions, not the feasibility of a pipeline. 15921. glendajean - 11/15/2001 3:12:20 PM From all reports, it sounds like they were doing good deeds. I didn't read of any other non-religious aid workers being arrested with charges of religious proselytizing. 15922. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:12:33 PM Besides, I was wasting my time trying to get PM to stop throwing his tantrum. My bad. 15923. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 3:24:05 PM SnowOwl, 15924. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 3:24:33 PM It appears that the group of Ghilzai Pashtun commanders now calling themselves the Eastern Alliance, does not have complete control over the eastern provinces as was claimed yesterday. A tribal chieftain from Kunar province, Malik Zarim, is still having to convince various Taliban to defect to the Eastern Alliance or leave the area. 15925. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:26:21 PM A tribal chieftain from Kunar province, Malik Zarim, is still having to convince various Taliban to defect to the Eastern Alliance or leave the area. 15926. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 3:34:32 PM Yes, Jenerator. I get it. Do you? It was a Christian organisation working in an area where proselytising endangers the recipient. People are killed on the mere suspicion that they might be listening to Christian propaganda. 15927. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 3:36:02 PM "We burned everything we had – clothes, everything – to make a big fire," 15928. concerned - 11/15/2001 3:40:50 PM That doesn't matter I suppose. They're only Muslims after all. 15929. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 3:43:39 PM The cell all 8 of them were being held in. 15930. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 3:50:30 PM One of the best stories I've read on the aid workers, their ordeal, and their rescue. 15931. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 3:51:23 PM "Why are you people so comfortable with this kind of racist shit in your midst?" 15932. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 3:57:03 PM Dayna is in the blue outfit. 15933. CalGal - 11/15/2001 4:00:54 PM It was a Christian organisation working in an area where proselytising endangers the recipient. 15934. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:02:23 PM If God says that you are to go and preach, should you go only when it's comfortable? 15935. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:03:13 PM They're heroes in the Christian-missions field, that's for sure! 15936. judithathome - 11/15/2001 4:05:51 PM If God says that you are to go and preach, should you go only when it's comfortable? 15937. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:09:00 PM Jeans of Arc in the making. 15938. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:10:48 PM But they did refrain in most ways. I know of whom they had dialogue with and how loooooong it took just to get to that point. They didn't just plop down on street corners and shout turn or burn, learn how to follow Jesus. 15939. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:11:14 PM Can't quite call it a 'trial by (gun-)fire', however. 15940. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:12:57 PM In real life, this is when I cross the street when the light turns, leaving the street corner preacher to spread his righteousness to the wind. 15941. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:13:04 PM Jen - 15942. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:15:20 PM The UN passed a resolution last night which can be used to put multinational troops on the ground to keep the peace. 15943. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:15:34 PM Janjon, 15944. PelleNilsson - 11/15/2001 4:22:42 PM When these girls were caught the line was that they were not missionaries at all and were not prozelytising but simply Christians who wanted to help the poor in Afghanistan. 15945. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:26:14 PM yes. Surely it isn't just I who recall the dance on water being done about how these girls were just aid workers, not proselytizers, nosirree. 15946. Snowowl - 11/15/2001 4:27:21 PM Well, nobody ever accused Christians of being truthful, Pelle. 15947. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:27:23 PM Hey, Pelle - 15948. glendajean - 11/15/2001 4:28:06 PM Utterly disgusting? 15949. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:28:15 PM no, not truthful. just righteous. 15950. glendajean - 11/15/2001 4:32:43 PM Blowing up Buddhist statues from antiquity was utterly disgusting. 15951. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:33:10 PM Think of it. In just a few short years, there'll be a vibrant, growing Christian community in 15952. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:37:38 PM Pelle, 15953. judithathome - 11/15/2001 4:40:15 PM GJ: 15954. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 4:40:35 PM ok, people, let's stay on topic. if you want to discuss the 'missionaries' do so in another thread. Jen has pretty much indicated that the Religion thread is a good place for it and i agree. 15955. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:40:50 PM Note to Zippy: 15956. judithathome - 11/15/2001 4:41:15 PM Jen, no one is faulting these girls for their humanitarian works. 15957. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:41:28 PM oh, jenerator - have another lollypop and tell yourself what a good girl you are. 15958. janjon - 11/15/2001 4:42:45 PM rd - there is a connection to this thread to much of what has been said about the girls. 15959. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 4:44:05 PM Somehow I find the notion of missionaries burning their clothes to get a helicopter's attention to be quite appealing. 15960. rubberducky - 11/15/2001 4:45:23 PM janjon: i know and i agree. however, they are out of immediate harm's way, so, i think it can be separated from this thread. 15961. jexster - 11/15/2001 4:48:54 PM Oh God...Duck is back with a vengeance.... 15962. Andonly - 11/15/2001 4:49:12 PM "The more I read about Iran's recent diplomacy, the more it becomes self-evident that it has been motivated by a suspicion of the sudden and very visible presence of the USA in Central Asia. And if and when there is a US-friendly government in Kabul, then the various Central Asian pipeline deals now on hold may very well go through Afghanistan and Pakistan and built by US companies. This is something Iran has fighting for the last 10 years." 15963. Andonly - 11/15/2001 4:49:27 PM The countries around the Caspian certainly are sitting on a fair amount of oil they currently can't export, and Russia as well is eager to transport oil in every direction. I would assume we're ready to buy. As of this morning, Saudi was demanding non-OPEC entities, esp. Russia, cut production to certain levels in order to spike demand and drive the price of oil back up; otherwise the Saudis said they would not cut their own production as planned. The price of oil fell again. 15964. jexster - 11/15/2001 4:50:16 PM Awonderful thing happened this week in Afghanistan. So why does everyone in the Bush administration--everyone, that is, except officials at the Pentagon--sound so glum? Because with the fall of Kabul, the United States achieved an impressive military victory and suffered an impressive diplomatic defeat. Having urged soldiers of the Northern Alliance to fight the ground war it would not, the United States then stipulated that they not enter the capital. Unsurprisingly, they did. 15965. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 4:50:25 PM typical. 15966. PelleNilsson - 11/15/2001 4:53:24 PM glenda 15967. jexster - 11/15/2001 4:54:10 PM "What you're seeing now is the same [State Department] hand-wringing that held up the bombing [of northern Taliban positions]," complained one senior administration official on the day Kabul fell. "The arguments never change." 15968. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 4:58:00 PM 15959 was posted before I saw 15954 15969. concerned - 11/15/2001 4:58:39 PM Andonly - 15970. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 5:05:13 PM Sadly the apoligists for the left are reduced to snatching scraps of defeat out of an overwhelming victory. 15971. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:06:33 PM Hey Jex - 15972. Andonly - 11/15/2001 5:07:33 PM This from Jexster's link to (Lawrence) Kaplan is the most hopeful thing I think I've read today: 15973. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:09:18 PM Mullah Omar will unleash the TaliPlan for complete destruction of the US... 15974. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:10:06 PM Just like Poopy! 15975. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:11:39 PM Lessons of Vietnam, lessons of Poppy 15976. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:12:22 PM aunaturel - 15977. Andonly - 11/15/2001 5:16:41 PM "Could you imagine all of what you describe happening *this soon*, if at all, if the US had been saddled with the admininstration of flunky-loser?" 15978. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:21:48 PM Me too TD...now move along with your lawful life! 15979. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:24:37 PM I don't think Saudi Arabia is unstable at all. I wish Saudi Arabia were unstable, because I want its royal family dead, dead, dead, dead and even deader, but unfortunately my hopes are just hopes. The Saudi government is a powerful one, and its army is not about to abandon the royal family as the Shah's army had abandoned him. (Remember, that is the only reason the fundies were able to take control of the country. The army refused to shoot at the fundie crowds.) 15980. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:28:55 PM (I presume this is what you mean because I don't know what your phrase "all of what you describe" refers to.) 15981. Andonly - 11/15/2001 5:29:03 PM Here's another more pressing what-if question: What if the house of Saud crumbles and is replaced by an Islamic government? (I'm placing no bets either way on that happening precipitously, BTW.) 15982. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 5:30:02 PM "dead, dead, dead, dead and even deader" 15983. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 5:33:31 PM That's remarkable. I had thought Saudi Arabi unstable by reason of popular dissatisfaction with the biases of the monarchy (business and politics favouring princely connections) and corruption, yes? Yet you say the Army will not abandon the government: why? is it so thoroughly loyal or bought over that it remains aloof to popular problems and sentiments? And if the Army does not stand against the monarchy there is no chance of revolution? 15984. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 5:34:41 PM My comments were directed to Pseudoerasmus, but all replies are welcome. 15985. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:36:00 PM Message # 15981 15986. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 5:37:10 PM I wish Saudi Arabia were unstable, because I want its royal family dead, dead, dead, dead and even deader 15987. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 5:37:50 PM Saudi Arabia has fault-lines which could be exploited. It is not unstable in the common-or-garden sense of being unstable, no internal or external threat is likely to topple the elite group of a few hundred sheikhs who dominate the country's politics and economy. 15988. aunaturel - 11/15/2001 5:39:27 PM "Assessing the likelihood of a small thing turning out to matter" 15989. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 5:40:10 PM The army in Saudi Arabia is quite thoroughly linked to the ruling elite, and any popular uprising of any kind would be squashed in a bloody manner. Look at the officer corps, it's one sheikh after another. No, the army is there to protect the ruling clique from the people more than anything else. 15990. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 5:41:48 PM Well, I know next to nothing about Saudi Arabia other than the general shape on a map. 15991. Andonly - 11/15/2001 5:42:23 PM "I'll credit a Gore administration with a likely outcome there in which the US could ultimately publicly claim some sort of 'victory' over terrorism, if not the removal of the Taliban." 15992. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 5:42:43 PM The irony is that Saudi Arabia could not possibly have a more Islamist government, rules ad it is by the world's greatest proponents of Wahhabism. The only difference is that these are people who use Wahhabism as an export and as a means of civilian control, while rather openly living outrageously lavish Western lifestyles, nd , crucially, while being in bed with the Western powers and compliant in their foreign policy. 15993. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:45:18 PM Don't worry Jen, your Big Erl 'n Gas bois in the WH - King Moron & Prince Regent Cheney, along with the Prince of Wales, will protect the Saudi Royals.... 15994. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:45:50 PM marj's summary is somewhat at variance with what I've read about SA exporting its most febrile 'royal' Islamists to other countries such as Pakistan and Afghanistan to help maintain the position of its ruling elite, but I'll defer to his apparent knowledge of the matter. 15995. jexster - 11/15/2001 5:46:21 PM Well marj welcome to the world of Ottoman politics 15996. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:47:37 PM If you want to hear what Mullah Omar sounds like, then you can hear him here, in an interview given by him to the BBC Pashto service. 15997. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:49:19 PM Re. 15991 - 15998. ButterfieldSwire - 11/15/2001 5:52:01 PM The best point made by Fouad Ajami in the Foreign Affairs piece that marjoribanks linked to was that none of the Arab states faced any medium term threat of internal instability. Through a combination of repression and propaganda, they have eliminated Islamic organizations and re-directed popular anger toward the US. This is why they were so reluctant to help the US against Al-Quaeda. A-Q which attacks the West and not them is a pressure valve for them, not a threat. 15999. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:52:03 PM I think the disaffection of the Saudi populace is overdone. The populace is more conservative than the semi-westernised rulers, but the latter bend over backward to appease the fundamentalism of the populace through a purer form of fundamentalist governance than exists anywhere outside Taliban-controlled areas (and Sudan, with its Turani strain of fundamentalist Islam). While Saudi Arabia faces serious economic problems in the future, the populace still doesn't have any serious grievances. After all, it's still a very rich country despite its enormous fiscal embarassments. 16000. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 5:52:25 PM ! 16001. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:52:28 PM 16k 16002. concerned - 11/15/2001 5:52:42 PM damn! 16003. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 5:53:23 PM I thought that Mullah Omar WAS retarded? 16004. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 5:53:56 PM A small victory in this dark and dank thread. 16005. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 5:55:51 PM Pseuder, 16006. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 5:58:23 PM Message # 16005: No, it is Mullah Omar himself speaking. He says so. 16007. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:00:19 PM My understanding is that the intermediary held the walkie-talkie emitting Omar's voice to the telephone. 16008. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:04:25 PM Well, Wakil and Saqib are mentally retarded. I wouldn't be surprised if Omar is too. 16009. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:05:11 PM I think that Kaplan article above is most interesting for what it doesn't say. 16010. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:07:19 PM I would like to see Jeff Rubin, Christian Amanpour, and Matthew Chance have a three way on Blitzer's "war room" show 16011. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:07:41 PM Ajami is partly right. In the New Yorker article this week by Bernard Lewis, the author does a good job of exploring some of the causes for the Muslim world's alienation from the West. 16012. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:09:24 PM Our obsequious stance toward the Saudis seems to be based on the assumption that somebody "worse" might take their place, and that this somebody would refuse to sell us oil and would jack the world oil price up to $100 per barrel. I personally find this to be a ridiculous assumption. 16013. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:10:35 PM "Ajami is partly right." 16014. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:10:50 PM Certainly, you can count the democratic-type movements in the ME muslim countries pretty much on the fingers of one hand, and in every case you can see that the US has stood on the side of the anti-democrats. The only real exception is Turkey. 16015. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:11:20 PM There is no interest in promoting, or even standing out of the way of, true popular rebellion. This is how the abandonment of Iraq is seen in the Muslim world. 16016. ronski - 11/15/2001 6:12:55 PM Pani, 16017. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:13:46 PM "Why shouldn't we be able to just tell the Saudis to go to hell?" 16018. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:14:28 PM "I had been under the impression that it already had an Islamist government." 16019. ronski - 11/15/2001 6:14:52 PM jexster, 16020. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:16:29 PM Lady Chaos, 16021. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:18:44 PM Yup Ronsk..and I only use Halliburton metaphorically...the Big 5 oil companies control over 60% of world oil production and most of the refining and distribution...Chevron-Texaco, Exxon-Mobil...all of em are so in bed with the Sauds...that's how we "solved" the energy crisis of the 70's and those bedfellows do not want ANYTHING to mess up their tryst 16022. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:19:02 PM "I wish Saudi Arabia were unstable, because I want its royal family dead, dead, dead, dead and even deader..." 16023. jexster - 11/15/2001 6:19:15 PM Sheesh I think I am channelling Pat Buchanan...better git to class.. 16024. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:19:39 PM Every educated Middle Easterner you talk to about the US, democracy, and the attitude towards the US in the region eventually brings up Mossadegh. And it is true that the US quite early showed its hand towards the region. Many of you will be familiar with these details. 16025. CalGal - 11/15/2001 6:20:53 PM It's not like all Sauds are alike. Abdullah is far more sympathetic to radical Islamists than Sultan is. The Saud family is roughly split between the "Sudairi Seven" and the more radical, anti-American faction headed up by Abdullah. 16026. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:21:01 PM Banks: "However, there are some divides within that group, and there are apparently several quite senior members of that ruling oligarchy whose sympathies lie towards the bin Laden austerity/anti-West line." 16027. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:21:46 PM Message # 16018 16028. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:21:56 PM PE (or anyone else knowledgable in economics) 16029. CalGal - 11/15/2001 6:22:05 PM I used to think the Halliburton talk was conspiracy fodder, but peel away all the nonsense and there's still an element of self-interest there that I don't like at all. 16030. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:23:15 PM marj, 16031. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:23:32 PM There is also the Carlyle Group, which employs Bush senior and which until recently had as investors....the Bin Laden family. 16032. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:24:31 PM Message # 16024 16033. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:25:41 PM Marjori, 16034. CalGal - 11/15/2001 6:26:36 PM If the al-Sauds are overthrown by clerics, then the country would not become more Islamist. 16035. ronski - 11/15/2001 6:26:38 PM No, they would sell us oil. Or they'd sell it to Europe or Japan, which would be fine, too. But might they start building the Islamic Bomb that bin Laden dreams of? 16036. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:26:53 PM I don't know if another Saudi regime would or would not sell oil to anyone. It is safe to assume however, that someone not of the ibn Saud family would not raise or drop oil production entirely to the dictates of the USA, and would not be so unconcerned about the opinions of the rest of the OPEC. What the US has achieved with S. Arabia is remarkable, it has a guranteed cartel-buster, a permanent free rider. 16037. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:27:39 PM LC, 16038. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:28:29 PM ronski, 16039. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:28:30 PM "It is a safe assumption that anyone who potentially could replace the Sauds would be less compliant than they have been with US demands/requirements." 16040. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:30:52 PM Pseuder, 16041. ronski - 11/15/2001 6:32:54 PM I don't think Arabs are inherently nuts, but I think Islamic fundamentalists may be. 16042. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:33:47 PM What the US has achieved with S. Arabia is remarkable, it has a guranteed cartel-buster, a permanent free rider. 16043. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:35:15 PM I find it fantastically implausible that any new regime in Saudi Arabia, no matter how fundamentalist, would stop selling oil. The whole country depends on daily flows of oil revenue. Without oil revenue, it would be able to import nothing, and the country imports almost everything except oil, natural gas, and dates. Sincures on which most of the citizen population depends, could not be funded. Saudi Arabia. The government would not be able to pay the millions of foreign guest wokers who clean the streets, man the factories, run the electrical generation plants, and other real labour on which the Saudis themselves depend. 16044. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:36:26 PM Saudi Arabia is the world's biggest oil producer, and also maintains massive reserves. In the past, and even now in the wake of 9/11, the Saudis have been first among oil producers to accede to US demands that the producers keep prices within a certain band. In this current scenario, for instance, Saudi Arabia has made it clear that if the rest of OPEC disagrees with the US demands, it will unilaterally release enough oil from its reserves to make sure the prices remain slightly above $20. 16045. Jenerator - 11/15/2001 6:38:21 PM Actually, 16043 and 16044 make me feel better. 16046. LadyChaos - 11/15/2001 6:43:22 PM marj, 16047. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:43:53 PM Lady Chaos, 16048. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:44:54 PM Message # 16040 16049. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:45:19 PM OPEC does not function as a working cartel anymore. It's a kind of toothless club now, despite the efforts of Hugo Chavez. 16050. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:49:16 PM Pseuder, 16051. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:49:25 PM In the 1950s and 1960s, the Third World was full of "non-aligned" but aligned socialist-populist-nationalist demogogue-poltroons who dragged their countries to disaster -- such as Nyerere, Nasser, Soekarno, Nkrumah and other such fools. Mossadeq just never got the chance to join the club. 16052. Andonly - 11/15/2001 6:53:45 PM "If the al-Sauds are overthrown by clerics, then the country would not become more Islamist. It is already as Islamist as it can get." 16053. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 6:55:52 PM Furthermore, I suggest you read this section and the one previous which outline how the Brits and the US were already busy at work to get rid of Mossadegh before he called for and rigged a national referendum to dissolve the Majlis. This move backfired tactically since it only gave the CIA and its allies (and now apologists for its actions) fuel to use against the hapless, over-emotional Mossadegh. 16054. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 6:59:11 PM Message # 16050: "I am loath to set you off on another lengthy (disgusting) apologia for CIA interference, a la your excoriation of Allende and defense of Pinochet." 16055. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 7:00:34 PM If you wish to continue, Pseuder, I will look for posts in the International thread. I am now off for a while, a biriyani and chicken curry await me in an uncooked state. This wrong needs to be righted. 16056. Andonly - 11/15/2001 7:00:59 PM "Based on what I have ready, lately, OPEC sees Russia as the wild card on cutting production, not the Saudis." 16057. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 7:01:54 PM I don't understand what further strictures could be imposed on Saudi society, no matter what you mean by "Islamist". 16058. concerned - 11/15/2001 7:06:24 PM I just read jexster's link to the very good Kaplan article. It does seem to amount to a hit at Powell (via GWB, who is supportive of the Pentagon, himself). 16059. Andonly - 11/15/2001 7:06:36 PM Whatever. 16060. CalGal - 11/15/2001 7:15:59 PM I don't understand what further strictures could be imposed on Saudi society, no matter what you mean by "Islamist". 16061. jexster - 11/15/2001 7:50:34 PM OPEC is always constrained by outside production where demand is at all soft. Thus the argument for conservation over production but that's for the Politics Thread (aren't I good Ducky?) 16062. jexster - 11/15/2001 7:51:31 PM They're=Their....blame Loar 16063. jexster - 11/15/2001 7:53:08 PM Yea TD...I am always fascinated by bureaucratic political warfare regardless of which party is in power.... 16064. jexster - 11/15/2001 8:07:16 PM Bernard Lewis: The Islam scholar U.S. politicians listen to 16065. jexster - 11/15/2001 8:10:15 PM "His major themes on the subject are these: For a thousand years Islam dominated the West in culture, science, and military prowess. But since 1683 and the failed Turkish siege of Vienna, Islam has been in retreat—dominated and bettered by the West by every possible measure. Because the Islamic world has an acute sense of history and America does not (Lewis is fond of pointing out that our phrase "That's history" means something is to be forgotten), this reversal has fed centuries of acrimony. America is the target because it has inherited the mantle of European imperialism and because it produces a culture of temptation and seduction. Rage is also fed by our policy of cosseting oppressive governments in the region who serve our ends. We are also the victim of an existential dilemma—Islam's failures to succeed at modernity. Because Islam says it is God's will that Islam triumph, how can the infidels be on top?" 16066. jexster - 11/15/2001 8:11:49 PM And b4 detective third rate PincherMartin,Mote Literati Polizia, jumps my ass....I have never read any book by Lewis 16067. jexster - 11/15/2001 8:17:04 PM Tie The Bastards to Cmdr. Dotsum's Tank Treads! 16068. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 8:27:09 PM Scott Loar -- 16069. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 8:39:36 PM Scott Loar -- 16070. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 8:39:58 PM Are you even familiar with how I said the war on terrorism could be addressed? Have you even read my prescriptions on how to fight terrorism? No, just ridiculing what you think is my position based on a single post. 16071. PincherMartin - 11/15/2001 8:42:26 PM I am out for the weekend, but I do hope to hear how Scott Loar thinks bin Laden is an anomaly. 16072. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 8:57:14 PM Bin Laden has demonstrated himself, already, to be an anomaly in one cricial way - he has taken the jihad to America. The rest of the global jihadis and Arab Afghans et al are far more concerned with more parochial fights (Kashmir, Chechnya, Palestine, and installation of more suitable leaders in virtually every Muslim country). 16073. marjoribanks - 11/15/2001 9:00:41 PM It is also clear, Pincher, that the US is not going to be waging war for or against any other nations. Now, it is a diplomatic, covert battle. 16074. ButterfieldSwire - 11/15/2001 9:54:44 PM Bin Laden is obviously not unique. He's not even Al-Quaeda whose leadership seems to be a pan-Arab Rogues Gallery of criminal masterminds. Afghanistan may have been unique in that it offered all of these terrorists a safe home to gather together to plan their attacks. But the Blind Cleric/Ramzi Yusef cabal shows that this is likely to continue, even if these groups have to flee Afghanistan. When Marjoribanks says that most of these fundamentalist terrorists would prefer to attack their own governments, he misses Ajami's key point. Ajami says that they have already been defeated in Egypt, Saudi, and elsewhere and are directed at us because they see us as an easier target. 16075. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:18:37 PM "Bin Laden has demonstrated himself, already, to be an anomaly in one cricial way - he has taken the jihad to America. The rest of the global jihadis and Arab Afghans et al are far more concerned with more parochial fights..." 16076. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:20:55 PM It seems I have been crossposting with people all afternoon. 16077. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 10:22:28 PM Message # 16068: I don't think a military strategy the whole prescription. Look to my Message # 3217, Message # 3226, Message # 3227, and Message # 3232 then you tell me how many years, 1, 5, 10, 20, 29.5? As for my jumping on people and my confidence... admit it, you don't like my style just as others here (count me in) don't much like your style. What of it? 16078. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 10:34:08 PM Terrorism will never go away, and the war will never end as long as there are alienated, extremist individuals or groups, whatever their stripe. There certainly doesn't seem to be a shortage of them in most countries of the world. And their inclination to inflict damage persists while their ability to do so increases--whether they be Islamists or American anti-abortion crazies, survivalists or racial separatist wackos. 16079. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 10:36:14 PM I think that anyone who thinks this battle against Islamic fundamentalism will take less than a generation is hopelessly naive and doesn't understand the battles ahead. 16080. ScottLoar - 11/15/2001 10:38:17 PM And no, I had not linked to those posts before. Surely not to you. 16081. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 10:40:41 PM More difficult perhaps but it's doubtful they will ever be eliminated by increased security, either in the U.S. or against American institutions, private and public around the world. 16082. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:43:13 PM Adding weight to my suggestion in Message # 15963 that Russia is angling to capture US oil reliance away from Saudi Arabia was a report on NPR this evening, which I heard about second-hand. 16083. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 10:51:19 PM Makes sense. Follow the oil tracks! The answer to OPEC has always been find more oil elsewhere. The Saudis came to understand that and could be relied on to keep the spigot open. 16084. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:53:20 PM I just realiized that before Pseuderasmus leaps up with a counterclaim that refutes nothing I've said, I should hasten to place in bold letters the caveat that THE US WILL NOT SHIFT ITS OIL DEPENDENCY AWAY FROM THE PERSIAN GULF FOR MANY YEARS, AND WHEN AT LAST IT DOES THERE WILL HAVE BEEN SEVERAL FACTORS INFLUENCING THE SHIFT THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA. 16085. Andonly - 11/15/2001 10:54:19 PM ...or in caps, as the case may be 16086. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 11:00:48 PM Those who think increased security can make us safe remember Israel whose vaunted security hasn't come close to stopping Palestinian terrorists on the ground, although I guess El Al has been successful in doing so. But at what cost and inconvenience. The real answer is somehow to get them to stop wanting to be terrorists. They won't be frightened away by increased security. 16087. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 11:01:19 PM [should] remember Israel 16088. wonkers2 - 11/15/2001 11:08:34 PM Or apartheid South Africa or Norway under German occupation during World War II where the most severe repression and "security" measures didn't stop attacks by the resistance on the regime in power. 16089. Andonly - 11/15/2001 11:29:55 PM Russia Journal 16090. pseudoerasmus - 11/15/2001 11:38:39 PM Andonly, that Russia would try to get the west to reduce its dependence on the Persian Gulf is hardly surprising. So I don't disagree with you at all on that. 16091. Andonly - 11/15/2001 11:48:12 PM "My eyes glaze over only when you go into extended speculative flights of fancy about issues for which you obviously have no intuitive grasp..." 16092. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 12:14:42 AM Well, I wasn't just talking about future events. 16093. Andonly - 11/16/2001 12:18:27 AM Turns out it was Khatami's fault after all that the streets around my house were blockaded last week. 16094. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:20:24 AM To illustrate the anomaly of Al-Qaeda here is a review of the 29 groups designated by the US Secretary of State as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: 16095. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:20:28 AM To illustrate the anomaly of Al-Qaeda here is a review of the 29 groups designated by the US Secretary of State as Foreign Terrorist Organizations: 16096. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:21:34 AM Japanese Red Army – “6 hard-core members”, the leader was recently arrested in Japan after 30 years on the lam 16097. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:24:36 AM Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – military wing of the Colombian Communist Party intending to establish Marxist government in Colombia, established 1964 16098. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:25:45 AM Terrorist groups in such places as the Philippines and Indonesia given as examples by PincherMartin are local groups having local concerns and acting, in the main, locally. For example, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front continues to attend peace talks with Philippine President Arroyo and, says Shariff Julabbi, a member of the MILF negotiating panel, getting involved in the Afghanistan issue will only “complicate the matter” of negotiations. As further example, I find no evidence beyond rhetoric that Uighur separatists in Xinjiang province or extremists in Aceh, Muslims all, are active beyond their local concerns. Only Al-Qaeda aspires to an international theology of terror (prose too purple to stomach?). 16099. Andonly - 11/16/2001 12:26:22 AM The last sentence from this LATimes article 16100. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:30:51 AM Many of these groups target local US interests but that is expected because "great power is invariably invidious" and they see it allied with the cause of their disaffection - look at the groups in Egypt, Peru but especially Greece. But I don't see these groups directly threatening the US beyond their local concern. 16101. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 12:35:29 AM I thought this map conveyed the ethnic complexity of Afghanistan tidily and without too much detail: 16102. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 12:35:57 AM disregard the last post. 16103. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:40:08 AM Can any of these groups organize a terrorist attack against the US resulting in the massive casualties PincherMartin expects. Conceivably, yes. But to what end? Will it further their purpose? I don't see how that's possible if their purpose is the overthrow of the Peruvian government or the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Algieria or the liberation of Palestine or the destruction of the Jewish state. Only Al-Qaeda's purpose is answered, at least to my mind, but the confession will doubtlessly invite a raft of ridicule along the lines of "how naive" from PincherMartin. 16104. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 12:43:29 AM In passing through Japanese Customs I've noted for years the faces of some Japan Red Army members are still posted in the immigration officer's booths. 16105. Andonly - 11/16/2001 12:46:38 AM "Andonly should recall from an ealier exchange that western Pakistan is very much part of l'Iran extérieur." 16106. Andonly - 11/16/2001 12:51:43 AM The map is nifty, though. 16107. Andonly - 11/16/2001 1:14:03 AM "Can any of these groups organize a terrorist attack against the US resulting in the massive casualties PincherMartin expects. Conceivably, yes. But to what end? Will it further their purpose? I don't see how that's possible if their purpose is the overthrow of the Peruvian government or the establishment of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Algieria or the liberation of Palestine or the destruction of the Jewish state." 16108. Andonly - 11/16/2001 1:29:18 AM Iranians are annoyed that their team failed to qualify for the World Cup: 16109. jexster - 11/16/2001 1:35:34 AM 16110. jexster - 11/16/2001 1:38:48 AM such supercilious, revolting presumption 16111. Andonly - 11/16/2001 1:41:08 AM I wonder, are pro-western Iranian soccer fans and advocates of political reform more pan-Iranian or moderate-Muslim? 16112. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 1:45:03 AM Iranians are sick of Afghan refugees. 16113. jexster - 11/16/2001 1:58:54 AM "SPEARHEAD units of British paratroops, commandos and special forces arrived at Bagram airfield north of Kabul last night to secure the area ahead of the deployment of 4,000 more British troops who are now on standby. 16114. Andonly - 11/16/2001 2:04:48 AM "Pan-Iranianism is an esoteric ideology found primarily among the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia." 16115. jexster - 11/16/2001 2:06:22 AM "what would he say?" 16116. Andonly - 11/16/2001 2:07:25 AM "Iranians are sick of Afghan refugees." 16117. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 2:13:36 AM And he says he made it in order to make Iranians more sympathetic to the plight of Afghans. 16118. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 2:16:22 AM "They apparently are violently opposed to Muslim extremism now, more than before. Everything Khatami and his representatives have done on the international scene since 9-11, while in no way unmotivated by politics and other affairs of state, has been couched in Islamic terms and has served in effect to model enlightened Islam for Iran and the rest of the world." 16119. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:05:55 AM Scott Loar -- 16120. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:19:59 AM Pincher: I think that anyone who thinks this battle against Islamic fundamentalism will take less than a generation is hopelessly naive and doesn't understand the battles ahead. 16121. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:21:46 AM Scott Loar -- 16122. OhioSTOPAS - 11/16/2001 6:25:19 AM A couple of happy sights this week: Residents of Kabul celebrating, and the eight aid workers rescued. 16123. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:28:08 AM Wonkers -- 16124. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:29:47 AM Correction: 16125. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:48:49 AM Scott Loar -- 16126. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:49:48 AM Repost coming up 16127. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:51:46 AM Scott Loar -- 16128. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:52:15 AM Now, I'm really out of here. Have a good weekend everyone. 16129. PincherMartin - 11/16/2001 6:54:35 AM But before I go, here is the State Department list of terrorist groups Loar and I are talking about. 16130. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 8:17:33 AM Andonly, I agree that the scale of attacks can diminish but terrorism persist (Message # 1607) up to a time. I understand you and PincherMartin both hold the belief that 9-11 was but the prelude to large-scale terrorist attacks within the US (PincherMartin thinks the anthrax mailings "a dry run", and that advanced terrorist weapons - I think that was his phrasing - allows ever greater massive casualties), that the threat and the scale will not diminish with Al-Qaeda but that ever more terrorist groups premised on Islamic fundamentalism -irregardless of their immediate aims, irregardless of their local concerns -will look upon the US as fair target to advance their interests. Also, that the only counter to these groups is war upon the states that sponsor them; Iraq has been mentioned several times here as the next target, if not by you by PincherMartin, and you have wanted the US to declare war on several states because they are Islamic and guilty of sponsoring terrorism, have you not? 16131. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 8:26:38 AM PincherMartin, I know that Aum Shinrikyo supposedly had adherents in the US and some other countries outside Japan, but do you think it probable the US should credibly expect (or should have credibly expected) an attack by that group? What could they gain from an attack on the US? I think much more than megalomania is needed to prompt a terrorist attack that kills hundreds or thousands; it needs a political purpose no matter how twisted. So, what political purpose would they have in attacking the US? 16132. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 8:39:20 AM I said "the aims of all these groups save one are localized". What makes you, PincherMartin, lump these 17 terrorist groups together by the shared characteristic of Islamic fundamentalism and pronounce all are a threat to the US? You think their ambition the destruction of the US despite evidence to the contrary? I note that most of the non-Muslim terrorist groups on that list share the characteristic of wanting to overthrow the existing, local government and installing a Marxist-Leninist regime. In this they are similar to the Muslim groups wanting to overthrow the existing, local government and install an Islamic fundamentalist regime. The few exceptions specifically target Israel, and the only exception to these all is that which targets the US specifically -Al-Qaeda. 16133. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 8:42:23 AM By "aim" I intended the purpose of the group, the reason for their existence, why they came into being, as the "aim" of the Armed Islamic Group is "to overthrow the secular Algerian regime and replace it with an Islamic state". 16134. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 8:48:45 AM Until 9-11 Al-Qaeda was not a local organization. It had already an extensive network of international cell and its concern was not destruction of the state of Israel nor the liberation of Palestine nor a schismatic group formed by a split over religious or political interpretations, but "to overthrow regimes it deems 'non-Islamic' and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries." Not only does that ambition differ from the other groups Al-Qaeda's abilities to project terrorism seem unique, or anomalous compared to other terrorist organizations. 16135. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 8:54:14 AM Now to answer PincherMartin's insistence. Al-Qaeda will cease to exist as credible threat within 5 years. Massive terrorist attacks on foreign soil based abroad such as 9-11 will prove to be an anomaly. This incidence of terrorism in the US will slightly rise but a means and institutions come into play the incidence will dip. America's greatest threat will come from domestic terrorists. 16136. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 8:57:05 AM Corrigendum: but as means and institutions come into play 16137. rubberducky - 11/16/2001 9:16:03 AM last night, ABC News had the chilling tapes from the cockpit of flight 93. if you haven't heard it, you should. 16138. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 9:17:51 AM And in reply to PincherMartin's question, "Is this a game?", he accused me of forming my opinions from conversations at hotel watering-holes so PincherMartin should best answer that question. 16139. Andonly - 11/16/2001 9:56:48 AM "What I dismissed was your strange ideas about an Iran-Taliban rapprochement." 16140. Andonly - 11/16/2001 9:57:10 AM But let me put all this another way: Iranians are fed up with the mullahs, fed up with the shitty economy, and vocally calling for the return of the secuarist son of Shah Pahlahvi as they riot in the streets of Tehran. Khatami's a reformer, but he's also a cleric, not a secularist. The mullahs are cracking down on dissent, and on Khatami's overtures to the US. Pressure is building. Khatami must walk a line between extremism and secularism; that line looks like it is shaping up to be an exemplary form of Islamic foreign policy practice (from an Iranian and Arab standpoint). 16141. Andonly - 11/16/2001 10:07:37 AM Loar: "I understand you and PincherMartin both hold the belief that 9-11 was but the prelude to large-scale terrorist attacks within the US" 16142. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 10:35:52 AM Yes, we may all do well to expect more terrorist attempts as in the past and attacks in the future, and I cannot be sure of the scale. I do know that it will be harder for terrorists than in the past, and probably much harder for Al-Qaeda with so much focus on them. 16143. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 10:38:49 AM So many qualifiers in my last post practically moots the substance of my comments. 16144. Andonly - 11/16/2001 10:45:13 AM Loarish misapprehensions (cont.)"...that the threat and the scale will not diminish with Al-Qaeda but that ever more terrorist groups premised on Islamic fundamentalism - irregardless of their immediate aims, irregardless of their local concerns - will look upon the US as fair target to advance their interests." 16145. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 10:48:05 AM Well then, I'm not the only one puking up your biases even as you disclaim them. Gee, wonder how they got stuck in our craw? Figments of imagination turned real? 16146. CalGal - 11/16/2001 10:48:25 AM Bin Laden deputy reported killed 16147. Andonly - 11/16/2001 10:51:17 AM "Yes, other terrorist groups could find objectives that attacking the US would satisfy, but did I not note that of all those groups only Al Qaeda exclusively targets the US?" 16148. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 10:52:04 AM Also, my grasp of effective means of counterterrorism comprises both military and diplomatic and bureaucratic actions (it has from the very act of this 9-11), the latter two you've maintained throughout is - what's the word? -"Panglossian", but I do credit you with fine editing of your views as the situation develops. 16149. Andonly - 11/16/2001 10:53:52 AM "I do know that it will be harder for terrorists than in the past, and probably much harder for Al-Qaeda with so much focus on them." 16150. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 10:54:49 AM Al Qaeda agents blew up Massoud for the Taliban and not because killing Massoud was part of Al Qaeda's vision of an Islamic future. 16151. Andonly - 11/16/2001 10:55:10 AM "So many qualifiers in my last post practically moots the substance of my comments." 16152. Adrianne - 11/16/2001 10:55:26 AM And harder still, if we keep killing the brains and money supply. 16153. janjon - 11/16/2001 10:56:19 AM Someone (marj I think) made reference to the Carlyle Group not too far up above. Poppy is indeed involved, and heavily so, as is James Baker. As indeed until recently was the bin Laden family. 16154. ScottLoar - 11/16/2001 10:58:18 AM Al Qaeda killed how many Africans in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam? But those poor people were collateral damage to the real target - the US Embassies there. Surely you can see that? Massoud was killed not because he was a Muslim but that he was in the way of the Taliban who harbour Osama bin Laden and the Al-Qaeda base in Afghanistan. 16155. Andonly - 11/16/2001 10:58:46 AM "Gee, wonder how they got stuck in our craw?" 16156. glendajean - 11/16/2001 11:06:52 AM Excellent news if true that Atef is dead. He was the operations brain. 16157. Andonly - 11/16/2001 11:08:46 AM "Also, my grasp of effective means of counterterrorism comprises both military and diplomatic and bureaucratic actions (it has from the very act of this 9-11), the latter two you've maintained throughout is - what's the word? -"Panglossian", but I do credit you with fine editing of your views as the situation develops." 16158. CalGal - 11/16/2001 11:09:19 AM The decline and fall of Enron is simply bizarre. It was not even a year ago that they were the new power player. 16159. Andonly - 11/16/2001 11:10:46 AM "Al Qaeda agents blew up Massoud for the Taliban and not because killing Massoud was part of Al Qaeda's vision of an Islamic future." 16160. Andonly - 11/16/2001 11:14:03 AM "Is Atef the one who was the doctor, that they always show in that video clip behind bars at a trial?" 16161. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 11:16:15 AM Message # 16139 16162. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 11:17:10 AM 16163. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 11:19:34 AM And the only domestic pressure... 16164. CalGal - 11/16/2001 11:20:34 AM And--yep, that's it. I know bin Laden has two major deputies and am never sure which is which. 16165. glendajean - 11/16/2001 11:24:52 AM Thanks Andonly. I was confused, think Atef was the doctor. 16166. glendajean - 11/16/2001 11:25:15 AM ... thinking that... 16167. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 11:58:00 AM Reports from Kondoz are worrisome. The NA has announced they will kill all non-Afghan Taliban. I have no problems with that, but I can't imagine the reprisals being carried out in a tidy, discriminating manner when the city is finally stormed. 16168. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 12:14:20 PM www.gazeta.ru is reporting that more than dozen Taliban leaders have been given asylum in Turkmenistan. 16169. concerned - 11/16/2001 12:38:23 PM Bush Cleans up Clinton's mess - the view of the war in Afghanistan from a woman's rights perspective 16170. concerned - 11/16/2001 12:39:54 PM Rumsfeld says US troop involvement 'very unlikely' in any UN Afghan peacekeeping force. 16171. concerned - 11/16/2001 12:46:34 PM Re. 16167 - 16172. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 1:00:51 PM Message # 16171: Yes, I agree, but my point is there is a risk that what ever ends up happening in Kondoz may aggravate tensions elsewhere. Kondoz per se is not important. What's important is the impact elsewhere. 16173. Andonly - 11/16/2001 1:01:46 PM From CNN's Cristiane Amanpour in Kabul: 16174. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 1:09:22 PM Hamid Karzai was just interviewed by CNN. 16175. Andonly - 11/16/2001 1:19:13 PM Interesting Dawn column. 16176. thoughtful - 11/16/2001 1:22:15 PM From CNN: Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar has ordered a withdrawal from the southern stronghold of Kandahar, according to the Afghan Islamic Press 16177. arkymalarky - 11/16/2001 1:25:53 PM My lands, I'm just not believing how rapidly all this is moving. 16178. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 1:28:14 PM While I agree with the view from Dawn that ethnicity is overdone -- hence my constant refrain several thousand posts ago that Afghanistan is NOT Yugoslavia! -- it must nevertheless be said that since the late 1970s the ethnic genie has been let out of the bottle. 16179. Andonly - 11/16/2001 2:46:47 PM "While I agree with the view from Dawn that ethnicity is overdone ...it must nevertheless be said that since the late 1970s the ethnic genie has been let out of the bottle." 16180. janjon - 11/16/2001 3:50:00 PM Laura Bush is going to give the weekly President's radio talk this week. About the inhumane treatment accorded women in Afghanistan by the Taliban. Here's a story from MSNBC: This is a Very Good Tactic. However, Can You Imagine the Moaning and Biting That Would Have Gone On Had, Say, Hillary Done Something Like This If Big Bill Was Still President? 16181. glendajean - 11/16/2001 3:52:52 PM Janjon -- I had the same reaction when I heard she was doing it. 16182. CalGal - 11/16/2001 3:56:03 PM In fairness, is that anything more than Nixon being able to go to China? I certainly agree about the difference in reaction. 16183. janjon - 11/16/2001 4:01:26 PM Oh, some of that to be sure. Just like Gore would be taking crap from all sorts of quarters for having been sucked in by those fuckin' Russians (and don't that Putin look odd or something else). Just like had Gore prosecuted the war so far in exactly the same manner as the Administration has (very very likely), he'd be being pilloried by the usual suspects. 16184. Rama - 11/16/2001 4:21:50 PM It's sad when people have nothing better to complain about than what would have happened, if their heros weren't losers. 16185. glendajean - 11/16/2001 4:30:00 PM Rama -- I don't feel any sadness. It's just a fact, jack. 16186. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 4:33:33 PM "I'm curious whether you think the prescription offered in that Dawn piece is workable (as of today; your various other constant refrains of the last two months suggest your answer two weeks ago would have been a flat no)..." 16187. janjon - 11/16/2001 4:34:20 PM Rama - don't know much about you, but have seen enough to tell that you frequently don't get the point. 16188. pseudoerasmus - 11/16/2001 5:58:38 PM I have been wondering exactly who took over Zaranj in Nemroz province (in Afghanistan's southern-most tip). 16189. concerned - 11/16/2001 7:08:07 PM Re. 16184 - 16190. concerned - 11/16/2001 7:21:47 PM Turkey, GB, France to head peacekeeping forces 16191. concerned - 11/16/2001 7:40:09 PM Just like had Gore prosecuted the war so far in exactly the same manner as the Administration has (very very likely), he'd be being pilloried by the usual suspects. 16192. Al D - 11/16/2001 10:50:23 PM Rama 16193. Andonly - 11/17/2001 12:17:39 AM Jonathan Chait 16194. stostosto - 11/17/2001 4:49:10 AM Ando: 16195. Rama - 11/17/2001 7:39:57 AM Rama -- I don't feel any sadness. It's just a fact, jack. 16196. Rama - 11/17/2001 7:40:44 AM Rama - don't know much about you, but have seen enough to tell that you frequently don't get the point. 16197. joezan - 11/17/2001 7:41:35 AM The left are like an entire army unto themselves - an army of nagging wives. 16198. Rama - 11/17/2001 7:55:06 AM an army of nagging wives. 16199. RustlerPike - 11/17/2001 8:13:18 AM The army of wives reminds me of a certain Buster Keaton movie. Anyone know what I'm referring to? 16200. judithathome - 11/17/2001 8:44:38 AM Either The General or Mooching Through Georgia? 16201. judithathome - 11/17/2001 8:45:23 AM The General, rather.... 16202. joezan - 11/17/2001 9:02:57 AM Rama: 16203. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 9:13:36 AM 16204. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 9:35:57 AM Andonly 16205. joezan - 11/17/2001 10:00:10 AM That's hilarious. 16206. RustlerPike - 11/17/2001 10:00:56 AM JaH: 16207. judithathome - 11/17/2001 10:09:50 AM I don't know; I was just going with the obvious titles...CalGal might know. I think she watched a few Keaton movies recently. 16208. Andonly - 11/17/2001 10:54:41 AM "I do recall, and I had those worries myself at the time - much enforced by the Pseuder. I had no idea the bombing could be so effective militarily. Does this prove some kind of moral defect in me?" 16209. Andonly - 11/17/2001 10:55:29 AM At first, when it became clear that we weren't actually hitting the Taliban near Kabul, even though they were a lot more exposed than I had believed, I figured we were wating for something; and we were: the imaginary coming together of the anti-Taliban Pashtuns. 16210. Andonly - 11/17/2001 11:17:06 AM I want to point out something. Just after 9-11, I said the US had no political choice domestically or internationally but to wage war and make a dreadful example of someone we deemed responsible. 16211. Andonly - 11/17/2001 11:25:16 AM "True leadership, monumental leadership, leadership for the ages, will demand that Iraq is next on the list, BEFORE "a significant attack of any sort on the US or our genuine allies." " 16212. arkymalarky - 11/17/2001 11:31:52 AM I agree. 16213. ronski - 11/17/2001 11:40:38 AM Driving up through the city Friday night, the Putin cavalcade passed me by on the other side of the highway. I've seen a lot of these dignitary processions in New York, but I've never seen one so long, so heavily armed. 16214. Rama - 11/17/2001 11:42:45 AM I think the next place to fight terrorism is the Philipines. 16215. CalGal - 11/17/2001 11:50:59 AM I found the interaction between Bush and Putin to be disconcertingly like warring spouses who went to a shrink in an effort to stave off divorce. 16216. Andonly - 11/17/2001 11:53:53 AM By the way, I read yesterday an interesting article in TNR. It's description of the fate of a young man who attempted to assist the NA under Massoud provides a rationale for rethinking my comparison of Afghans, of the sort who may have betrayed Abdul Haq, to complicit Germans under Nazi rule--a far more compelling rationale than PE managed with his appeal to Afghan poverty, illiteracy, and his resort to the "but Germans were bureaucratized" argument. 16217. Andonly - 11/17/2001 11:59:11 AM Meant to link in that TNR piece by Elizabeth Rubin. 16218. Andonly - 11/17/2001 12:01:41 PM "I think the next place to fight terrorism is the Philipines." 16219. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 1:31:43 PM Waffling due to domestic political constraints, or waiting until the kind of massive catastrophe necessary to ensure international support, is exactly the head-in-the-sand posture that requires no leadership. Only thousands more dead as a prelude to action. 16220. Cellar Door - 11/17/2001 1:35:43 PM And what if thr Anthrax letters are local? 16221. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 1:38:16 PM Yes, Cellar. We bomb the RNC. But only after Scaife, Exxon, Ken Lay, Roger Ailes, all known descendants of Dan White, the sailor who wrote "Fags" on the bomb, and Dr. Lara Schlesinger. 16222. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 1:40:36 PM And The british commentator, Andrew Sullton, Andrew Sullahane, Andrew Sull .. . 16223. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 1:49:00 PM 16224. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 1:54:19 PM 16225. CalGal - 11/17/2001 1:55:40 PM Francis, did you see the Frontline piece on Iraq? Or read the transcript? 16226. judithathome - 11/17/2001 2:04:56 PM Did anyone see the film clips from the Afghani photographer last night on Nightline? Fascinating video work, especially the shot of the missles heading right for the camera! 16227. Cellar Door - 11/17/2001 2:08:59 PM Yes, Cellar. We bomb the RNC. But only after Scaife, Exxon, Ken Lay, Roger Ailes, all known descendants of Dan White, the sailor who wrote "Fags" on the bomb, and Dr. Lara Schlesinger 16228. Cellar Door - 11/17/2001 2:10:00 PM And The british commentator, Andrew Sullton, Andrew Sullahane, Andrew Sull. . . 16229. Cellar Door - 11/17/2001 2:10:29 PM Provided, of course, she actually needs a penis. 16230. Cellar Door - 11/17/2001 2:10:48 PM And then we kill her. 16231. ScottLoar - 11/17/2001 2:20:09 PM Why is the Philippines "the next place to fight terrorism? Manila didn't hatch Ramzi Ahmed Yousef. His plot was discovered by Manila police on 6 January 1995; he fled to Pakistan where he was arrested and then extradited to the US for trial. His co-conspirator Abdul Hakim Murad was arrested in Manila and handed over to the US. The Philippine government's inability to govern results in the chaos and corruption that is present-day life in most of the Philippines but how can the US resolve those issues short of taking over the government? During the 50 years that the US was an ally of the Philippines with a large military presence the US was never able to influence let alone control governance of the domestic Philippines. Corruption and chaos extended right to the gates of the US military bases and thievery well inside those gates. 16232. pseudoerasmus - 11/17/2001 3:06:46 PM " hadn't already fled, revolted or joined the NA (which at least some Pashtuns did!) 16233. pseudoerasmus - 11/17/2001 3:07:48 PM (other than the two 1980s-era commanders, Abdul Rasuul Sayyaf and Abdul Qadir, who had sat on the NA's executive council since 1997 or so.) 16234. wonkers2 - 11/17/2001 3:20:26 PM Ann Coulter would be a fate worse than death! 16235. Cellar Door - 11/17/2001 4:30:32 PM I'm Truly Unforgiving, wonkers. 16236. Rama - 11/17/2001 4:38:58 PM Why is the Philippines "the next place to fight terrorism? 16237. LohrM - 11/17/2001 4:41:29 PM That NightLine footage was excellent... 16238. Andonly - 11/17/2001 5:10:32 PM "And even if Iraq does nothing, to have risked the calamity is inexcusable." 16239. Andonly - 11/17/2001 5:23:50 PM From FU's first Why Iraq? link: 16240. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:24:44 PM Andonly 16241. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:30:51 PM Andonly 16242. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:34:25 PM is=of 16243. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:39:51 PM And please don't take from my Nazi Germany reference anything more than a lesson I believe to be clear: if a fanatical leader makes weapons of mass destruction, uses those weapons, hides those weapons even in defeat, and undergoes three years of sanctions in an effort to avoid having those weapons inspected, detected and destroyed, and, after you announce a worldwide, unprecedented effort against terrorism - which is heartily joined by many nations - you do not deal with the fanatic, your actions are per se negligent. 16244. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:41:17 PM until Hitler does something really bad. 16245. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:43:56 PM 16246. Andonly - 11/17/2001 5:49:16 PM "You display a naivete if you believe either that the post 9/11 playing field is not pretext enough for deposing Sadaam, or, that even if a different pretext is required, one cannot be easily manufactured." 16247. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:49:42 PM I have done something very wrong in 16245. 16248. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:51:51 PM Andonly 16249. Andonly - 11/17/2001 5:51:53 PM "You also vastly overrate Saddam's ability to work international will and opinion." 16250. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:53:34 PM Andonly 16251. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 5:54:51 PM An Excellent, But Dated, Article on Iraq's Biological Weapons Program Circa 1997 16252. Property of Jesus - 11/17/2001 7:47:28 PM 16253. jexster - 11/17/2001 8:41:26 PM Afghan WarLord Pisses on King Moron I 16254. jexster - 11/17/2001 8:42:20 PM and not only on our Warlord, my fellow Americans, he took a big dump on us too! 16255. jexster - 11/17/2001 8:49:33 PM Shroeder Whips German Greenie Weenies - Bundeswehr Headed to Afg 16256. ScottLoar - 11/17/2001 8:51:48 PM Message # 16236: So, the US should fight terrorism in the Philippines because there it can most likely gain success and because Abu Sayyaf is an international terrorist group and the US is interested in destroying international terrorist groups and the US can do this by providing the training, equipment and logistics plus "the resources of a US carrier group" and "some national technical means". I don't suppose you think US resources including a US carrier group may be better employed to greater benefit or in readiness against a more potent and immediate adversary. 16257. jexster - 11/17/2001 8:57:11 PM 16258. jexster - 11/17/2001 8:58:14 PM Bundeswehr Planning -Capabilities, Structures and Resources 16259. jexster - 11/17/2001 9:06:22 PM What a week! Kabul has fallen, Kandahar is embattled, Taliban cadres are reported to be fleeing across the frontier. Pakistan's government sees the Afghan turn of events as an insult, with their archenemies in power and their vaunted intelligence service cut off-for now, at least-from a chance to shape politics across the border. But here in Islamabad, there's a more pressing concern: lunch. Get it while you can! 16260. jexster - 11/17/2001 9:09:40 PM hehehehe 16261. joezan - 11/17/2001 9:11:48 PM jex - Message # 16253: 16262. Andonly - 11/17/2001 9:29:24 PM "The fact of allowing domestic and international political considerations (which I think you and arky overestimate)" 16263. Indiana Jones - 11/17/2001 9:37:50 PM Al Qa'eda has apparently turned on the Taliban within Kunduz and begun shooting them. It's only a hunch, of course, but I would not be surprised if Bin Laden is within that area, despite the link in 16252. 16264. Indiana Jones - 11/17/2001 9:43:36 PM Count me in the votes that says Saddam must go as well. I doubt we can start an immediate offensive or even issue an immediate ultimatum, but we should begin laying the diplomatic groundwork to make it clear that the status quo in Iraq will be of briefest duration. 16265. Andonly - 11/17/2001 9:46:51 PM "Your pooh-poohing is Iraq's capabilities is borderline irresponsible." 16266. Andonly - 11/17/2001 9:53:58 PM "Yet, you safeguard by assigning estimation of Iraq to Richard Butler's ego and hopes that Iraq's production is still primitive." 16267. Andonly - 11/17/2001 10:03:17 PM "It's like hearing of Kristallnacht, watching Treblinka being built, and assuring us all that it is "debatable" whether the Jews and Gypsies will be run through the mill." 16268. Andonly - 11/17/2001 10:14:36 PM "I doubt we can start an immediate offensive or even issue an immediate ultimatum, but we should begin laying the diplomatic groundwork to make it clear that the status quo in Iraq will be of briefest duration." 16269. Francis Urquhart - 11/17/2001 10:58:03 PM Andonly 16270. joezan - 11/17/2001 10:59:44 PM Payout for TV trauma of Trade Centre relatives. 16271. RustlerPike - 11/18/2001 3:40:08 AM What I don't get about the anthrax is why all these different strains. Could it be that someone has a lot of different stockpiles and is testing them to see which are the most lethal? I.e. - which one to use in the real attack? 16272. RustlerPike - 11/18/2001 3:40:50 AM Joe: 16273. RustlerPike - 11/18/2001 3:45:58 AM Actually, I think we should all be compensated for those shots of the planes crashing into the towers. I still find the thought of that scene quite depressing. 16274. robertjayb - 11/18/2001 5:54:47 AM Viva Espana! 16275. joezan - 11/18/2001 7:53:53 AM Good Guardian article on new evidence found against ObL and al-Qaeda. 16276. joezan - 11/18/2001 7:56:26 AM ...The most satisfying finds for President Bush's administration are likely to have been a page torn out of Flying magazine listing flight schools in Florida - including Walkwitz Aviation in Titusville and Phoenix East Aviation in Daytona Beach, two schools linked to the hijackers of 11 September - and a form that comes with a Microsoft Flight Simulator 98 computer program. The program, which simulates the experience of flying a commercial jet, is often used by pilots and is similar to one found in the luggage of Mohammed Atta, one of the hijackers. 16277. joezan - 11/18/2001 8:02:42 AM Hmmmnnn... 16278. wonkers2 - 11/18/2001 9:19:24 AM After the civilized world's response to 9-11 Iraq and anybody but a crazy like Kaczinski will hesitate to use anthrax or similar weapons. That's why a quick and tough response was important. If Iraq was behind the anthrax, which I now doubt, Saddam must be sweating bullets in hopes we can't trace it to him. Because if we can it'll mean his demise. 16279. marjoribanks - 11/18/2001 10:58:28 AM The Emir of Bahrain became the first Arab leader to give his unequivocal backing to the Allied bombing of Afghanistan. 16280. jexster - 11/18/2001 11:01:44 AM 16281. jexster - 11/18/2001 11:06:18 AM OSAMA BIN LADEN'S elite al-Qa'eda guard, mainly Arabs and Pakistanis, are slaughtering Taliban troops to prevent them surrendering to the Northern Alliance army besieging Kunduz, the Taliban-controlled northern enclave. 16282. Cellar Door - 11/18/2001 11:07:34 AM 16283. marjoribanks - 11/18/2001 11:10:34 AM Kabul, November 18: Suspected terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden is hiding 130 km east of the southern Afghan city of Kandahar, a senior official of the Northern Alliance said on Sunday. Qanooni dismissed claims by Abdul Salam Zaeef, Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, that bin Laden was no longer in areas under the Islamic militia's control. 16284. jexster - 11/18/2001 11:24:52 AM Is Sadaam Right for the pickin? 16285. jexster - 11/18/2001 11:26:16 AM right=ripe 16286. RustlerPike - 11/18/2001 11:42:58 AM I am harboring Osama Bin Laden. 16287. RustlerPike - 11/18/2001 11:49:36 AM Well, if this is Gulf War 2 then I guess the objectives will once more be met and Saddam will once more survive. 16288. arkymalarky - 11/18/2001 12:33:07 PM Yes. 16289. sakonige - 11/18/2001 2:50:27 PM 16290. sakonige - 11/18/2001 2:53:29 PM 16291. Rama - 11/18/2001 3:52:25 PM Philipines 16292. jexster - 11/18/2001 5:04:38 PM Afghan Warlord Ignores Warlord-Against-The-Evil-Ones, Returns to Kabul 16293. jexster - 11/18/2001 5:07:38 PM Army of Sleeper Agents Makes Osama's Capture Moot 16294. aunaturel - 11/18/2001 5:09:05 PM "A country no one cares much about" 16295. jexster - 11/18/2001 5:31:10 PM 16296. AuNaturel - 11/18/2001 8:27:14 PM Ridge's job is silly. 16297. AuNaturel - 11/18/2001 8:28:05 PM I hope we assasinate Saddam. Maybe Terek Aziz will take over. 16298. Al D - 11/18/2001 8:30:33 PM Then we get rid of the monster and get the monster's liar. 16299. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/18/2001 9:54:16 PM 16300. joezan - 11/18/2001 11:03:48 PM So, the foreign al-Qaeda fighters in Konduz are demanding protection from the allies in return for their surrender, even as they murder the Afghan Talibanis who try to surrender. 16301. Absensia - 11/18/2001 11:19:39 PM YOu are too soft, Joe..make them give all three. 16302. joezan - 11/18/2001 11:25:41 PM I gave that serious thought, Abs. But then, the only choice they'd be left with would be left or right, and that didn't seem democratic enough. 16303. Absensia - 11/18/2001 11:40:59 PM No, no choice on left or right for the hand...it has to be the right hand. 16304. arkymalarky - 11/18/2001 11:43:02 PM Hey, I already know about Joe's closet Liberal tendencies. He talks so tough to try to cover it up. 16305. Absensia - 11/18/2001 11:50:57 PM Arky, you are right. I wondered, but now Joe's come out. 16306. RustlerPike - 11/19/2001 5:40:05 AM This reminds me of the story about God and Adam. 16307. stostosto - 11/19/2001 5:42:00 AM Ha! 16308. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:08:20 AM the familiar Northern Alliance anarchy is falling into place. The warlords of Jalalabad are feuding over who rules which part of Nangahar province. The Pashtu tribal leaders around Kandahar are threatening to fight the Northern Alliance. Hazara elements of the alliance are threatening their Tajik and Uzbek comrades if they do not receive a sufficient share of power in Kabul. 16309. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:11:46 AM Several days ago, I used an Alamo analogy wrt Konduz. The situation was already shaping up to be a kind of rallying cause/object lesson for all onlookers. That has come to pass, and the way forward appears to be a masscre. This is highly troublesome, particularly for the Pathans, and will only increase suspicion of the NA even as it makes noises about agreeing to future meetings abroad to decide the Afghan future. 16310. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:14:29 AM Anarchy in Afghanistan. 16311. Rama - 11/19/2001 10:14:50 AM I'm not sure what the best way forward is either, and I tend to sympathize with the NA who wants all the Arab Afghans dead, but the way it is unfolding is terribly messy. 16312. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:22:01 AM Well, killing them indicriminately along with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Afghan fighters and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Afghan civilans can be seen as a bad move, and could potentially backfire especially in terms of winning essential Pathan sympathies for a future coalition government. 16313. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:23:03 AM I meant to say that the Afghans (of both types) appear to be sort of hostages right now to the Arab Afghans. 16314. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:28:31 AM Interesting tone taken by an Indian member of the American Left. 16315. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:32:39 AM 16316. Rama - 11/19/2001 10:35:38 AM Well, killing them indicriminately along with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Afghan fighters and hundreds (perhaps thousands) of Afghan civilans can be seen as a bad move, and could potentially backfire especially in terms of winning essential Pathan sympathies for a future coalition government. 16317. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:40:21 AM I don't know. There are certainly less alternatives because it is the NA facing down the civilians/Pathans/Arabs in Konduz. If it were US troops it would have been easier to negotiate, this way the Arabs know they're going to die pretty much one way or the other. There are also less alternatives because the NA is already distrusted by Pashtuns. 16318. RustlerPike - 11/19/2001 10:40:50 AM British Special Ops in Macedonia. Spooky. 16319. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:45:43 AM There are lots of unexplained stories, which is maddening though also fairly understandable. 16320. glendajean - 11/19/2001 10:46:26 AM I keep reading that the Talibans holding out are mostly non-Afghans. Do Pathans care that much for these soldiers from other countries? 16321. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:47:21 AM The way things look now, all that needs to happen to destroy all the positive developments and diplomatic noises of the past weeks, is a small conflagration which would devolve into the US hitting the NA on purpose. It could happen, all the indicators are there and then the Afghans are fucked one more time. 16322. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 10:49:14 AM The most credible reports I've seen are that there are a few hundred Chechens and Arabs holed up with thousands of Pathans (Taliban and civilians). The Pathans want to surrender, the foreigners won't allow it, the result is massive bombing and a siege. 16323. glendajean - 11/19/2001 10:59:56 AM I did read somewhere that the non-Pathan Taliban soldiers had already executed at least 400 Pathan Taliban soldiers. 16324. Andonly - 11/19/2001 11:06:47 AM Mildly funny animation: 16325. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 11:09:34 AM 16326. RustlerPike - 11/19/2001 11:09:35 AM I should have started realizing this war would end well when those pictures came out, of Bert's face on that Osama poster. That portended good things. 16327. RustlerPike - 11/19/2001 11:10:51 AM Banks #16325: 16328. RustlerPike - 11/19/2001 11:13:33 AM Arabs, Chechens and Pathans holed up in one place and shitting their pants. Mmmm, Konduz must be hell on one's nose. 16329. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 11:14:40 AM 16330. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 11:35:31 AM Many of you have probably read the NYTimes Magazine piece on Al-Jazeera by Ajami. If not, here it is. 16331. Andonly - 11/19/2001 11:41:17 AM Fisk: Could we have a few moderate Taliban – perhaps with shorter beards – in a broad-based administration? 16332. pseudoerasmus - 11/19/2001 11:58:02 AM Why is Fisk still talking turmoil about Jalalabad? The jira in Jalalabad concluded day before yesterday, a leader was chosen (the pre-Taliban governor Abdul Qadir, brother of Abdul Haq) and feuding avoided. 16333. pseudoerasmus - 11/19/2001 11:58:14 AM jirga 16334. pseudoerasmus - 11/19/2001 12:01:21 PM jirga 16335. Andonly - 11/19/2001 12:14:29 PM One of Robert Fisk's many examples of moral equivalence (the man is like Noam Chomsky with a press badge): 16336. Raskolnikov - 11/19/2001 12:18:35 PM Marj: I think I disagree with your pessimism about what is happening in Kunduz. According to news accounts, the Arabs and Pakistanis are killing the Afghan Taliban who want to surrender, and are doing nasty things to the populace. 16337. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 12:19:29 PM One of the most over-abused tactics in this whole new world after 9/11 is this "trump card" accusation of moral equivalence, epecially since it is so often used in a convoluted and murky manner. 16338. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 12:20:46 PM Rask, 16339. Raskolnikov - 11/19/2001 12:33:50 PM Well, if foreign Taliban are killing Pashtun natives, I wonder how much longer that identification will last. Unless they are only abusing Uzbeks and Tajiks, but that doesn't sound likely. 16340. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 12:56:09 PM Less than positive news from the UK. 16341. rubberducky - 11/19/2001 1:31:01 PM 16342. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 2:35:15 PM marjoribanks-- 16343. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 2:41:42 PM btw, Safire has written a New York Times piece, otherwise undistinguished, that postulates the beginning of a Phase II in the War -- against Iraq. 16344. Property of Jesus - 11/19/2001 3:45:15 PM 16345. Andonly - 11/19/2001 5:07:21 PM "Has anybody seen any other news articles that analyze in detail Al Jazeera's coverage?" 16346. Andonly - 11/19/2001 6:00:06 PM Hard to know whether Washongton agrees, given the rhetoric this week: 16347. CalGal - 11/19/2001 6:05:13 PM Andonly, 16348. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 6:19:18 PM andonly 345 16349. CalGal - 11/19/2001 6:28:21 PM they just don't wan't to hear it. 16350. marjoribanks - 11/19/2001 6:47:58 PM I linked in that article, it was interesting enough to point others to it. 16351. CalGal - 11/19/2001 6:51:27 PM Ajami's account of Al Jazeera is very similar to the one in the New Yorker, written before the attacks. At least it seems so to me; I'll check it again when I get home. 16352. joezan - 11/19/2001 7:36:13 PM Pike - Message # 16318: 16353. wonkers2 - 11/19/2001 7:45:08 PM Monkey see, monkey do. (Al Jazeera copying MSNBC, Fox) 16354. Andonly - 11/19/2001 8:53:29 PM "Sizable segments of the Arab populations seem to be the Palestinians writ large -- they just don't wan't to hear it. To be sure, they have their share of grievances against the West but seem unwilling to entertain any positive image whatsoever." 16355. Andonly - 11/19/2001 8:59:13 PM And even in Egypt. I've copied this from the MEMRI site (can anyone can tell me how to link to a locus in frames?): 16356. Andonly - 11/19/2001 9:00:03 PM "You will easily notice that they love life, and that is the weak point that we will exploit. We, in contrast, love death and protect it. Do not believe that Allah created life for us to live, build, and enjoy. [No,] Allah created us to test our ability to rebel against life, to despise it, and to get rid of it at the earliest opportunity. Each and every one of you must seek out your first chance to die – but you must not die for free. You must take with you as many of the infidels as possible, and send them to Hell. You must know, dear children, that our martyrs gain entry to Paradise, while their dead are [sentenced] to the fires of Hell. These idiots do not believe in Paradise, in the fires of Hell, or in the Day of Judgment, and the proof is that they insist on turning the world into Paradise [on Earth], in which they enjoy everything." 16357. Andonly - 11/19/2001 9:00:16 PM "You know, children, or you may have heard, that there is a country called Indonesia, that is the largest Muslim country in the world. Don't believe it. The proof is that they allow a woman to rule them… Look at what this woman has done: She was the first to run to America to declare that her country stands by them. I recommend to you, children, to despise women. You should fear them, because Satan's role is to seduce people. By necessity, we allow women to live, but only to bear children." 16358. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 9:04:55 PM andonly-- 16359. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 9:06:31 PM my 358 was for 356. 16360. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 9:07:25 PM doh. 358 was for 354. 16361. Andonly - 11/19/2001 9:08:07 PM And there's this: 16362. Andonly - 11/19/2001 9:08:20 PM "Now, we can revive the political conflict with the US. We can continue to condemn its positions in the Middle East; to condemn the way in which it understands globalization, to demand that it be more just. What we must not do is to combine all of this with the dichotomy of life and death. If we do, we will be viewed as a race that is against the human race. The racists in the West will turn this image into theory, and the theory into action." 16363. Andonly - 11/19/2001 9:18:56 PM Muhammad Ali Farahat, a columnist for the Arabic London daily Al-Hayat, wrote in an article entitled "Our America," 16364. Andonly - 11/19/2001 9:19:45 PM In a letter to Al-Hayat's editor, Egyptian film critic Samir Farid communicated his appreciation of Farahat's article: "Blessings to the intellectual columnist Muhammad Ali Farahat, for his article…" 16365. Andonly - 11/19/2001 9:22:37 PM H-man: "But there seems to be an anti-Western, anti-modern streak running through the Arab world that is unmatched elsewhere. The reasons for this are numerous and much-debated but I think the mood is clearly there." 16366. AytchMan - 11/19/2001 9:30:42 PM I agree that Al Jazeera could change. The question is how likely is such a shift? I believe it to be rather unlikely. For whatever reason, the network seems geared to reflecting the prevailing attitudes rather than either leading them or presenting a balanced view. 16367. jexster - 11/19/2001 10:08:43 PM Chimichangas For Ramadan????? 16368. joezan - 11/19/2001 10:09:46 PM Raise your hand if you'd like to make Omar's dream come true ASAP 16369. jexster - 11/19/2001 10:10:41 PM 16370. jexster - 11/19/2001 10:11:26 PM JoeZ... 16371. joezan - 11/19/2001 10:17:28 PM I dunno - Powell looks kinda uncomfortable sittin' down wit' all 'dem darkies, jex. 16372. jexster - 11/19/2001 10:20:00 PM To make all God-fearin Falwell-fuckin Republicans puke. 16373. jexster - 11/19/2001 10:22:49 PM In honor of the State that made Gore President, and thanks to JoeZ's comment about darkies, I now sing the Florida State Song... 16374. joezan - 11/19/2001 10:23:19 PM You might want to look to expand your readership in that case, jex. 16375. joezan - 11/19/2001 10:25:19 PM But you do have to wonder - how long before people will be proclaiming GWB "the first Arab President". 16376. robertjayb - 11/20/2001 12:18:40 AM Ratting out Omar? 16377. Al D - 11/20/2001 1:54:39 AM banks is Old Boney Stokes. 16378. joezan - 11/20/2001 7:35:41 AM America will take no prisoners. 16379. jexster - 11/20/2001 10:11:15 AM 16380. stostosto - 11/20/2001 10:26:44 AM Ain't gonna happen. 16381. jexster - 11/20/2001 10:32:58 AM Faint Praise for PantyWaist Powell from TowelHeads and EuroTrash 16382. stostosto - 11/20/2001 10:37:16 AM Gee, jexster, it's so witty that you're calling Poweel PantyWaist. What does it mean, anyway? 16383. glendajean - 11/20/2001 11:39:09 AM Looks like they may re-build the buddhas in Afghanistan. 16384. jexster - 11/20/2001 11:40:10 AM Sarcasm... 16385. jexster - 11/20/2001 11:43:20 AM Not exactly exact...its a 3-D foreign policy picture... 16386. Francis Urquhart - 11/20/2001 12:48:01 PM From the New Republic -- 16387. Francis Urquhart - 11/20/2001 12:49:10 PM NUMBER 8 16388. Francis Urquhart - 11/20/2001 12:50:17 PM NUMBER 7 16389. Francis Urquhart - 11/20/2001 12:54:32 PM NUMBER 6 16390. Francis Urquhart - 11/20/2001 12:55:15 PM NUMBER 5 16391. Francis Urquhart - 11/20/2001 12:56:07 PM NUMBER 4 16392. Francis Urquhart - 11/20/2001 12:57:00 PM NUMBER 3 16393. Francis Urquhart - 11/20/2001 12:57:37 PM NUMBER 2 16394. Francis Urquhart - 11/20/2001 12:58:21 PM NUMBER ONE 16395. Andonly - 11/20/2001 1:07:52 PM Toots Toss, 16396. RustlerPike - 11/20/2001 1:09:11 PM Who is Michael Moore? 16397. pseudoerasmus - 11/20/2001 1:19:50 PM Andonly: regarding our discussion on Iran and "Islamic solidarity" (or whatever we called it)... 16398. Indiana Jones - 11/20/2001 1:45:13 PM sto: What odds are agreeable to you for Saddam still being head honcho in Iraq one year from today? 16399. PelleNilsson - 11/20/2001 2:01:55 PM An interesting article by Bob Woodward about CIA paramiltary units. I didnt't know there were such. 16400. Raskolnikov - 11/20/2001 2:15:50 PM Pike: Michael Moore is a film director/comedian, most famous for Roger and Me, and his TV Nation show. His trademark is the attempt at a confrontational interview with someone who doesn't want to interviewed. He is a die hard leftie, and anti-Globalizationist. He can occasionally be very funny, but he *is* an idiot when it comes to real politics. 16401. rubberducky - 11/20/2001 3:22:24 PM and now, for some good news: 16402. rubberducky - 11/20/2001 3:24:07 PM anyone interested in betting on whether the $25 million offered for bin Laden will produce? i'm really hoping it does but am starting to wonder if it will. 16403. sakonige - 11/20/2001 3:34:39 PM Message # 16399 16404. ScottLoar - 11/20/2001 3:39:38 PM RustlerPike: Of Moore's movies the scene which raised the biggest stink was the roadside sign crudely lettered Rabbits - Pet or Meat. Michael drives in, asks the lady what the sign means, and she shows him, first introducing the bunnies, then showing her butchering and skinning operation; customers’ choice, pet or meat. Nothing Michael Moore’s ever done before or since has quite captured the level of social concern in these United States. 16405. wonkers2 - 11/20/2001 3:51:31 PM Michael Moore's only successful shot was at Roger Smith (former CEO of General Motors) who was a sitting duck. Even his own mother didn't like him. 16406. OhioSTOPAS - 11/20/2001 4:45:24 PM I think "women of cover" should at least get an honorable mention. 16407. wonkers2 - 11/20/2001 5:55:37 PM I missed that one. Roger and Me wasn't too bad. The rabbit lady was one of the best parts. 16408. arkymalarky - 11/20/2001 5:55:51 PM Why aren't Falwell and Robertson's remarks in FU's list? 16409. wonkers2 - 11/20/2001 6:00:57 PM They may be assholes, but they're his assholes. 16410. Cellar Door - 11/20/2001 6:22:48 PM I've always had an Adopt-a-Sailor Policy. 16411. robertjayb - 11/20/2001 6:27:13 PM Cellar, go to your room. 16412. Cellar Door - 11/20/2001 6:53:20 PM I can't get in -- it's full of sailors! 16413. Cellar Door - 11/20/2001 6:53:57 PM 16414. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:17:12 PM OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo 16415. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:18:52 PM Rabanni is gettin dumped on from all directions. 16416. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:20:01 PM Since when did Niner start reading TNR? 16417. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:20:38 PM I'm so fuckin literate PM will make me a co-moderator 16418. CalGal - 11/20/2001 7:26:17 PM Wonkers, 16419. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:45:14 PM I figger TNR is on a rabid rant...I figgered that one out long time ago..cancelled subscription til they get vaccinated 16420. CalGal - 11/20/2001 7:51:44 PM TNR has always been hawkish. But then it just reflects a split in the Dem population (although not Dem politicians). 16421. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:58:42 PM Yea mebbe so Cal...and I am rather hawkish myself but they've been over the top since 9/11... 16422. jexster - 11/20/2001 7:59:41 PM When 109109 starts readin TNR...time for a reality check! 16423. jexster - 11/20/2001 8:03:50 PM Sto... 16424. jexster - 11/20/2001 8:09:35 PM "Actually, the Bush team is encouraging this sort of talk with a State Department designation that Iraq is among six countries pursuing germ-warfare programs. That finding was helpfully leaked yesterday to USA Today and the New York Times." 16425. Cellar Door - 11/20/2001 8:24:52 PM What do you mean, jex? 16426. joezan - 11/20/2001 9:11:18 PM Jex means, since this whole Afghanistan deal is turning out much better than anyone hoped (dashing the wet dreams of millions of lefties who were lusting for images of starving, paraplegic Afghans), we cannot call it a war. Because GWB will get the credit, and we simply cannot have that - not with 2004 a mere 3 years away. 16427. jexster - 11/21/2001 12:11:43 AM Yea right....get UR cow costume on. 16428. jexster - 11/21/2001 12:13:32 AM Time for JoeZ to don his moo suit, gather up his snow man erector set and head off to Afghanistan to do some nation-building! 16429. stostosto - 11/21/2001 8:55:21 AM jexst, 16430. stostosto - 11/21/2001 9:04:35 AM Indiana: 16432. thoughtful - 11/21/2001 9:07:26 AM So weird in today's news about the 94 year old connecticut woman who has inhalation anthrax...small town...she never ventured very far...post office recently tested clean....very odd. 16433. rubberducky - 11/21/2001 9:07:58 AM more good news: 16434. marjoribanks - 11/21/2001 9:30:09 AM Excellent comments taken from the Guardian Forum: 16435. marjoribanks - 11/21/2001 9:39:09 AM A Happy Man 16436. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:02:55 AM "Deep reservations exist among allies in Europe, the Middle East and Russia over the advocacy by some Bush administration officials who want to expand military operations to other countries, especially by taking the next phase of the war to Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein once and for all." 16437. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:07:14 AM One great task of wartime leadership, said Eliot A. Cohen, a professor of strategic studies at Johns Hopkins University, "is not only to communicate resolve and determination and will, but to explain what you are doing and why you are doing it." 16438. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 10:10:13 AM sto: So you think there's an excellent chance he'll be out within the next year? Am I reading you correctly? 16439. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 10:11:34 AM Update on Huntington by Kaplan 16440. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 10:15:02 AM jexster-- 16441. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:16:24 AM I ferrgit Sto...youse one of dem wussie ferriner types.... 16442. stostosto - 11/21/2001 10:16:33 AM IJ, no just the opposite. Were I to bet against him remaining in power, I would require 25:1. In favour 2:1. 16443. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:20:19 AM "It's not a conventional war by past standards but I believe it fits a loose definition" 16444. marjoribanks - 11/21/2001 10:22:39 AM I'll make some pronouncements wrt Iraq. 16445. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:23:05 AM And psychologically at least if not sinisterly psychopolitical, I think that fact - the need to create a REAL war with all the domestic hoopti-doo that would entail is the motivation, if only subconcious, of the On to Baghdad thing... 16446. marjoribanks - 11/21/2001 10:23:37 AM I too like Powell. He talks straight, and does not sugar-coat, and has a far better instinctual understanding of the real world than any of the others who speak for the US right now. 16447. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:26:19 AM Of course, my understanding of war is born of studying history and of living through the last real war we had, draft number 33 - Vietnam 16448. Rama - 11/21/2001 10:31:37 AM Of course, my understanding of war is born of studying history and of living through the last real war we had, draft number 33 - Vietnam 16449. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:31:39 AM Grumbling grew Tuesday in the nation's capital over the disappearance of traditional events behind a curtain of security--the latest being the public viewing of the White House holiday decorations. - LAT 16450. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:32:20 AM That wasn't a war. 16451. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:33:55 AM But it was a damn sight closer to being one than this one is...Rama go watch a John Wayne movie 16452. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 10:36:03 AM sto: Okay, I understand you now (though it seems as though you want your cake and eat it too, since you don't give reciprocal odds!) 16453. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:37:35 AM A professor friend made the point the other day...watch the numbers you use...numbers have a way of becoming fact.... 16454. stostosto - 11/21/2001 10:38:14 AM it seems as though you want your cake and eat it too, since you don't give reciprocal odds 16455. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 10:47:16 AM jexster-- 16456. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:52:03 AM 55,000 dead is a war. 16457. jexster - 11/21/2001 10:54:04 AM More akin to the "war" against the Columbian drug cartel than to Vietnam...Korea...The Big One...The One to End All Ones...the 30 Years One..The Hundred Years One..The Peleponesian Ones...etc... 16458. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 10:54:17 AM 55,000 dead in how many years? 16459. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 10:56:15 AM 55,000 divided by just 7 years would be about 8,000 per year. Divided into months, that's around 670. 16460. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 11:00:27 AM Scott Loar -- Message # 16130 16461. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 11:00:33 AM 55,000 dead is a war. 16462. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 11:03:36 AM Iraq has been mentioned several times here as the next target, if not by you by PincherMartin, and you have wanted the US to declare war on several states because they are Islamic and guilty of sponsoring terrorism, have you not? 16463. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 11:04:06 AM The only way I think Saddam isn't taken out is if some unforeseen factor enters the equation. Based on the cards showing, he's going. 16464. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 11:04:59 AM Second, your belief that past is prelude to the future. Osama bin Laden raised the bar on what was thought possible. No matter if bin Laden dies, lives to fight on, or is captured, others will take heart from his example. Other groups will try to learn from his techniques and improve on them. If the U.S. stays vigilant, they shouldn't be too great a problem, but if it accepts your belief that Al Qaeda is an anomaly, there will certainly be successful large-scale attacks against the U.S. again. 16465. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 11:05:51 AM Here are the known attacks by international groups or persons on U.S. targets in the 1990s. Those in bold are attacks by groups or persons other than Al Qaeda: 16466. jexster - 11/21/2001 11:07:07 AM When the Warriour King tells us to get back to normal and shop til we drop, yet at the same time tells us we can't see the Texas Christmas at the White Palace, and when the good citizens of DC and the DC Chamber of Commerce bitch and moan... 16467. jexster - 11/21/2001 11:07:48 AM And use the Warriour King's Executive Orders as TP 16468. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 11:08:03 AM Indiana -- 16469. jexster - 11/21/2001 11:19:05 AM Hate just hate to agree with Pincher but the only cards I see are the hands of the Bush "Hawks" and you don't usually win card games by showing cards 16470. jexster - 11/21/2001 11:20:07 AM Tryin to finesse the King Mister Declarer...well here it is... 16471. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 11:22:39 AM PM: You have to talk it up before you can do it. Even with the WTC in rubble, we didn't just fire off a bunch of cruise missiles the next day (that would have been Clinton-style foreign policy). 16472. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 11:23:03 AM jexster-- 16473. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 11:29:34 AM Indy-- 16474. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 11:51:23 AM jexster-- 16475. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 11:51:38 AM Aytch, well, if it was easy, we surely would have done it by now. 16476. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 11:52:09 AM Indiana -- 16477. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 11:52:53 AM Initially, there were many reasons why we'd be hamstrung in Afghanistan. No way Pakistan was going to go along with us without a revolution. With this win under our belt, even the Saudis are trying to talk down the Mullahs. 16478. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 11:58:53 AM Scott Loar -- Message # 16131 16479. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 11:59:13 AM What could they gain from an attack on the US? I think much more than megalomania is needed to prompt a terrorist attack that kills hundreds or thousands; it needs a political purpose no matter how twisted. So, what political purpose would they have in attacking the US? 16480. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 12:05:32 PM PM: Done. 16481. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 12:08:03 PM indy 475-- 16482. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 12:10:48 PM indy and pm-- 16483. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 12:17:43 PM Scott Loar -- Message # 16132 16484. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 12:18:22 PM You think their ambition the destruction of the US despite evidence to the contrary? I note that most of the non-Muslim terrorist groups on that list share the characteristic of wanting to overthrow the existing, local government and installing a Marxist-Leninist regime. In this they are similar to the Muslim groups wanting to overthrow the existing, local government and install an Islamic fundamentalist regime. The few exceptions specifically target Israel, and the only exception to these all is that which targets the US specifically -Al-Qaeda. 16485. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 12:20:01 PM Indiana -- 16486. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 12:21:02 PM Aytch: We should have much better hooks into any relationship between 911 and Saddam after dismantling Al Qa'adeh in Afghanistan. 16487. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 12:25:14 PM PM: Why CalGal? 16488. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 12:25:47 PM "put it in escrow" 16489. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 12:36:20 PM Scott Loar -- Message # 16134 16490. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 12:41:45 PM Indiana -- 16491. Indiana Jones - 11/21/2001 12:44:46 PM Okey-dokey. I'm out of here for the holiday, but I'll check in with Francis via email as to arrangements. 16492. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 12:46:07 PM indy 486-- 16493. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 12:49:20 PM Scott Loar -- Message # 16135 16494. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 12:53:13 PM Scott Loar -- Message # 16138 16495. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 12:57:26 PM Indiana - 16496. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 1:10:59 PM re Message # 16465: I thought the attack of February 26, 1993 like that of June 25, 1996, were strongly connected to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which shows al-Qaeda is qualitatively different than other terrorist groups. I had no epiphany on terrorism come 9-11, but it seems al-Qaeda is an anomaly in its ability to organize and strike at the US mainland with such consequences. 16497. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 1:22:38 PM re Message # 16478 Japanese intelligence had not even heard of Aum before the subway strike, despite at serious attempts before then to effect mass casualties with anthrax. The attacks failed because in one instance the strain was that used for vaccinations (no health threat) and in another instances the sprayers became clogged. For this reason Aum went away from pathogens and toxins to chemicals delivered by gas - sarin. Aum Shinrikyo's efforts are very instructive for despite the group's wealth, technical expertise, facilities with state-of-the-art laboratories and equipment, and ability to move uncontrolled in a democratic society the group couldn't pull off an attack resulting in massive casualties (5,000 hospitalized, 12 dead). 16498. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 1:29:02 PM re Message # 16483, etc: Yes, I agree that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to the peace and security of US interests (where had I said differently?) so, no, I am not blind to the threat despite your squallings, but I necessarily differentiate in the abilities of these different groups - all of which espouse fundamentalism to some shrieking degree - with that of al-Qaeda. 16499. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 1:32:36 PM Now to revisit Taiwan. I said I feared Chen's election would foment war because I take the threats of China seriously, and later I said China would act in some way to demonstrate sovereignty over Taiwan, doubtlessly one of the silliest comments PincherMartin has ever read from someone with experience of the region. 16500. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 1:34:07 PM I thought the attack of February 26, 1993 like that of June 25, 1996, were strongly connected to bin Laden and al-Qaeda, which shows al-Qaeda is qualitatively different than other terrorist groups. I had no epiphany on terrorism come 9-11, but it seems al-Qaeda is an anomaly in its ability to organize and strike at the US mainland with such consequences. 16501. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 1:39:52 PM Message # 16497 16502. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 1:44:21 PM Aum Shinrikyo's efforts are very instructive for despite the group's wealth, technical expertise, facilities with state-of-the-art laboratories and equipment, and ability to move uncontrolled in a democratic society the group couldn't pull off an attack resulting in massive casualties (5,000 hospitalized, 12 dead). 16503. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 1:47:18 PM Yes, I agree that Islamic fundamentalism is a threat to the peace and security of US interests (where had I said differently?) 16504. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 2:14:58 PM Message # 16501: "A small intelligence agency, the Public Security Investigation Agency of the Ministry of Justice, handles national security matters both inside and outside the country. Mainly involved in counter-espionage, its activities are not generally known to the public. The Koancho was set up in 1952 as an agency to investigate and control internal subversion. It is staffed by some 1,800 investigators. Its activities focus mainly on the far left and right, as well as the Japan Communist Party, which was its main target during its early years. In addition, it is probably the single group in Japan that is most responsible for surveillance of resident Koreans At present, it is focusing its surveillance on Aum Shinrikyo, partly in a move to gain increased legitimacy." 16505. jexster - 11/21/2001 2:18:46 PM I love these puppies 16506. jexster - 11/21/2001 2:19:55 PM America would be in breach of its international obligations if it allowed the Northern Alliance to refuse to accept the surrender of Taliban soldiers in the Afghan cities of Kunduz and Kandahar, lawyers and human rights groups have warned. 16507. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 2:22:07 PM In January 1997 a government panel decided not to invoke the Anti-Subversive Law against Aum Shinrikyo which would have outlawed the sect for reason that the group posed no further threat to Japanese society because it was financially bankrupt and most of those wanted by police had been arrested. In 1998 Aum Shinrikyo membership and business activities rose and citizens protested the continuation of the group and even monitored and barricaded Aum facilities. The Japanese government did not act against Aum Shinrikyo before or until well after the 20 March 1995 sarin gas attack. 16508. jexster - 11/21/2001 2:22:38 PM " CAIRO, Nov. 20 To support their terrorism, they skimmed money from a charity for Muslim orphans in Albania and robbed an Italian diplomat's home in Jordan. They acquired or forged seals from universities, border guards and the Saudi Arabian Interior Ministry. 16509. rubberducky - 11/21/2001 2:24:13 PM they aren't offering to 'surrender'. they are offering to run with their tail tucked between their legs. 16510. rubberducky - 11/21/2001 2:24:39 PM my 16509 was to Jex's 16506, btw 16511. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 2:25:12 PM The Japanese residents immediately around Aum Shinrikyo's known headquarters compound did everything short of mass suicide in 1998 to prompt the government to act against the group. 16512. rubberducky - 11/21/2001 2:31:57 PM 16513. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 2:35:53 PM Message # 16503: That's your interpretation of what I said, and here I'm saying it to you again, al-Qaeda seem to be an anomaly in projecting terror beyond its base. 16514. AytchMan - 11/21/2001 2:38:53 PM jex-- 16515. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 2:45:45 PM Scott Loar -- 16516. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 2:58:17 PM That's your interpretation of what I said, and here I'm saying it to you again, al-Qaeda seem to be an anomaly in projecting terror beyond its base. 16517. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 3:05:32 PM rd: 16518. rubberducky - 11/21/2001 3:11:36 PM Pike, yeah, but still - she bothered no one and certainly was innocent and thus undeserving of this. 16519. Cellar Door - 11/21/2001 3:15:51 PM And how DID she get infected with Anthrax? 16520. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 3:24:35 PM You simply reiterate your own stupidity even as you busily cover your own tracks to make your opinions seem more reasonable than they are. 16521. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 3:28:52 PM And, yes, 5 years was what I gave for for al-Qaeda and right now its an anomaly, I don't see more terrorist organizations outside the US with the aim or capabilities of al-Qaeda neither do I foresee them reaching the capabilities or al-Qaeda nor inflict the damage of al-Qaeda on 9-11, especially now that the US has experience of such terrorism on its own shores. Now, what's so stupid to understand about that? 16522. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 3:35:06 PM Corrigendum: the capabilities of al-Qaeda nor inflict the damage as al-Qaeda on 9-11 16523. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 3:41:33 PM PincherMartin's descriptions of me: "Old coot", "stupid", "dipshit", "silly", "a living fossil". Yet I still reply to this guy. 16524. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 3:54:00 PM I guess it's part of his conception of what elevates the quality of a discussion. 16525. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 3:58:02 PM Then, PincherMartin, if I'm stupid and connive to cover my mistakes then why do you insist on commenting to me? 16526. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 3:59:57 PM ArkyMalarky, 16527. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:05:47 PM Duck: 16528. janjon - 11/21/2001 4:06:25 PM "woman" is pretty revealing, pincer. 16529. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:06:27 PM At least that's where I conduct mine. 16530. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:06:39 PM (actually she looks nice). 16531. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:07:04 PM And don't call me "woman." My gender has jack to do with anything in here. 16532. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:07:25 PM (sexy 94 year old librarian type) 16533. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:07:47 PM Woman! 16534. janjon - 11/21/2001 4:07:59 PM well, you could always call him "boy", arky. 16535. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 4:08:03 PM I believe al-Qaeda an anomaly, you don't; I yield to time to tell, you won't. I remember what you've called me, you can't. I may have an exaggerated sense of self-dignity but you have cut me more than once and I thought I did not deserve so. 16536. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:08:06 PM That old lady's death is even more bizarre than the Vietnamese woman's. At least Ms. Nguyen was in NYC, where some anthrax mail had been. 16537. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:08:33 PM Arky's a wo-man! Arky's a wo-man! Na na nana na! 16538. janjon - 11/21/2001 4:09:09 PM and, it indeed will be interesting to determine how this 94 year old, who lead a very sedentary life in a small rural town, contracted anthrax. 16539. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:09:34 PM janjon: 16540. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:10:27 PM RP, 16541. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:10:28 PM That woman was Al-Qaeda's chief gunrunner. 16542. janjon - 11/21/2001 4:11:20 PM Ms. Nguyen was a vivacious, attractive 61 year old who, for all anyone knows, may have been dating a postman (unlikely, or if so, he's probably married since none has come forth). 16543. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:12:10 PM hopefully she was a packrat and kept her mail for a while, etc. 16544. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:12:10 PM She was actually slated to be the main muscle on Mohammad Atta's team but they preferred to leave her behind because they needed her expertise in bombs etc. 16545. janjon - 11/21/2001 4:13:39 PM well, reclusive was probably the wrong word. She did see her hairdresser regularly. 16546. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:13:42 PM 'Old Lady Jihad' was her nick. 16547. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 4:15:23 PM Arky, 16548. RustlerPike - 11/21/2001 4:15:47 PM 'Ottilie Lundgren', eh? Does anybody really buy that? 16549. janjon - 11/21/2001 4:18:54 PM pincher - you've either not been very observant or if so very perceptive, then. 16550. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 4:22:58 PM Thanks for the comments, janjon. Then you shouldn't have any problem linking me to these substantial comments of Arky's where she shows herself capable of laying out some kind of sustained argument. 16551. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:23:43 PM You're a moron Pincher. I've had numerous discussions here, and that you haven't read them shows more about your narrowness than anything. I've been extensively involved in book discussions and many other subjects at various points here and in the Fray over the last four years. Look in the archives if you want confirmation, you pompous dumbass. 16552. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:25:35 PM And you can look stuff up yourself if you're so damned interested. I couldn't care less about trying to validate my contributions here to the likes of you. 16553. janjon - 11/21/2001 4:27:01 PM pincher. nah. do your own homework. at least that way you will stop digging your own (baffling) hole. 16554. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:30:18 PM Thank you Janjon. I really appreciate that. 16555. janjon - 11/21/2001 4:33:36 PM arky - it is so obvious that it makes pincher's little snotty snit even more revealing. 16556. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 4:34:35 PM Sorry but that just doesn't do it. Please be more specific about where I can look, Arky. What in particular have you been doing to add so much to the discussion. I have fairly good sense of what a person has contributed and I remember you have always been around, and that you like to talk about books and lanaguage, but never in any depth or at any length. I know you're big about form. I know you are from Arkansas and the South and a teacher. 16557. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 4:36:35 PM janjon -- 16558. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:39:11 PM Surely you know how to use the "find" option. I never look in the archives myself, so I'm not sure what's there. I've had numerous discussions over four years. I'm confident you can find one that suits you. Or not. 16559. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:39:59 PM I make one remark and it's constant nagging. Too rich. 16560. marjoribanks - 11/21/2001 4:41:10 PM Pincher, 16561. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 4:43:09 PM "Constant nagging...." You certainly like hyperbole. It adds to my suspicions of your misogyny as well. 16562. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:43:35 PM Thank you Marj. 16563. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 4:45:42 PM I have seen you make about four separate comments about the issue in different threads here, Arky, since I've returned. 16564. marjoribanks - 11/21/2001 4:46:04 PM Speaking of Education, I do miss our old friend philipdavid. I wish I could get his perspective on a lot of the things that have been discussed on this thread, for instance. 16565. marjoribanks - 11/21/2001 4:46:59 PM Anyway, I have a lot of cooking to do. 16566. janjon - 11/21/2001 4:48:25 PM To coin a phrase,marj - adios. 16567. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:48:40 PM I think he may have popped in for a moment a few weeks ago. Maybe he'll find a bit of time to spend here over the holiday season. 16568. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:49:03 PM See ya, Marj. 16569. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 4:51:47 PM Marj, 16570. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 4:58:40 PM Well, I admitted it was possible, but most of Arky's comments that I've seen seem to be moralizing in the guise of serious chat about something. 16571. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 5:04:21 PM Your comprehension and attention to content is much less than I had imagined. Since you said you were giving it a rest, I'll assume this is your last obnoxious remark directed at me. 16572. CalGal - 11/21/2001 5:04:39 PM Fighting Back With Science and Technology 16573. rubberducky - 11/21/2001 5:09:44 PM PM (and anyone else): 16574. ScottLoar - 11/21/2001 5:54:31 PM Thank you rubberducky, a judicious decision. (Yes, you knew that, but indulge me and let me reinforce the obvious.) 16575. dusty - 11/21/2001 6:36:08 PM PincherMartin 16576. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 6:40:41 PM Thank you Dusty. 16577. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 6:42:30 PM I just heard that the Taliban surrendered Kunduz, but it's not on the ABC news. ABC reported that a Saudi Arabian news agency had reported that bin Ladin had given instructions to his closest aides to shoot him if the US surrounded him. 16578. wonkers2 - 11/21/2001 6:45:06 PM Why wouldn't he shoot himself? Against his religion? 16579. CalGal - 11/21/2001 6:47:45 PM Ha, I was wondering the same thing. Maybe he's afraid he'll be too chickenshit. 16580. dusty - 11/21/2001 6:57:24 PM OT 16581. dusty - 11/21/2001 7:02:10 PM Arky - I just sent it. 16582. arkymalarky - 11/21/2001 7:06:20 PM Thank you so much Dusty!!! 16583. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 7:20:19 PM RubbyDucky, 16584. PincherMartin - 11/21/2001 7:22:33 PM Rubby, 16585. dusty - 11/21/2001 7:25:17 PM rd 16586. PincherMartin - 11/22/2001 4:49:55 AM RubberDucky, 16587. PincherMartin - 11/22/2001 4:58:42 AM Indiana Jones, I'm waiting for that e-mail 16588. jexster - 11/22/2001 11:13:13 AM 16589. jexster - 11/22/2001 11:14:11 AM If Powell had his way, he'd settle Palestine first and THAT may be the bargain that resolves the bureaucratic skirmishes. 16590. jexster - 11/22/2001 11:15:44 AM Take out Sharon and RP's Killer Squad would be freed for the Main Event! 16591. jexster - 11/22/2001 11:21:50 AM Marj's Marauders: 16592. jexster - 11/22/2001 12:59:19 PM Commander Dotsum sez that Marjie's bois who surrendered will have to face Afghan justice (tank treads) while Agfhan Talis get an amnesty. 16593. jexster - 11/22/2001 1:02:42 PM ALWAYS shy of publicity, the Special Boat Service enlisted the help of Afghanistan's state security ministry - known as the local KGB - to shield it from prying eyes as it set about creating new quarters at the Soviet-built Bagram air base yesterday. 16594. jexster - 11/22/2001 1:10:40 PM 16595. Cellar Door - 11/22/2001 1:14:48 PM 16596. robertjayb - 11/22/2001 1:17:05 PM Taliban Agree to Surrender Kunduz 16597. jexster - 11/22/2001 1:23:34 PM That's GREAT Cellar! 16598. jexster - 11/22/2001 1:38:11 PM 16599. wonkers2 - 11/22/2001 2:18:40 PM Good link Cellar. The Ashcroft/Anthrax/Axis angle hadn't occurred to me. 16600. wonkers2 - 11/22/2001 2:20:07 PM The foreign mercenaries who surrender in Kunduz are to get a fair trial before they are shot! 16601. joezan - 11/22/2001 8:45:27 PM Oooh - call the ACLU. 16602. jexster - 11/22/2001 9:00:33 PM Office of Homeland Security - Disaster Waiting to Happen 16603. jexster - 11/22/2001 9:06:23 PM Chelsea Stands Up for America Against Oxford Communists 16604. joezan - 11/22/2001 9:08:02 PM Wow. 16605. joezan - 11/22/2001 9:25:53 PM Kinda ironic, innit, that Chelsea gets to see first-hand the rabid, unfounded anti-USA sentiments as an American at Oxford - the same place that no doubt helped form her dad's politics - and feels unjustly put-upon. 16606. jexster - 11/22/2001 10:26:47 PM "The bigger the SUV, the bigger the flag. I don't doubt the patriotism of the drivers, but couldn't they show their patriotism a little better by putting their flags on a smaller car?"--Alliance to Save Energy prez David Nemtzow....we import 700K barrels of oil from Iraq every day. 16607. joezan - 11/22/2001 10:44:55 PM What the hell happened here? 16608. joezan - 11/22/2001 10:46:30 PM Well, whatever it was, it seems almost fixed now. (The thread list that's supposed to be in the butter bar was directly below jex's last post). 16609. Cellar Door - 11/22/2001 10:53:57 PM Spudboy's already on the case, joe. 16610. joezan - 11/22/2001 11:10:43 PM Whew! 16611. arkymalarky - 11/22/2001 11:29:21 PM Y'know, Spuds' politics might not agree with some here, but he does great work and he well researches what he writes about. I think he was a wonderful asset to the Mote and I hate that he's gone. 16612. jexster - 11/22/2001 11:51:05 PM Hear tell the French have arrived. 16613. jexster - 11/22/2001 11:54:20 PM That article was RIGHT on...making points that many here have made over...and over...and over....the wingnut fascist right-taliban..same same... 16614. Al D - 11/23/2001 3:42:52 AM arky 16615. RustlerPike - 11/23/2001 6:04:15 AM I hate Nortel Networks. 16616. joezan - 11/23/2001 8:02:58 AM (From cellar's link): 16617. joezan - 11/23/2001 8:03:44 AM Pike: 16618. RustlerPike - 11/23/2001 9:22:22 AM Joe: 16619. joezan - 11/23/2001 9:43:26 AM I hear you, Pike. 16620. rubberducky - 11/23/2001 10:07:47 AM Re: Message # 16586, PincherMartin. 16621. Cellar Door - 11/23/2001 10:57:03 AM When did I ever call to KILL! various Republicans? 16622. Rama - 11/23/2001 11:04:16 AM When did I ever call to KILL! various Republicans? 16623. Rama - 11/23/2001 11:05:05 AM 16624. RustlerPike - 11/23/2001 11:14:46 AM You got me there, Joe, you miserable fuck! 16625. RustlerPike - 11/23/2001 11:19:30 AM Pretty soon they'll be using other Lennon lyrics too. There's that song from Imagine that goes (roughly): 'I'm sick and tired of hearing things from cocksucking yellow-bellied tricky-dick Nortel Network politicians-cum-businessmen who claim hippitude'... Know that one? 16626. taboulijones - 11/23/2001 11:44:18 AM Sorry if this is off topic, but . . . 16627. jexster - 11/23/2001 12:42:30 PM Are you a terrorist? If you don't know, you'd better find out fast. Because Uncle Sam's made a list and he's checking it twice -- "40 to 50 countries" targeted for possible "U.S. action," according to America's securely-located vice president, Dick "Chicken Hawk" Cheney. As the man says, a hard rain's a-gonna fall. 16628. Rama - 11/23/2001 6:13:14 PM Drinking all of that watery piss-colored pilsner, I am sure you are. No wonder you're an Anglican. It's amazing you aren't gay! 16629. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/23/2001 9:04:11 PM Ecce Homo!!! 16630. Property of Jesus - 11/23/2001 9:16:25 PM Dispatch from Mazar-i-Sharif 16631. joezan - 11/23/2001 10:09:52 PM Pike: 16632. Property of Jesus - 11/23/2001 10:29:25 PM Our financial advisor tells us that the Dow will gain 250 points if ObL is reduced to a grease spot, and a mere 50 points if he is taken alive. 16633. jexster - 11/23/2001 10:39:53 PM I would say PoJ that reducing the death of any one, even an EVILDOER to the bottom line of your portfolio, means only one thing 16634. jexster - 11/24/2001 12:08:16 AM Get right with God POJ! 16635. jexster - 11/24/2001 12:18:22 AM 16636. jexster - 11/24/2001 12:32:16 AM WANTED! 16637. joezan - 11/24/2001 10:28:39 AM Hey, jex! 16638. Cellar Door - 11/24/2001 10:29:55 AM 16639. wonkers2 - 11/24/2001 10:31:30 AM Thanks, Cellar. It would have taken me a half hour to do the link. 16640. jexster - 11/24/2001 10:49:58 AM Is this predictable or what! 16641. jexster - 11/24/2001 10:50:59 AM Intriguing question JoeZ... 16642. jexster - 11/24/2001 10:53:34 AM Oh shocking! 16643. jexster - 11/24/2001 11:19:22 AM Print war journalism is an art apparently lost to the US media...not so the Times of London! 16644. LohrM - 11/24/2001 6:06:53 PM Cool article-- and a cool strike... Good for the US Special Forces. Every gallon burnt is one less gallon that goes to Taliban vehicles or generators. 16645. LohrM - 11/24/2001 6:07:00 PM Cool article-- and a cool strike... Good for the US Special Forces. Every gallon burnt is one less gallon that goes to Taliban vehicles or generators. 16646. joezan - 11/24/2001 10:21:18 PM Looks like Ace was (almost) right...but what happened to countries starting with B through R? 16647. joezan - 11/24/2001 10:22:31 PM Gotta keep that MO goin'! 16648. RustlerPike - 11/24/2001 11:04:51 PM Well - if that's true (the Sunday Times article) then maybe the Bushsters are actually quite clever. What they they will be doing is to systematically go after Al-Qaeda, but at the same time they will be totally humiliating the Arabs as a whole, by entering country after country and doing as they please within them, with or without the leadership's consent. 16649. joezan - 11/24/2001 11:09:22 PM I'm trying to crack the code, myself. 16650. joezan - 11/24/2001 11:10:25 PM ..unless we do Yemen before Somalia. 16651. RustlerPike - 11/25/2001 1:32:05 AM Joe: 16652. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 1:58:50 PM There is no way that the US will either get the mandate or have the capability to act unilaterally in Yemen, at least on anything remotely like the scale of the Afghan campaign. Somalia, perhaps. Sudan, very unlikely. 16653. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 2:02:39 PM Furthermore, if the US does make any kind of move in Africa, it will face immense pressure to again 'stay the course' in the whole continent, and mount another even grander effort to "solve" some of the long-term problems faced in the entire continent including instability of all kinds, and poverty. 16654. joezan - 11/25/2001 2:05:18 PM I dunno, marj. 16655. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 2:10:51 PM Absolutely, Powell can count on my vote, he is a smart man with a fairly sophisticated instinct in world affairs. 16656. joezan - 11/25/2001 2:13:09 PM Uh oh.... 16657. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 2:13:31 PM Krugman's latest - read it and weep. 16658. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 2:17:04 PM I am not aware (none of us are) about the details of these "prison riots." However, they do read rather suspiciously like an excuse for the outright massacre of the foreign Taliban fighters. Look at what happened in Kunduz, where all 300 who "rioted" have been killed, and what will most likely happen in Mazar. 16659. joezan - 11/25/2001 2:19:36 PM Uh, marj? 16660. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 2:21:17 PM Oh, then it must be true, Zan. Hell, if Fox News says so, it just has to be. 16661. joezan - 11/25/2001 2:23:08 PM Washington Post, genius. 16662. RustlerPike - 11/25/2001 2:24:03 PM Yeah Joe. Just because you see it with your own eyes and hear it with your own ears doesn't make it true. Fool! 16663. joezan - 11/25/2001 2:25:57 PM But even if we did bomb them all to hell for no reason, who cares? We had all the reason in the world to shoot them as they walked out of town with their hands up. 16664. joezan - 11/25/2001 2:28:50 PM Here's the report filed live as it happened from Alex Perry, Time Magazine reporter. 16665. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 2:28:58 PM We had all the reason in the world to shoot them as they walked out of town with their hands up. 16666. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 2:32:43 PM Naturally, I am not particularly concerned with the fate of the Taliban fighters, especially the foreigners. I remain more interested in having the US look high-minded and thus maintain what global mandate it still holds to continue its push against the global jihadis. 16667. joezan - 11/25/2001 2:34:58 PM What "episodes"? 16668. judithathome - 11/25/2001 2:35:09 PM having the US look high-minded and thus maintain what global mandate it still holds to continue its push against the global jihadis. 16669. RustlerPike - 11/25/2001 2:41:01 PM Read that report. The riots were sparked by a reporter from marj's favorite paper. 16670. Francis Urquhart - 11/25/2001 4:43:27 PM Krugman evinces the desperation of those who must find daily villainy in the actions of their political nemeses, when all one has to do is wait - 4 to 8 years of any one administration almost naturally produces some legitimate wrongdoing, without having to resort to the "It is I, and only I, who sees the filthy lucre in the hands of the moneychangers and lenders as they mask their greed in Old Glory!" 16671. CalGal - 11/25/2001 4:51:48 PM Hey. Bill scares me bad. 16672. arkymalarky - 11/25/2001 4:55:37 PM An administration's actions can be despicable without rising to the level of some of the biggest scandals in our history. Legitimate criticism of those actions doesn't automatically rise to a level that can be labeled hysterical. The hyperbole comes from FU's post via the ex post facto suggested comparison, not from Marj's. 16673. Francis Urquhart - 11/25/2001 5:27:45 PM I was addressing Mr. Krugman's column and marj's alarm at what was contained therein. I can only suggest that you read the subject of a discussion prior to comment, as I never once criticized marj for making any comparison. 16674. judithathome - 11/25/2001 5:32:50 PM I feel as though I've stumbled into a 19th century drawing room... 16675. CalGal - 11/25/2001 5:32:54 PM Can measure be futured? Isn't it a given that any measure will be future, given that her excitability is present? 16676. Francis Urquhart - 11/25/2001 5:35:45 PM A query for the Language Thread. 16677. Francis Urquhart - 11/25/2001 5:38:44 PM I do appreciate arky's unintended labeling of Krugman's observations as both hysterical and hyperbolic. In these observations, she has stumbled into rectitude, and her good fortune should be applauded. 16678. Indiana Jones - 11/25/2001 5:48:12 PM Time correspondent describes Mazar riot 16679. Indiana Jones - 11/25/2001 5:56:18 PM US troops arriving in "waves" near Kandahar 16680. arkymalarky - 11/25/2001 5:58:23 PM FU, 16681. Francis Urquhart - 11/25/2001 5:59:19 PM I am just leaving, however, I am honored to have been selected as trustee. I can be reached at slawyer@hotmail.com. 16682. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 6:10:02 PM Paul Krugman is a professor of economics at MIT. His views on economics are orthodox and pretty middle of the road. He hasn't yet won a Nobel Prize but he is respected economist. Obviously he's a Democrat. That's what Irkheart finds nettlesome more than anything else, but he is never able to attack the substance of what Krugman has to say, rather he calls him "a eunuch" while criticizing Krugman's hyperbole! Marjoribanks should continue to rely on Krugman's op-eds for a thoughtful critique of GOP thuggery. 16683. Francis Urquhart - 11/25/2001 6:23:53 PM arky 16684. Francis Urquhart - 11/25/2001 6:24:51 PM Ladies, gentlemen. 16685. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 6:31:33 PM Krugman's comments on Bush/GOP budgets have been dead right, supported by Robert Rubin, Clinton's most universally respected cabinet member, and by most academic non-voodoo economists. A certain amount of hyperbole is expected of op-ed writers. Krugman uses less than most. 16686. arkymalarky - 11/25/2001 6:38:47 PM Yes, I know, FU. I read it. I got it. I misread your response to Marj as suggesting his response to Krugman's article was hysterical. IMO, the article's comparisons are at this point excessive--though I certainly empathize with his concerns--and if carried out as a comparison to end results (major corruption and scandals) rather than "eerie similarities," it would strike me as hyperbole. 16687. CalGal - 11/25/2001 6:41:22 PM I have been disappointed by Krugman for a while now, particularly when he wanders outside of economics--although even there I don't place anywhere near the reliance that I used to, given his wails. Moving to the Times did wonders for his own personal economics, I'm sure, but he's been much less balanced. I don't cite him anymore without backup, and that wasn't true at the beginning of the year. 16688. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 7:42:55 PM Why don't you write him and tell him. I'm sure it will ruin his day. I'm sure almost everybody is interested to know that CalGal isn't relying on Paul Krugman anymore, but what, specifically, is it that you disagree with? Do you think a retroactive $800million tax gift to General Motors is a good idea? What Krugman has written about Bush's tax/budget/stimulus/Social Security proposals has been pretty standard, middle of the road/Robert Rubin/academic economics stuff. I grant you he has expressed his opinions a bit more stridently than he would in the classroom, but to imply that he's sold out to the NY Times is unfair to him and the Times. 16689. greystoke - 11/25/2001 7:44:47 PM From Indy's link about the prison riot, an eyewitness account: 16690. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 7:46:20 PM There's a curious little item running across the bottom of the CNN or Fox or Msnbc screen about the disappearance of a Harvard University expert on biotechnology. Apparently he attended a scientific meeting last week and then disappeared. His car was found abandoned on a bridge. 16691. CalGal - 11/25/2001 7:52:49 PM I'm sure almost everybody is interested to know that CalGal isn't relying on Paul Krugman anymore, but what, specifically, is it that you disagree with? 16692. Absensia - 11/25/2001 8:01:17 PM Wonks: 16693. joezan - 11/25/2001 8:02:08 PM I heard on the news (CBS radio out of Chicago) that he has worked extensively with ebola. 16694. greystoke - 11/25/2001 8:04:55 PM CalGal 16695. greystoke - 11/25/2001 8:06:20 PM Joe, 16696. joezan - 11/25/2001 8:11:21 PM Yea - but I only mentioned that because wonk had said suicide was implicit in the crawler he read. 16697. joezan - 11/25/2001 8:12:17 PM I wonder if they've checked the local pumpkin patches? 16698. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 8:21:25 PM I see no reason to defend Krugman, or my reading of his pieces. As far as I am concerned, he has largely shown himself to be a clear-eyed nonpartisan when it comes to economic matters, and has underlined this status again and again in his books. I challenge anyone to detect partisan bias in his writings, all of them, and those who would mindlessly tender a complaint that he is somehow "picking on" Republicans are specifically urged to leaf through his book 'Pop Internationalism." 16699. jexster - 11/25/2001 8:41:13 PM Right on Marj...its so obvious even Francine should be able to understand. 16700. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 9:31:17 PM The whole Kunduz episode just gets more and more curious when you examine it a bit more closely. There have been wildly contradictory stories about every important aspect, from the number of fighters holed up there to the nature of various deals. It does not help, of course, that there are two different NA commanders with troops involved, and their approach to everything differs. 16701. joezan - 11/25/2001 9:34:54 PM Sounds to me like they're getting moles out or something. 16702. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 9:37:16 PM Six planefuls of moles, credulous Zan, flown out of a city controlled entirely by the "hard-core" of the Taliban. 16703. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 9:41:29 PM A Man, A Plan, Afghanistan -Ahmed Rashid 16704. joezan - 11/25/2001 9:52:32 PM Well, it could also be some kind of swap. 16705. marjoribanks - 11/25/2001 10:04:17 PM Try to read a bit more closely, dear Zan. The city where the flights have gone in and out is Kunduz, you know the city massively "under siege", the one with thousands of "hard-core" foreign Taliban, etc etc. 16706. Absensia - 11/25/2001 10:07:52 PM CNN is just now reporting that the US Marines (about 1200-1500) have landed near Kandahar, yes, Kandahar! 16707. joezan - 11/25/2001 10:08:27 PM I meant Kunduz, wiseass. 16708. Absensia - 11/25/2001 10:10:50 PM But I mean Kandahar. This could be interesting. 16709. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 11:05:57 PM Cal, read the whole column, not just the part picked up by Irkheart. The column had everything to do with economics. [And the politics of pork barrel economics on K Street and in the Congress, especially on the GOP side of the aisle. 16710. wonkers2 - 11/25/2001 11:06:39 PM CNN is reporting an anthrax letter sent from Switzerland to Chile. 16711. Snowowl - 11/25/2001 11:09:44 PM That's old news. It's a bit odd, the letter was postmarked in Switzerland but had a return address in Florida. 16712. Al D - 11/26/2001 3:43:14 AM I see old Boney Stokes, a.k.a. marjoribanks is still spreading joy. We need Ace to kick his butt. 16718. rubberducky - 11/26/2001 8:45:57 AM the above missing posts (16713 - 16717) were moved to a more appropriate thread, Suggestions. please do not continue it here. 16719. marjoribanks - 11/26/2001 9:26:09 AM Fear works. 16720. Property of Jesus - 11/26/2001 10:05:44 AM Should be added to links, ducky. 16721. rubberducky - 11/26/2001 10:10:27 AM i added a new 'Military Campaign Related Links' section in the butter bar with PoJ's link. if you have any more links that relate to the campaign that aren't individual news items, then tell me and i'll link them. 16722. marjoribanks - 11/26/2001 11:20:44 AM Abdullah Abdullah says (to AFP) that he is convinced that Mullah Omar and bin Laden are together and possible simultaneously stranded and on the run. This could perhaps explain the sudden US influx of troops outside Kandahar. 16723. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/26/2001 11:36:47 AM 16724. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 11/26/2001 11:39:47 AM 16725. judithathome - 11/26/2001 11:44:20 AM I heard that Leahys letter hasn't been opened but that it contains enough anthrax to infect many thousands...seems as though they said 100,000. How could they know this if they haven't even opened it? 16726. RustlerPike - 11/26/2001 11:45:36 AM Heh heh heh WoW - the second one is great. 16727. Cellar Door - 11/26/2001 11:49:38 AM 16728. Indiana Jones - 11/26/2001 11:50:19 AM They're both good. 16729. Property of Jesus - 11/26/2001 11:52:12 AM They don't, Judy. Sen Leahy is a liberal Democrat. Enough said. 16730. marjoribanks - 11/26/2001 11:58:29 AM CNN International is a lot better than the domestic pap. I agree with much of what that writer says about the stuff we get here in the US, it's tendentious rubbish except when there is a compelling live feed of some kind. 16731. Property of Jesus - 11/26/2001 12:01:33 PM I'm still a fan of BBC radio. Fortunately our NPR stations airs their long-format news programming late at night. 16732. bubbaette - 11/26/2001 12:26:46 PM Good ones, Wiz. I especially like the Cosmotaliban. 16733. Cellar Door - 11/26/2001 2:28:13 PM 16734. Raskolnikov - 11/26/2001 2:59:52 PM The choice of Anthrax targets certainly fits a hypothetical list of right wing targets better than it fits a list of Islamic fundamentalist targets. But I have trouble believing that right wing whackos would want to distract the government right now. Unless "whackos" is really the operative word. 16735. judithathome - 11/26/2001 3:01:52 PM Sending anthrax through the mail in leaky envelopes? I'd say "whacko" aptly describes them... 16736. CalGal - 11/26/2001 3:03:35 PM But I have trouble believing that right wing whackos would want to distract the government right now. 16737. Raskolnikov - 11/26/2001 3:11:11 PM Judith: I mean "whacko" as a synonym for clinically insane - paranoid schizophrenia, etc. Not "whacko" as slang for someone with fucked up values, like a McVeigh. 16738. Francis Urquhart - 11/26/2001 3:23:29 PM On Anthrax and Possible Sources 16739. CalGal - 11/26/2001 3:24:20 PM Is it anthrax letters that are popping up, or anthrax tainted letters? 16740. CalGal - 11/26/2001 3:24:54 PM Besides, the FBI always says it's a male loner. It's the only answer their computer is programmed to spit out. 16741. Snowowl - 11/26/2001 3:33:59 PM Where in the world are all these anthrax letters popping up? The only verified anthrax letters received outside the US seem to be in Chile and possibly Pakistan. 16744. rubberducky - 11/26/2001 4:16:58 PM posts pertaining to the e-mail hoax have been deleted. 16745. joezan - 11/26/2001 6:18:36 PM Good ones, WoW. 16746. RustlerPike - 11/27/2001 4:34:04 AM Anthrax letters, everybody - watch out: 16747. jexster - 11/27/2001 10:09:57 AM 16748. jexster - 11/28/2001 11:53:29 AM 16749. ronski - 11/28/2001 12:30:00 PM I can't think of a link I would be less likely to open than the above. 16750. Wombat - 11/28/2001 12:32:11 PM Ronski: 16751. Rama - 11/28/2001 12:36:28 PM I think people in general are beginning to see that Chomsky is a clever nutcase. 16752. RustlerPike - 11/28/2001 1:14:14 PM Chomsky personifies anti-emotion, anti-instinct, anti-natural, anti-music, anti-inspiration: anti-everything other than intellectual dissection of everything. He also thinks he knows more, and is better, than everybody else, because he dissects things with his intellectual morality and others are all instinct-driven beasts. 16753. dusty - 11/28/2001 1:49:35 PM Finally, the Wow creates something interesting. Kudos. 16754. ronski - 11/28/2001 1:53:30 PM Wombat, 16755. Wombat - 11/28/2001 2:15:59 PM Chomsky's political maunderings were last given a respectful hearing by people other than his acolytes during Vietnam. 16756. RustlerPike - 11/28/2001 3:53:52 PM I don't think WoW made those. WoW usually signs his works. Sometimes he just 'img src'es other people's works. 16757. RustlerPike - 11/28/2001 3:54:21 PM (which he likes and wants to show us). 16758. RustlerPike - 11/28/2001 3:55:19 PM The WoW expects us to notice that they are not in his style of illustration and that they lack his signature. 16759. jexster - 11/28/2001 4:25:00 PM House GOP Blocks Funds for War on Evil 16760. OhioSTOPAS - 11/28/2001 6:01:23 PM President Bush won't stand for that, Jex. He promised $20 billion for relief and rebuilding in New York. Since he's not Clowntoon, I'm sure he'll keep his promise. 16761. jexster - 11/28/2001 8:25:43 PM "When Pakistan ditched its ally, the Taliban, in September, and sided with the U.S., Islamabad and Washington fully expected to implant a pro-American regime in Kabul and open the way for the 16762. jexster - 11/28/2001 8:32:22 PM From a 1996 article... 16763. jexster - 11/28/2001 8:37:09 PM My buddy Commander Dostum is gettin fine press on NBC...seems like his fondness for tank tread tortures is sharp as ever. 16764. Andonly - 11/29/2001 1:18:24 AM This Guardian piece of shit is priceless: 16765. RustlerPike - 11/29/2001 2:04:18 AM Actually, Ando, it's not quite as shitty a piece of shit as some other pieces I've read in The Gurdian. It's true that Sabra and Shatila was a war crime and it's true that what is going on in Afghanistan is a massacre. 16766. RustlerPike - 11/29/2001 2:05:47 AM And it's the first time I saw an admission anywhere - certainly by the likes of the Guardian - that Sharon indeed paid a very high price, politically, for Sabra and Shatila. 16767. RustlerPike - 11/29/2001 2:09:16 AM It does seem to me though that the US and its allies are butchering people like mad over there, including civilians, while we in Israel aren't even allowed to occupy a town like Jenin, which has become one big terror nest. 16768. stostosto - 11/29/2001 5:32:18 AM Rustler: 16769. Indiana Jones - 11/29/2001 9:15:24 AM The American public is increasingly supportive of the idea of widening the war to include Iraq. Three-quarters of Americans in the Nov. 26-27 poll favor sending Americans troops back into the Persian Gulf in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power. This is similar to June 1993 responses, but marks a significant increase from last February, when only 52% said that the United States should attempt to remove Saddam Hussein from power. 16770. marjoribanks - 11/29/2001 9:35:13 AM Fisk. 16771. marjoribanks - 11/29/2001 9:37:28 AM Coincidentally, Fisk has another new article in the Independent on Sabra and Chatila. 16772. stostosto - 11/29/2001 10:18:49 AM Fisk's comparison between Taliban/al-Qaeda and Nazis is misleading. (As is FU's many similar analogies). 16773. jexster - 11/29/2001 10:35:48 AM The insurance industry's lobbying campaign for federal help covering future terrorism claims was in full swing last month when a group representing Lloyd's of London investors published a newsletter highlighting the "historic opportunity" for insurers to make money after the Sept. 11 attacks. 16774. marjoribanks - 11/29/2001 10:38:01 AM I also think that killing Al-Qaeda members, if they can be sorted out, are probably better simply killed, though I think the images and record of a top honcho or two being submitted to trial would be good. 16775. marjoribanks - 11/29/2001 10:41:30 AM Eliminate that first "killing" please. 16776. Andonly - 11/29/2001 10:43:59 AM Sto's 16772 is just right. 16777. Cellar Door - 11/29/2001 10:44:52 AM "It's just that sometimes there doesn't seem to be much choice but to massacre people." 16778. jexster - 11/29/2001 10:49:06 AM I submit that had the massacre at Sabra and Shatila resulted in the end of the Lebanese civil war, somone would be arguing now that it saved lives and thus had military value, like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. 16779. marjoribanks - 11/29/2001 10:58:40 AM I see no reason to assume that a bin Laden trial (for instance) would necessarily result in a propaganda coup for him. Such views understimate the sophistication of even the Arab viewing public and vastly overestimate the appeal of someone like Bin Laden. 16780. jexster - 11/29/2001 11:02:25 AM Within the Bush administration, a debate is raging over where the war on terrorism goes after Afghanistan. But contrary to press reports, the argument isn't about whether to extend the war to Iraq--that question has largely been settled. Last week national security adviser Condoleezza Rice declared Saddam "a threat to us because he is determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction." Echoing that appraisal, President Bush argued, "As for Mr. Saddam Hussein, he needs to let inspectors back in his country, to show us that he is not developing weapons of mass destruction." Asked what would happen if the Iraqi dictator declined to comply, the president said, "He'll find out." Even Colin Powell, not known for favoring punitive action against Saddam, sounds as if he has modified his opinion. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz has recommended that the United States strike Iraq as soon as "we find the right way to do it." And, indeed, the United States does plan to strike. Unfortunately, it still hasn't found the right way to do it. 16781. stostosto - 11/29/2001 11:05:12 AM marj, you have a point. I believe the pictures of a broken and sobbing captured PKK leader Abdullah Öcalan begging for mercy and denouncing his deeds had such an effect on his appeal to the Kurds. 16782. Wombat - 11/29/2001 11:09:47 AM The spectacle of Bin Laden being torn to pieces by an enraged Afghan mob would hardly encourage those who wish to emulate him. Particularly if CNN films it. 16783. marjoribanks - 11/29/2001 11:13:58 AM Sto, 16784. Wombat - 11/29/2001 11:16:55 AM Mussolini-ing him in downtown Kabul would also make an inglorious impression. 16785. marjoribanks - 11/29/2001 11:20:49 AM Yes, I suppose an ignominious televised death at the hand of other Muslims would also be a highly effective PR "happening". 16786. Francis Urquhart - 11/29/2001 11:22:55 AM sto 16787. stostosto - 11/29/2001 11:23:39 AM Mussolini-ing him in downtown Kabul would also make an inglorious impression 16788. CalGal - 11/29/2001 11:26:06 AM The Turks could Pat O'Brien him into being Jimmy Cagney in Angels. 16789. concerned - 11/29/2001 6:39:58 PM Perhaps bin Laden will never be officially 'found' if he doesn't flee to nominal allies outside Afghanistan, let alone face an international tribunal, be executed by the NA, eat bacon cheeseburgers during lunch breaks at his 7-11 job in Butte, Montana, or whatever. 16790. judithathome - 11/29/2001 6:48:20 PM Wow, almost 7 hours between posts.... 16791. jexster - 11/29/2001 8:07:44 PM I am headed to Spinbaldack to die for Mullah Omar... 16792. ronski - 11/29/2001 8:11:14 PM connie, 16793. concerned - 11/29/2001 9:35:58 PM Re. 16792 - 16794. arkymalarky - 11/29/2001 10:07:58 PM C'mon, Conman. Lighten up.;-) 16795. joezan - 11/29/2001 11:35:10 PM Yet despite the fact that Hitler's monsters were responsible for at least 50 million deaths – 10,000 times greater than the victims of 11 September – the Nazi murderers were given a trial at Nuremberg because US President Truman made a remarkable decision. "Undiscriminating executions or punishments," he said, "without definite findings of guilt fairly arrived at, would not fit 16796. stostosto - 11/30/2001 3:58:53 AM joez: 16797. joezan - 11/30/2001 6:27:28 AM YIKES! 16798. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 7:48:58 AM You might of course argue that people like Saddam and Assad have done far worse without paying any political price, and that Israel's official inquiry and making Sharon responsible was laudable by comparison. But why choose such miserable comparisons? 16799. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 7:54:17 AM I don't think anything short of massacre can deter the Arabs. If you do not convince them that there are no limits to your savagery, they are not afraid of you. 16800. ronski - 11/30/2001 7:56:56 AM Pike, 16801. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 8:01:05 AM I'm wondering: if the South Vietnamese butchered 1,000 Vietnamese civilians somewhere, in a village that sympathised with the VC, and if the massacre was carried out with Macnamara's knowledge - would you expect him to be sitting behind bars? 16802. ScottLoar - 11/30/2001 9:09:32 AM RustlerPike; 16803. ScottLoar - 11/30/2001 9:12:36 AM I don't have the numbers on how many civilians were killed by all types of American ordnance used by Americans in Afghanistan; you do? And I didn't know civilians were being targeted; you do? And I don't know the incidental civilian deaths and casualties swayed the Taliban's resolve to withdraw from their positions; you do? 16804. Wombat - 11/30/2001 9:22:34 AM Rustler: 16805. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 10:27:47 AM I don't know, I saw a whole village that seemed to have been wiped out by a stray bomb, and I keep hearing in the news about a dozen civilians killed here and a bushelful there. I was wrong about the daisycutters, it seems. Are the Taliban, then, innocent of the common Arab/Muslim tactic of placing their military installations among civilians? 16806. stostosto - 11/30/2001 10:31:53 AM the common Arab/Muslim tactic of placing their military installations among civilians? 16807. ScottLoar - 11/30/2001 10:36:58 AM Doubtlessly some civilians were killed by stray bombs or misdirected fire, but that hardly squares with your assertion that US bombings were ferociously indiscriminate ("letting 'er rip") killing who-cares-how-many civilians. Again and again US pilots have not dropped their ordnance because the target was obscure or would result in civilian casualties; that is the call of the US pilot to make according to Rumsfield who also recounted the practice. 16808. ScottLoar - 11/30/2001 10:40:08 AM I am also fairly sure the person behind the moniker RustlerPike is not a pilot in the US armed forces. 16809. clydefo - 11/30/2001 10:44:09 AM 16810. stostosto - 11/30/2001 11:19:11 AM I don't think anything short of massacre can deter the Arabs. 16811. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 11:26:01 AM I'm saying these daily terror attacks are much closer to where I live than you can even imagine. I'm saying that my mother is supposed to come visit us tomorrow and she's afraid to. Don't judge me. 16812. stostosto - 11/30/2001 11:32:44 AM Rustler, I know I can't judge you, but I wonder if that threat you live under (as a civilian, in a civilian area) deters you from acting against any actual aggressors? If not, why is that any different in the case of Arabs? 16813. judithathome - 11/30/2001 11:41:23 AM RP: 16814. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 11:45:51 AM sto: 16815. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 11:48:17 AM I see it is let's-all-pounce-on-Pike hour. Nobody is familiar with the trick of placing AAA batteries near civilians, I see. You've never heard of Saddam and Hizbullah. Interesting. 16816. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 11:50:35 AM I saw a segment on the BBC or CNN a week ago that showed a village of hovels that had been levelled by a stray US bomb. When something like that happened to us in Lebanon, it became the infamour 'Kafr Kana Massacre'. With you guys, it's just like, oh, unfortunate. 16817. stostosto - 11/30/2001 11:57:26 AM I don't know if that answers your patronizing, know-it-all, Nordic question. 16818. stostosto - 11/30/2001 12:03:04 PM Rustler: 16819. ScottLoar - 11/30/2001 12:15:52 PM AA batteries manned by North Vietnamese and some manned by their Chinese Communist allies were all over Hanoi and on the tops of some buildings as well. 16820. Property of Jesus - 11/30/2001 12:16:48 PM Sudan Wanted to Help US capture ObL in 1996. Clinton's State Department said No thanks 16821. ScottLoar - 11/30/2001 12:17:22 PM Sorry, I omitted the relevance: Neither the NVA or PRC "volunteers" can be correctly characterized as Arabs or Muslims. 16822. Indiana Jones - 11/30/2001 12:29:15 PM The Krauthammer piece is good, as usual. 16823. Wombat - 11/30/2001 1:14:13 PM Indy: 16824. ronski - 11/30/2001 1:17:15 PM I think there is a difference between a suicide bomber and a young idiot who wants to go fight the infidels on the battlefield. 16825. Cellar Door - 11/30/2001 3:01:05 PM 16826. mgleason - 11/30/2001 4:57:03 PM We watched Tora! Tora! Tora! last night, and curious about Admiral Yamamoto, I found the Pearl Harbor Attacked! forum. According to the messages I linked, We have woken a sleeping giant and filled him with a terrible resolve cannot be directly attributed to the Admiral, who appears to have said It does not do to slit the throat of a sleeping man instead, referring to the Samurai rule of waking an enemy before killing him. 16827. ScottLoar - 11/30/2001 5:32:07 PM A quote similar to the sleeping giant/dragon is attributed to Napoleon about China. 16828. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 7:48:50 PM mgleason: 16829. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 7:52:17 PM AA batteries manned by North Vietnamese and some manned by their Chinese Communist allies were all over Hanoi and on the tops of some buildings as well. 16830. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 7:54:46 PM (my #16828: General, Admiral, same dif.) 16831. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 8:00:28 PM Still no takers on Macnamara? 16832. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 8:16:35 PM Let me ask you this, sto. 16833. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 8:24:54 PM >>> 16834. RustlerPike - 11/30/2001 8:29:02 PM As for your questions about the deterrent value of killing people: the same can be asked wrt the death penalty (I assume you're against that) or any other kind of punishment, really. Does punishment work at all, ever? Doesn't punishing people just make them angrier at you? Don't criminals become even worse criminals in jail? 16835. joezan - 11/30/2001 8:40:53 PM I just read an article in the Telegraph that said racism and xenophobia are to be outlawed in the EU, in the interests of standardization of law. 16836. marjoribanks - 11/30/2001 10:39:14 PM From the Independent: 16837. joezan - 11/30/2001 10:43:10 PM It's a bitch, ain't it marj? 16838. marjoribanks - 11/30/2001 10:54:30 PM What's a bitch? (several jokes restrained) 16839. joezan - 11/30/2001 11:05:54 PM I think the approach is refreshing, myself. 16840. marjoribanks - 11/30/2001 11:15:17 PM Destined to backfire in the medium and long-term, Zan. Naturally, you would find it "refreshing". 16841. marjoribanks - 11/30/2001 11:18:00 PM The last two paras of Said's article: 16842. joezan - 11/30/2001 11:27:30 PM For the past six weeks there has been an astonishingly unrelenting and minutely organised media campaign in the US more or less pressing the Israeli vision of the world on the American reading and watching public, with practically nothing to counter it. Its main themes are that Islam and the Arabs are the true causes of terrorism, Israel has been facing such terrorism all its life, Arafat and Bin Laden are basically the same thing, most of the US's Arab allies (especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia) have played a clear negative role in sponsoring anti-Americanism, supporting terrorism, and maintaining corrupt, undemocratic societies. Underlying the campaign has been the (at best) dubious thesis that anti-Semitism is on the rise. 16843. ronski - 12/1/2001 12:18:55 AM Funny, but marj's posts show Said as moving away from being the vicious jerk that he has been for some years, while joezan's posts show almost the opposite. 16844. RustlerPike - 12/1/2001 1:34:43 AM ronski: 16845. RustlerPike - 12/1/2001 1:45:54 AM Also, sto, your attempt to convince me of the futility of massacre as a weapon against the Pals is flawed thus: the Pals have no way of truly massacring us, whereas we do have a way of truly massacring them (at least until the world intervenes). They carry out local, small scale massacres. We can wipe out village after village, town after town, if we wish. So there's a difference. Their massacres are less effective as deterrents because they are not a real existential threat to all of us Jews, just an unbearable horror we cannot live with for too long before going nuts. Their terror succeeds in disrupting our daily routine, that is all. We haven't even called up our reserves yet (though that is happening, gradually. More and more of us are getting those scary green-printed letters in the mail recently). 16846. RustlerPike - 12/1/2001 1:46:39 AM Whoops - not this thread. The I&P thread. 16847. Indiana Jones - 12/1/2001 8:39:41 AM What, you never heard Victor Borge, Joe? 16848. ronski - 12/1/2001 9:52:43 AM Pike, 16849. ronski - 12/1/2001 10:02:35 AM 1) No. He feels he is in a strong position giving European misgivings about attacking Iraq. He is willing to gamble that the US will not act without European support. 16850. Cellar Door - 12/1/2001 10:02:44 AM 16851. Cellar Door - 12/1/2001 10:05:24 AM 16852. wonkers2 - 12/1/2001 10:09:11 AM It's curious how lawyers who must have some professional obligation to the law can sign on to Ashcroft's program. If they were doctors they would lose their license to practice for violating their Hypocratic Oath or medical ethics. 16853. Francis Urquhart - 12/1/2001 10:42:30 AM wonkers 16854. Cellar Door - 12/1/2001 11:05:51 AM Oh, so your profession is meaningless? 16855. Rama - 12/1/2001 11:08:26 AM While I disagree, it is pleasing to be deemed some sort of shaman. 16856. Cellar Door - 12/1/2001 11:20:54 AM Get out of Niner's ass, Rama. 16857. Indiana Jones - 12/1/2001 11:42:13 AM ronski: Thanks for the response. I screwed up number 3. It should be "What would a reinstitution of inspections mean?" The inspections really never satisfied anyone before (except for maybe the mythical, wishy-washy "international community"). Iraq doesn't want them; we'd prefer something more effective. 16858. ronski - 12/1/2001 12:31:22 PM I was a little confused by 3. But I think inspections would result in the same old, same old, and that Bush is positioning to create a causus belli, as has been remarked elsewhere. 16859. ronski - 12/1/2001 12:33:08 PM I think the Turks do fear that the Kurds will become uppity. That's where I am in the dark really. I don't know if the Kurds would accept automony, or will demand statehood. (And I think they probably should have statehood.) 16860. PelleNilsson - 12/1/2001 1:38:37 PM An independent Kurdistan would be a threat to Turkey and Iran. Won't happen. 16861. RustlerPike - 12/1/2001 2:12:31 PM JoeZan, 16862. AytchMan - 12/1/2001 4:00:42 PM For the foreseeable future, any serious move by the US against Iraq hinges on one thing only: can the US provide conclusive proof of a major Iraqi WMD program (or a significant connection to 9/11)? 16863. PelleNilsson - 12/1/2001 4:08:40 PM It hinges on one more thing. Can it succeed? I think not. 16864. AytchMan - 12/1/2001 4:11:09 PM Do you literally mean it can't succeed or that it most likely would not? 16865. jexster - 12/1/2001 4:28:39 PM The All-Knowing Invisible Hand Strikes Again! 16866. jexster - 12/1/2001 4:31:04 PM OOPS ...That was for the AP thread. This is for the AckAck Thread... 16867. PelleNilsson - 12/1/2001 4:34:58 PM Well, it deoens on the meaning of "success" but let's not lose ourselves in semantics. 16868. AytchMan - 12/1/2001 4:50:43 PM pelle 867-- 16869. jexster - 12/1/2001 4:54:32 PM Aaah but that is exactly the fallacy our BirdBrained "Hawks" are indulging. Check out the latest Testosterone Twaddle at TNR 16870. jexster - 12/1/2001 5:06:59 PM Three questions to ask.. 16871. PelleNilsson - 12/1/2001 5:08:19 PM Aytch 16872. wonkers2 - 12/1/2001 5:32:41 PM Francis, I prefer to state my own views, if you don't mind. I am aware you are a lawyer, but I don't consider you a shaman. 16873. jexster - 12/1/2001 5:42:25 PM I am a lawyer too. 16874. wonkers2 - 12/1/2001 5:45:10 PM Sure. 16875. jexster - 12/1/2001 5:45:31 PM Buenos Noches Francesca! 16876. jexster - 12/1/2001 5:46:27 PM 16877. wonkers2 - 12/1/2001 5:46:32 PM Exception to what? 16878. ronski - 12/1/2001 5:47:59 PM Threat to the U.S.? 16879. jexster - 12/1/2001 6:08:08 PM Ronski...do you REALLY think that after over 10 years of Sadaam watching and bashing that we "don't know if he is or isn't yet?" Do you really think that if we had any evidence at all that Wolfowitz and his crowd wouldn't have leaked same before Tower 2 fell? 16880. jexster - 12/1/2001 6:13:31 PM That Sadaam is a bad, bad boi isn't in issue. That Sadaam has CBW albeit rudimentary is not in issue. That Sadaam probably wishes he were responsible for 9-1-1 isn't the issue. That the world would be a better place without the lunatic isn't the issue. 16881. jexster - 12/1/2001 6:15:54 PM Wonk...RD would sratch my eyes out if I answered you 16882. ronski - 12/1/2001 6:24:50 PM Yes. It is entirely possible that Saddam has recently supplied such weapons, and also possible he will do so in the near future. 16883. wonkers2 - 12/1/2001 6:32:34 PM I get the picture. I knew you were from San Francisco but not that you were a lawyer. I won't hold that against you! My wife and I were in Point Richmond for 5 days last September. We have a daughter in Berkeley (architect) and a son in San Francisco (lawyer). Some day we may move to the Bay area. I considered trying to contact you and CalGal for lunch or something when we were there, but our schedule was full. 16884. Absensia - 12/1/2001 6:57:45 PM As I understand it, Ashcroft's regulations only came into effect yesterday. "Where are the lawyers?" Drafting challenges to the regulations, I bet. Last night I caught a part of Larry King. Some woman attorney said the regulations were valid or challenges would have been filed "today." Not only did I roll my eyes, but I switched to a different channel. 16885. ronski - 12/1/2001 10:38:53 PM Do U.S. demands on Israel to leave the occupied territories and on Palestinian Arabs to accept an Israeli state leave everyone to believe that future military action against Iraq is impossible, as jexster insists? 16886. RustlerPike - 12/1/2001 11:28:34 PM Atta, shmatta. Jexster has obviously figured it all out, ronski. It's an international Jew conspiracy, is all. 16887. RustlerPike - 12/1/2001 11:32:54 PM Jewish bodies. 16888. wonkers2 - 12/1/2001 11:38:30 PM Absensia, That's good news! 16889. Absensia - 12/1/2001 11:56:10 PM Wonkers, I've seen some very good articles about how unconsitutional these regs are, but ultimately it will be up to the USSC. That makes me nervous. But, I think the court papers and arguments will be very interesting to read. 16890. Absensia - 12/2/2001 12:12:11 AM Ironically, here is one from Cato, very conservative magazine. This article was apparently first printed in the WSJ. Even Conservatives Question the Validity of Ashcroft's Regs. 16891. ronski - 12/2/2001 11:35:04 AM See Thomas Friedman in Civil Liberties thread for "Even liberals think Ashcroft may be right." 16892. jexster - 12/2/2001 2:33:03 PM Do U.S. demands on Israel to leave the occupied territories and on Palestinian Arabs to accept an Israeli state leave everyone to believe that future military action against Iraq is impossible, as jexster insists? 16893. jexster - 12/2/2001 2:36:50 PM Ronski answers Ronski... 16894. jexster - 12/2/2001 2:40:24 PM Bush has retained James Woolsey to interview contacts, witnesses, and review files to see if any case at all can be made against Sadaam... 16895. Property of Jesus - 12/2/2001 3:11:05 PM This is why I love the internet.... 16896. ronski - 12/2/2001 3:32:07 PM jexster apparently remains incapable of understanding the distinction between suspicious behavior on the part of Iraqis (which demands further investigation on our part) and having firm evidence that the Iraqis have actually exported bioweapons (which would demand our intervention), just as he cannot comprehend the difference between "no rights" and "not the same rights" in the Civil Liberties thread. 16897. AytchMan - 12/2/2001 3:40:14 PM poj-- 16898. jexster - 12/2/2001 4:44:22 PM All I would like you to do Ronski is answer the arguments and/or questions posed, not ones that you make up when your nose gets rubbed in your poo. 16899. jexster - 12/2/2001 4:45:47 PM Over the last seven weeks in Afghanistan, the U.S. military has shown the world the latest version of the new American way of war, one built around weapons operating at extremely long ranges, hitting targets with unprecedented precision, and relying as never before on gigabytes of targeting information gathered on the ground, in the air, and from space. 16900. Cellar Door - 12/2/2001 4:54:35 PM Gays in the Military 16901. jexster - 12/2/2001 4:58:49 PM A friend sent this item to me....he swears that its no joke... 16902. uzmakk - 12/2/2001 5:00:43 PM My Dear Cellar: 16903. Cellar Door - 12/2/2001 5:04:12 PM Plans are underway for Leonardo Di Caprio to play Alexander. 16904. PelleNilsson - 12/2/2001 5:04:45 PM Things have come a long way. During the Lebanese civil war the favourite militia vehice was a Wolkswagen Beetle with the roof sawed off. I know. My trusted Beetle became one. 16905. uzmakk - 12/2/2001 5:06:54 PM btw, Cellar, I heard a "gay" author the other day on NPR. I think his name was Levin. I am certain that the novel under discussion was Martin Bauman. He said that simply saying, "I'm gay, I'm gay, I'm gay" no longer cuts it in "gay" fiction. 16906. jexster - 12/2/2001 5:19:15 PM Judicial Watch...announced that it would be filing a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the State and Defense Departments in order to obtain documents concerning the Carlyle Group, an international consulting and investment firm which retains former President George H.W. Bush. 16907. jexster - 12/2/2001 5:20:21 PM Poppy and Babs -- Dead or Alive 16908. PelleNilsson - 12/2/2001 5:29:31 PM uzmakk 16909. uzmakk - 12/2/2001 5:39:47 PM In response to Cellars 16900, I believe myself to be. 16910. ronski - 12/2/2001 6:06:40 PM If jexster would ask me a question, I would answer it. 16911. Andonly - 12/2/2001 7:03:53 PM Banks: Message # 16665 "Ever hear of the Geneva Convention, Zan? Can you spell charges of genocide at the World Court in the Hague?" 16912. Andonly - 12/2/2001 7:04:09 PM What is it with these people who cannot discern the difference between an armed insurrection and a helpless village, POWs and armed, fighting, former POWs, war crimes and war? What makes morons like Fisk, and the Dawn editorialists, and critics of Desert Storm, and every Palestinian apologist alive, think that military asymmetry in itself is wrong or illegal? 16913. jexster - 12/2/2001 7:44:04 PM Got me Ando. 16914. Andonly - 12/2/2001 7:54:43 PM There is a form of asymmetry, beside the military kind that third worlders incessantly grieve about, which allows terrorists deliberately to attack civilians for any reason they can enunciate, but legally prohibits democracies and other civilized nations from responding in kind. 16915. Andonly - 12/2/2001 7:55:01 PM Democratic countries require enormous conventional military force not only to face big/multiple conventional opponents, but nowadays to offset the asymmetry inherent in the military advantage to any NON-DEMOCRATIC entity which chooses to ignore conventions prohibiting the deliberate targeting of innocents. Overwhelming military force serves to balance the asymmetry demonstrated in al-Qaeda's destruction of the WTC. (And I would assume that overwhelming force will shortly balance the asymmetry demonstrated by the latest suicide bombings in Israel.) 16916. jexster - 12/2/2001 8:00:51 PM A few questions then Ronski. 16917. Andonly - 12/2/2001 8:14:18 PM From my Message # 16395 of 11/20: 16918. Andonly - 12/2/2001 8:19:01 PM But who knows whether the Observer has a clue or is just broadcasting disinformation. Maybe they're just blowing a line of leftist propaganda designed to deflate US plans before they're designed. 16919. Cellar Door - 12/2/2001 8:21:46 PM You believe yourslf to be what, Uz? 16920. ronski - 12/2/2001 8:25:24 PM jexster, 16921. Indiana Jones - 12/2/2001 9:11:18 PM In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't talking yesterday about an independent Kurdistan, but Turkey getting the Kurdish part of Iraq and creating a protectorate of some sort. It's been a little more than 80 years since Turkey had it anyway, correct? 16922. jexster - 12/2/2001 11:52:48 PM Oh I didn't realize that you weren't advocating an invasion next Tuesday. Still I wonder. 16923. jexster - 12/2/2001 11:59:03 PM I think its time to stop overestimating the Slobos, Sadaams and Talibees too. 16924. jexster - 12/3/2001 12:03:04 AM So its cost-benefit...say we can get him out in 6 months with air and Special forces and Kurds and maybe a batallion or two of heavy infantry, 2-3 tank brigades..a few appaches and A-10's 16925. jexster - 12/3/2001 12:10:49 AM almost everyone believed in 1991 that Saddam would fall after his defeat without our going to Baghdad. 16926. jexster - 12/3/2001 12:13:24 AM Just for the record...I supported Desert Storm, Kosovo, Afghanistan...the NA turned out to be far more effective than the media and apparently the Pentagon had figured...the only ones - media and government to have called the NA correctly from the start were the Brits....the inventors of proxy wars... 16927. jexster - 12/3/2001 12:14:40 AM and yes before someone calls me a liar...I wanted to send The Big Red One across the plain from Hungary to Belgrade to kill the bridge dancers. 16928. Indiana Jones - 12/3/2001 8:53:49 AM jexster (16925): 16929. Indiana Jones - 12/3/2001 8:55:55 AM Colin Powell, March 1991 16930. wonkers2 - 12/3/2001 9:01:14 AM Andonly #16917, The Observer is obviously monitoring The Mote and has cracked your cover. 16931. wonkers2 - 12/3/2001 9:01:55 AM Or somebody in the White House is cribbing from The Mote. 16932. wonkers2 - 12/3/2001 10:39:58 AM The Dow is down almost 150 points this morning. Maybe it's having an Iraq attack. An article in today's NYT says the idea is gaining momentum in the White House and around Washington. 16933. ronski - 12/3/2001 11:06:05 AM jexster, 16934. Andonly - 12/3/2001 11:07:57 AM "The Observer is obviously monitoring The Mote and has cracked your cover." 16935. PelleNilsson - 12/3/2001 1:32:40 PM Back in 1991 it was certainly the received wisdom that Saddam would be toppled within months because of the humiliating defeat in combination with the sanctions. 16936. marjoribanks - 12/3/2001 1:45:26 PM There was more than that, there was also the common assumption that the resistance movements that almost spontaneously rose up against Hussein would receive cover and protection from the allies who were enforcing an airborne vigil on the Iraqi troops. 16937. marjoribanks - 12/3/2001 2:06:43 PM Kunduz report from The New Yorker. 16938. Cellar Door - 12/3/2001 3:53:36 PM Let's hear it for the Sniggering Adolescents! 16939. AytchMan - 12/3/2001 6:03:15 PM cellar-- 16940. Cellar Door - 12/3/2001 6:21:57 PM Not churlish enough,IMO. 16941. AytchMan - 12/3/2001 6:36:25 PM Well, if no relevant information is available, how can the author make an intelligent judgment? How can anyone be either critical or supportive? 16942. Cellar Door - 12/3/2001 7:06:37 PM It's easy to be supportive when your editors demand it. 16943. jexster - 12/3/2001 7:18:24 PM The American-Talibaner who emerged from the prison riot at Mazur-e-Sharif, John Walker-Lind, aka Ahamad something or other, hails from Fairfax, CA, an upper middle class white bread Marin county town. His family hadn't heard from him in 7 months, not since he left for Pakistan to study Islam. 16944. Cellar Door - 12/3/2001 7:23:20 PM 16945. jexster - 12/3/2001 7:32:59 PM 16946. wonkers2 - 12/3/2001 7:33:35 PM "...not since he left for Pakistan to study Islam" and bailing out of his Roman Catholic upbringing. 16947. jexster - 12/3/2001 7:34:42 PM I'd haul his scrawny ass off to a Bush-Ascroft Special Action Group Tribunal muy pronto, chop-chop, bullet quick panee lao 16948. PincherMartin - 12/3/2001 7:35:33 PM It's too funny he is from the Bay Area. 16949. jexster - 12/3/2001 7:37:53 PM Not likely Wonk. 16950. jexster - 12/3/2001 7:39:09 PM We are deeply spiritual here PM...I bow to Mecca 5 times a day myself. 16951. wonkers2 - 12/3/2001 7:41:42 PM Wasn't Jim Jones from the Bay area? 16952. jexster - 12/3/2001 7:46:48 PM Yes indeed he was. But we don't do that anymore around here not since the Bush-Ashcroft SAG have moved into aktion 16953. jexster - 12/3/2001 7:48:38 PM 16954. wonkers2 - 12/3/2001 7:51:00 PM The first Bush-Ashcroft military tribunal. 16955. Property of Jesus - 12/3/2001 8:08:57 PM Walker is actually from Silver Springs, MD. 16956. jexster - 12/3/2001 8:18:19 PM Montgomery County, Marin County..same same..figgers.. 16957. jexster - 12/3/2001 8:43:41 PM Tom Ridge our Homeland Security do-nothing is at it again....doing nothing... 16958. PincherMartin - 12/3/2001 8:47:59 PM Cellar -- Message # 16944 16959. joezan - 12/3/2001 9:36:44 PM Well, off-hand I'd say lack of journalistic ethics himself, Pinch. 16960. joezan - 12/3/2001 10:16:53 PM 16961. joezan - 12/3/2001 10:18:51 PM A perfect example, don't you think? 16962. pseudoerasmus - 12/3/2001 10:28:21 PM What is going to happen to this character now? I understand that US citizens cannot be subjected to military tribunals. (Or is that wrong?) Besides what is he accused of, other than fighting for the Taliban? 16963. joezan - 12/3/2001 10:36:10 PM Treason. 16964. pseudoerasmus - 12/3/2001 10:39:14 PM What did he do that was treasonable? (This question is to elicit information, not to defend him.) 16965. joezan - 12/3/2001 10:42:06 PM That's got to be a trick question. 16966. marjoribanks - 12/3/2001 10:51:17 PM Zan, 16967. joezan - 12/3/2001 10:59:59 PM There will be rehabilitation for this guy, I predict, and he'll be at law school in a few years, or something. 16968. robertjayb - 12/3/2001 11:03:47 PM Without a declaration of war I think he's just a bad boy. 16969. joezan - 12/3/2001 11:11:34 PM That would be an excellent point, rjb, except for this: 16970. Absensia - 12/3/2001 11:30:34 PM Come on...he's only 20, came from a screwy home, and Mom's probably right, he's been brainwashed. 16971. pseudoerasmus - 12/3/2001 11:56:55 PM Is there a transcript (or real audio clip) of the news conference given by Heather Mercer and Dayna Curry the day or two after their release? I've heard they have some interesting things to say about Afghanistan. 16972. CalGal - 12/4/2001 12:26:04 AM Come on...he's only 20, came from a screwy home, and Mom's probably right, he's been brainwashed. 16973. Absensia - 12/4/2001 12:34:33 AM Pseud, 16974. concerned - 12/4/2001 12:55:50 AM Another brilliant NMD(GMD) missile intercept success. NMD - it's in our future. 16975. concerned - 12/4/2001 1:10:11 AM Re. 16970 - 16976. joezan - 12/4/2001 7:02:01 AM Come on...he's only 20, came from a screwy home... 16977. Wombat - 12/4/2001 8:15:50 AM Stripping him of his citizenship for serving in another country's armed forces would be the way to go, except...was Taliban the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan? Were the Taliban forces the Afghan armed forces? 16978. joezan - 12/4/2001 8:20:47 AM How long do you think Americans would be permitted to serve in Israel's armed forces if we were at war with Israel? 16979. Wombat - 12/4/2001 8:32:28 AM JoeZ: 16980. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 8:45:50 AM Dual American-Israeli citizenship (Pro Palestinean site) 16981. wonkers2 - 12/4/2001 9:01:41 AM Walker may already have been tried and executed. After all we need to make an example to deter other young American lads who may be lining up to enlist in the Taliban. 16982. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 9:15:08 AM wonkers (16981): I don't think there's any danger of that (mass enlistment by American "lads" in the Taliban). Heck, it's getting harder and harder to find Paks who want to fight in Afghanistan. 16983. judithathome - 12/4/2001 9:26:48 AM I'm not yet ready to say Walker ought to die. He does deserve a hearing. But my predisposition is not to say he should be given a new change of clothes and re-"Americanized" either 16984. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 9:33:22 AM I would think Walker's parents' lawyer would argue that 16985. judithathome - 12/4/2001 9:45:38 AM He wasn't over there for Spring Break... 16986. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 9:46:01 AM Walker will be rehabilitated, mark my words. That picture of his hapless mug will be enough to garner him sympathy, if he now keeps his mouth shut. 16987. judithathome - 12/4/2001 9:48:28 AM This "boy" is a grown man, however. Not a boy at all. 16988. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 9:50:25 AM 1) The burden of proof will be on the prosecutor, but I don't think treason requires that you shoot. The Rosenbergs and Tokyo Rose didn't shoot anyone (the former engaged in espionage, and the latter wasn't executed). 16989. Rama - 12/4/2001 9:50:41 AM This man was travelled around the world to kill people. He did so motivated by religious fervor. If you don't believe he is dangerous, you don't understand what makes a man dangerous. 16990. Rama - 12/4/2001 9:51:16 AM Hey, judith, look at this: we agreed on something! 16991. judithathome - 12/4/2001 9:52:44 AM Speaking of the Rosenbergs, tomorrow night on 60 Minutes II a man who testified against them is being interviewed by Bob Simon and supposedly, the man will claim he lied. 16992. judithathome - 12/4/2001 9:53:45 AM Rama: 16993. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 9:59:07 AM To me, he is a boy. 16994. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 10:01:15 AM My 16988 was to PE's 16984. 16995. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 10:06:47 AM Well, you want him dead, the easiest thing is to release him in Mazar or Herat. 16996. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 10:07:03 AM Got this from a secondary source, but I assume its accurate: 16997. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 10:07:33 AM All Arab and Chechen fighters in Afghanistan must be killed summarily. 16998. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 10:10:00 AM Correction: 16999. bubbaette - 12/4/2001 10:10:32 AM The way I read it, the mouth-breather didn't actually travel around the world TO kill people -- he went to Pakistan to study and got caught up in the movement. Not that it justifies him taking up arms with the Taliban, but I don't think you can say that was his motivation at the start. 17000. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 10:12:43 AM " I think he should be treated the same as any other Taliban soldier." 17001. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 10:14:54 AM "shall suffer death, or shall be 17002. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 10:15:09 AM Well, I think he should be rehabilitated. 17003. PincherMartin - 12/4/2001 10:15:21 AM Marj -- 17004. bubbaette - 12/4/2001 10:16:07 AM I agree with Judith that he should be stripped of his American citizenship. Other than that, I don't see why he should be treated any differently. 17005. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 10:17:53 AM I give it two, perhaps three, days before journalists and others start to question the logic of the current US policy to preferably kill outright the foreign fighters in Afghanistan. 17006. judithathome - 12/4/2001 10:21:09 AM All will naturally cite this boy. 17007. bubbaette - 12/4/2001 10:23:36 AM My 43 year old brother can't grow a beard like that guy's. 17008. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 10:26:07 AM Pincher, 17009. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 10:28:56 AM That's a beard? I 'd thought it was a smudge on the photograph. The (female) gym teacher I had in eighth grade in Queens had a more impressive growth. 17010. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 10:29:48 AM I suspect (since it was a family photo) that earlier picture is when Walker was a few years younger and still putting in an appearance at family get-togethers. What he looks like now: 17011. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 10:34:00 AM 17012. judithathome - 12/4/2001 10:36:01 AM Great eyes, too... 17013. bubbaette - 12/4/2001 10:36:43 AM To hell with the beard and the eyes -- I want me a HAT like that! 17014. Cellar Door - 12/4/2001 10:39:56 AM I say we attack the problem at its root by getting rid of Larry King. 17015. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 10:41:55 AM This photograph was taken by Weston in 1855 to illustrate the different types of head dress worn in India. The Akalis were renowned for their tall peaked turbans and hence the inclusion of this particular character in the study. The most striking aspect of the turban in this picture is the metal emblem known as gajgah. Gaj means elephant and gah means decoration worn on the head. It is said that in ancient days only those warriors who had proved themselves by defeating elephants in battle wore this type of turban ornamentation. Over time the gajgah came to represent superior strength and courage. The only people who maintained the tradition of wearing the gajgah were the Akalis who did so to almost extreme lengths. The main elements of the gajgah were crescents and the double-edged sword at the top but some also had tridents, daggers and tiger claws. It was kept fastened to the turban using quoits and steel wire. 17016. bubbaette - 12/4/2001 10:42:10 AM Better Larry King than Chris Matthews. The love o my life has started watching that obnoxious blow-hard in the evenings as we eat dinner. Gives me indigestion and makes me question muh tru love's sanity. 17017. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 10:43:45 AM Larry King, cellar, has done a deal with the devil. I've commented on it before, it explains his mummified appearance and much else. 17018. Cellar Door - 12/4/2001 10:46:01 AM I saw him just last week at the Vanilla Sky screening. He actually looks less mummified in person than he does on the tube. 17019. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 10:47:39 AM Well, his brain is dead at the very least. 17020. PincherMartin - 12/4/2001 10:49:27 AM Marj -- 17021. CalGal - 12/4/2001 10:49:58 AM He's got a case, but it's not a good one. He'd best hope his lawyer isn't idiotic enough to plead age the way banks is, or he's a dead man. As Indy points out, he's the same age as the US soldiers he's fighting. 17022. Cellar Door - 12/4/2001 10:51:46 AM Too bad Paul Bowles bought the farm. He would have had this kid's story wrapped upin two shakes of a lamb's tail. 17023. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 10:55:35 AM "These are the fellows who eventually ran roughshod over Pseuder's Pathan lot...." 17024. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 10:56:07 AM "These are the fellows who eventually ran roughshod over Pseuder's Pathan lot...." 17025. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 10:56:23 AM From the Marin Independent Journal 17026. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 10:56:45 AM 17027. bubbaette - 12/4/2001 10:59:13 AM toys? 17028. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:00:17 AM Just imagine if the Frontier Gandhi had had his way, and the Pathans and Sikhs were finally united in the Indian Armed forces, Khan. 17029. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:00:55 AM Oops. 17030. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:02:32 AM That should read, imagine if the Frontier Gandhi, Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan, had had his way and the Sikhs and the Pathans had been united.... 17031. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:04:35 AM Check out this para from the Marin County newspaper: 17032. judithathome - 12/4/2001 11:06:33 AM If they argue that Walker was merely young and was brainwashed into this, why not argue that some of the Taliban "youth" suffered the same fate? Why, this has all been a huge misunderstanding and we should just blanket the MidEast with deprogrammers. 17033. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:12:13 AM Pseuder, 17034. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:13:31 AM 17035. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 11:19:43 AM March 1823, the Battle of Nowshera, where the Sikhs defeated the Pashtuns, as described by Sir Olaf Caroe: 17036. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 11:22:48 AM Marjoribanks, Kabul River extends well into what is today Pakistan. (The Kabul River is what makes the Vale of Peshawar so green and fertile, unlike the Afghan side of the border.) Nowshera is about 25 miles east of Peshawar. Jamrud is just outside of Peshawar. 17037. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:23:36 AM Hmm. I'd forgotten about the Gurkha regiments in Ranjit Singh's armies. 17038. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:25:51 AM There are still Sikhs in Kabul, by the way, as well as an ancient gurdwara. A few families, mostly money-lenders, never left, even through the UF and Taliban regimes. 17039. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:33:25 AM AllaboutSikhs.com has an (ahem) differently coloured account of Naushera: 17040. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:33:59 AM Hari Singh Nalwa and Akali Phula Singh with their cavalry regiment of Sher-Dil-Rajmanand Nihangs as Khushwant Singh succinctly puts it gave them "coup de grace." They drove the Khattaks and Yusufzais from Pir Sabak Hill. Heavy artillery on the land surrounded the Jihadis and opened up a barrage to complete the slaughter. 17041. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:37:00 AM The "General Ventura" mentioned was an Italian, French-trained I believe, and one of several European officers in Ranjit Singh's military. 17042. Wombat - 12/4/2001 11:39:49 AM John Walker=Patty Hearst. If they cannot actually link him to killing the CIA operative, he will be dealt with lightly. 17043. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:39:51 AM Ventura and another French-trained General, Allard, were refugees from Napoleon's troops, I think. 17044. CalGal - 12/4/2001 11:49:58 AM John Walker=Patty Hearst. If they cannot actually link him to killing the CIA operative, he will be dealt with lightly. 17045. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 11:50:59 AM NYTimes on Walker (repeating the Patty Hearts analogy) 17046. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 12:05:36 PM The Bush administration so far has shown a willingness to give on the PR front an awful lot (all this sucking up to Islam, for one thing). So they may decide Walker isn't worth the candle and concentrate on other, more pressing issues. After all, what's one 20-something American traitorous simpleton in the big scheme of things? 17047. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 12:12:45 PM I have the very strong gut-instinct that matters would be a lot worse for the Walker kid if he were black. But leaving that aside, and assuming he keeps his mouth mostly shut, he'll be fine, certainly better off than the other "foreign" and "hard-core" Taliban who survived Mazar's "prison riot." 17048. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 12:18:15 PM On Iraq, two of the previous UN coordinators for humanitarian relief have written this article. 17049. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 12:19:57 PM The day someone with Walker's profile could be anything but white, we'll likely have achieved total racial equality in this country. 17050. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 12:20:00 PM And this 17051. jexster - 12/4/2001 12:30:23 PM His life took a sharp turn, however, when he began his search for spiritual meaning at about 16 -- a search for which he found ready encouragement from his Catholic father and Buddhist mother, said Jones. 17052. jexster - 12/4/2001 12:34:13 PM -- As a U.S. citizen caught with forces fighting against the United States, Marin County resident John Walker could lose his citizenship or face trial for treason, an offense that carries the possibility of execution, legal experts said yesterday. 17053. jexster - 12/4/2001 12:36:50 PM At 16, when most American boys are chasing footballs and girls, John Philip Walker Lindh had so fervently devoted himself to Islam that he changed his name, grew a beard, attended mosque and began wearing traditional Islamic dress. 17054. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 12:40:24 PM Jexster, 17055. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 12:49:28 PM Al Qaeda diagram confirms the worst: Bin Laden was developing "dirty" Segway (click on pic)! 17056. CalGal - 12/4/2001 12:55:36 PM I suspect that if Walker were Arab American, no one would blink at trying him for treason--and Arab American would be functionally "white", Indy, since I agree with your comment. 17057. OhioSTOPAS - 12/4/2001 1:04:39 PM If Walker had formally renounced his U.S. citizenship when he went to Afghanistan (pre-Sept. 11), he'd be just another enemy soldier now and treason would not be an issue. 17058. Jenerator - 12/4/2001 1:07:46 PM the Holy Land Foundation, based out of Richardson, Texas ( a few miles away) was just closed down because of its link to the Palestinian Hamas. There is evidence that shows the foundation funnels its money there to support the terrorists. 17059. CalGal - 12/4/2001 1:11:45 PM I think he should be treated as having renounced or forfeited his U.S. citizenship, although I'm not sure if there is a legal procedure for doing this. 17060. Jamie R - 12/4/2001 1:32:26 PM Re: Holy Land Foundation 17061. Jamie R - 12/4/2001 1:33:46 PM liable = criminally liable = potential fines and/or imprisonment. 17062. jexster - 12/4/2001 1:38:20 PM marj...Duly impressed that you know the Marin IJ! 17063. Jamie R - 12/4/2001 1:38:31 PM One more caveat. It is taken seriously by those banks who are aware of its existence. Amazingly, many smaller banks don't have a clue they're responsible for enforcing the list of restricted nations/persons. 17064. jexster - 12/4/2001 1:41:05 PM Ohio...From the above article on the poor bastard's legal problems, it appears that the only thing revocation or renuniciation of citizenship will get him is a "trial" before a Bush-Ashcroft Einsatzgruppe 17065. jexster - 12/4/2001 1:42:44 PM Not being familiar with this area of the law, I'll defer to Rose 17066. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2001 1:48:22 PM CalGal 17067. mgleason - 12/4/2001 1:48:44 PM From the Department of State: 17068. mgleason - 12/4/2001 1:50:18 PM Pelle, 17069. Jamie R - 12/4/2001 1:51:11 PM >>From the above article on the poor bastard's legal problems 17070. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 1:55:53 PM Just as I predicted, now months ago. 17071. LohrM - 12/4/2001 2:05:33 PM The fate of this kid from California who ended up with the Taliban should be a warning to Moms and Dads-- get your kid a new Nintendo, let him watch *lots* of MTV...or look what can happen!! 17072. LohrM - 12/4/2001 2:10:48 PM The laws about foreign military service are applied very spottily. No one will ever be prosecuted for going to Israel and serving in its forces (Robert Kaplan did it, so did hundreds of American Jews in 1967 and 1973). I don't know of any prosecutions for serving with the Rhodesian forces, though dozens of Americans did-- some in officer roles. 17073. CalGal - 12/4/2001 2:10:53 PM The guys who fought in Spain didn't fight against America. 17074. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 2:11:39 PM The guys who fought in Spain didn't fight against America. 17075. Jamie R - 12/4/2001 2:16:25 PM Buying goodwill might be money well spent, but I am skeptical, especially when the idea that the U.S. has an unfair share of "the world's" resources is such common currency. We get no goodwill for giving people money they think is already due them. What was the hypothetical given for reparations to the third world? 7 trillion dollars or so? 17076. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 2:20:18 PM FWIW, contrary to public perceptions the US currently does "give" a pittance, a considerably smaller percentage of GDP than most other developed countries. 17077. CalGal - 12/4/2001 2:20:37 PM Congress feels like it has to do something, and what it does well is spend. Understandable. But to pretend it will make utterly irrational people suddenly gain 50 points on a logic test is delusional. 17078. CalGal - 12/4/2001 2:22:03 PM a considerably smaller percentage of GDP than most other developed countries. 17079. AytchMan - 12/4/2001 2:34:08 PM CNN is reporting that an airstrike has wounded Zawahari. 17080. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 2:34:18 PM I wonder if that includes our business investments. 17081. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 2:36:35 PM "our" business investments do not constitute foreign aid. 17082. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 2:38:28 PM Yes, that is also true. US individuals and foundations give far far more to international causes and humanitarian organizations than the government. 17083. CalGal - 12/4/2001 2:39:09 PM Aytch, that was very funny. 17084. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2001 2:39:46 PM CalGal 17085. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 2:43:11 PM The Americans who fought in Spain were retrospectively seen as heroes weren't they? 17086. CalGal - 12/4/2001 2:46:59 PM "our" business investments do not constitute foreign aid. 17087. AytchMan - 12/4/2001 2:47:57 PM The Americans who fought in Spain for the Loyalists were greatly admired at the time. Indeed, Monsieur Rick in Casablanca was immortalized as having fought in Spain. 17088. CalGal - 12/4/2001 2:50:13 PM Pelle, 17089. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2001 2:52:55 PM The perception is and was the same here. There were a couple of hundred Swedes on the Loyalist side. There were some with Franco too, I'm sad to say. 17090. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 2:54:58 PM there is a real question as to whether foreign aid is effective or not. 17091. AytchMan - 12/4/2001 2:56:47 PM cal-- 17092. AytchMan - 12/4/2001 2:57:56 PM First word is 'actually'. 17093. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 2:58:31 PM I wonder if any young Americans went to Afghanistan and fought in the early 80s for the Taliban's predecessors. 17094. CalGal - 12/4/2001 2:59:14 PM Well, we politicize our aid efforts both ways, it might be noted. 17095. Wombat - 12/4/2001 3:01:11 PM Maria: 17096. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:01:41 PM In the last paragraph of my last post, I meant to say that this was my perception. I assume it's true, but if it turns out that the US's actual amount is paltry, someone let me know. 17097. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:03:46 PM Barring actual evidence of him in combat against the US, or implicating in the the death of the CIA, our captive seems destined for a life of obscurity. 17098. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 3:04:57 PM UNICEF receives one third of its total donations from the private sector. 17099. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 3:07:59 PM If the US did the same thing, the world would probably reel with shock and deprivation. That's the comparison that matters. 17100. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 3:08:55 PM The US gross amount isn't paltry, but I do think Japan may have passed us up for number one. They did a couple of years ago unless their economy has pushed them back below us. 17101. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:11:24 PM Banks, 17102. AytchMan - 12/4/2001 3:12:33 PM AytchMan Poll: 17103. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:12:36 PM Indy, 17104. Wombat - 12/4/2001 3:13:24 PM Technically, the International Brigades were volunteer units recruited and commanded by national Communist Party activists. They served as politically reliable shock troops that fought alongside Soviet technical "advisors" who staffed the armored units of Republican Spain. 17105. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:14:43 PM This includes a dirty conventional bomb (radioactive waste around a car bomb or similar). 17106. amax - 12/4/2001 3:14:53 PM The difference between fighting in the Lincoln Brigade and fighting for the Taliban is that the Taliban is a declared enemy of the United States. That is the legal test -- whether you are aiding or abetting a declared enemy of the United States. 17107. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 3:15:09 PM Here is some relevant data. 17108. AytchMan - 12/4/2001 3:17:41 PM cal-- 17109. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:21:08 PM Banks, 17110. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:22:07 PM Aytch, 17111. Jamie R - 12/4/2001 3:22:59 PM Again, those figures exclude private giving, right? No Bill Gates Foundation in there? 17112. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 3:26:38 PM Cal: I remember reading that Japan had passed us in absolute terms, whereas maybe five or six countries were ahead of us in percentage terms. This was a while ago, so I'm not sure where we stack up now. 17113. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 3:27:02 PM Cross post. 17114. AytchMan - 12/4/2001 3:29:39 PM cal-- 17115. Jamie R - 12/4/2001 3:31:45 PM It also strikes me as inconsistent for people to complain about the politicization of foreign aid and at the same time demand that the gov't assume a larger role in the nation's charitable work. Governments inevitably politicize- it's their job. 17116. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:35:41 PM Indy, Jamie: I agree with both of you that any such comparison was silly. I was just focusing on the far narrower point that we give a hell of a lot from an amount perspective. I wonder what percent of GNP Japan gives? 17117. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 3:49:13 PM Cal: You're right. That is too high. 17118. mgleason - 12/4/2001 3:52:48 PM Wombat, 17119. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:58:38 PM Oh, for heavens' sake (on reading Indy's numbers). 17120. mgleason - 12/4/2001 3:58:52 PM I find myself much more annoyed with the parents, the more I read. He just reminds me of a kid accustomed to being beaten up while his parents flutter their hands. 17121. CalGal - 12/4/2001 3:59:29 PM I don't see why he or his parents should be allowed to romanticize his behavior. 17122. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 4:00:51 PM I've just watched about half-an-hour of Dubya's Town Meeting in Florida. Softball questions, of course, but I must say the man is better than I'd though at extempore back-and-forth. 17123. ycmeehan - 12/4/2001 4:01:03 PM Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer. 17124. mgleason - 12/4/2001 4:02:55 PM Eh. The kid's a loser; the parents are losers. Losers can't romanticize anything successfully. 17125. CalGal - 12/4/2001 4:05:40 PM He also impressed me with his strident urging to the audience to resist the rhetoric of a civilizational clash, and to remember that tolerance, specifically for Muslims, is an American value above all others. 17126. OhioSTOPAS - 12/4/2001 4:11:34 PM 'banks (Message # 17122): Did the President really say "women of cover" again? As far as I know, he is the only one EVER to use that phrase, doubtless confusing it with "women of color". 17127. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 4:12:15 PM Well, it is also a good and worthwhile message to reinforce from the highest office in the land. No doubt there are scads of right-wingers who wince when he does it, but frankly I think it makes him look good. In this case, he put it into an answer to a 7th grader who asked him, essentially, "what can kids do?" His answer was - study hard, be vigilant about tolerance, help those in need. 17128. CalGal - 12/4/2001 4:12:42 PM The kid's a loser; the parents are losers. 17129. CalGal - 12/4/2001 4:14:13 PM No doubt there are scads of right-wingers who wince when he does it, but frankly I think it makes him look good. 17130. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 4:15:50 PM Ohio, 17131. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 4:21:17 PM I've heard Bush use it three times now. 17132. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 4:23:12 PM Don't see why it would make right wingers wince. 17133. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 4:24:52 PM Bad grammar, bad grammer. 17134. CalGal - 12/4/2001 4:32:05 PM Because there is a current in the right wing here who vastly dislikes the tolerance message, especially the idea that Muslims and Arabs should be embraced by their fellow American citizens. 17135. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 4:32:45 PM As I recall, banks, the Clinton State Department decided "rogue nation" had outlived its usefulness and decided we would henceforth refer to the "bad" countries as "nations of concern." Or maybe it was "states of concern," which is even funnier. 17136. wonkers2 - 12/4/2001 4:33:05 PM Perhaps "women of cover" refers to Islamic women in burkhas. 17137. Wombat - 12/4/2001 4:34:32 PM "Rogue Nations" 17138. wonkers2 - 12/4/2001 4:36:02 PM I was joking, but now I've now read marjori's post above! 17139. mgleason - 12/4/2001 4:38:16 PM I've been thinking quite a lot about treason, its narrow constitutional definition, and the strict rules for conviction. If Walker only fought against the NA, I don't see how the case can be made. 17140. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 4:39:08 PM Political Arab-Americans are Islamists and they are strong in the Republican Party? 17141. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 4:39:29 PM hallucate = to hallucinate while defecating 17142. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 4:40:42 PM or, hallucination induced by a cathartic defecation 17143. judithathome - 12/4/2001 4:41:04 PM Perhaps "women of cover" refers to Islamic women in burkhas. 17144. mgleason - 12/4/2001 4:42:46 PM No, American women are women of no shame. 17145. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 4:43:29 PM I know, off-hand, that less than half of Us Arabs are Muslim in the first place. 17146. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 4:44:36 PM "nations of concern" is totally hilarious, I thought it was a namby-pamby way of describing the coalition memvers! 17147. CalGal - 12/4/2001 4:51:54 PM Grover Norquist's Strategic Alliance with Radical Islam 17148. CalGal - 12/4/2001 4:56:47 PM I do want to know who this mysterious powerful Islamist Arab Republican lobby is, frankly. 17149. judithathome - 12/4/2001 4:57:09 PM Luckily, Bush hadn't been drinking iced tea... 17150. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 5:01:17 PM I've just finished reading the TNR piece, and it's got a serious defect of interpretation. 17151. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 5:02:01 PM #17144 is very funny, Ms. Gleason. 17152. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 5:04:22 PM Don't be silly, pseuder. I grant you the first premise, and the stat of 90% isn't just accurate for Arabs and Muslims but for pretty much any European or other nation you'd care to choose. 17153. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:06:09 PM The message of tolerance sells well in the heartland? Are you insane? Please check out an electoral map. 17154. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 5:06:23 PM Okay, not 90% but maybe 80% of the Arab and Muslim world think 9/11 was perpetrated by Mossad. 17155. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:09:34 PM You don't have to be a radical Islamist to believe either of those things. I wager 90% of the Muslim world holds both beliefs. 17156. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 5:13:09 PM Well, by "Islamist" I thought you meant being a fanatical proponent of a fundamentalist strain of Islam. 17157. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:15:40 PM As for the counter-intuitive support of the far right wackos for Muslims, White Hope, also from the New Republic: 17158. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 5:15:41 PM Well, it's possible that Bush is being influenced by Ridge, who is from Michigan, where the Arab vote is important, but otherwise I don't think his overtures toward Islam are about electoral politics. Maybe Ridge does have his ear; I assumed this was for international consumption, though. 17159. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 5:16:48 PM I'm having trouble deciphering Calgal's posts. 17160. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 5:17:43 PM Strike that, Ridge was from PA. It was Engler who was from Michigan, so the Michigan connection doesn't exist. 17161. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 5:21:03 PM It cannot be for international consumption, because no one in the international arena gives a shit about Dubya's town hall meeting in Florida, 17162. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 5:21:13 PM "how is it possible for the same Muslims to think that Mossad did this while holding Bin Laden up as a hero because he strikes at America?" 17163. PelleNilsson - 12/4/2001 5:21:40 PM So now we have the Democratic party with its significant Jewish influence pitted against the Republican party courting the Arab/Muslim vote with the president licking ass in public. The plot thickens. Where will it all end? 17164. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:21:55 PM Indy--Ridge is from Pennsylvania, is he not? It's not Ridge, it's Norquist. 17165. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:24:50 PM Whoops, should have refreshed. 17166. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:27:40 PM So now we have the Democratic party with its significant Jewish influence pitted against the Republican party courting the Arab/Muslim vote with the president licking ass in public. 17167. judithathome - 12/4/2001 5:28:54 PM Islamicists like Osama bin Laden 17168. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:29:22 PM This season, tolerance is embraced. 17169. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 5:31:33 PM "At that point, we're still back to quibbling about Islamism definitions, though." 17170. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 5:40:28 PM You are confused. 17171. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:41:06 PM How can you call a secular sympathiser with Hamas a radical Islamist? 17172. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 5:43:08 PM The fact that closet bigots feel more comfortable about airing their views right now does not detract from the fact that tolerance is an embraced American value, particularly right now. 17173. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 5:48:03 PM Let's get one thing straight. 17174. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:48:31 PM The fact that closet bigots feel more comfortable about airing their views right now does not detract from the fact that tolerance is an embraced American value, particularly right now. 17175. Indiana Jones - 12/4/2001 5:52:38 PM Tolerance is an American value, but tolerance is different from embracing. 17176. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 5:53:16 PM Let's examine the record. 17177. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 5:55:34 PM Jones, 17178. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 5:55:56 PM Message # 17170 17179. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:56:10 PM I seriously doubt that the majority of American Muslims believe that. 17180. CalGal - 12/4/2001 5:57:46 PM 1) There has been zero persuasive evidence given for the notion that Dubya's clarion call for tolerance has anything to do with domestic politics. 17181. pseudoerasmus - 12/4/2001 6:01:54 PM Message # 17179 17182. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 6:05:21 PM 17180 brings me to laughter and pity. 17183. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 6:07:41 PM In terms of tolerance, there are at least a half-dozen Western European countries which have superior legislative and other records to the United States. I'd also add India to the list, but for more cultural reasons. 17184. CalGal - 12/4/2001 6:14:08 PM That seems to strain the definition of "Islamist". 17185. CalGal - 12/4/2001 6:17:41 PM I do not believe that the majority of Arab-American lobbies are Islamist/fundamentalist in the religious sense. 17186. joezan - 12/4/2001 7:16:14 PM marj - Message # 16986: 17187. jexster - 12/4/2001 7:34:23 PM Not so says Larry Eagleburger and a couple other hawks on War Room. 17188. jexster - 12/4/2001 7:35:29 PM and isn't it Dead Man Walkin'! 17189. marjoribanks - 12/4/2001 8:39:01 PM He is a walking dead man, I have no doubt about that. 17190. jexster - 12/4/2001 8:43:28 PM Marj...I think that the probabilities are rather higher that Joey will wind up walking Haj in Mecca. 17192. jexster - 12/4/2001 8:44:22 PM 17193. jexster - 12/4/2001 8:49:42 PM Put bluntly, ,b>there is no anti-war movement, intellectual or popular, in the United States. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying no one opposes the war. According to polls, 5 percent of the country is against it. There are pacifists and Buddhists. There remain others whose ears hear only evil about the United States. But even among such folk, it's impossible to find anyone who explicitly sides with our enemies, as so many radicals and intellectuals did during the Vietnam. Opposition to the war against terrorism is more like opposition to World War II. You can draw up a list of names, just as you could catalog those who didn't think we should fight the Nazis, such as the critic Dwight Macdonald, the pacifist poet Robert Lowell, and the once pro-fascist architect Philip Johnson. But however wrongheaded it was, such opposition was marginal and idiosyncratic. It meant nothing in terms of the country or the war effort 17194. jexster - 12/4/2001 8:51:39 PM 17195. Rama - 12/4/2001 8:58:28 PM Pick a matter which defines tolerance 17196. Al D - 12/4/2001 10:24:38 PM I don't cotton to the idea that America is the "Greatest Country on God's Green Earth" or the most tolerant nation on earth, but it has to very near the top in most any positive category one would care to mention. 17197. Jonesatlaw - 12/4/2001 11:05:19 PM Banks- In terms of tolerance, there are at least a half-dozen Western European countries which have superior legislative and other records to the United States. I'd also add India to the list, but for more cultural reasons. 17198. joezan - 12/4/2001 11:41:35 PM marj: 17199. joezan - 12/4/2001 11:46:24 PM And the more I think about it, the more it occurs to me that any day now, there will be many people screaming that Mr. Walker is proof positive that Uncle Sam has been profiling the wrong people - it's young White males who've been forced to read The Autobiography of Malcolm X we need to focus on. 17200. CalGal - 12/4/2001 11:48:50 PM I tell you what, if they don't think like that, I'll be real disappointed in them. It's not that I value global opinion a whit; I just think we should put our money where our mouth is. Thus far we have. Any attempt to excuse this little fuck's actions will undo a great deal of internal credibility. 17201. Jonesatlaw - 12/5/2001 1:32:18 AM I haven't bothered to look it up- I assume Mr Walker is a native born american, yes? Then stripping him of citizenship is not an option to my knowledge. 17202. CalGal - 12/5/2001 1:42:18 AM My prediction (courtesy of Mrs. AtLaw) is that Mr. Walker will be found to be a young man in the grips of schizophrenia, with paranoia and religious delusions. 17203. Absensia - 12/5/2001 1:45:54 AM I think Mrs. Atlaw may well be right. Also, as far as I know, a native born citizen can't be stripped of his/her citizenship. 17204. CalGal - 12/5/2001 1:49:59 AM Then stripping him of citizenship is not an option to my knowledge. 17205. mgleason - 12/5/2001 1:50:06 AM This may mean nothing, it may just be Bush being presidential, but it may also be a clue as to the line the administration is taking: 17206. CalGal - 12/5/2001 1:55:00 AM That's nauseating. How completely depressing, if they willingly sacrifice their credibility like that. 17207. Snowowl - 12/5/2001 1:55:21 AM Bush said the government was trying to learn the facts about ``this poor fellow'' who appeared to have been misled into supporting a repressive regime. 17208. Absensia - 12/5/2001 2:07:05 AM From what I've read, the kid could only lose his citizenship is he renounced it and became a citizen of another country, or enlisted in and joined the military of another country, and that is only under some circumstances. 17209. mgleason - 12/5/2001 2:10:09 AM More A Clockwork Orange, only instead of Beethoven, they'll play Gregorian chants. 17210. Absensia - 12/5/2001 2:12:13 AM Good plan...and that will cause him to once again embrace the Catholic church, yes? And, in a few years, they can trot him out to show how well he was treated and he can discuss his mental illness and thank George Bush for curing him. 17211. CalGal - 12/5/2001 2:12:42 AM From what I've read, the kid could only lose his citizenship is he renounced it and became a citizen of another country, or enlisted in and joined the military of another country, and that is only under some circumstances. 17212. mgleason - 12/5/2001 2:13:04 AM That's the plan! You should join the administration, Abs. 17213. Snowowl - 12/5/2001 2:15:51 AM Why would it be a good solution? It might be good for Bush, but it wouldn't be good for the thousands of schizophrenics in the US. It would just be another reinforcement of the myths about mental illness. 17214. Absensia - 12/5/2001 2:17:44 AM Thanks, Maria. 17215. Absensia - 12/5/2001 2:19:44 AM Snow, 17216. Snowowl - 12/5/2001 2:22:52 AM Or it might just be a 20 year old who doesn't actually like the values he found in "western" religions and preferred the rubbish the Taleban spouted. It doesn't mean he's mentally ill. There's nothing I've read about him that suggests mental illness. It sounds like a cop-out to me - an easy way of dealing with what's perceived as a difficult situation for the administration. 17217. Absensia - 12/5/2001 2:27:22 AM Snow, 17218. CalGal - 12/5/2001 2:29:48 AM It sounds like a cop-out to me - an easy way of dealing with what's perceived as a difficult situation for the administration. 17219. mgleason - 12/5/2001 2:41:54 AM What Bush should have said is that while he has a lot of sympathy for the family, this is a very grave matter and a full investigation would determine what action would be taken. His remarks were just plain silly. 17220. mgleason - 12/5/2001 2:59:20 AM This is from the 20/20 transcript of Barbara Walters' interview with George and Laura Bush: 17221. CalGal - 12/5/2001 3:08:59 AM "John"--I call him "John", you know. 17222. CalGal - 12/5/2001 3:09:54 AM I swear, everyone loses some 30 IQ points when they interview with WaWa, and George really doesn't have them to spare. 17223. PincherMartin - 12/5/2001 6:14:36 AM I don't know if this source has any legal basis for his beliefs, but according to the article Maria linked to in Message # 17205, Walker wouldn't have to engaged with U.S. personnel to be prosecuted... 17224. PincherMartin - 12/5/2001 6:41:34 AM Message # 17090 17225. PincherMartin - 12/5/2001 7:05:10 AM Jim Hoagland reports there has been no serious discussion at the highest levels of the Bush adminstration about taking the war to Iraq. 17226. PincherMartin - 12/5/2001 7:08:13 AM I can see why some would feel this is significant, but it is nearly meaningless in understanding if the U.S. government will actually go to war against Iraq. A majority of Americans -- consistently upwards of 60% -- have supported overthrowing Saddam ever since the end of the Gulf War. Sometimes, such as just after an Iraqi attempt to assassinate Bush pere in Kuwait was made after he left the Presidency, this public support has crossed the 70% level. 17227. PincherMartin - 12/5/2001 7:11:48 AM CNN is reporting that a B-52 bombed U.S. and Allied positions just outside of Kandahar, resulting in two dead and twenty injured U.S. servicemen. Numerous anti-Taliban forces were killed and injured as well. 17228. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 9:34:35 AM Just a little collateral damage. 17229. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 9:39:29 AM Did anybody else read that tests indicate that the most likely source of the anthrax mailed to Daschle was a U.S. Army bio warfare lab? Apparently that's the only known source for such finely ground spores. Enough in one letter, in theory, to kill 200 million people. Ironic, if true that it came from an Army lab.d More blowback! 17230. Cellar Door - 12/5/2001 9:49:31 AM 17231. Rama - 12/5/2001 10:00:01 AM Just a little collateral damage. 17232. CalGal - 12/5/2001 10:23:21 AM Pincher, 17233. marjoribanks - 12/5/2001 10:28:35 AM I'm getting a stronger feeling that when the dust settles in Afghanistan and perhaps even after another theatre of operations in somewhere like Somalia, we'll see Saudi Arabia's current regime fall apart or be forced to install democratic reforms a la Kuwait. 17234. PincherMartin - 12/5/2001 10:31:18 AM CalGal -- 17235. CalGal - 12/5/2001 10:42:59 AM Pincher, 17236. PincherMartin - 12/5/2001 10:52:05 AM CalGal -- 17237. CalGal - 12/5/2001 11:03:49 AM I agree. 17238. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 7:39:02 PM Attacking Iraq would be a big mistake. 17239. pseudoerasmus - 12/5/2001 8:00:16 PM Before Mazar was taken, there was a lot of expectation that the fall of Mazar would permit a systematic distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Afghanistan. But that has so far turned out to be wrong. Uzbekistan won't even open its Friendship Bridge to let humanitarian convoys into Afghanistan, because of the security situation. It appears the humanitarian crisis is as acute as ever. 17240. pseudoerasmus - 12/5/2001 8:09:32 PM Afghanistan: UN aid effort hampered by insecurity, lack of access 17241. pseudoerasmus - 12/5/2001 8:15:12 PM But there is some improvement in the north: 17242. wonkers2 - 12/5/2001 9:10:59 PM Did you hear that a plan is underway to reconstruct the Bamiyan Buddhas? I believe someone in Canada or the UK is raising money to do it. They have very good photographs taken not long before the statues were destroyed. 17243. pseudoerasmus - 12/5/2001 9:39:37 PM I wish someone would reconstruct the smaller, but more beautiful, figurines destroyed by the Taliban. The Bamiyam Buddhas just big and speciments of antique Disney. 17244. pseudoerasmus - 12/5/2001 9:40:06 PM correction: 17245. jexster - 12/5/2001 10:42:23 PM The nation's governors estimated today that states will require at least $4 billion within the next year to defend against terrorism, saying the money is needed for extra law enforcement, new communications systems and additional public health preparations. 17246. joezan - 12/5/2001 10:49:20 PM I don't suppose it's occurred to you, jex, that no one even bothers responding to your ranting and raving? 17247. RustlerPike - 12/6/2001 5:33:53 AM A-propos Bamiyan, there's an somewhat eggplantish-cum-beanish vegetable here we call 'bamya'. I don't know what it's called outside of here. 17248. joezan - 12/6/2001 10:05:14 AM Omar ready to cede Khandahar on Friday. 17249. rubberducky - 12/6/2001 10:14:15 AM amnesty should never be offered unless it's for bin Laden's head on a spike, imho. 17250. Rama - 12/6/2001 10:28:07 AM But amnesty should be granted, if said head is produced. 17251. OhioSTOPAS - 12/6/2001 10:45:26 AM There should be a Monica Lewinsky joke about "producing head" around here somewhere. 17252. jexster - 12/6/2001 10:52:10 AM Loya Jirga Time In SF... 17253. jexster - 12/6/2001 11:22:55 AM Helmand Restaurant 17254. PelleNilsson - 12/6/2001 2:53:10 PM The depth of analysis here is staggering. 17255. rubberducky - 12/6/2001 2:57:50 PM 2 things i don't understand: 17256. jexster - 12/6/2001 2:58:23 PM If you've caught much of the TV commentary about the "war against terrorism," you've probably seen a lot of Richard Perle, the portly, Ronald Reagan-era assistant secretary of defense who kept the defense-hawk home fires burning throughout the Bill Clinton years from a perch at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. On such shows as MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews and CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Perle advocates taking our fight against Osama bin Laden to the next level and using American military power to overthrow Saddam Hussein. And if the president's recent comments are any indication, his media blitz is having an effect. Politics is a rough business, so it's no surprise that Perle -- a veteran of vicious turf battles during the Reagan administration -- is hitting the airwaves to push his point of view. But that's not the whole story. 17257. CalGal - 12/6/2001 2:59:11 PM Those are the only two things? Have you not seen the unseemly squabbling over the money? 17258. rubberducky - 12/6/2001 3:02:56 PM CG: 17259. jexster - 12/6/2001 3:20:31 PM RD - Because someone had the idea that they were combatants and Bush said yipee kai yai! 17260. joezan - 12/6/2001 4:54:28 PM 17261. CalGal - 12/6/2001 4:58:34 PM Man. Not only did he lie, but when he had the chance he didn't say "Help me, I'm trapped in the Taliban!!" 17262. CalGal - 12/6/2001 5:01:22 PM Did anyone see Politically Incorrect the other night? Maher was very funny. 17263. joezan - 12/6/2001 5:01:48 PM Yea - I couldn't figure that out either. 17264. CalGal - 12/6/2001 5:06:04 PM Oh, I think I see. They spoke to a previous prisoner in Russian, whereas they spoke to Walker in English. 17265. jexster - 12/6/2001 5:29:32 PM Bush "recalled the last time he was in Florida, on the morning of Sept. 11, and what went through his mind when the first plane 17266. jexster - 12/6/2001 5:35:43 PM Afghanistan, where the United States just suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the wily Russians. Happily for the White House, neither the media nor the American public understand what just happened. They continue to cheer on the president, who is mighty thankful he is leading a jolly little war against Muslims instead of having to explain to voters why the economy is nose-diving and hundreds of thousands are losing their jobs. 17267. jexster - 12/6/2001 5:39:05 PM JoeZ..he looks familiar... 17268. Absensia - 12/6/2001 5:51:46 PM He does have that Jesus look. Scarey. And, no, not two witnesses. Spann was killed during the uprising. I have no idea how they knew he was an American, but no doubt found out when they were undercover with the taliban. 17269. CalGal - 12/6/2001 5:57:37 PM And, no, not two witnesses. 17270. Erin R. - 12/6/2001 5:59:16 PM I don't know that this guy has commited treason. Aren't the Taliban primarily fighting the Northern Alliance? 17271. Absensia - 12/6/2001 6:02:36 PM Videotape probably wouldn't be allowed in, but maybe. It's not a person. The Afghan voice has a body, of course. We both know that. BUT, assuming Walker is tried in the US will the US bring the Afghanistan here? Will they even be able to find him again? That's a real problem. Cal. 17272. wonkers2 - 12/6/2001 6:09:21 PM It's hard for me to see how Walker committed treason. I assume he had nothing to do with the attacks on the United States although his brainwashing may have caused him to think they served some good purpose. What do the lawyers think? Francis, Jex, Jones? 17273. CalGal - 12/6/2001 6:09:33 PM I find it difficult to believe that videotape wouldn't be allowed in. And given that the Afghan was working for the US, I figure they can find him. 17274. CalGal - 12/6/2001 6:10:45 PM It's hard for me to see how Walker committed treason. 17276. Erin R. - 12/6/2001 6:20:12 PM Where is #1275? 17277. judithathome - 12/6/2001 6:27:57 PM Wonkers probably posted a blank by accident. 17278. Absensia - 12/6/2001 6:30:19 PM Cal, even with relaxed rules of evidence, the video tape would probably not come in, and if it did, did doesn't prove treason...it proves he, at that time, did not speak to them. It doesn't deal with what he may have said or done before or afterwards. Come on, Cal, this is first year civil procedure stuff and the kind of "rules" Ashcroft himself, indicated today, would be happening in trials. 17279. CalGal - 12/6/2001 6:38:23 PM Cal, even with relaxed rules of evidence, the video tape would probably not come in, and if it did, did doesn't prove treason... 17280. judithathome - 12/6/2001 6:43:15 PM Actually, I was thinking the reporter and cameraman he made statements to about agreeing with the 9/11 strikes would be better witnesses...since he spoke to them and admitted he was siding with the enemy, so to speak. 17281. Absensia - 12/6/2001 6:48:47 PM No Cal...a video tape is not a witness...go read the rules of Federal Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence. 17282. Absensia - 12/6/2001 6:50:24 PM Good point, Judith, you cretin. Hahahaha ;) I agree, and those two would be far better devasting than the videotape. 17283. CalGal - 12/6/2001 7:02:47 PM Abs, given how often you keel and pule about my meeeanness, you're in a poor position to kick off the nastiness. Rest assured I'll remind you the next time you whine. 17284. Absensia - 12/6/2001 7:08:02 PM Cal, 17285. Absensia - 12/6/2001 7:10:41 PM and, if you want to continue this, please take it to the Inferno. 17286. Al D - 12/6/2001 7:32:35 PM What causes people to refer to Walker as a boy or blame his actions on brainwashing? We should wash our hands of the matter and let the Northern Alliance take care of him as they have done with other captives. I'm sure as an adult, he is prepared to accept the results of his choices. 17287. CalGal - 12/6/2001 8:00:00 PM Actually, I can't believe I said "keel". It's "keen". 17288. wonkers2 - 12/6/2001 9:38:57 PM Walker--brainwashing? Didn't he spend some time in a Madrassa in Pakistan where they brainwash all the young muslims? And didn't he come under the influence of a mullah in San Francisco who converted him to Islam when he was still in high school? I'm not sure what he did in Afghanistan. There has not been a formal declaration of war by the U.S. Couldn't he claim that he was merely in Pakistan hanging out with the Talibana and defending against attacks by the Northern Alliance in what amounted to a civil war? 17289. CalGal - 12/6/2001 9:46:17 PM Well, I think he's guilty of treason but I thought the issue here was whether or not his actions meet the standard: aid and comfort, 2 witnesses, etc. 17290. bubbaette - 12/6/2001 9:58:11 PM From what I was hearing on the news tonight, the coalition govt. in Afghanistan plans to bring to justice all of the foreigners who were in the country fighting against the Northern Alliance. I wonder if Johny Walker will be among those. 17291. joezan - 12/6/2001 10:39:29 PM Walker--brainwashing? Didn't he spend some time in a Madrassa in Pakistan where they brainwash all the young muslims? And didn't he come under the influence of a mullah in San Francisco who converted him to Islam when he was still in high school? 17292. Al D - 12/6/2001 10:42:00 PM By god, joezan, I think you've got it! 17293. wonkers2 - 12/6/2001 11:14:32 PM I still don't see the treason, but I'm open-minded on the subject. Seems to me the case would be stronger if he had gone to Afghanistan after 1-11 rather than before. Or perhaps if it could be shown that he was connected in some way to the earlier attacks on the embassies in Africa or the Cole. Absent something connecting him with anti-U.S. actions, he's just another guy in Afghanistan. I mean it seems to me you've got to show more than he was in the country fighting with the Taliban against the Northern Alliance, don't you? I'm asking, not asserting. I make no claim to know anything about the law on treason. Also, my non-lawyer's impression is that "intent" is an element in the proof for most crimes. He may or may not have intended to harm the U.S. Nobody knows at this point. 17294. CalGal - 12/6/2001 11:17:28 PM Absent something connecting him with anti-U.S. actions, he's just another guy in Afghanistan. 17295. joezan - 12/6/2001 11:23:59 PM Al: 17296. CalGal - 12/6/2001 11:44:06 PM A few days ago, banks and PE derided the notion that there was a great deal of outreach between Republicans and radical Islam groups. I cited a New Republic article that talked specifically of the outreach plan; here is another article discussing another longtime GOP activist, George Salem, pushing for links between Arab Americans and Republicans. George Salem is also a lawyer for a group that the Bush administration shut down because of its support for Hamas. 17297. PincherMartin - 12/7/2001 5:29:49 AM Joe Zan is behind the Curve!: Conservative Republicans are more tolerant of Muslims than general population 17298. PincherMartin - 12/7/2001 5:49:30 AM An article on the poll can be found here. 17299. OhioSTOPAS - 12/7/2001 6:54:58 AM Treason? No. Walker's an expatriate, and an enemy soldier. 17300. ronski - 12/7/2001 7:35:35 AM I don't find the increase in tolerance strange at all. Before the attacks I think most Americans, including conservative ones, knew nothing at all about Islam. Having had their attention focused on the religion since 9/11, they rightly conclude that most Moslems are decent people, despite the radicalization and Islamofacsism to be found among some of the Moslem faithful. 17301. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 8:07:37 AM Conservative Republicans have a lot in common with fundamentalist Muslims! 17302. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 9:09:09 AM "I believe Dr. Dre and people like him infect society with the lowest, most despicable forms of entertainment available. 17303. Wombat - 12/7/2001 9:42:41 AM The Republicans can have 'em. 17304. Property of Jesus - 12/7/2001 9:44:40 AM JOHNNIE WALKER ON THE ROCKS: In Marin County, Calif., treason is just another alternative lifestyle 17305. rubberducky - 12/7/2001 11:46:45 AM US Marines off to a good start: 17306. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 11:48:48 AM A sad story about a sorry loser. However, a similar experience involving a niece's conversion to a radical Christian sect in her senior year in high school tells me that what happened to Walker could as easily happen to many teenagers and adults. My niece was valedictorian of her high school class and a National Merit Scholar. After one year at an Ivy League school where she questioned why creationism wasn't taught along with evolution, she transferred to a conservative Christian college, a near-equivalent of a Madrassa. Women wear ankle-length skirts there, no make-up and study mostly religion and a bit of approved literature and are taught their "proper domestic subservient role" in life. What a waste of talent! 17307. Francis Urquhart - 12/7/2001 11:51:49 AM You can be thankful that your niece has not taken up arms against the godless United States because it disallows nativity scenes on federal property. 17308. Jonesatlaw - 12/7/2001 12:02:18 PM Wonkers- I would guess that Walker is a schizophrenic. He is at the age where a large number of those who become schizophrenic have symptoms first become florid. The religious conversion, the isolation from his previous life and the general wacky course of his life in the recent past would be consistent with him developing mental illness. 17309. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 12:09:30 PM Francis, So far she seems pretty passive. But who knows? 17310. CalGal - 12/7/2001 12:10:07 PM He converted at 16. Last year he was cheerfully saying that the US deserved the Cole attack and was glad it happened. He knew enough to ask Daddy for money so he could go to Pakistan. 17311. jexster - 12/7/2001 12:54:26 PM The image of U.S. Muslims improved significantly in the eyes of their fellow Americans after the terrorist attacks, despite fears that the opposite would occur, according to a survey released Thursday. 17312. Al D - 12/7/2001 2:15:13 PM wonkers 17313. Al D - 12/7/2001 2:21:37 PM Imam Abdullah El-Amin, replace for Dr. Dre., whoever he is. 17314. Wombat - 12/7/2001 2:32:54 PM Al D: 17315. ScottLoar - 12/7/2001 2:34:20 PM Ellen MacArthur Rules the Waves 17316. ScottLoar - 12/7/2001 2:34:58 PM Sorry, wrong thread. 17317. Al D - 12/7/2001 2:42:28 PM Most Americans object very stongly to having others' morality forced upon them, be it the campus PC stuff that exercises the right or fundamentalist Christianity (or Islam). 17318. judithathome - 12/7/2001 2:45:23 PM You seem to want to take away others rights to speak out against behavior they feel is detrimental or sinful. 17319. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 3:17:09 PM "That is probably your normal reaction to anyone who displays anti-American actions." 17320. Wombat - 12/7/2001 3:17:23 PM Al D: 17321. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 3:19:58 PM Al D, By the way Dr.Dre is a rap singer, but I'm not a fan. I don't even recall hearing him. However, I support his right to perform, as I assume you do. 17322. Al D - 12/7/2001 3:33:40 PM Wonkers 17323. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 3:45:22 PM No doubt. From September 11 and thereafter, I have supported the need for a strong response by the U.S. and its allies, to punish the perpetrators and deter others. I think President Bush, Rumsfeld and Powell have handled the situation ably. Sorry, but I can't say the same for Ashcroft. He is a liability for Bush, and will ultimately embarrass the President. 17324. judithathome - 12/7/2001 3:47:10 PM I agree with Wonkers...and I don't think anyone was completely against any response at all. Some wanted to wait a bit before rushing in with nukes, however. 17325. Al D - 12/7/2001 4:01:52 PM "anyone" of course covers all posters. And I don't want to start naming names. There just might be one or two who felt a military response not the right action, that we would be better off mending our own fences. If they care to speak about what seems to be the result, fine. If not, that's fine too. 17326. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 4:04:32 PM Not bad, but the sun's not yet over the yardarm. 17327. wonkers2 - 12/7/2001 4:05:07 PM Or below the yardarm or however the saying goes. 17328. Al D - 12/7/2001 6:34:19 PM Do you, my good sir, imply, as I infer that the juice of the grape alters the workings of not only my mind but also my fingers? Alas, a fine bottle of merlot awaits the setting sun for its demise. Winter is such a nice season here on Kauai. 17329. marjoribanks - 12/7/2001 6:43:41 PM 17330. Al D - 12/7/2001 6:52:43 PM "We do not want to fight you," they told them. "Our enemies are the Americans and British and when they come we will fight." 17331. Al D - 12/7/2001 6:56:32 PM These are the al-Qa'ida," said the man who told me about the intercept. "They are Arabs, and there is only one man who they refer to as the sheikh." Osama bin Laden, who might just be out there, riding over the ridges a few miles away on his bay steed. 17332. joezan - 12/7/2001 7:18:55 PM (from the excellent op-ed piece linked by POJ in Message # 17304): 17333. joezan - 12/7/2001 7:22:32 PM Yea - at 17 this "bright, spiritual" kid was mature enough that dad had no qualms about funding his trek into very dangerous lands, and sending him more money while he was there, and all of a sudden, when he's caught in the most adult of all situations, he is a "kid" again. 17334. joezan - 12/7/2001 7:26:10 PM Jonesatlaw - 17335. PincherMartin - 12/7/2001 7:28:52 PM It appears little Johnnie Walker will not be making it to Larry King anytime soon. 17336. CalGal - 12/7/2001 7:32:16 PM Ha. Damage control for the silly remark. Good news that they're taking it seriously. 17337. joezan - 12/7/2001 7:34:23 PM Rut-ro. 17338. Property of Jesus - 12/7/2001 7:38:47 PM I just saw the video of the Walker silence. The Americans asking him questions thought he was Irish. Probably IRA. 17339. Cellar Door - 12/7/2001 7:43:32 PM 17340. Property of Jesus - 12/7/2001 8:03:38 PM A better source of material is here 17341. joezan - 12/7/2001 8:04:23 PM Your pal Mike's a blowhard asshole. 17342. joezan - 12/7/2001 8:05:27 PM What's this - The War of the Queens? 17343. CalGal - 12/7/2001 8:10:22 PM For Many, Verdict's In for Taliban Volunteer (and Skip the Trial) 17344. Indiana Jones - 12/7/2001 8:26:44 PM Reports of Mullah Omar being captured from two news sources (Ananova and the London Times). 17345. Indiana Jones - 12/7/2001 8:27:50 PM 17346. joezan - 12/7/2001 8:35:16 PM I just caught that, Indy. 17347. CalGal - 12/7/2001 8:37:14 PM Gosh. Why not give him the same treatment he gave the Northern Alliance generals? 17348. Al D - 12/7/2001 8:42:35 PM eneral Tommy Franks, the overall commander of the coalition forces in Afghanistan, said minutes before initial reports of Mullah Omar’s detention that the Taleban spiritual leader had “vanished”. Correcting himself, he said that he did not know where Mullah Omar was. 17349. PincherMartin - 12/7/2001 8:44:15 PM Ronski -- Message # 17300 17350. PincherMartin - 12/7/2001 8:45:14 PM The fact that a majority of Muslims greatly sympathize with the attacks on the U.S., have a hatred of Jews that is probably greater than what you could find among Germans in the 1930s, and are completely unable to adjust their culture to any sort of half-ass accommodation to modern life with respect to democracy, women's rights, a modern economy, and tolerance of other religions simply doesn't register. 17351. CalGal - 12/7/2001 8:49:36 PM Exactly right. 17352. PincherMartin - 12/7/2001 8:55:10 PM CalGal -- 17353. joezan - 12/7/2001 9:09:16 PM Marjori "I can't get anything right" Banks was leading the charge, so maybe we should have known how far off the mark the bleeders would be. 17354. joezan - 12/7/2001 9:16:05 PM Hey - speaking of "bleeding".... 17355. CalGal - 12/7/2001 9:20:57 PM Oh, no. That's a bummer. I didn't realize that Greta had left the show. I don't like her evening show and I do like Roger Cossack. 17356. PincherMartin - 12/7/2001 9:51:41 PM 17357. CalGal - 12/7/2001 9:59:04 PM I don't disagree that Saudi Arabia is hard to work with, but its mention is very nearly an afterthought. I don't see the article as that persuasive--in fact, it says they've improved, although I'm sure it's marginal. 17358. PincherMartin - 12/7/2001 10:10:25 PM The final sentence is fairly damning when it says that all leads go into Saudi Arabia where they then end. 17359. joezan - 12/7/2001 10:19:32 PM Anyone see Newsweek a couple of weeks ago? The Saudis took out a 13-page propaganda ad about how "modern" and "progressive" they are. Interspersed were little sidebar tidbits of (revisionist) Saudi history. One of these stories had to do with the alliance forged a couple hundred years ago with this Wahab guy -the beginning of Wahabbism - in the author seems to take great pride. 17360. joezan - 12/7/2001 10:20:22 PM ...in which the author seems to take great pride. 17361. Al D - 12/7/2001 10:23:49 PM What happened to the capture of Mullah Omar? 17362. robertjayb - 12/7/2001 10:46:57 PM Mullah Ashcroft isn't telling. Security, you know. 17363. robertjayb - 12/7/2001 11:05:17 PM The The London Times has this shaky article about Mullah Omar's capture and detention by a "sympathetic" warlord. Sounds to me like a Brer Rabbit in the briarpatch ploy. 17364. robertjayb - 12/7/2001 11:38:33 PM Sorry for the rerun. I missed Indiana Jones' London Times link above. 17365. CalGal - 12/8/2001 12:21:45 AM Ducky, 17366. RustlerPike - 12/8/2001 7:14:03 AM 'Mullah Ashcroft' is good. 17367. RustlerPike - 12/8/2001 7:16:57 AM What's the spin on Boldak? 17368. RustlerPike - 12/8/2001 7:21:24 AM Paki nuclear scientists arrested: holy shit? 17369. robertjayb - 12/8/2001 4:46:38 PM Apropos of nothing: The Brits have an Air Marshall named Jock Stirrup. 17370. jexster - 12/8/2001 10:01:08 PM The conservative movement still hasn't adjusted to our new era. Neocons are fighting the last war, theocons can't face the fundamentalist threat, libertarians won't accept necessary government, and scolds can't see how moral a country we are. 17371. Cellar Door - 12/8/2001 10:41:32 PM Such a shame William Bennett's against Gay marriage. He and Sully are perfect for each other. 17372. joezan - 12/8/2001 10:50:03 PM BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! There is indeed a God. 17373. joezan - 12/8/2001 10:55:05 PM HoooHOOOOOOheeeeeEEEEEEE!!!!! 17374. CalGal - 12/8/2001 11:04:24 PM "Robert says he completely understands why this happened," she told Reuters. "These people were refugees. They've lost everything. Robert says he understands why they're angry. He doesn't hold it against them at all." 17375. joezan - 12/8/2001 11:10:41 PM What the fuck have I missed? 17376. CalGal - 12/8/2001 11:21:47 PM You don't think maybe they'd read his articles and just wanted to voice strong disagreement? 17377. mgleason - 12/8/2001 11:24:24 PM Perhaps those particular Afghan refugees were media critics. I can hear Fisk now: 17378. RustlerPike - 12/8/2001 11:56:40 PM I think the attack should be seen as an Op-Ed piece by the Afghans. 17379. Snowowl - 12/9/2001 12:00:52 AM There's something quite sick about people who dislike another's political views rejoicing when they're harmed. Puts me in mind of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9-11. 17380. RustlerPike - 12/9/2001 1:54:41 AM Oh, stop being such a party pooper, Snowowl. Even Fisk says he deserved it. 17381. PincherMartin - 12/9/2001 2:54:19 AM Snowowl -- 17382. Snowowl - 12/9/2001 4:14:19 AM Wry humour? Sickening glee would be a closer description. 17383. PincherMartin - 12/9/2001 5:19:17 AM 17384. RustlerPike - 12/9/2001 7:56:22 AM 17385. joezan - 12/9/2001 8:47:59 AM When I posted that Fisk mini-intifadah story, just as I went to click the Post button my finger froze up, and I had to do my deep-breathing and relaxation exercises before actually completing the deed. 17386. PincherMartin - 12/9/2001 9:03:50 AM Joe, 17387. PincherMartin - 12/9/2001 9:07:25 AM Bin Laden's mother is not angry with her son, just disappointed. 17388. joezan - 12/9/2001 9:32:09 AM Bite me, Picher. 17389. jexster - 12/9/2001 10:07:51 AM MULLAH MUHAMMAD OMAR was last night apparently being held captive as the Taleban lost control of their spiritual stronghold of Kandahar in a major breakthrough for the American-led coalition. 17390. mgleason - 12/9/2001 11:01:34 AM What I find ironic about Fisk's misadventure is that with all his experience, he apparently forgot that people who have nothing also have nothing to lose, and that swanning around among them may not be the wisest course of action. 17391. judithathome - 12/9/2001 11:04:02 AM I think it is ironic we are being told if we don't back Ashcrofts methods, we are giving support to the enemy but we're supposed to wait to see if any proof can be brought against a man who went to another country and joined their army and supported their terroristic ideas against our country before we can condemn him. 17392. judithathome - 12/9/2001 11:05:04 AM (MG...I've always loved the phrase "swanning around"!) 17393. CalGal - 12/9/2001 11:15:28 AM 'I deserved it. I would have beaten me too if I were them. On the other hand, if they were me... well, then they'd deserve to be beaten by me too. I guess'. 17394. judithathome - 12/9/2001 11:26:48 AM ...and he gets paid to write! 17395. jexster - 12/9/2001 12:26:19 PM Prediction! Kausfiles will be roundly condemned as unpatriotic for this item. But within two months the essential point—that it's in Bush's political interest to keep the war going—will be such a staple of punditry that you will switch channels when you hear it 17396. jexster - 12/9/2001 12:27:18 PM 17397. jexster - 12/9/2001 12:39:03 PM Among the isolated, out-of-step losers who dare open their mouths to mutter "doubts" about America's military campaign in Afghanistan, you will sometimes hear the traitorous comment: "This war is just about oil." 17398. jexster - 12/9/2001 12:41:30 PM "For war-ravaged Afghan farmers, the "market realities" are clear: they can plant wheat, and get 20 bucks per hectare, or plant opium and pull down $8,000 in hard cash for the same fields." 17399. Al D - 12/9/2001 2:46:23 PM jexster 17400. AytchMan - 12/9/2001 5:26:24 PM On the Fisk beating: 17401. joezan - 12/9/2001 5:30:30 PM H-Man: 17402. AytchMan - 12/9/2001 5:48:53 PM joe-- 17403. Al D - 12/9/2001 6:18:09 PM Fisk is a liberal; he cannot allow the beaters to take responsibility for their actions, so he must be responsible. When he next addresses the question the responsibility will be shifted to Western Capitalism, or some such nonsense. This man should never be taken seiously by anyone but marjoibanks, a.k.a. Boney Stokes. 17404. judithathome - 12/9/2001 6:29:33 PM Al, do you separate everyone into Liberal and Conservative and make your judgements that way? Because I don't, not to the extent you seem to... 17405. AytchMan - 12/9/2001 6:56:23 PM al d-- 17406. Al D - 12/9/2001 7:43:20 PM Judith 17407. AytchMan - 12/9/2001 8:07:59 PM al-- 17408. CalGal - 12/9/2001 8:14:44 PM U.S.: New Tape Points to Bin Laden 17409. joezan - 12/9/2001 8:15:34 PM H-Man: 17410. AytchMan - 12/9/2001 8:30:36 PM joe and al-- 17411. jexster - 12/9/2001 8:32:03 PM Face the Nation claims that the Brits won't turn over Osama to Bush/Ashcroft death squads. 17412. jexster - 12/9/2001 8:34:27 PM From the tenor of your posts, I wonder if you've had a good meal since last I saw you. 17413. jexster - 12/9/2001 8:35:36 PM First Courses 17414. AytchMan - 12/9/2001 8:38:23 PM cal-- 17415. joezan - 12/9/2001 8:39:26 PM Face the Nation claims that the Brits won't turn over Osama to Bush/Ashcroft death squads. 17416. jexster - 12/9/2001 8:40:35 PM Like it or not JoeZ that's what Bob Scheiffer said not 20 minutes ago. 17417. jexster - 12/9/2001 8:41:23 PM Johnny Walker Singin Like A Canary 17418. CalGal - 12/9/2001 8:41:53 PM I think it shocked him, the bastard. 17419. joezan - 12/9/2001 8:42:08 PM Yea - the guy is my age, and looks as if he's got at least 15 years on me -20 when they show him walking with his cane. 17420. Al D - 12/9/2001 8:42:27 PM It helps to be white and upper middle class. It helped Jane and it looks as if it will help Walker. 17421. CalGal - 12/9/2001 8:43:26 PM I don't think he could be CIA. 17422. joezan - 12/9/2001 8:44:03 PM jex: 17423. Al D - 12/9/2001 8:45:00 PM I suspect that the so-called proof (the tape mentioned by Cheney) that bin Laden organized the attack will come to nought as real proof. What if what he said turns out to be something like, "I wouldn't have expected the buildings to fall."? 17424. Rama - 12/9/2001 8:52:35 PM I suspect that the so-called proof (the tape mentioned by Cheney) that bin Laden organized the attack will come to nought as real proof. 17425. joezan - 12/9/2001 8:54:32 PM Al: 17426. Cellar Door - 12/9/2001 8:54:53 PM I think Walker is just a falke. We're talking about one guy here, people --not a mass movement. 17427. Al D - 12/9/2001 8:57:01 PM First, Chaney has not seen the tape, or so he said. Second, the guy who did was hesitant to say if proved anything. Third, ObL, I would think, was speaking Arabic, and language has funny ways of being translated. Third, I am a doubting old cuss, and hesitate to believe everything I hear. 17428. joezan - 12/9/2001 9:00:01 PM Al: 17429. Al D - 12/9/2001 9:01:57 PM joe 17430. joezan - 12/9/2001 9:03:08 PM Eh...but now that I think of it, didn't Denny only forgive the guys who beat him? I don't recall him saying anything like "It was justified Black Rage", or anything. 17431. joezan - 12/9/2001 9:11:01 PM Wow. 17432. Raskolnikov - 12/9/2001 9:31:36 PM As long as we are speculating on Osama's motives, I think the US reaction was exactly what he wanted - to provoke us into a massive military retaliation on an Islamic country. What he *wasn't* banking on was the Islamic community leaving him largely high and dry and the complete defection of Pakistan to the US. 17433. jexster - 12/9/2001 9:44:16 PM JoeZ - Herr Obergruppenfuehrer Ashcroft will shit a brick! 17434. AytchMan - 12/9/2001 10:06:58 PM al 420-- 17435. joezan - 12/9/2001 10:09:24 PM ``Certainly the military operation would be pretty well wrapped up at that point, but we've had some other missions that we've wanted to accomplish,'' Cheney said on a television talk show. 17436. joezan - 12/9/2001 10:09:59 PM My toys. 17437. CalGal - 12/9/2001 10:16:05 PM What he *wasn't* banking on was the Islamic community leaving him largely high and dry and the complete defection of Pakistan to the US. 17438. jexster - 12/9/2001 10:22:17 PM BRITAIN will lead an international peacekeeping mission to Afghanistan, contributing about 3,000 troops backed by armoured vehicles, defence sources confirmed last night. 17439. joezan - 12/9/2001 11:01:34 PM From the new Newsweek piece on John Walker: 17440. joezan - 12/9/2001 11:03:19 PM jex: 17441. wonkers2 - 12/9/2001 11:05:03 PM I hope nobody ever checks wonkers' posts to The Mote! 17442. joezan - 12/9/2001 11:17:31 PM Hoo, boy - the attack in Fisk's own bloviated words: 17443. joezan - 12/9/2001 11:18:05 PM Dammit. 17444. joezan - 12/9/2001 11:18:33 PM Double dammit. 17445. RustlerPike - 12/10/2001 2:49:43 AM Fisk is a twisted soul. 17446. RustlerPike - 12/10/2001 2:50:24 AM Peter Arnett revisited. 17447. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 9:21:05 AM Now Zan wants a British journalist dead alongside the "evil ones"? How terribly unsurprising. I wonder when he'll admit that there are neighbors of his he similarly wants torn apart by a mob, not to mention relatives, and perhaps a couple of the members of this forum. Nutty as a fuitcake, Mad Cow Zan. 17448. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 9:25:54 AM Fisk, of course, is nothing like Peter Arnett in the Gulf War. 17449. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 9:32:41 AM Now, on another perhaps slightly related note, I saw with interest that Pat Robertson has stepped down from the leadership of the Christian Coalition - thus reportedly leaving the once-powerful organization in disarray. 17450. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 9:39:30 AM 17451. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 9:40:22 AM The religious right has transformed American politics — and credit for that goes to Pat Robertson. Under the inept leadership of Jerry Falwell in the 1980's, Christian conservatives formed merely one of half a dozen groups in the broad Reagan coalition. In the 1990's, Mr. Robertson's genius as a political organizer permitted religious conservatives to gain enough clout within the Republican Party to veto the nomination of political candidates they deemed unacceptable. 17452. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 9:41:21 AM 17453. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 9:44:34 AM 17454. judithathome - 12/10/2001 10:00:26 AM One newsman I saw said bin Laden had said on the tape that he had hadn't expected the buildings to collapse any further than the floors where the plans had penetrated. Whether he had a good translator or none at all and was simply embellishing, I don't know. 17455. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 10:16:03 AM Pakistan plans to clamp down on militants. 17456. jexster - 12/10/2001 11:18:39 AM Air Strikes Silence Paki Islamic Militants 17457. thoughtful - 12/10/2001 1:36:39 PM I'm posting this here as it's related to the attack...the blossoming of flags across the country. I always thought that it was a right of free speech to burn the flag etc and that's why there was the debate about the flag amendment. Yet a buddy of mine just directed me to the US Code which lays out regulations around display and use of the flag. Is it illegal to treat the flag other than code and it's just not enforced? If so, why was the flag amendment even necessary? 17458. PelleNilsson - 12/10/2001 1:40:50 PM Marching in honour of Saddam. I wonder if these are women soldiers with their early-Madonna contraptions? 17459. RustlerPike - 12/10/2001 4:02:09 PM Shimon Peres is growing a penis on his chin, guys. 17460. RustlerPike - 12/10/2001 4:03:26 PM JoeZan is an American poet, a genius, a legend in his own underwear, marj. You're just mad because all your fave journalists are getting beaten up lately. 17461. concerned - 12/10/2001 5:23:25 PM AFAIC, the Brits can hang onto bin Laden's rotten ass in perpetuity. 17462. concerned - 12/10/2001 5:30:50 PM Re. 17453 - 17463. Al D - 12/10/2001 5:46:18 PM Judith 17464. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 6:00:01 PM Well, because you're so sincerely interested, Al, here's the amazon.co.uk review: 17465. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 6:00:23 PM Fisk, formerly of The Times and now Middle East correspondent for The Independent, writes as combatively as the events he so vividly describes. With a fastidious eye for detail, he rails against day-tripping reporters who betray truth with their clichés and loose language, constantly defending language against false appropriation: "terrorism", for example, wielded by one side to describe acts committed against them, deprives the term of any objective purpose and thus legitimises reprisal. He makes reparation with this unique and passionate analysis, still angry after all these years, which remains the most relentless and convincing account yet of the bloodiest quarter-century in Lebanon's history. 17466. Al D - 12/10/2001 6:01:19 PM banks's boy, Fisk 17467. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 6:06:28 PM And from the NYTimes review of the book: 17468. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 6:06:50 PM Israel's invasion of Lebanon, less than four months before the massacre, was, however, a turning point in the West's perception of the Arab-Israeli dispute. For the first time Western journalists covered an Arab-Israeli war from the Arab side, and while reporters traveling with the Israelis faced severe restrictions, and sometimes censorship, those in Beirut could move about freely and report what they saw. Often their stories were at odds with the behavior the world had come to expect from Israel and its disciplined army. 17469. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 6:07:46 PM I trust that Al D will now rush out and buy this fine, essential, volume. 17470. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 6:09:02 PM A final appetizer, from the London Review of Books: 17471. concerned - 12/10/2001 6:10:28 PM I couldn't resist. 17472. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 6:43:32 PM Coincidental to this attack on Fisk, before I read that it had taken place, we watched this documentary about journalists who were attacked and killed in Somalia. 17473. judithathome - 12/10/2001 6:46:51 PM I watched that yeaterday and thought it very well done. 17474. DaveM - 12/10/2001 6:52:11 PM Has there been a sustained conversation on Where's Dick Cheney phenomenon? Does anyone think that it is simply a ruse to let Cheney avoid the investigative arms of the GAO et al.? It is obvious that Cheney prefers working in secrecy/privacy - the "undiscolsed location" nonsense seems quite fortuitous for the administration. 17475. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 6:52:27 PM One of the more compelling people in that documentary was the cameraman (who accompanied the sister back to the spot in Somalia where her bro died), Mohammed Shafi. 17476. concerned - 12/10/2001 6:53:14 PM Does anyone think that it is simply a ruse to let Cheney avoid the investigative arms of the GAO et al.? 17477. DaveM - 12/10/2001 6:55:46 PM So you agree, concerned? 17478. concerned - 12/10/2001 6:58:14 PM Well, I have to give journalists in Afghanistan credit for something. I haven't quite yet decided what it is, however. After all (correct me if my figures are off), since 9/11, eight times more of them have died than US forces in action against the enemy, and two to four times as many of them as US forces that have perished from 'friendly fire'. 17479. Al D - 12/10/2001 7:07:24 PM banks 17480. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 7:13:22 PM Al, 17481. wonkers2 - 12/10/2001 7:13:54 PM The military tribunals were Cheney's idea. 17482. marjoribanks - 12/10/2001 7:34:17 PM Somalia appears to be next on the "war on terror" radar screen, and I think it is a good thing. Few countries are as destabilized and in need of the "world's policeman" than war-ravaged and armed-to-the-hilt Somalia. Plus, one of the US's most wanted, an al-Qaeda honcho, was picked up there just yesterday. 17483. Al D - 12/10/2001 7:48:26 PM banks 17484. Jenerator - 12/10/2001 8:05:38 PM Al, 17485. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 8:20:48 PM Message # 17350 17486. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 8:21:56 PM Democracy 17487. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 8:22:39 PM But even in countries where there is no democracy at all, there are still real democratic movements. In Egypt and Tunisia, regular elections are held, but the government interferes with them through controlled candidate lists and restrictions on the press. In both countries there are real political parties who would be ready to come to the fore if there were a genuine democracy. 17488. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 8:22:52 PM Anyway, to sum up, (1) it is obviously false, even in Muslim countries with no record of democracy, that they are "completely unable to adjust their culture to any sort of half-ass accommodation to modern life with respect to democracy"; and (2) the record of Muslim countries in democracy is no worse than those of Latin America, Africa, and Asia. 17489. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 8:23:16 PM Message # 17381 17490. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 8:23:35 PM Message # 17383 17491. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 8:34:30 PM I reckon the majority of Muslims around the world think along the same lines as what a Gallup poll reveals about Pakistani opinion. 17492. Al D - 12/10/2001 8:43:27 PM pseudoerasmus 17493. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 8:45:21 PM Well, possibly, if Iran is any guide. 17494. wonkers2 - 12/10/2001 8:52:35 PM "The majority don't believe bin Laden was responsible." 17495. Andonly - 12/10/2001 9:04:35 PM 17496. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 9:04:40 PM "Muslim countries' record in democracy is perhaps comparable with Latin America's or East Asia's." 17497. AytchMan - 12/10/2001 9:37:59 PM pe-- 17498. pseudoerasmus - 12/10/2001 9:40:45 PM Itch: 17499. AytchMan - 12/10/2001 9:50:12 PM Itch? 17500. jexster - 12/10/2001 11:01:10 PM 17501. jexster - 12/10/2001 11:06:58 PM In the wake of September 11th, special interests have decided that the US Treasury is their personal piggy-bank. And many members of Congress 17502. joezan - 12/10/2001 11:08:09 PM Geez.... 17503. ButterfieldSwire - 12/11/2001 6:52:11 AM The female secondary school enrollment rate in Hong Kong and Taiwan have been higher than the male for at least 10 years. 17504. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 8:48:21 AM Message # 17503 17505. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 9:07:59 AM I remember well when Pseuder was quite a rabid pro-Israel hawk. It was always somewhat inexplicable. 17506. Andonly - 12/11/2001 9:22:47 AM "I've seen you remark on the Middle East. You have the standard Euro/Antipodean/U.S. Left/Noble White Man view of the situation:" 17507. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 9:25:20 AM From the BBC: 17508. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 9:38:44 AM Message # 17506 17509. rubberducky - 12/11/2001 9:44:29 AM 17510. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 9:45:49 AM Gandhi had opposed statehood in Palestine for Jews. 17511. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 9:51:45 AM Gandhi-Buber exchange on Palestine/Israel question. 17512. Andonly - 12/11/2001 10:45:36 AM PE, 17513. Andonly - 12/11/2001 10:45:49 AM By the way, I don't think anyone especially defends the position of women in China, or Guatemala, or other non-Muslim states with relatively poor economies. The fact remains that China, India, and all of Latin America could fall off the globe and political Islam still would not be good for women--or for the development of secularism in Muslim countries in our lifetimes, your claims about "democratic" Iran aside. 17514. Andonly - 12/11/2001 10:47:44 AM But this bent of yours--denying that women have it bad in Muslim countries compared to other countries you consider equivalent by virtue of some economic datum--is of a piece with your claim that Jews were never so poorly off in Muslim lands compared to Christian ones, or that the widespread belief among Muslims now that Jews were responsible for the 9-11 atrocity is comparable to some belief you dream is held by a majority of Americans that we were attacked because Muslims hate our freedom (or something like that). 17515. Andonly - 12/11/2001 10:53:37 AM "No, merely pointing out that pro-Palestine sympathies are far from limited to Europeans, Antipodeans and the US left. They are a world-wide phenomenon, and even more a Third World phenomenon." 17516. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 11:09:36 AM 17517. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 11:11:48 AM .....some belief you dream is held by a majority of Americans that we were attacked because Muslims hate our freedom (or something like that). 17518. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 11:14:26 AM Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other. 17519. rubberducky - 12/11/2001 11:17:58 AM maybe i missed it, banks, but could you tell me or cite where Dubya says 'they' = 'Muslims'? 17520. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 11:20:23 AM What's your point, ducks? 17521. Francis Urquhart - 12/11/2001 11:24:45 AM His point is that your translation fails. 17522. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 11:28:23 AM Is anyone here claiming that it is not a commonly held and voiced opinion in these USA that Muslims, or a significant subset thereof, "hate America's freedoms"? 17523. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 11:53:39 AM Message # 17512 17524. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 11:54:46 AM Message # 17512 17525. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 11:55:15 AM Message # 17512 17526. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 11:55:38 AM Message # 17512 17527. ButterfieldSwire - 12/11/2001 12:35:55 PM Although it may be true that "there are several 17528. Andonly - 12/11/2001 12:44:00 PM "What's wrong with this "bent" of mine?" 17529. Andonly - 12/11/2001 12:44:38 PM By the way, Peace Now, the Israeli political group which raises funds in the US and apparently has an American for its president, is assuredly anti-Zionist. In the current climate especially, no one can reasonably claim that Peace Now is "pro-Israel". In the US, there was throughout the '90s an influential Jewish magazine published out of Oakland, Tikkun, whose editor, Michael Lerner, was anything but pro-Israel. (He invented the catchphrase "the politics of meaning" and became for a while a bit of a guru to the early Clinton admin.) Add to this that many of the most knee-jerk anti-Israel reporters working for the major news agencies are Jews, a fact which is not lost on dismayed Israelis. Just offhand, I can think of four or five Jewish friends or family members whose views cannot be said to be "pro-Israel"--more like, "who cares?". 17530. Andonly - 12/11/2001 12:45:55 PM "I completely disagree. And several examples illustrate my disagreement." 17531. jexster - 12/11/2001 12:50:40 PM By the way, Peace Now, the Israeli political group which raises funds in the US and apparently has an American for its president, is assuredly anti-Zionist 17532. Andonly - 12/11/2001 12:55:54 PM "By contrast, Islam requires that both men and women adulterers be punished in exact symmetry." 17533. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 1:05:06 PM It's rather ridiculous to call the worthy group, Peace Now, "anti-Zionist." It is not anti-Zionist at all, and neither are its American supporters. 17534. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 1:10:22 PM I think the people at Peace Now are brave and extremely worthy, and in the past I've donated money and time to the organization, especially when Amos Oz was a main guiding force in the movement. 17535. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 1:12:01 PM I just noticed this - 17536. rubberducky - 12/11/2001 1:18:22 PM banks: 17537. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 1:19:22 PM PE -- Message # 17485 17538. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 1:21:15 PM As for anti-Semitism, it is certainly prevalent in the Arab world, but I reckon it more like that found in the UK or the USA before WW2, rather than the kind found in Germany in the 1930s. 17539. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 1:25:35 PM If you could ask this simple question to informed public opinion around the Muslim world: "Does Israel have the right to exist?" Where among the four dozen or so majority Muslim countries would you garner a majority to answer yes? Malaysia, maybe? There's a country with many non-Muslims that has developed nicely over the last few years and is almost as far away from Israel as the United States. Surely, this would be a strong case for a Muslim country not to fall into the pattern of anti-Semitism I discussed. 17540. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 1:27:42 PM ****** 17541. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 1:28:50 PM Of the more than fifty Muslim-majority countries I counted, only one (as in Plattner's 1996 book, it is Mali) rated "free." Not a single Muslim country rates as high as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, The Philippines, Thailand, or even Mongolia from the East/Southeast Asian region. 17542. jexster - 12/11/2001 1:29:44 PM 17545. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 1:32:29 PM Why is this discussion being sidetracked to the red herring of allegations of anti-semitism in Muslim-majority countries? 17546. rubberducky - 12/11/2001 1:33:24 PM repeat posts deleted 17547. ButterfieldSwire - 12/11/2001 1:34:43 PM I don't see how PincherMartin can deny that Yemen's government is popularly elected. In the last election, the President received more than 97% of the vote! 17548. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 1:34:58 PM Here is another interesting page from Freedom House, comparing "combined levels of freedom" among countries. Here is the thirteen worst on the list: 17549. ronski - 12/11/2001 1:37:22 PM Try as it may. 17550. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 1:42:49 PM Marj -- 17551. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 1:51:34 PM I don't see how PincherMartin can deny that Yemen's government is popularly elected. In the last election, the President received more than 97% of the vote! 17552. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 1:59:33 PM Message # 17540 17553. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 2:03:53 PM I should have included Yemen in the "legislative democracy" category, along with Morocco and Jordan. Freedom House categorises the legislative elections in the country as free and fair. 17554. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 2:04:28 PM Message # 17537 17555. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 2:05:57 PM Message # 17528 17556. ButterfieldSwire - 12/11/2001 2:11:03 PM Marjoribanks says "The vast majority of Muslim states have diplomatic relations with Israel." This is a falsehood. A list of states that have no relations with Israel includes: Malaysia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Libya, Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, UAE, Kuwait, Mali, Guinea and North Korea," Basically, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, the CIS states, and some sub-Saharan Muslim countries recognize Israel. 17557. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 2:12:22 PM yes, where did Marjoribanks get that idea? 17558. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 2:23:49 PM I can't remember who, but William Easterly or maybe Hall & Jones had compiled a dataset which contained a column called "number of years of elected governments 1945-95" or something like that. 17559. ButterfieldSwire - 12/11/2001 2:30:53 PM Maybe Barro and Wolf, but that kind of thing always seemed a little endogenous for a right hand side variable. 17560. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 2:35:44 PM Well, I think most political variables seem a bit endogenous. 17561. mgleason - 12/11/2001 2:36:39 PM The vast majority of Muslim states have diplomatic relations with Israel. 17562. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 2:36:55 PM PE -- 17563. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 2:40:29 PM In East Asia, only Japan has been a solid, long-standing democracy. All other examples have been sporadic and/or recent. 17564. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 2:41:08 PM And time since independence is important. Most LA countries have been independent for 180 years or so. If they have failed to have much democracy in those years, that's largely their fault. By contrast, the history of independence for most Muslim states ranges from 40 years to 50 years. 17565. PelleNilsson - 12/11/2001 2:55:13 PM Pincher 17566. ButterfieldSwire - 12/11/2001 2:59:29 PM Pseudoerasmus says "Return to the status quo ante of 1967 would be fair." Throw in a couple hundred million American a year in exchange for a few neighborhoods in Jerusalem and I would agree. 17567. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 3:01:43 PM I did overstate (in haste) the case wrt Muslim countries and Israel. There is only a slim majority of "Muslim" countries which have full diplomatic relations with Israel. In addition, there are several (like Indonesia) which have open lines of communication but have not exchanged full consular rights yet. 17568. PelleNilsson - 12/11/2001 3:11:04 PM Yes, Turkey and Israel have, inter alia, conducted joint naval exercises. Maybe Pincher should confine himself to commenting on Taiwan and its immediate surroundings of which, presumably, he has some real knowledge. 17569. rubberducky - 12/11/2001 3:14:36 PM 17570. ronski - 12/11/2001 3:21:12 PM Perhaps the U.S. feels confident they have the goods on this guy without having to compromise intelligence sources. Also, is this creep supposed to have been the 20th hijacker who never made it to the plane? Is he the fellow who asked for jet-turning lessons? Are those two one and the same? Does anyone know? 17571. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 3:24:02 PM Ronski, 17572. ronski - 12/11/2001 3:31:04 PM marj, 17573. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 3:31:27 PM I fail to see, in the greater context, the meaning in this discussion on democracy and the Middle East and other Muslim-majority areas. 17574. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 3:37:22 PM PelleNillson -- 17575. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 3:40:24 PM Marj -- 17576. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 3:45:36 PM but my characterization is certainly accurate for the main part of it. The cooperation may be the worst-kept secret in the Middle East, but it is still not something Turkey chooses to advertise 17577. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 3:48:13 PM On the contrary, Pincher Martin, I suggest that you continue huffing-and-puffing and trying to blow smoke about Muslim countries, democracy, and now Israel. 17578. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 3:51:39 PM Message # 17562 17579. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 3:52:17 PM Pincher: 17580. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 3:52:29 PM For example, is it not significant that every single Arab country had a regime installed by foreign powers while the few Muslim countries which have had democratic experience (Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nigeria, others in Africa, etc.) had the freedom to select their own governments at independence? I think that is significant. 17581. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 3:52:43 PM I find Taiwan and South Korea highly exceptional, given that their economic development is at the level of the bottom half of the OECD countries. 17582. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 3:54:32 PM 17583. PincherMartin - 12/11/2001 3:55:27 PM Marj, I didn't say it was a secret. I first described it as under-the-table. I then described it as maybe the worst-kept secret in the Middle East. 17584. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 3:59:51 PM Pincher, 17585. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 3:59:58 PM And why is Pincher Martin being so bloody belligerant? 17586. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 4:17:06 PM Here, again, is the New York Times special on the CIA-sponsored elimination of Mossadegh. 17587. rubberducky - 12/11/2001 4:25:52 PM CNN has a poll on their website: 17588. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 4:28:58 PM I think it could well be a holiday if the US does manage to win a series of military victories, and accompanying diplomatic successes. But right now, I'm with my squeaky friend rubberducky. 17589. CalGal - 12/11/2001 4:30:18 PM Ick. No. We don't take Pearl Harbor off, either. 17590. rubberducky - 12/11/2001 4:31:24 PM i'm open to that, Banks. it's something i've been thinking about. 17591. rubberducky - 12/11/2001 4:33:57 PM ... meant to add this... 17592. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 4:34:59 PM How about, simply, War on Terrorism. 17593. rubberducky - 12/11/2001 4:36:12 PM ah, yes, should have seen that one, eh? 17594. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 4:37:16 PM Since it has been three months. Only three months - 17595. mgleason - 12/11/2001 4:41:06 PM A holiday? Gee, we can stage our own version of Northern Ireland's Orange parades and march into Muslim neighborhoods to taunt them. 17596. PelleNilsson - 12/11/2001 5:06:40 PM Pincher 17597. PelleNilsson - 12/11/2001 5:16:37 PM PE's characterization of Syria et al as bureaucratic-revolutionary states is very apt and so is the comparison with Mexico under the PRI. I hadn't thought of that before. 17598. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 5:35:38 PM "Pakistan and the Philippines have comparisons going back to 1972 at Freedom House. They both go up and down, but the Philippines consistently scores higher than Pakistan, and even during the worst of Marco's years in power, it was never as low as Pakistan has been during numerous times over the last thirty years, including this year. 17599. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 5:53:17 PM Message # 17597 17600. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 5:58:33 PM I certainly would have been loath to infer confidently from the Soviet regime anything about Russian attitudes toward democracy . After all, the Bolsheviks came to power through a kind of coup and elimination of the genuinely democratic opposition. 17601. Al D - 12/11/2001 6:40:58 PM http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20011217&s=hitchens 17602. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 6:44:10 PM 17603. Al D - 12/11/2001 6:45:22 PM Thanks banks! 17604. marjoribanks - 12/11/2001 6:49:05 PM There isn't much that's new or interesting in that Hitchens piece, Al. 17605. Al D - 12/11/2001 6:55:21 PM Was the decision for Bush to have an option for Military Tribunals Ashcroft's idea, and would he administer them or would it be the Department of defense? But I know when I went bird hunting, I prefered to shoot geese over snipe. Those snipe are almost imposible to hit. I've got to get Evie to the Dr.'s, so later. 17606. Andonly - 12/11/2001 7:01:56 PM "It is illogical to suggest, for example, that Iran "has not reached a half-ass accomadation" with democracy when it has had meaningful elections for both parliament and presidency just because the elections cannot yet fully overturn an entrenched elite" 17607. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 7:06:06 PM Does the clergy ultimately control the presidency? Why does the clergy seem to oppose president Khatami then? 17608. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 7:10:48 PM If there were anything like real democracy in Iran, would not the son of Mohammed Rezi Shah Pahlavi have left his home in Texas by now? 17609. Andonly - 12/11/2001 7:16:26 PM Banks: "Is anyone here claiming that it is not a commonly held and voiced opinion in these USA that Muslims, or a significant subset thereof, "hate America's freedoms"?" 17610. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 7:28:08 PM "Frankly, I suppose Americans are simply less likely than third worlders to buy into official administrative propaganda...." 17611. Andonly - 12/11/2001 7:29:26 PM A: "The politically charged part of Islam is now where Christendom was in the fifteenth century." 17612. wonkers2 - 12/11/2001 7:34:25 PM Al, I hope you don't let any of your friends outside the Mote know you read the Nation. They might not approve. 17613. Andonly - 12/11/2001 7:39:29 PM A: "Moreover, if memory serves, the Koran itself does not prescribe that the determination of guilt in an adultery case is at all a "symmetrical" affair. Given the requirements on witnesses, a woman's testimony is essentially rendered useless against a man's." 17614. Andonly - 12/11/2001 7:40:06 PM Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Ghazzali, the 11th-12th century Muslim philosopher/theologian/skeptic/Sufi mystic, described eighteen pains visited on Muslim women as punishment for Eve's transgression in Paradise: 17615. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 7:57:15 PM Message # 17613 17616. Andonly - 12/11/2001 8:00:11 PM Explain why Ghazzali accords women half and not one-fourth the testimonial strength of men. 17617. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 8:00:22 PM According to the Qur'an, men and women are equal as witnesses in all cases except in debtor transactions, where the testimony of a man and two women must be substituted for the testimony of two men. 17618. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 8:00:56 PM I see no reason to explain anything about Ghazzali. 17619. Andonly - 12/11/2001 8:01:16 PM Rather, half and not all. 17620. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 8:27:50 PM Most of this al-Ghazzali bloke's comments on women's "punishments" bear no relationship to what's in the Qur'an. For instance, he claims that women have "liability to be divorced and inability to divorce", which is totally and unambiguously false. Not only can women initiate divorce, but they can initiate what would be called, in American parlance, no-fault or no-cause divorce. The three-month waiting period described by al-Ghazzali applies equally to men, so I don't know what he's talking about. The parts about domestic seclusion, veiling inside the house, and women having to be accompanied outside by male relatives are also false. 17621. jexster - 12/11/2001 9:56:14 PM The Rout of Doubt: Bad Time for Pessimistic Punditry (Weisberg) 17622. Andonly - 12/11/2001 10:31:43 PM "This al-Ghazzali bloke", the 11-12 c. imam credited with having resolved Sufism with orthodoxy, is surely a better regarded scholar of Islam than you are. However, like others of his time, and like the Taliban and Khomeini, he regarded women as slightly subhuman. But I'm not sure he differed substantially in this respect from, say, Martin Buber. 17623. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 10:46:08 PM Message # 17622 17624. Andonly - 12/11/2001 10:58:47 PM As for my citation from the Quran, chapter 24, yes you're right that the succeeding verses provide women an equivalent right of defense against a husband's unwitnessed charge of adultery, but where in the Quran does one woman's testimony against her husband's infidelity not require four witnesses? In chapter 24 (as opposed ot ch 4) a man suddenly no longer needs four witnesses; four oaths and one claimant do. Where is it written that all a woman need do is swear four or five oaths that her husband is guilty? 17625. Andonly - 12/11/2001 10:59:08 PM I neglected, by the way, to mention Ch 4, verse 34, but only because I have seen differing translations of it: 17626. Andonly - 12/11/2001 11:06:50 PM "Perhaps, but why should he be taken seriously if many of his pronouncements contradict the plain words of the Qur'an? The part about divorce and the others I mentioned are egregious." 17627. pseudoerasmus - 12/11/2001 11:12:47 PM Message # 17626 17628. Andonly - 12/11/2001 11:20:02 PM The reason for the similarity between orthodox Judaism and Islam, by the way, is that for a period under the Ottomans, Jewish, Islamic, and Christian scholarship developed together, to the extent that scholars from different religions cribbed each other's treatises. In fact, the Judaic commentary of the middle ages, on which so much of modern orthodoxy hangs, may very well be little more than a product of the Islamification of Judaism--just as the Prophet's original revelations are an Arabized digestion of Judaism and Christianity. 17629. RustlerPike - 12/11/2001 11:35:27 PM pe Message # 17489: 17630. joezan - 12/11/2001 11:58:24 PM Pike: 17631. RustlerPike - 12/12/2001 12:05:45 AM Joe: 17632. RustlerPike - 12/12/2001 12:16:49 AM Also, pe: you say the 1947 offer was 'grossly unfair' and the Pals were right to reject it. Are you aware of the historical circumstances, I wonder? Do you know that the offer was made two years after the end of World War Two? That some of the Jews who were to get that measly, barely tenable statelet delineated in that map were still not back to their normal body weight after Bergen Belsen and Buchenwald? That one third of the Jewish people had been exterminated like so many rats in the course of a six years hell launched by the Germans upon the world, and that the Palestinians were actually on Hitler's side in that war? Don't you think factors like these could have made the victorious powers a bit more sympathetic to the Jews than they would otherwise have been? Don't you think maybe, when all those films and photos and survivors' accounts of the living horrors of the Nazi sodomization of the Jewish people came out, they felt a bit bad about not letting Jewish refugees into Palestine during the war and sending them back to die in Europe, just because the Arabs wouldn't have Britain allow any more Jews in? 17633. RustlerPike - 12/12/2001 12:18:17 AM My Jesus. 17634. RustlerPike - 12/12/2001 12:54:14 AM Also, pe, do you think that maybe the Powers were saying: 'look, obviously the Arabs will not let the Jews live in peace no matter what we give them. If we give them something totally puny, the Arabs will annihilate them and we'll be responsible for the Holocaust, Part 2. We don't want that responsibility. So let them have a bit more. It's highly unlikely they'll survive the Arab attack, but at least we won't be so easily held to account for the slaughter'. 17635. Andonly - 12/12/2001 1:18:43 AM "I don't know why you keep saying this, because it's just not true and you are making the statement up in parallel with some Jewish practise." 17636. Andonly - 12/12/2001 1:19:18 AM And, parallel Jewish and Muslim traditions surround the direct relationship between individuals and God, the mystical transcendent/immanent quality of words, and the requirement of orthopraxy but not orthodoxy. 17637. RustlerPike - 12/12/2001 3:21:53 AM 1% KIA is about one out of 30 or so men who are neither children nor old men. I believe about 10% of the entire Jewish population was either killed or wounded in the 1948 war. That's about 24 million casualties, in year 2001 American terms. 17638. stostosto - 12/12/2001 4:36:14 AM Rustler: 17639. stostosto - 12/12/2001 4:45:19 AM Of course, as seen from a Pal nationalistic point of view, the framing of the issue as what should the Israelis "give" them is forever bound to keep them pissed. 17640. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 4:46:36 AM I've answered some of RP's questions in the Israel/Palestine thread and some of the Andolisms in the Religion thread. 17641. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 4:49:19 AM Pincher Martin has asked "of what fucking relevance is [it]" that democratisation in most developing countries is a recent phenomenon. Frankly I do not understand how a longer-term view than a mere decade is not required in order to make a grand statement about culture and democracy. 17642. OhioSTOPAS - 12/12/2001 5:17:14 AM I agree with 'Ducky (Message # 17587) and CalGal (Message # 17589). Making September 11 a holiday is a terribly misguided idea. 17643. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 6:01:42 AM Two side points came up yesterday: 17644. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 6:04:04 AM In responding, I said I doubted either emigration or fertility was constant over the years, and added I would look for a source to prove it. I also said "As for where I got my information, I believe Friedman's book on Beirut and Jerusalem says something about the demographic change coming around the time the Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan. I will check when I get home." 17645. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 6:04:58 AM John Esposito's Islam and Politics is more specific about when certain demographic changes occurred. 17646. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 6:10:14 AM In any case, my original contention stands: Lebanon is a special case. Even if I grant that the country had a majority of Muslims in, say for example, 1950, its political system grandfathered in a system run on the basis of Christian/Sunni Muslim control with the Christians having a very slight political advantage. 17647. stostosto - 12/12/2001 6:19:03 AM Pincher, 17648. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 6:56:55 AM Message # 17647 17649. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 6:58:56 AM observation, not proposition 17650. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 7:06:58 AM PE -- Message # 17641 17651. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 7:07:57 AM However, as I said before, Latin America is very different from other developing countries. All of them either have, or have had, European ruling elites. And most of them have 180 years of independent political history. 17652. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 7:08:15 AM a couple of Eastern European countries have had solid democracy for 10 years; and four East Asian countries (Taiwan, SK, Th., and the Ph.) have had 10-15 yars of solid democracy. 17653. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 7:11:48 AM Sto -- 17654. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 7:28:17 AM I'm having to backtrack several days to read posts I either missed before or have not answered. I'll try to answer all of them through the weekend. 17655. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 7:29:26 AM If it is not a chronic or a semi-intrinsic condition, I have really no idea what it means to attribute something causally to culture. You say "culture changes" which sounds like a fad, with things changing every decade or two. Maybe you should have called it something else, and we might have had a different exchange. 17656. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 7:31:55 AM "But it is ignorant to argue that its current manifestation (including the recent turn towards more fundamentalist ideologies in the last two decades) doesn't have serious trouble accomadating itself to modernity, including democracy, the treatment of women, and tolerance towards others." 17657. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 7:40:48 AM the sentence "They may not be insufficient or slow from a western point of view, but the improvement is undeniable." 17658. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 8:01:07 AM If it is not a chronic or a semi-intrinsic condition, I have really no idea what it means to attribute something causally to culture. 17659. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 8:14:43 AM Frankly I have a hard time believing that I am being called ignorant on this issue. 17660. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 8:27:44 AM An ironic analogy. I don't think anybody believes in a "Hindu rate of growth" anymore, in the sense that there was nothing "Hindu" about India's growth rate before 1989. Fabian socialism and central planning are sufficient explanation. 17661. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 8:31:27 AM Message # 17658 17662. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 8:32:11 AM (There are of course more radical groups than the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, but the ML is the largest fundamentalist tendency.) 17663. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 8:44:18 AM Before you accuse me of not knowing what is the "Hindu rate of growth," let me say it was a joke. 17664. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 8:54:21 AM Message # 17663 17665. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 8:57:05 AM But you haven't really answered my question. In academic discourse about development and modernisation, "culture" typically denotes some chronic or semi-intrinsic condition. 17666. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 9:05:48 AM I have read Lawrence Harrison's various books on culture & development, and I don't think I use the word any differently than he does. Certainly I do not deny that culture changes over time, but to use 10-15-20 year time spans in declarations about cultural determinants of political development, seems wrong-headed and contrary to the standard use of the word "culture" in development studies. 17667. PincherMartin - 12/12/2001 9:18:28 AM PE -- 17668. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 9:32:54 AM Message # 17667 17669. Andonly - 12/12/2001 10:05:56 AM Message # 17664 PE to Pincher: "The above remarks are true, but my problem is your drawing a cultural conclusion from this. See Message # 17599." 17670. Andonly - 12/12/2001 10:06:25 AM Pincher: "And [Iran] is one of your positive examples from the Muslim world showing how they can accomadate with democracy." 17671. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 10:29:31 AM Message # 17669 17672. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 10:29:59 AM 17673. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 10:30:58 AM in conjunction with his bloc in parliament, rather 17674. Francis Urquhart - 12/12/2001 10:41:43 AM An Article That Lays Out Errors of Prediction Made By Many, if Not All, Contributors to this Thread 17675. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 10:43:54 AM Pincher Martin said in Message # 17663 17676. CalGal - 12/12/2001 11:07:36 AM Regarding Francis' article, which I haven't finished, there's something I meant to say in response to the general gloating in the media about all the doom and gloom pessimism back in mid-November. 17677. mgleason - 12/12/2001 11:08:06 AM Out of 238 candidates who filed for Iran's 1997 presidential elections, 4 were approved by the Council of Guardians. 800 filed in 2001, with 10 receiving approval to run. 17678. stostosto - 12/12/2001 11:24:11 AM Cal, 17679. Raskolnikov - 12/12/2001 11:26:21 AM Interesting discussion. But I think PE and PM are talking past each other. I think PM hit the nail on the head when he observed that "culture changes". Given the successful expansion and vitality in early Islamic countries, and the fact that democracy has gained traction in non-Arab Muslim countries, I think it is hard to argue that Islam itself is somehow anti-modern. 17680. stostosto - 12/12/2001 11:37:29 AM Rask, 17681. Raskolnikov - 12/12/2001 11:40:13 AM Sto: I think he was saying that *currently* this is the case, and was relying on recent data to make his claim. This is why I think he and PE were talking past each other. 17682. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 11:55:04 AM "I see nothing to indicate the current wave of fundamentalism is a sign of a permanent weakness in Islamic culture rather than a temporary one. I think this is what PE is getting at." 17683. jexster - 12/12/2001 11:55:09 AM Add Bill Clinton's name to the list of prominent Democrats who think the nation's capital would be a partisan mess if Al Gore (news - web sites) had become president. 17684. jexster - 12/12/2001 11:56:21 AM I have PE and I am inclined to think that more democracy would mean MORE fundamentalism. 17685. Raskolnikov - 12/12/2001 12:04:30 PM PE:"Actually, I do not accept that fundamentalism is necessarily incompatible with democracy. So I do not accept that increased fundamentalism in some countries necessarily betokens increasing 17686. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 12:18:48 PM I have already said there is not a single, univocal fundamentalist ideology in th eIslamic world. It varies from country to country. Fundamentalists in Algeria and Saudi Arabia make the Taliban look like liberals. In Egypt and Tajikistan (where a civil war was fought between the government and the Islamic opposition in 1992-95), the fundamentalists are much more moderate. If the Egyptian government were to gradually democratise its regime, I speculate that the Egyptian Brotherhood movement would embrace democracy. 17687. Raskolnikov - 12/12/2001 12:25:58 PM Pseudo: I lack your familiarity with the particulars of different groups of Islamic fundamentalists, but I have to say that your post reminds me of the claims of various Marxist, who kept saying that despite the horrible democratic and human rights record of communists in power, *this* revolutionary group would be different. 17688. marjoribanks - 12/12/2001 12:28:25 PM Of course democracy in the ME usually means greater power to the Islamists. 17689. Andonly - 12/12/2001 12:50:58 PM "No, I am not backpedalling. I cited Iran as an emergent democracy from the very beginning." 17690. Andonly - 12/12/2001 12:51:20 PM I have answered your thoroughly disappointing response, in Religion (msg 14722), to my prior remarks here. 17691. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 12:54:52 PM Message # 17687 17692. Andonly - 12/12/2001 12:55:04 PM "Actually, I do not accept that fundamentalism is necessarily incompatible with democracy." 17693. Andonly - 12/12/2001 1:03:24 PM "I have to say that your post reminds me of the claims of various Marxist, who kept saying that despite the horrible democratic and human rights record of communists in power, *this* revolutionary group would be different." 17694. Property of Jesus - 12/12/2001 1:08:36 PM B-1 bomber down in Indian Ocean. It happened at 11:30 am est. 17695. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 1:11:27 PM Fundamentalists in most Muslim countries are organised as political parties in restricted legislative frameworks, not as revolutionary groups in a violent struggle against the government. So the Marxist comparison is silly. 17696. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 1:16:41 PM I understand, agree, acknowledge, that culture changes. That seems like a truism. 17697. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 1:18:29 PM I think there is a lot of muddlesomeness about Islamism as (1) a socially & politically retrograde phenomenon; (2) as conducive to terrorism; and (3) as anti-western, anti-american, or anti-semitic. 17698. Andonly - 12/12/2001 1:23:56 PM PE to "It just seems to silly to pronounce on the compatibility of Islam and democracy based on 10-15 years' worth of observations." 17699. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 1:28:20 PM Message # 17698: I do not understand how the response relates to the remark you quoted. 17700. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 1:33:04 PM Anyway, I don't see the relevance of Hindu and Jewish and Christian states. 17701. Raskolnikov - 12/12/2001 1:45:13 PM "Muslim countries have really only lagged other 17702. Andonly - 12/12/2001 2:26:13 PM "I think you are, rather self-servingly, conflating anti-semitism and anti-Americanism with retrograde attitudes toward women's rights, democracy, etc.." 17703. Andonly - 12/12/2001 2:29:31 PM (I should offer as a minor concession that I wouldn't be surprised if some Colombians are naming their children Osama...) 17704. Property of Jesus - 12/12/2001 2:33:41 PM B1B Crew rescued. 17705. Andonly - 12/12/2001 2:38:22 PM "What is Turkey, a conservative Muslim state?" 17706. Andonly - 12/12/2001 2:40:02 PM "B1B Crew rescued." 17707. Andonly - 12/12/2001 2:44:59 PM Raskolnikov: "To what extent do you believe this has been driven by fundamentalism? This was my point earlier" 17708. Andonly - 12/12/2001 2:47:21 PM "Had the bad old US not pressured Pakistan's unelected president..." 17709. robertjayb - 12/12/2001 2:54:45 PM Bin Laden fled to Pakistan...says Christian Science Monitor source... 17710. Andonly - 12/12/2001 3:01:22 PM PE, Message # 17526: "Does anyone deny that there is a democracy emerging, albeit slowly and imperfectly, in Iran?" 17711. mgleason - 12/12/2001 3:05:51 PM Osama bin Laden escaped the embattled Tora Bora base 17712. OhioSTOPAS - 12/12/2001 3:41:20 PM . . . or "The Al-amo" 17713. transient1a - 12/12/2001 3:46:12 PM Culture evolving: Politically Correct Women of Islam 17714. transient1a - 12/12/2001 3:46:42 PM >>>>>> 17715. transient1a - 12/12/2001 4:02:04 PM For: 17716. stostosto - 12/12/2001 4:18:57 PM Breaking news: 17717. Al D - 12/12/2001 4:19:18 PM The wife? Why not! The tree? Maybe. The dog? What a dastardly idea. 17718. jexster - 12/12/2001 4:22:40 PM Terrorist Attack Foiled! 17719. stostosto - 12/12/2001 4:22:52 PM Jægerkorpset Danish special forces. (Fabulously bad English translation at this site). 17720. stostosto - 12/12/2001 4:24:19 PM Culver City! I have relatives there - albeit not Jewish ones. Boy, am I hot tonight. 17721. Andonly - 12/12/2001 4:25:50 PM Shit. All the world needs now is Jewish American terrorists. 17722. Raskolnikov - 12/12/2001 4:26:37 PM "(Did you know we actually have special forces?)" 17723. PelleNilsson - 12/12/2001 4:28:18 PM jexster borrowed that from marj without acknowledgement. And he calls himself an academic! 17724. jexster - 12/12/2001 4:28:34 PM I guess Ando has never been to that hot bed of terror, Kanter's on Fairfax 17725. Wombat - 12/12/2001 4:30:21 PM Sto: 17726. Raskolnikov - 12/12/2001 4:35:12 PM And then of course, there is the notoriously bloody Popular Front for the Liberation of the Faroes (PFLF). 17727. jexster - 12/12/2001 4:36:12 PM Canter's Deli 17728. stostosto - 12/12/2001 4:39:32 PM Rask 17729. jexster - 12/12/2001 4:42:00 PM 17730. wonkers2 - 12/12/2001 5:34:05 PM Re #17709 bin Laden has fled to Pakistan. 17731. Andonly - 12/12/2001 5:41:20 PM Oddly enough, I blieve I have been to Canter's Deli. 17732. marjoribanks - 12/12/2001 5:41:54 PM Bin Laden's mystique, such as it is, remains intact as he escapes this concerted US effort to "flush him out." 17733. mgleason - 12/12/2001 5:42:15 PM We've come a long way from Bosworth Field, Wonkers. 'Leaders' never risk their hides. 17734. marjoribanks - 12/12/2001 5:48:11 PM Musharraf has been, to date, a big loser in the way the Afghan battle has played out. His urgings wrt bombings, Ramadan and Kabul were ignored or didn't take precedence. He has gotten nothing wrt the "internationalization" of the Kashmir matter, and he had to learn of US/Israeli plans to seize his nukes, to boot. 17735. aunaturel - 12/12/2001 5:54:16 PM At least we don't have to hunt down the JDL leadership any more. 17736. marjoribanks - 12/12/2001 5:58:12 PM Let me speculate a bit here. 17737. wonkers2 - 12/12/2001 6:05:23 PM Won't Musharraf welcome pursuit of bin Laden in Pakistan? I suppose that's naive. I would be interested in your take and that of pseudoerasmus. 17738. aunaturel - 12/12/2001 6:09:59 PM Andonly; 17740. marjoribanks - 12/12/2001 6:15:07 PM Of course Musharraf will pursue Bin Laden. He will have no choice, but how tough will he be in such a search? In Afghanistan. the US has proxies who are driven by a cetain amount of righteous rage, and who can be armed to the hilt without anyone caring. In Pakistan, the US will have to rely on the General's army, and worse, the ISI. 17741. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 6:25:50 PM Musharraf will be tough in hunting down bin Ladin if the latter is indeed inside Pakistan. The Pak army, through the Frontier Constabulary, will probably resort to kidnapping the families of Pak-Pashtun tribal leaders suspected of harbouring the Arab and possibly even bombing a few tribal agencies. That's how the Pak army dealt with rebellious tribes in the FATA before. 17742. Jenerator - 12/12/2001 6:27:55 PM Do you think that the reward will help expedite his capture? 17743. marjoribanks - 12/12/2001 6:28:34 PM All that, in my opinion, will not be speedy enough for the US. He'll have to launch some kind of concerted assault in the FATA, perhaps backed by US air support. 17744. marjoribanks - 12/12/2001 6:34:44 PM Of course, what Pakistan needs least of all right now is a simultaneous report that Mullah Omar has also crossed the border. 17745. marjoribanks - 12/12/2001 6:38:48 PM Anyway, while Musharraf is shitting mighty bricks, Vajpayee is making nice with Japan. 17746. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 7:22:56 PM Message # 17710 17747. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 7:23:21 PM Message # 17701 17748. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 7:23:57 PM Message # 17702 17749. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 7:26:10 PM Message # 17702 17750. Francis Urquhart - 12/12/2001 7:55:53 PM Marj 17751. sakonige - 12/12/2001 8:44:31 PM 17730. wonkers2 - 12/12/01 2:34:05 PM 17752. Andonly - 12/12/2001 9:57:47 PM "Well, as I said before, I disagree that all manifestations of "political Islam" are illiberal. You just say so and ignore or dismiss the liberal developments in Islamism in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, Iran, etc." 17753. Andonly - 12/12/2001 9:58:28 PM In Syria, which is the one country where I have often thought, like you, that Islamist rule might be preferable to the despotic status quo (assuming it didn't preface a renewal of the civil war in Lebanon), as far as I know there is no significant Islamist movement any more. 17754. Andonly - 12/12/2001 10:02:34 PM Oh, I see now the source of PE's semantic confusion is my own choice of words in Message # 17705, where I should have said Islamist instead of Islamic. 17755. Andonly - 12/12/2001 10:04:33 PM That is "...liberal Islamic governance should be as compatible with democracy as any other religion's liberal regime, [but] we have yet to see the development of a liberal Islamist regime." 17756. wonkers2 - 12/12/2001 10:12:05 PM #17730 "It makes sense to preserve the leadership rather than sacrifice them in Afghanistan..." 17757. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 10:13:13 PM Message # 17752 17758. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 10:19:05 PM Message # 17752 17759. sakonige - 12/12/2001 10:24:40 PM 17760. sakonige - 12/12/2001 10:27:35 PM 17761. wonkers2 - 12/12/2001 10:31:39 PM I don't disagree, but imagining bin Laden saying "I'm heading for Pakistan to lead the fight another day. You guys stay here and fight to the death" doesn't strike me as a noble action. Neither does sending his 19 year-old-son back to Tora Bora. And hearing that bin Laden laughed at the fact that most of the 9-11 terrorists didn't know when they boarded the planes that they were on a suicide mission absolutely turns my stomach. 17762. wonkers2 - 12/12/2001 10:33:12 PM I guess I'm more of a " the captain is the last man to leave his sinking ship" school. 17763. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 10:33:58 PM Muslim-majority countries with secular states: 17764. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 10:34:26 PM Those are the ones in the Middle East, that is. 17765. Andonly - 12/12/2001 10:44:14 PM Message # 17748 betrays little appreciation for the fact that people's opinions or sentiments are formed in response to multiple factors. It's facile and insufficiently penetrating to blame a majority opinion on "illiteracy" or "poverty" or "anti-Americanism". 17766. sakonige - 12/12/2001 10:45:47 PM ...hearing that bin Laden laughed at the fact that most of the 9-11 terrorists didn't know when they boarded the planes that they were on a suicide mission absolutely turns my stomach. 17767. Andonly - 12/12/2001 10:56:29 PM "Yes, that accords with what I know about the ML in Egypt. So what? How does that detract from my point? Sometimes beating generates salutary effects. Many Islamist political movements have been moderated ...Again, so what?" 17768. jexster - 12/12/2001 10:56:32 PM Ando...There's a better one in Encino...but UR right...even Kaplans or the Stage in NYC is betta 17769. wonkers2 - 12/12/2001 11:03:11 PM No, I don't, and I suspect bin Laden doesn't believe that crap about the hundred virgins either. 17770. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 11:03:46 PM 17771. Andonly - 12/12/2001 11:03:48 PM Parties and movements, of course, generally are not in positions as powerful as governments are. 17772. Al D - 12/12/2001 11:04:21 PM 17773. jexster - 12/12/2001 11:06:45 PM ATTACK ON AMERICA: The Ugly Mugs of Terror Face A Terrible Justice! 17774. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 11:06:55 PM I haven't read this book but it sounds interesting: 17775. Al D - 12/12/2001 11:08:00 PM marjoribanks 17776. pseudoerasmus - 12/12/2001 11:09:37 PM Message # 17771 17777. joezan - 12/12/2001 11:12:09 PM PE: 17778. joezan - 12/12/2001 11:14:27 PM ...I guess she figured pretending to be wonkers was a good way to get you to talk to her. 17779. sakonige - 12/12/2001 11:26:24 PM 17778. joezan - 12/12/01 8:14:27 PM 17780. joezan - 12/12/2001 11:30:57 PM Why, no - you haven't Sak. Tell me again, please? 17781. joezan - 12/12/2001 11:32:27 PM 17782. joezan - 12/13/2001 8:02:54 AM Boy - screwed that one up, didn't I? 17783. joezan - 12/13/2001 8:11:48 AM 17784. wonkers2 - 12/13/2001 8:51:46 AM Nightmare scenario: what if bin Laden were to get into Pakistan and, with the Taliban supporters in the INS and the military, oust Musharraf and in effect take over the country? I wonder how solid Musharraf's control over the military is. 17785. Cygnus X-1 - 12/13/2001 9:16:46 AM Here's an article for you liberals to read and absorb. The Academy Encounters the Real World 17786. wonkers2 - 12/13/2001 9:23:37 AM The article is rubbish. Name one "professor who applauded the attack on the Pentagon." And criticism of military tribunals and Ashcroft's new McCarthyism isn't anti-American. Typical Fox News slime. 17787. joezan - 12/13/2001 9:31:22 AM Well, wonk - at least one professor (in Texas?) has already been suspended for saying to his class "You've gotta like anyone who bombs the Pentagon". 17788. joezan - 12/13/2001 9:46:59 AM 17789. wonkers2 - 12/13/2001 9:47:43 AM I find that hard to believe but would be interested in reading about it. In any event the Fox "Crooked Talk" article implied that the attitude was prevalent among liberal professors. A shameless smear. 17790. ronski - 12/13/2001 9:53:44 AM It wasn't a Texan, it was a New Mexican. I'm sure we can find the professor's name if we look. 17791. CalGal - 12/13/2001 9:57:12 AM Joe, 17792. marjoribanks - 12/13/2001 9:58:37 AM Amazing really, the Indian establishment has been warning of an attack on the parliament for a couple of weeks - and then the security still couldn't prevent 12 people from being killed. It's something of a disgrace, I'd think. 17793. thoughtful - 12/13/2001 10:32:49 AM Pres has just announced we're withdrawing from the ABM treaty. 17794. judithathome - 12/13/2001 10:34:29 AM Evidently NPR doesn't feel it worthy of mention... 17795. joezan - 12/13/2001 10:39:45 AM Release of new bin Laden tape in about 8 minutes. 17796. judithathome - 12/13/2001 10:41:03 AM Oh great...what a perfect time for my cable to be out! 17797. joezan - 12/13/2001 10:44:22 AM Don't you have an antenna? Have you tried your tv off the air? You might even pick up a local station without one - you're close to DFW, right? 17798. thoughtful - 12/13/2001 10:46:45 AM cnn said the tape would be released at 11 a.m. EST 17799. judithathome - 12/13/2001 10:49:56 AM Joe, I am IN D/FW if you mean the area...in a valley where TV reception is next to nil without cable. Yes, we had an antenna but I have no idea how to crawl up on the roof and make it work.. 17800. joezan - 12/13/2001 10:52:42 AM Too bad, judith. 17801. judithathome - 12/13/2001 10:54:14 AM Joe: 17802. judithathome - 12/13/2001 10:58:24 AM This is spooky...the cable just came back on! 17803. joezan - 12/13/2001 11:02:55 AM See, Judith? 17804. Andonly - 12/13/2001 11:07:04 AM Several interesting links contained within this article: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Islam 17805. jexster - 12/13/2001 11:11:06 AM ALLAH BE BLESSED! 17806. jexster - 12/13/2001 11:14:21 AM Meanwhile Israel Unleashes Genocidal Terror 17807. jexster - 12/13/2001 11:18:33 AM O people, there comes upon you a great month, a most blessed month, in which lies a night greater in worth than one thousand months. Allah has made compulsory Fasting in this month and has decreed wakefulness at night (i.e. Taraaweeh) Sunnah. Whosoever tries drawing nearer to Allah by performing any Nafl (optional) deed in this month, for him shall be such reward as if he had performed a Fardh in any other time of the year. And whoever performs a Fardh, for him shall be the reward of seventy Fardh in any other time of the year. This is indeed the month of patience, and the reward for true patience is Jannah; it is the month of sympathy with one's fellowmen; it is the month wherein a true believer's Rizq (provision) is increased. 17808. jexster - 12/13/2001 11:32:22 AM See joez there is a God. His Name is Allah and Mohammed is his Holy Prophet. 17809. rubberducky - 12/13/2001 11:39:03 AM 17810. marjoribanks - 12/13/2001 11:52:48 AM Somebody's been taking Dubya lessons: 17811. Property of Jesus - 12/13/2001 12:01:04 PM I would really be embarrassed to be a Muslim right now watching the ObL video. 17812. jexster - 12/13/2001 12:10:26 PM Allahu FUCK-U-BAR Rosie 17813. Jenerator - 12/13/2001 12:12:06 PM Jexster??? 17814. jexster - 12/13/2001 12:20:42 PM Jen...I have seen the light...experienced my 17815. jexster - 12/13/2001 12:21:10 PM hey mebbe i oughta do Haj first... 17816. Jonesatlaw - 12/13/2001 12:31:51 PM God must be very weary of the crimes committed in his name. 17817. robertjayb - 12/13/2001 12:34:44 PM Amen. 17818. RustlerPike - 12/13/2001 1:15:53 PM Bin Laden is toast. 17819. judithathome - 12/13/2001 1:28:19 PM Hasn't he been since 9/11? 17820. wonkers2 - 12/13/2001 1:34:11 PM Ronski, Joezan, I see--pofessor=liberal=supporter of bin Laden. I get ya! Having such an uncomplicated view of the world must make life, as Bush would say, "simplistical." 17821. jexster - 12/13/2001 1:45:27 PM Eid Mubarak! to everyone! 17822. jexster - 12/13/2001 1:53:46 PM Nights are the time which Allah `azza wa jall has designated for the attainment of spiritual blessing and power. Allah told His Beloved in the Quran: "Rise to pray in the night except a little (73:1)" 17823. pseudoerasmus - 12/13/2001 2:23:31 PM Earlier, Andonly rubbished the idea that "Jews were never so poorly off in Muslim lands compared to Christian ones". I believe Andonly has recently become familiar with Bernard Lewis's book Jews of Islam, which is a fine book but is not a comparative study of Jewish life in Christendom and Islam. But this one is: 17824. Andonly - 12/13/2001 3:08:14 PM The Lewis is a survey of numerous comparative studies, BenPseudo, including Cohen's. 17825. pseudoerasmus - 12/13/2001 3:22:43 PM Message # 17824 17826. pseudoerasmus - 12/13/2001 3:31:38 PM By the way, 17827. pseudoerasmus - 12/13/2001 3:47:04 PM On Jews in the Ottoman empire, there is a good and detailed book called The Jews of the Ottoman Empire and the Turkish Republic by Stanford J. Shaw (published well after Lewis's 1982 book). 17828. jexster - 12/13/2001 4:07:09 PM Psueder you are the only Sultan when it comes to mohammedins! 17829. Andonly - 12/13/2001 5:03:02 PM "I don't see how that could be since Lewis's book was published before Cohen's." 17830. Andonly - 12/13/2001 5:03:49 PM When Jews were the victims of pogroms in 19th century Russia, they were meekly enduring being spat on and pelted with stones by children in Isfahan. Much better, yes. One wonders just how much less "better" Jews must have it before they may be allowed to decide, by educated gentlemen, that self determination is preferable to dhimmitude or ovens. 17831. Andonly - 12/13/2001 5:07:42 PM But all this belongs in another thread, and I don't really have time to continue anyway. 17832. pseudoerasmus - 12/13/2001 5:14:34 PM Message # 17829 17833. pseudoerasmus - 12/13/2001 7:35:57 PM My Moroccan neighbours, who until yesterday were not convinced of Usama bin Ladin's guilt, and who are very critical of the USA, have just told me they have seen the video and are now satisfied and convinced. They say the relevant portions of the video they have seen establish very clearly UbL's guilt. 17834. DanDillon - 12/13/2001 8:03:22 PM A concern: Do the contents of the video tape confim UbL's culpability or do they simply establish his being in the know? 17835. mgleason - 12/13/2001 8:08:31 PM Here's a partial transcript from the AP, Dan. 17836. joezan - 12/13/2001 8:17:46 PM From what I saw, the fucker never came right out and said "I did it", but his buddy praises him for "this great thing you have done". 17837. joezan - 12/13/2001 8:49:12 PM Dan: 17838. joezan - 12/13/2001 9:05:49 PM Question: 17839. wonkers2 - 12/13/2001 9:17:44 PM I saw enough of the tape to be convinced. Skip the tribunal. Line him up against the wall and shoot him. 17840. joezan - 12/13/2001 10:01:13 PM Welcome to the Right side, wonk! 17841. RustlerPike - 12/13/2001 10:12:58 PM Who videotaped that? How could they be so stupid? The arrogant zeroes. 17842. RustlerPike - 12/13/2001 10:16:33 PM My Moroccan neighbours, who until yesterday were not convinced of Usama bin Ladin's guilt, and who are very critical of the USA, have just told me they have seen the video and are now satisfied and convinced. They say the relevant portions of the video they have seen establish very clearly UbL's guilt. 17843. joezan - 12/13/2001 10:17:49 PM Pike: 17844. joezan - 12/13/2001 10:27:13 PM I just got an MSNBC News Alert that the Saudi Sheik in the video has been ID'ed, but the link to the full story didn't work. 17845. OhioSTOPAS - 12/13/2001 10:29:10 PM My two cents about some comments I've read or heard regarding John Walker, the American who joined the Taliban: 17846. joezan - 12/13/2001 10:47:46 PM You're kidding, right Ohio? 17847. ScottLoar - 12/13/2001 11:18:53 PM Clarence Page in his editorial "A mixed-up journey to treason (sic)" (Chicago Tribune, Thursday, December 13, 2001, pg.31) notes that "(a)t age 14, for example, (Walker) posted messages on hip-hop music Web sites that made him sound as if he really was black". 17848. ScottLoar - 12/13/2001 11:19:48 PM No, not age 1, "by age 16". My error. 17849. joezan - 12/13/2001 11:23:04 PM Hey - who was it said he'd bet the Black kids just wouldn't let Walker hang? 17850. CalGal - 12/13/2001 11:42:19 PM Not one person I've read/heard/talked to/seen on tv has criticized Walker's conversion. 17851. CalGal - 12/13/2001 11:44:39 PM As for his parents supporting him: No matter how much I loved my kid, no matter how many lawyers I'd get to make sure he didn't get convicted of treason, I'd certainly at least say I was extremely disappointed in him--for fighting for the Taliban, for not talking to the CIA agents, for saying he supported 9/11. 17852. Andonly - 12/14/2001 3:41:08 AM "By the way, if I use "on balance" arguments, then you simply employ lies as argument. After all, I have never said that Iranian women have nothing to complain about. I recognise that reforms in Iran have been driven by local (Islamist) feminists, and I wish their endeavours well." 17853. Andonly - 12/14/2001 3:45:10 AM "Of course, Al Jazeera claims he was talking about some wedding or something, but it was good enough for me." 17854. OhioSTOPAS - 12/14/2001 6:24:44 AM Joezan (Message # 17846): "Not one person I've read . . . has criticized Walker's conversion .. ." 17855. OhioSTOPAS - 12/14/2001 6:31:00 AM As for Walker's parents, in response to the clamor for their son's execution parents can be expected to accentuate the positive about him. And, to do so awkwardly. 17856. OhioSTOPAS - 12/14/2001 6:34:00 AM Oops. My attempted link to a Joezan pearl of wisdom should have been Message # 28241 in thread 85. 17857. joezan - 12/14/2001 6:43:43 AM Ando: 17858. ycmeehan - 12/14/2001 7:50:04 AM Thus those who say, "Hey, he's a schizophrenic; it commonly occurs at age 20" have to account for him seeming completely normal at 16, when he first started down the path. 17859. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 8:51:12 AM PE -- 17860. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 8:52:17 AM But your complaint is wrong-headed anyway. Democracy is a recent phenomenon almost everywhere except for North America, Europe and places like Canada, Australia, etc. Even parts of non-Communist Europe did not have democratic institutions take root until the 1970s (Spain, Greece). In that context, measuring democratic development in the Third World by going back more than thirty years is meaningless. In fact, it may show strange outcomes due to peculiar colonial heritages. 17861. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 8:53:19 AM But what matters for our discussion is what these countries have done to build upon whatever they were given. Like Malaysia, most Muslim countries have done next to nothing in this regard (Malaysia has in fact regressed). But other non-Muslim countries have shown amazing results in their progress. 17862. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 8:53:54 AM The only obvious major exception to this is the Muslim world. If Muslims were a majority in, say, only five countries, one might be able to call this a coincidence or due to some other factor. But Muslim-majority countries make up about a quarter of the world's nations in several different regions around the Eurasian landmass; they have varying histories, economies, and ethnic backgrounds. By pure chance, one should have found a handful of free countries among them if there wasn't something cultural about Islam impeding freedom's development. 17863. Andonly - 12/14/2001 9:14:40 AM On NPR this morning, Peter Kenyon said, in a report from Gaza, that the release of the tape had convinced some Palestinians there that ObL is guilty. 17864. Andonly - 12/14/2001 9:28:46 AM Honest right-wing Jewish pundit calls it as he sees it. 17865. judithathome - 12/14/2001 10:01:58 AM Teaching them to think for themselves, if they still can. 17866. thoughtful - 12/14/2001 10:09:41 AM If true or not, I don't know, but the "treason" by John Walker would be his claiming to be an "American citizen" once he was captured. You want to go join the Taliban or any other group and fight against America, go ahead, but don't then expect to fall back on your American citizenship for protection when the side you've chosen has lost. At least be honest enough to renounce your citizenship. If not, then prepare to accept the label of traitor. 17867. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 10:14:48 AM A day after the terror attack on Parliament, the BJP on Friday emphasised on the need for enacting the anti-terrorism law, following the policy of hot pursuit of terrorists and destroying terrorist training camps in Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK). 17868. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 10:28:48 AM PE -- Message # 17489 17869. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 10:30:23 AM And, in 2000, despite all the loud claims that "Barak offered 95% of the West Bank and Gaza and Arafat rejected a deal of a life time", how could someone suppose that Arafat could have accepted as a Palestinian state, a discontinguous patchwork of territories stitched together by Israeli security roads and eaten away by Jewish settlements? 17870. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 10:32:09 AM FWIW, I remember well the discussion that took place after the Camp David meeting was abandoned. All and sundry here, prominently including Khan, bought the common wisdom that a wonderful deal had been extended to the Palestinians and that Arafat alone was now to blame for whatever ensued in the future. Pseuder was no less vehement than the rest. 17871. sakonige - 12/14/2001 10:35:15 AM 17872. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 10:36:14 AM Pseuder was no less vehement than the rest. 17873. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 10:40:11 AM Banks, whenever I see you write "...a better and more nuanced view of what went on..." I know what you really mean is that you can't put into words (thus it is more "nuanced") why it is better. 17874. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 10:41:03 AM It has already won this land through force (which is a legitimate way to take over land) . 17875. sakonige - 12/14/2001 10:44:15 AM 17876. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 10:46:30 AM Pincher, 17877. sakonige - 12/14/2001 10:47:55 AM 17878. jexster - 12/14/2001 10:48:55 AM "If you hear it as an Arab and you hear it as an American, you have a different feeling," said Labib Kamhawi, a political science professor at Jordan University in Amman, the capital. 17879. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 10:49:17 AM Banks, 17880. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 10:53:25 AM Banks, I've seen you pushing that article here before. You appear unable to move beyond it and deal with what I wrote rather than what you imagined I wrote. The article has nothing to do with what I argued. Nothing at all. 17881. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 10:56:24 AM Any deal, however, severely weakens its defense. 17882. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 10:59:51 AM Pincher: "I've seen you remark on the Middle East. You have the standard Euro/Antipodean/U.S. Left/Noble White Man view of the situation:" 17883. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:00:40 AM That international law is an amorphous, unenforced body of ideas and notions doesn't mean it does not have some generally recognized principles. 17884. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 11:03:12 AM Al D.: "If they [the Algerian military] would have accepted the results, do you suppose there would have been elections in the future? I certainly don't mean into infinity." 17885. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:04:13 AM International law, by the way, is enforced all the time and every day. It may have escaped Pincher's attention that Milosevic is currently in the dock in the Hague. 17886. Wombat - 12/14/2001 11:12:26 AM Marj: 17887. Andonly - 12/14/2001 11:19:39 AM "The generally recognized principles, if you want to reduce clear legal standing and precedent to this, all point to the illegitimacy of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. There are simply no two ways about it." 17888. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:20:17 AM Wombat, 17889. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:22:09 AM Andonly's toys. 17890. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:23:09 AM 17891. jexster - 12/14/2001 11:26:47 AM I think its time to nuke Karachi... 17892. ronski - 12/14/2001 11:27:10 AM Collins specifically held that had he not taken the British offer of an Irish Free State minus the six northern counties, it would have meant the devastation of the entire country by British forces. As far as I can see, Israel is still not planning to do anything like that to the WB and Gaza. 17893. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 11:29:55 AM Banks, 17894. jexster - 12/14/2001 11:31:01 AM 17895. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:31:49 AM First of all, the "generally recognized principles" which Pincher wishes to reduce international law to are greatly broader than simply the Geneva Conventions. There are also, for example, any number of UN resolutions. 17896. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:36:45 AM Israel has a treaty with Egypt, and one with Jordan. It has previously entered discussions with Syria, and there is no reason to assume that they will not sign a treaty with them as well. 17897. jexster - 12/14/2001 11:37:37 AM Slight correction Marj, Slobo was convicted under the Special Tribunal Statutes 17898. jexster - 12/14/2001 11:37:44 AM Slight correction Marj, Slobo was convicted under the Special Tribunal Statutes 17899. jexster - 12/14/2001 11:38:50 AM Pincher's a pisser but who was "Connaught"? 17900. jexster - 12/14/2001 11:40:05 AM oops double post but only one correction "indicted"...wouldn't want to rush the scumbag to judgment 17901. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 11:40:52 AM I lost the rest of my post that begins with Message # 17893. 17902. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:41:58 AM Jexster, 17903. jexster - 12/14/2001 11:43:16 AM Thanks! Those were the days [sigh] 17904. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:45:08 AM Pincher, 17905. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 11:50:11 AM David Aaronovitch on the self destructive path chosen by Sharon. 17906. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 12:05:28 PM First of all, the "generally recognized principles" which Pincher wishes to reduce international law to are greatly broader than simply the Geneva Conventions. There are also, for example, any number of UN resolutions. 17907. pseudoerasmus - 12/14/2001 12:12:09 PM I will be back next week to comment on Pincher's posts and the one by Andonly. Pincher does make some good points, but most of them are specious. 17908. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 12:22:19 PM Pincher, 17909. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 12:27:13 PM I do find it interesting to note that for a small minority of tub-thumping American "patriots", it has now become de rigeur to also be a hawk on Israeli affairs with Palestine. This, even as the Israeli hawks have come to utter prominence in that small Middle Eastern country itself. 17910. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 12:32:51 PM Israel has a treaty with Egypt, and one with Jordan. It has previously entered discussions with Syria, and there is no reason to assume that they will not sign a treaty with them as well. 17911. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 12:33:07 PM Who have no air force and no army and no tanks and no missiles and no significant weaponry other than machine guns and youths strapped with TNT? And a withdrawal of the occupation, with a corresponding beefing up of border security would make Israel less secure? 17912. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 12:36:34 PM Backpedal a bit more, such behavior is becoming to you. 17913. Andonly - 12/14/2001 12:37:15 PM Banks, your B'Tselem link quite predictbly does not provide a balanced legal analysis of the issues surrounding the Geneva Convention and the occupied territories. It provides a justification of the analysis the UN currently prefers, paying only lip service to the Israeli legal position. 17914. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 12:37:20 PM Pincher does make some good points, but most of them are specious. 17915. Andonly - 12/14/2001 12:38:08 PM According to the above opinion, since the West Bank and Gaza had been illegally occupied by Jordan and by Egypt respectively in 1948, and the West Bank was illegally annexed by Jordan in 1950, these areas cannot be considered to be part of `the territory of a High Contracting Party' within the meaning of the second paragraph of the above quoted article.14 Moreover, it seems that Israel fears that her consent to the applicability of the Fourth Convention would be considered as a recognition of Jordanian or Egyptian sovereignty over the areas.15 17916. Andonly - 12/14/2001 12:38:24 PM Israel's official attitude concerning the non-applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention has been criticized inter alia by the UN Security Council and General Assembly,18 by the International Committee of the Red Cross,19 by the United States20 and by various writers.21 According to Professor A. Roberts, the Convention does apply due to the first paragraph of Article 2 (quoted above) which, in his opinion, "applies when a belligerent occupation begins during war,"22 and which does not include a reference to the territory of the High Contracting Party. In addition, he considers Israel's attitude to be inconsistent since "similar objections could be, but seldom have been, made about the applicability of the Hague Regulations, which contain a similar assumption; namely, that occupied territory is 'territory of the hostile state,'"23 or, in the French original: `territoire de l'état ennemi.' However, according to a detailed analysis undertaken by Professor N. Bar-Yaacov, despite the lack of an express statement on the matter, `the Government's position regarding the Hague Regulations is identical to its attitude on the applicability of the Geneva Convention.'24 17917. Andonly - 12/14/2001 12:39:08 PM (My last post should have been italicized.) 17918. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 12:51:11 PM Pincher, 17919. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 12:58:52 PM (I will not be able to respond to posts for roughly half-an-hour) 17920. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 1:08:20 PM I have yet to hear of a successful international prosecution or action by a part of the global community that was strongly based on it. This does not mean that it is not binding - it merely means that it is, to date, toothless. 17921. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 1:08:42 PM As I've stated, it is possible to argue that the US is in a slightly different category, in real terms, than the rest of the world. Israel is not. The laws are applied, they eminently apply in the case of the occupation of the WB and Gaza. 17922. Andonly - 12/14/2001 1:13:08 PM This is from an analysisof the Convention that doesn't reference Israel/Palestine at all, but arguably supports various "illegal" Israeli actions in the occupied terrirories: 17923. Andonly - 12/14/2001 1:13:57 PM 17924. Andonly - 12/14/2001 1:14:13 PM This last would prohibit the bombing of Pal houses just to terrorize Pals, but it wouldn't seem to prohibit the bulldozing of houses from which snipers were operating. I can imagine Ariel Sharon arguing, too, that settlements have always been a necessary security measure, hardly wanton, and therefore a lawful exercise of force. 17925. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 1:16:06 PM I do find it interesting to note that for a small minority of tub-thumping American "patriots", it has now become de rigeur to also be a hawk on Israeli affairs with Palestine. This, even as the Israeli hawks have come to utter prominence in that small Middle Eastern country itself. 17926. Andonly - 12/14/2001 1:25:20 PM "They are meaningless as laws (who do you think will enforce them?). They have some weight to the degree that everyone agrees on them." 17927. Andonly - 12/14/2001 1:26:51 PM Israel's security concerns, of course, are manifestly legitimate despite whatever Banks thinks. 17928. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 1:27:00 PM For some reason, the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories does not allow internal links to its pages. I urge all those interested to click on the section entitled 'settlements' in the scroll-down menu for details regarding international law and the Israeli occupation. 17929. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 1:27:43 PM A fundamental principle of international humanitarian law relating to territory subject to belligerent occupation is that occupation is essentially a temporary situation. The temporary nature of occupation entails limitations imposed on the occupying power regarding the creation of permanent facts in the occupied territory. 17930. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 1:29:31 PM Since the early 1980s, Israel has taken control over thousands of acres of private Palestinian land after declaring the land as "state lands." The declaration was based on a disputed interpretation of the Ottoman Land Law, of 1858, which was in effect at the time the occupation began. Israel took advantage of the fact that, prior to June 1967, only one-third of West Bank land was registered in an orderly manner, and, prior to the occupation, land ownership was handled primarily by traditional practice and mutual agreement of the local residents. Furthermore, immediately after occupying the area, Israel froze registration of Palestinian land. In many cases, land that had been declared state lands continued to be used by Palestinians until construction of a new settlement or of a "neighborhood" in an existing settlement. When this occurred, Israel forced the Palestinians off their land. Thus, the decisions to build on state lands (more than the classification itself) often seal the fate of those whose property is taken from them. 17931. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 1:34:40 PM I suggest that those interested can also check out the Mitchell Committee's findings wrt settlements in the occupied territories. Segments are available here alongside an analysis sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations. 17932. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 1:37:25 PM In between regurgitating pat pablum, I suggest that Pincher pay attention to this, also from Siegman: 17933. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 1:39:16 PM More for Pincher. 17934. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 1:49:22 PM The entire, excellent, Mitchell Committee report is here. I urge all who lurk here, particularly, to read it. It is entirely free of partisan bias, and a cool officially-sanctioned assessment very far removed from the kind of deceptive bullshit re-hashed here by Pincher et al. 17935. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 1:51:32 PM Banks, 17936. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 1:52:45 PM Yet, all these buffers come to nought. Israel's experience has demonstrated again that you cannot win peace by waging war. It is simply impossible, unless the Israelis actually kill every last Palestinian they hold. 17937. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 1:53:03 PM More from the Mitchell report: 17938. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 1:53:29 PM As for what kind of state the Palestinians choose to implement in their territory, that is a matter for the Palestinians to decide, as it is for all sovereign peoples. The utterly trivial reduced argument about planes et al is meaningless, but I'll answer it anyway - Israel can allow nations to use its flight space or not, it is as simple as that. 17939. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 1:57:13 PM Banks, you've given up thinking and began to cut and past, I see. 17940. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 1:59:20 PM Thus, as per the Mitchell report, you see some of these "security concerns" exposed. 17941. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 2:09:42 PM I cut and paste, Pincher, to give you and the others who read this thread some fairly unambiguous and solid documentation. I suggest that you follow the links to further material I have provided instead of rehashing tired and flawed nonsense from the hawkish ideologues. 17942. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 2:13:39 PM I think they need to knock off the P.A. leadership (Arafat, especially), take out as much of the Hamas leadership as they can, and then continue to apply force as needed. The new P.A. leadership, whoever it might be, will find he needs to make peace -- in a peaceful way -- or risk the same fate. 17943. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 2:14:30 PM This is Marj's point on why the Pals have to kill, and bomb, and provoke with their stone-throwing: 17944. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 2:19:34 PM I expect future debate on this matter to be informed by the (mostly American) material I have tabled. 17945. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 2:25:48 PM Barak never made an offer. Read the New York Review of Books article before pursuing this thread again. 17946. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 2:28:09 PM I will add one more article, this one. 17947. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 2:36:23 PM Marj -- 17948. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 2:42:23 PM Ah yes, whose analysis is reliable? 17949. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 2:44:22 PM Pincher, 17950. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 2:47:09 PM From the Siegman article in 17946: 17951. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 2:51:50 PM Part of Siegman's admirable solution. 17952. Andonly - 12/14/2001 2:58:26 PM Banks, you can post arguments for the applicability of Geneva all day long, but at the end of the day they are still politically and not morally premised. 17953. jexster - 12/14/2001 3:07:30 PM Now that the Taliban is defeated, even John Walker has the right of every American to forget about Afghanistan. 17954. rubberducky - 12/14/2001 3:11:15 PM PincherMartin, Resident of Taiwan,... 17955. rubberducky - 12/14/2001 3:12:45 PM breach, that is 17956. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 3:12:48 PM Andonly, 17957. CalGal - 12/14/2001 3:16:48 PM I disagree with Kinsley's argument about Walker, but I just wanted to repost this for Pelle and a few others: 17958. PelleNilsson - 12/14/2001 3:24:28 PM CalGal 17959. PelleNilsson - 12/14/2001 3:26:45 PM ducky 17960. CalGal - 12/14/2001 3:28:12 PM I defy you to find a single post of mine where I have denied America's right to act against Al Qaida and the Taliban or criticised how that right has been exercised. 17961. rubberducky - 12/14/2001 3:28:34 PM Pelle, the silliness wasn't intentional. i had no idea, thus the question. thanks for answering. 17962. PelleNilsson - 12/14/2001 3:51:56 PM CalGal 17963. wonkers2 - 12/14/2001 4:30:31 PM Do we need two threads for Israel and Palestine? I'm not yet ready to elevate them to the War on Terrorism thread. 17964. Andonly - 12/14/2001 4:31:33 PM "The expectation that a Palestinian government will provide Israeli settlers the security they need to live undisturbed lives on those lands suggests an arrogance echoing colonial sensibilities of an earlier age that Western democracies - one hopes - now find an embarrassing memory." 17965. Andonly - 12/14/2001 4:32:58 PM Well, wonkers is right about the off-topicality, so I'll refrain henceforth. 17966. marjoribanks - 12/14/2001 4:45:38 PM I should not have checked in one last time before heading home.... 17967. jexster - 12/14/2001 7:00:56 PM Saudi Arabia's share is sure to rise in coming years. Easily extracted non-OPEC reserves will dwindle, even on optimistic assumptions about technological progress. Dependence on Saudi oil is not going to keep on fading—quite the opposite (see article)....It may not matter, so far as the price of oil is concerned, whether the Saudi regime is friendly to the West, but it certainly matters whether it is rational. 17968. jexster - 12/14/2001 7:05:27 PM Bush to Americans: Quit Drugs, Join War Effort 17969. Property of Jesus - 12/14/2001 7:12:49 PM Neil Young: "Let's Roll" sounds positively unCanadian. 17970. robertjayb - 12/14/2001 7:28:57 PM Mullah John brings back The Plumbers 17971. CalGal - 12/14/2001 8:03:25 PM Why did you dedicate that excerpt specifically to me? 17972. jexster - 12/14/2001 8:17:13 PM Pincher Martin ________________ perennial blowhard 17973. RustlerPike - 12/14/2001 9:31:29 PM I also think this discussion needs to make aliyah to the I&P thread. I get paid according to thread traffic, you know. 17974. RustlerPike - 12/14/2001 9:39:32 PM haj marj: 17975. Andonly - 12/14/2001 9:55:26 PM What we still don't know about anthrax. 17976. Andonly - 12/14/2001 9:56:36 PM My reply to Bank's last bowel movement is in I&P. 17977. RustlerPike - 12/14/2001 10:10:18 PM My reply to Bank's last bowel movement is in I&P. 17978. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 11:19:43 PM Banks, 17979. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 11:20:03 PM There are numerous issues by which the World Body could strengthen its claims to even-handed judgement. Instead, it chooses to focus on the easy target: Israel. It's easy because Israel is not an influential or powerful country outside of its region (which is entirely Muslim), with the possible exception of the U.S. Given its hostile prejudice against the Jewish state in the past, due to its numerous Muslim members, why should Israel take the U.N. seriously? 17980. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 11:39:52 PM Banks, 17981. PincherMartin - 12/14/2001 11:45:38 PM I will also post further comments on this issue to Pike's thread. 17982. arkymalarky - 12/15/2001 9:28:35 AM There's also a new international awareness that "fighting terrorism" can provide a great cover for aggression in areas where they're itching to take action. It will be interesting to see what happens not only with the Palestinians, but with places like Kashmir and Chechnya in the next year or so. 17983. RustlerPike - 12/15/2001 10:40:15 AM arky: 17984. jexster - 12/15/2001 11:06:05 AM For years the United States and Russia clashed over routes to transport oil and gas from the Caspian Sea region to lucrative Western markets -- and the political and economic power that control of those networks conferred. 17985. arkymalarky - 12/15/2001 11:08:49 AM No, not at all. If they use the attack as an excuse to take over or provoke Pakistan, that's a different story. I'm saying it will be interesting to see how far more powerful nations go to validate aggression in areas where past aggression has been unpopular, now that there is an honorable cover for such aggression--much more so than the Gulf of Tonkin was, for example. 17986. RustlerPike - 12/15/2001 11:21:30 AM arky: 17987. arkymalarky - 12/15/2001 11:24:44 AM The incident on which our escalation in Vietnam was based under President Johnson. 17988. arkymalarky - 12/15/2001 11:27:49 AM 17989. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/15/2001 12:46:48 PM 17990. LohrM - 12/15/2001 1:07:05 PM Actually, the Russians have turned out to be largely right all along about the Chechen terrorists... That doesn't excuse the devastation in Grozny, but it does mean that the West can no longer quite so reflexively moralizing about the Russian war. 17991. jexster - 12/15/2001 1:38:09 PM Saudi Schism 17992. jexster - 12/15/2001 1:46:39 PM Subhanallahi wal hamdulillahi wa la ilaha illa Allahu wa Allahu Akbar. 17993. mgleason - 12/15/2001 4:17:33 PM From the Economist, a piece on Iran's reformists and the recent by-elections in which the Council of Guardians prevented more than one-third of the candidates from running. 17994. CalGal - 12/16/2001 5:14:37 PM How to Save the Arab World, by Fareed Zakaria in Newsweek. 17995. wonkers2 - 12/17/2001 10:31:39 AM Anybody else wonder what Secretary Rumsfeld uses on his hair? It always looks the same, even in a 30 mile and hour wind yesterday in Afghanistan. After he retires he could do Brylcreme commercials. Or hairspray, perhaps. On the other hand, Geraldo prefers the natural, windblown Tora Bora look. And his mustache is getting really long, making him look like an Afghan Cyrano de Bergerac. 17996. judithathome - 12/17/2001 10:41:40 AM I think Rumsfeld uses Consort Spray...it's what those country western guys like Conway Twutty used to keep their helmet hair intact. 17997. marjoribanks - 12/17/2001 10:44:43 AM That is a good article by Zakaria. 17998. PincherMartin - 12/17/2001 3:52:02 PM Yes, a good article by Zakaria. 17999. CalGal - 12/17/2001 4:06:34 PM Well, it caught my eye. That's why I linked it in. I was therefore surprised that banks spoke approvingly of it. 18000. CalGal - 12/17/2001 4:06:53 PM Oh, what the heck. 18001. marjoribanks - 12/17/2001 4:20:35 PM Of course, I have never said anything remotely contradictory to Zakaria's analysis. 18002. PincherMartin - 12/17/2001 4:32:05 PM Of course, I have never said anything remotely contradictory to Zakaria's analysis. 18003. marjoribanks - 12/17/2001 4:44:30 PM you just slighted -- in passing -- my earlier analysis on Muslim states and democracy 18004. pseudoerasmus - 12/17/2001 5:10:11 PM Message # 18002: "my earlier analysis on Muslim states and democracy, even though Zakaria relies on the same source and makes, largely, the same judgement." 18005. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/17/2001 5:28:39 PM We're winnin' that war on those evil people and were smokin' em out too so's we can kill em -- I seen it on TV! 18006. Jonesatlaw - 12/17/2001 6:10:39 PM Analysis of prosecution of John Walker-Treason? 18007. PincherMartin - 12/17/2001 6:40:17 PM PE -- 18008. PincherMartin - 12/17/2001 6:40:54 PM Marj -- 18009. RustlerPike - 12/17/2001 6:44:19 PM There was a piece in Ha'aretz the other day on how the war in Afghanistan has been characterized by two things (among others): 18010. RustlerPike - 12/17/2001 6:47:47 PM arky: 18011. marjoribanks - 12/17/2001 6:50:52 PM Most people would accuse Marj of lying, but after watching him retreat from his own words earlier in this thread, I understand that he is simply practising "nuance" as he understands the word. 18012. RustlerPike - 12/17/2001 7:09:10 PM The Ha'aretz piece estimates that there have been 7,000 deaths in the Afghan war, half of them civilian. They mention the mass killing of the rebelling Taliban prisoners at that fort as an obvious breach of the Geneva Convention. They also mention the apparent death by asphyxiation of other prisoners. 18013. PincherMartin - 12/17/2001 7:15:15 PM Marj -- 18014. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/17/2001 10:53:24 PM TORA BORA, AFGHANISTAN—An emaciated and heavily bandaged Osama bin Laden offered the U.S. a final chance to surrender Monday. 18015. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/17/2001 10:56:48 PM 18016. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/17/2001 11:03:48 PM 18017. marjoribanks - 12/18/2001 10:21:31 AM So Pakistan's FATA is next . 18018. marjoribanks - 12/18/2001 10:40:30 AM Positive signs in a warming US-Iran relationship. 18019. sakonige - 12/18/2001 11:31:56 AM But what happens a month or so from now, when Musharraf claims that Bin Laden is not in Pakistan either? This announcement is sure to come, you can count on it. Will the US take his word, or will it mount a campaign on Pak soil? 18020. Andonly - 12/18/2001 12:08:01 PM From today's FT, in a piece entitled "Clerics step up attack on Iran's left wing" (otherwise to be read as, "Emergent Democracy takes hold in Iran"): 18021. Andonly - 12/18/2001 12:11:06 PM "The Ha'aretz piece estimates that there have been 7,000 deaths in the Afghan war, half of them civilian." 18022. marjoribanks - 12/18/2001 12:39:16 PM Ayaz Amir, in Dawn. 18023. marjoribanks - 12/18/2001 12:45:09 PM I really liked Dawn's Id editorial. Very humane and well-reasoned. 18024. jexster - 12/18/2001 12:45:43 PM Bora Bora not Tora Bora You Dimwits! 18025. jexster - 12/18/2001 12:46:18 PM Osama B Free! 18026. marjoribanks - 12/18/2001 12:47:00 PM Oops. From Dawn's Id editorial. 18027. marjoribanks - 12/18/2001 12:47:51 PM More - 18028. marjoribanks - 12/18/2001 12:51:39 PM It's just an all-round good edition of a newspaper that seems to be getting better. 18029. LohrM - 12/18/2001 2:25:08 PM Democracy must be seen in terms of results, not process. The Algerian army did more for democracy by rejecting a vote that put radical Islamists in a majority than it would've done by accepting the vote-- just as the Turkish Army preserved democracy by its coup at the beginning of the 1960s. There's nothing sacred about a 'democratic election' that brings to power those whose aim is to suppress choice. Do any of the Saudi or Egyptian Islamists envision a system where plural views or dissident voices are allowed? Would they surrender power if voted out? Do they believe in individual autonomy and economic freedom? Those in the Middle East who whine that the US does not support "democracy" bear the burden of showing that their aims are in fact democratic. 18030. concerned - 12/18/2001 5:05:42 PM Well, it appears the Ramadan War is winding down and devolving into a mopping up operation; the new Afghani government will become operational in only a few days and bin Laden and Mullah Omar are MIA or being tracked down by Afghan and US forces. 18031. joezan - 12/18/2001 9:37:33 PM The boy can't help it... 18032. joezan - 12/18/2001 9:48:18 PM concerned: 18033. wonkers2 - 12/18/2001 9:53:48 PM Lohr, well put. The world is complicated. 18034. Al D - 12/18/2001 10:04:34 PM Lohr, I hope you don't find it upsetting that I agree with you. 18035. RustlerPike - 12/18/2001 10:51:56 PM Ando: 18036. Property of Jesus - 12/19/2001 12:02:35 AM Massive article in tomorrow's Washington Post, blaming President Clinton for bin Laden's success... 18037. concerned - 12/19/2001 12:07:05 AM Re. 18032 - 18038. concerned - 12/19/2001 12:24:47 AM The WP describes how x42 gave a clinic on how to do it wrong, but mostly how not to do anything at all, thus laying the ground for 9/11 18039. concerned - 12/19/2001 12:25:54 AM Oops. POJ got to the same article first. So, read his link and my post. 18040. concerned - 12/19/2001 12:28:30 AM 17990. LohrM - 12/15/01 6:07:05 PM 18041. Andonly - 12/19/2001 2:39:33 AM "It's in Ivrit. They didn't translate it. You still interested? It was by Yossi Melman, in Sunday's paper." 18042. Andonly - 12/19/2001 2:49:39 AM By the way, Pike, I may have to ask you to decipher some Hebrew pop song lyrics. I have this strange and almost interesting CD of some Israeli guy with an earring who sings mostly as a counter tenor (that is, exactly like a woman). He's in a live concert with a (possibly Egyptian) gal who sounds very conventional, and they do Egyptian-influenced pop melodies in Hebrew. Her name is Etti Ankri, his is David D'Or. 18043. RustlerPike - 12/19/2001 3:47:10 AM Hahahaha!!! 18044. Wombat - 12/19/2001 8:59:32 AM Are you sure you read the same article? What the article only hinted at was that the main limitation on the Clinton administration's freedom to act was the partisan uproar that would have ensued had there been other "failures" such as the cruise missile attacks. The same people who are now howling about how little Clinton did against Bin Laden would have been howling about how "reckless" and "politically motivated" any additional strikes were. 18045. stostosto - 12/19/2001 9:20:30 AM Yeah, I too think America's Supreme Court was very wise in its choice for opposition last December. 18046. stostosto - 12/19/2001 9:21:47 AM What they [concerned and PoJ]post should be considered as partisan nonsense. 18047. marjoribanks - 12/19/2001 9:22:16 AM American attention now shifts squarely to Pakistan. Though all the spokesmen are still very cautious about their rhetoric, it is clear that if Bin Laden is shown to be not in Afghanistan - that is what all the questions and answers will be about. 18048. marjoribanks - 12/19/2001 9:28:54 AM I saw a (taped) copy of yesterday's CNN call-in town-meeting-like show last night. 18049. marjoribanks - 12/19/2001 9:31:20 AM I have no idea where Ijaz came from, but he is everywhere now. Not for the first time, I regret that India somehow doesn't produce well-oiled PR machines like this fellow. He speaks in fluent American cliche, thereby punching points across to score with the viewer or interviewers. 18050. marjoribanks - 12/19/2001 9:40:29 AM PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistani security officials clashed Wednesday with Afghanistan war prisoners at the border, killing at least seven people, a Pakistan government spokesman said. 18051. sakonige - 12/19/2001 9:55:17 AM I have no idea where Ijaz came from, but he is everywhere now. 18052. marjoribanks - 12/19/2001 10:01:12 AM Well, I'd say that he sounds American, but at some fundamental level is very much South Asian. 18053. concerned - 12/19/2001 1:15:32 PM Re. 18044 - 18054. concerned - 12/19/2001 1:26:05 PM It certainly wasn't the Republicans who have stopped Clowntoon from doing what he desired in most aspects of foreign policy (if they had, then things wouldn't have deteriorated as badly as they had during the last eight years). Look to x42's own state department and his ideology. Even this week, he is blaming such terrorism as Al Qaeda is responsible for preeminently on the West not 'giving enough' to 'poor' countries. 18055. arkymalarky - 12/19/2001 3:03:10 PM Given that partisan atmosphere, the Clinton administration had to make damn sure that that Bin Laden was killed or not attempt anything at all. Given how intelligence is collected and processed, that was a virtually impossible task. 18056. concerned - 12/19/2001 3:15:54 PM Given that partisan atmosphere, the Clinton administration had to make damn sure that that Bin Laden was killed or not attempt anything at all. 18057. concerned - 12/19/2001 3:21:48 PM After all, the question should be considered of why the premise of 'killing bin Laden', considered so 'important' during x42's administration, is so much less essential now. 18058. Wombat - 12/19/2001 4:30:25 PM Concerned: 18059. Wombat - 12/19/2001 4:37:52 PM Concerned: 18060. concerned - 12/19/2001 4:42:11 PM Wombat - 18061. Wombat - 12/19/2001 4:46:13 PM How would Jesse Helms and John Ashcroft and the Republicans in the House have responded had Clinton took up the Sudanese government's offer to turn over Bin Laden over to the US? 18062. Wombat - 12/19/2001 4:48:57 PM Concerned: 18063. concerned - 12/19/2001 4:59:48 PM It's not at all clear to me that this so-called 'Republican partisanship' of yours prevented Clowntoon from implementing any particular policy or response against terrorism whatsoever. Certainly there was nothing of that sort that the author of the WP article I linked felt was worth mentioning. 18064. concerned - 12/19/2001 5:07:20 PM And if his administration was criticized for failing on this one occasion, so what? If there was credible evidence that bin Laden was planning 9/11 (and there was), it seems that it was incumbent on x42 to take his finger out of the wind for an instant or get his thumb out of his ass, whatever. 18065. Cellar Door - 12/19/2001 7:23:26 PM Well I'm not making this up folks, but believe it or not there's a Gay Angle to the "American Taliban" story. 18066. concerned - 12/19/2001 7:37:32 PM Re. 18062 - 18067. jexster - 12/19/2001 8:09:52 PM Concerned, back your bull with facts not toilet paper 18068. jexster - 12/19/2001 8:12:10 PM Concerned has stimulated me (first in war first in peace, first in the soiled pants of ThomasD) but Bush's failure to stimulate the economy and make good his promises to help the states has stimulated California police and firemen to draft a ballot initiative to raise the state sales tax by 1/4 cent to raise a billion bucks to pay for the extra security Bush refuses to provide 18069. jexster - 12/19/2001 9:07:27 PM 18070. wonkers2 - 12/19/2001 9:54:07 PM This afternoon I heard a comentator on TV expressing concern about the possibility of ObL and some of the Al Qaida and Taliban crossing the border, re-grouping and destabilizing Pakistan. Horrible thought which I expressed last week. Musharraf had better take care of these guys coming back into Pakistan and watch out for disloyalty in the security service and the army. 18071. jexster - 12/19/2001 11:25:56 PM Local news stations have discovered the wonderful world of plastic surgery Wonk 18072. stostosto - 12/20/2001 5:31:40 AM concerned 18073. Wombat - 12/20/2001 7:04:09 AM After yesterday's bus-jacking, I expect that Pakistan will take a very hard line toward Al Quaeda fighters crossing into Pakistan. 18074. Wombat - 12/20/2001 7:24:00 AM Gee Concerned, what had W. done about raising the level of alert and US actions against terrorism in the eight plus months he was in office before 9/11? 18075. Wombat - 12/20/2001 7:31:19 AM Oh, and it falls to me to point out that there would have been no criticism as to ineffectiveness (except perhaps from you) had the cruise missiles fired into Afghanistan caught Bin Laden at the camp that he had been at only hours before. Also, recently published information on the relationship between the owner of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory and Iraq indicates a strong possibility that it was a dual-use production facility and a legitimate target. 18076. Wombat - 12/20/2001 7:32:01 AM But no, it was was just Clinton "wagging the dog." 18077. wonkers2 - 12/20/2001 8:57:53 AM NYT: "Virtually the entire leadership of the Taliban has survived and eluded capture." 18078. jexster - 12/20/2001 9:53:23 AM Yea but Wonk, we've sure managed some mighta fine nation building...why Old Glory's flyin agin over the embassy...Marines are playing that Afghan game with the severed calf head...next time Hamid Karzai visits Helmand Restaurant in North Beach throngs will appear to hail him...Bush's lifelong friend Ken Lay managed to steal millions from Californians and his own employees...Russia now has pipeline access to Iran. 18079. jexster - 12/20/2001 9:54:27 AM Loya jirga to the break of day..party hearty 18080. Wombat - 12/20/2001 10:05:19 AM Jex: 18081. jexster - 12/20/2001 10:09:55 AM Wombat...Bush may not have Osama but at least he don't have anthrax ... 18082. PincherMartin - 12/20/2001 11:17:17 AM From the Washington Post's Washington Brief section 18083. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/20/2001 11:42:53 AM " . . .Pakistan has more than adequate medical facilities to turn OBL into someone even his momma won't recognize in about 5 hr operation..... " 18084. jexster - 12/20/2001 1:06:55 PM Setting up the Office of Homeland Security in early October - the first such cabinet-level creation for a decade - George Bush called for "a comprehensive national strategy to safeguard our country against terrorism." He still hasn't got one. 18085. jexster - 12/20/2001 1:08:57 PM Damn Wiz... I thought I saw her on Castro street last night.... 18086. judithathome - 12/20/2001 2:21:27 PM WHO is this guy on CNN right now explaining the 9/11 Fund? And why does he remind me of Larry David? 18087. marjoribanks - 12/20/2001 5:59:14 PM Global Poll 18088. CalGal - 12/20/2001 6:02:46 PM It's surveys like that one that remind me how important it is that Americans learn how not to give a fuck about what those peons in other countries think. 18089. marjoribanks - 12/20/2001 6:11:17 PM 18090. jexster - 12/20/2001 7:14:27 PM Should the war on terrorism proceed to Iraq? Many Bush administration officials and members of Congress think so. Russia, Turkey, and countries in Europe and the Middle East are dubious. Without the support of those countries, the United States is far less likely to undertake a military campaign against Saddam Hussein. That's why the spin war is already underway. President Bush is framing Saddam as a terrorist, while Saddam is framing Bush as a persecutor of Muslims and Arabs. 18091. jexster - 12/21/2001 8:57:52 AM PantyWaist Powell Wary of Iraq Attack 18092. jexster - 12/21/2001 9:02:20 AM Even before Sept. 11, there had been little enthusiasm within the administration for new military confrontation with Hussein. While top Pentagon officials looked for a new initiative to topple the Iraqi leader, Powell has pressed for overhauling U.N. economic sanctions on Baghdad to choke off imports that could be used by its military or in the development of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. 18093. stostosto - 12/21/2001 9:10:38 AM As usual, they piss and moan about American power while simultaneously whining that we don't use it to their benefit often enough. 18094. stostosto - 12/21/2001 9:20:07 AM You might also conclude from the disparity between how America views itself and how the rest of the world does, that Americans ought to learn more about how it is actually perceived. 18095. ronski - 12/21/2001 9:26:23 AM I would agree that hating freedom is the very least of it, but I think that both terrorists and Islamists do distrust if not despise the freedoms of Western liberalism and that this is a major factor in why Islamic nations in the Middle East lag behind other countries. 18096. stostosto - 12/21/2001 9:51:01 AM ronski 18097. marjoribanks - 12/21/2001 9:53:24 AM By the way, off-topic, the mob in Argentina torched a Mickey D's last night. 18098. Wombat - 12/21/2001 9:57:41 AM Was that an antiglobalist action, or a critique of its food? 18099. marjoribanks - 12/21/2001 10:02:19 AM If the Mickey D's in Buenos Aires is anything like ones across the border in Brazil, the burgers are about 10 times better than the US versions. Which is not saying much, mind you. I ate the Brazilian versions a couple of times when the joint was the only one open at 4AM. 18100. marjoribanks - 12/21/2001 10:08:23 AM Decent FEER summary of the Indo-Pak situation. 18101. ronski - 12/21/2001 10:20:19 AM sto, 18102. marjoribanks - 12/21/2001 10:29:44 AM Unusually for the NYTimes, it has a good and very competent article on the high pressure now being exerted on Musharraf. 18103. marjoribanks - 12/21/2001 10:31:17 AM The conclusion is particularly spot-on, and brings to a head some of my key predictions (and, admittedly, strong hopes) from months ago. 18104. marjoribanks - 12/21/2001 10:48:25 AM Wow, there is also a puncy column by Nicholas Kristof. 18105. sakonige - 12/21/2001 11:37:57 AM 18106. marjoribanks - 12/21/2001 12:19:42 PM Pakistan = Pathans only in your head, nut. 18107. CalGal - 12/21/2001 12:36:02 PM I would agree that America is seen as imposing itself commercially (Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Hollywood, Madonna) 18108. CalGal - 12/21/2001 12:39:43 PM I think for instance that it was a typical example of American narrow-mindedness and denial when Bush declared that the terrorists "hate our freedoms". All indications are that what they hate is American presence in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia. 18109. joezan - 12/21/2001 12:40:01 PM Because they don't have any cute little mascots, Cal. 18110. sakonige - 12/21/2001 12:40:35 PM Message # 18106 18111. marjoribanks - 12/21/2001 12:45:57 PM Utter nonsense. 18112. sakonige - 12/21/2001 12:54:19 PM Hamid Karzai is Pathan 18113. jexster - 12/21/2001 1:08:44 PM Its about time too! The Ashcroft Himmler Initiatives are but a smokescreen to cover the real shit.... 18114. jexster - 12/21/2001 1:12:06 PM Book Your New Year's Loya Circle Jirga with the Karzai Family! 18115. Cellar Door - 12/21/2001 2:25:47 PM Cellar's Two Cents on the "Controversy" Over the father of the "American Taliban." 18116. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/21/2001 2:46:56 PM 18085. jexster - 12/20/01 6:08:57 PM 18117. PelleNilsson - 12/21/2001 2:48:31 PM CalGal 18118. CalGal - 12/21/2001 3:19:50 PM Does Welfare Cause Terrorism? 18119. CalGal - 12/21/2001 3:21:12 PM In fact, there's a good argument that "welfare benefits + ethnic antagonism" is the universal recipe for an underclass with an angry, oppositional culture. The social logic is simple: Ethnic differences make it easy for those outside of, for example, French Arab neighborhoods to discriminate against those inside, and easy for those inside to resent the mainstream culture around them. Meanwhile, relatively generous welfare benefits enable those in the ethnic ghetto to stay there, stay unemployed, and seethe. Without government subsidies, they would have to overcome the prejudice against them and integrate into the mainstream working culture. Work, in this sense, is anti-terrorist medicine. (And if you work all day, there's less time to dream up ways and reasons to kill infidels.) 18120. PelleNilsson - 12/21/2001 3:25:20 PM Yes, the US has been so good about handling the problem of the welfare-dependent discriminated-against blacks. 18121. CalGal - 12/21/2001 3:31:25 PM Yes, the US has been so good about handling the problem of the welfare-dependent discriminated-against blacks. 18122. concerned - 12/21/2001 3:31:44 PM 18123. CalGal - 12/21/2001 3:32:56 PM I will check to see whether African Americans on welfare have more income growth than European immigrant populations living on welfare. Wanna place bets? 18124. PelleNilsson - 12/21/2001 3:42:44 PM Black people aren't immigrants (for the most part) 18125. PelleNilsson - 12/21/2001 3:45:17 PM CalGal 18126. concerned - 12/21/2001 3:46:49 PM How will CalGal, thus challenged, respond? 18127. CalGal - 12/21/2001 4:03:27 PM And haven't they "thrived for generations on welfare" or at least since welfare benefits were extended to them? 18128. CalGal - 12/21/2001 4:12:20 PM What has income growth from welfare benefits to do with the subject under discussion? 18129. PelleNilsson - 12/21/2001 4:32:56 PM CalGal Message # 18123 18130. CalGal - 12/21/2001 4:43:23 PM Pelle, 18131. PelleNilsson - 12/21/2001 4:50:30 PM European countries are doing a small line in state sponsored terrorism by providing them with generous welfar benefits. 18132. sakonige - 12/21/2001 5:02:54 PM US warplanes attack Afghan convoy 18133. CalGal - 12/21/2001 5:02:55 PM Pelle--learn the difference between a typo and misspelling. And while you're at it, waste your well-wishes on someone foolish enough to value your feeble pleasantries. 18134. sakonige - 12/21/2001 5:06:31 PM 18135. concerned - 12/21/2001 5:11:06 PM ethnic cleansing is what native Americans were doing to each other before the white man put a stop to it. 18136. concerned - 12/21/2001 5:11:48 PM Those cannibalistic cultures in the American SW. 18137. concerned - 12/21/2001 5:12:44 PM Rivers of Aztec human sacrificial blood. Relegated to history by the Spaniards. And good riddance to it. 18138. Jonesatlaw - 12/21/2001 5:13:32 PM Cultural imperialism? Please be serious. American media products, fashions, and fast food are popular over the world because they are in fact better than the competition. Where they are not, they may be influential, but usually the home folks do it more to the taste of the market. 18139. concerned - 12/21/2001 5:15:44 PM JAL raises some valid points here. 18140. stostosto - 12/21/2001 5:15:51 PM Cal: 18141. Jonesatlaw - 12/21/2001 5:18:35 PM Where American products don't meet the standard, they are beaten out by better local products. India and Hong Kong have strong film industries producing films of a type more popular in their respective markets with the locals. 18142. concerned - 12/21/2001 5:19:40 PM That's two pieces of news to me. 18143. concerned - 12/21/2001 5:23:26 PM They may well be motivated also by the poor man's feeling of inferiority to the rich, as you also cite. But Bush wouldn't say so because that, if you notice, is essentially the leftist argument that the roots of terrorism lie in poverty. 18144. Jonesatlaw - 12/21/2001 5:28:32 PM Sto- the Americans have been all over the middle east for the last 50 years. American oil companies were instrumental in developing the oil wealth of the region, building all of the economies and cities supported by it, and Americans were influential in the education of the business and technical leaders of the economies that rose to such power in the region. 18145. stostosto - 12/21/2001 5:30:47 PM American media products, fashions, and fast food are popular over the world because they are in fact better than the competition. Where they are not, they may be influential, but usually the home folks do it more to the taste of the market. 18146. stostosto - 12/21/2001 5:34:14 PM Jones, 18147. concerned - 12/21/2001 5:35:12 PM Islamic religious tenets have always kept mideast societies from widely attempting to adopt Western ways, except in a particularly fragmented manner, and the disjunct tends to become more pronounced all the time. 18148. CalGal - 12/21/2001 5:41:21 PM That's two pieces of news to me. 18149. CalGal - 12/21/2001 5:46:04 PM Which is not the same as quality. 18150. stostosto - 12/21/2001 5:48:22 PM CalGal Message # 18118 18151. CalGal - 12/21/2001 5:53:11 PM Sto, 18152. stostosto - 12/21/2001 5:53:19 PM But nonetheless, you seem to be conceding the point. We are successful overseas because we make an incredibly popular product, not because we have some need to force it down your throats. 18153. CalGal - 12/21/2001 5:59:12 PM I said America was seen to impose itself commercially. 18154. stostosto - 12/21/2001 6:08:28 PM Why do you offer this as a reason when it clearly doesn't stand up to close inspection? 18155. stostosto - 12/21/2001 6:09:45 PM Being second best everywhere is still "incredibly popular". Does Denmark manage as much? 18156. concerned - 12/21/2001 6:16:48 PM I am beginning to think that a high level of welfare benefits (and taxes) requires a level of social cohesion and feeling of commonality that is hard to achieve in large and heterogenous countries. 18157. concerned - 12/21/2001 6:19:17 PM Re. 18156 - 18158. concerned - 12/21/2001 6:21:43 PM In fact, earlier this week, I told an African American fellow employee, in a rather formulaic way, that mulitculturalism is inversely proportional to the number of social services which can be effectively provided, and is a primary reason that the progress of (functioning) social welfare has stalled in the US for the last thirty years. 18159. concerned - 12/21/2001 6:23:54 PM So, you see, I've thought this shit through long ago. 18160. CalGal - 12/21/2001 6:28:26 PM No, it's being incredibly, consistently second best! 18161. concerned - 12/21/2001 6:29:10 PM I wish PE would get a clue, you know? 18162. concerned - 12/21/2001 6:32:49 PM Once again, I'm years ahead of the 'curve', and I don't mind saying so. Don't forget it. 18163. concerned - 12/21/2001 6:42:42 PM ...about the future rush to a space based aspect to the world economy, don't know when the economically effective break point will occur, but this is a primary reason I'm 'gung ho' in favor of whatever funding there is, militarily or otherwise, that enhances the US advantage technologically in that area. 18164. jexster - 12/21/2001 11:06:46 PM And don't forget you heard it from me first...Bush needs perpetual war.. 18165. stostosto - 12/22/2001 7:46:38 AM Are you serious? 18166. stostosto - 12/22/2001 7:53:26 AM Me: I was trying to explain a hostile attitude, not justify it. 18167. jexster - 12/22/2001 9:55:59 AM Karzai Ties To US A Mixed Blessing 18168. jexster - 12/22/2001 10:04:38 AM 18169. Property of Jesus - 12/22/2001 10:06:39 AM The hat makes the man. 18170. jexster - 12/22/2001 10:29:44 AM Is that a compliment? 18171. jexster - 12/22/2001 10:30:11 AM or a joke 18172. jexster - 12/22/2001 10:32:00 AM Bush: America Grieves This Christmas Over Sept 11 18173. jexster - 12/22/2001 10:38:40 AM Please buckle your seat belts and bring your civil liberties into the full upright and surrendered position, because the war on terrorism is going to last a long time. 18174. joezan - 12/22/2001 11:28:09 AM What bs. 18175. Property of Jesus - 12/22/2001 12:09:22 PM Oh, we got him, Joe. He's a goner. Buryed in his beloved Pol e Alam. 18176. jexster - 12/22/2001 12:39:41 PM We didn't get shit. 18177. jexster - 12/22/2001 12:40:05 PM We got Slobo tho! 18178. jexster - 12/22/2001 12:42:16 PM Osama and Eric Rudolph B Free! 18179. jexster - 12/22/2001 12:45:28 PM Taliban Chiefs Prove Elusive, Americans Say 18180. jexster - 12/22/2001 12:46:53 PM Oh boy war for a generation! 18181. jexster - 12/22/2001 12:49:30 PM The Next Dr. Evil: Who Will Replace Osama? (now that he's vacationing on Bora Bora!) 18182. jexster - 12/22/2001 12:52:01 PM 18183. jexster - 12/22/2001 12:55:19 PM The great American villain should spew exceptionally nasty anti-American rhetoric. He must have a sinister or comical appearance: Beards and mustaches are encouraged, so are uniforms or exotic national costumes. (Noriega's acne scars confirmed his iniquity.) He should possess the Bond villain's combination of ruthlessness and secretiveness. He should develop alarming weapons or employ heinous tactics (biological weapons, airplane terrorism, etc.), and he should reside in some hard-to-target hideaway (Qadaffi's tent, Saddam's bunkers). He should threaten not simply American lives but the American way of life. He should either undermine American values from within (as drug dealers do), or he should offer the rest of the world a compelling challenge to American ideals (as the potent Islam of Khomeini and Bin Laden does) 18184. joezan - 12/22/2001 12:58:43 PM Noriega's acne scars confirmed his iniquity. 18185. jexster - 12/22/2001 12:59:21 PM The great American villain should spew exceptionally nasty anti-American rhetoric. He must have a sinister or comical appearance: Beards and mustaches are encouraged, so are uniforms or exotic national costumes. (Noriega's acne scars confirmed his iniquity.) He should possess the Bond villain's combination of ruthlessness and secretiveness. He should develop alarming weapons or employ heinous tactics (biological weapons, airplane terrorism, etc.), and he should reside in some hard-to-target hideaway (Qadaffi's tent, Saddam's bunkers). He should threaten not simply American lives but the American way of life. He should either undermine American values from within (as drug dealers do), or he should offer the rest of the world a compelling challenge to American ideals (as the potent Islam of Khomeini and Bin Laden does) 18186. jexster - 12/22/2001 1:00:18 PM Hey it WAS you I heard! 18187. RustlerPike - 12/22/2001 2:18:03 PM 13 of the last 15 posts are by jexster the terrorist sympathiser. 18188. LohrM - 12/22/2001 4:19:47 PM The US has been lucky in its villains since 1980-- they've looked appropriately evil and Nasty-Foreign. It would be hard to demonize Tony Blair, say...far too vanilla. Hugo Chavez is a good second-string Bad Guy-- the look, the greasy swarthy foreignness, the silly uniforms... It would be hard for the US to see Hindoooos as villains; the accent is too comical to be threatening (see Apu on 'The Simpsons')...although Gandhi could have been portrayed as a nasty little perv without much difficulty. 18189. Property of Jesus - 12/22/2001 5:22:53 PM Other than attacking the noble Serbs (the same ones who protected our downed WWII pilots from the Albanian nazis), we don't pick our enemies. 18190. judithathome - 12/22/2001 6:14:35 PM This is a rather scary story about New Tricks A Terrorist Might Try. Makes OJs Bruno Magli shoes look positively innocuous. 18191. judithathome - 12/22/2001 6:42:23 PM The above post is about a new attempt to blow up a plane which left Paris bound for Miami today. Air Force jets escorted the plane to Logan after a man attempted to light explosives hidden in his shoes...crew and passengers subdued him. 18192. jexster - 12/22/2001 6:49:46 PM Trial By Moron 18193. PincherMartin - 12/22/2001 7:02:12 PM Judith, 18194. dusty - 12/22/2001 7:02:40 PM PelleNilsson 18195. judithathome - 12/22/2001 7:07:40 PM Pincher: 18196. dusty - 12/22/2001 7:09:50 PM The CNN article on the shoebomber has a bit more detail. 18197. wonkers2 - 12/22/2001 7:10:19 PM Change is more inherent in our American way of life. Once I was involved with helping select the locations of some plants in Spain and peripherally (my involvement was minimal) in recruiting workers for the plants. The Americans, including myself, were surprised at how reluctant many or most Spaniards were to move far from where they were born and where generations of their family had always lived. Many of the Americans considered it not unusual for their careers to include jobs in several cities in the U.S. and a couple of other countries. 18198. judithathome - 12/22/2001 7:15:46 PM Dusty, the reporters on CNN didn't know as much as their article...they were stumbling all over the story with very little detail. The story I linked above had much more detail than the reports on CNN were giving... 18199. PincherMartin - 12/22/2001 7:16:13 PM Judith, 18200. judithathome - 12/22/2001 7:17:59 PM You make a good point about what he looks like...I guess I was thinking very narrowly. 18201. dusty - 12/22/2001 7:21:39 PM The CNN article on the shoebomber has a bit more detail. 18202. dusty - 12/22/2001 7:22:39 PM Oops, refreshed by accident 18203. ronski - 12/22/2001 7:29:31 PM Well I find it plenty disturbing but not surprising. 18204. arkymalarky - 12/22/2001 7:36:26 PM I can understand the shoes more than not stopping him over the other red flags like the passport and his lack of luggage. 18205. wonkers2 - 12/22/2001 7:43:35 PM Apparently the anthrax was produced in a U.S. government lab or government contractor's lab. I hope Rama and company are now looking among their own compatriots after trying for three months to pin it on Iraq. 18206. ronski - 12/22/2001 7:43:56 PM Well, so many Arab-looking men fly to Miami without luggage this time of year, what were the Parisians to think? 18207. ronski - 12/22/2001 7:46:53 PM I heard a couple days ago the U.S. authorities are questioning a scientist who worked on anthrax, who was fired from his lab, and who allegedly made a threat to use the stuff. Sounds like a report almost too good to be true, though. 18208. PelleNilsson - 12/22/2001 7:51:17 PM dusty Message # 18194 18209. dusty - 12/22/2001 8:40:43 PM Pelle 18210. RustlerPike - 12/22/2001 10:32:02 PM My Jesus, what a horrifying event. 18211. RustlerPike - 12/22/2001 10:40:56 PM Neither does CNN. 18212. RustlerPike - 12/22/2001 10:42:21 PM Still, I don't understand how a C4 charge that nearly killed 200 people isn't the main headline. It would be if I were editor. 18213. joezan - 12/22/2001 10:44:50 PM ronski: 18214. RustlerPike - 12/22/2001 10:53:32 PM Joe: 18215. joezan - 12/22/2001 10:59:08 PM Rustler: 18216. joezan - 12/23/2001 12:08:45 AM ...and, speaking of Omaha - here's the brand new Lt. Joezansbrother: 18217. CalGal - 12/23/2001 1:59:03 AM FAA warned airline personnel about shoes 18218. RustlerPike - 12/23/2001 10:28:38 AM CruelGal: 18219. RustlerPike - 12/23/2001 10:30:39 AM Joe: 18220. RustlerPike - 12/23/2001 10:33:16 AM I'm not exagerating - this guy looked too old to have been at Omaha Beach. 18221. joezan - 12/23/2001 10:34:19 AM 18222. joezan - 12/23/2001 10:38:01 AM Hey, Pike - this is strange. I originally wrote ....but maybe Gallipoli, but edited it as it seemed a bit over the top. 18223. RustlerPike - 12/23/2001 10:39:35 AM Person of the year sounds so - empty. 18224. RustlerPike - 12/23/2001 10:40:52 AM JoeZ: 18225. joezan - 12/23/2001 10:44:15 AM Pike: 18226. jexster - 12/23/2001 10:51:24 AM Small world ain't it.... 18227. judithathome - 12/23/2001 10:53:17 AM Since the flight attendant recognized the smell of a match being lit, we can say it was the fact smoking has been banned on planes that helped... 18228. joezan - 12/23/2001 11:01:09 AM They were over the Atlantic, I would guess, since it was a couple of hours to Logan yet. 18229. judithathome - 12/23/2001 11:06:24 AM You'd think he'd have waited until he was over a large city so the explosion would cause more mayhem... 18230. jexster - 12/23/2001 11:16:18 AM KABUL, Afghanistan -- U.S. officials said Saturday they were still confident that a convoy bombed by American warplanes two days earlier was a legitimate target but retreated from categorical denials that the victims were Afghan tribal elders and promised a full investigation. 18231. joezan - 12/23/2001 11:21:01 AM Well, Karzai doesn't seem bothered by the episode. I'm sure there were some Afghan tribal leaders, and maybe some innocents, in the convoy. 18232. judithathome - 12/23/2001 11:50:48 AM My, what a tender thought. 18233. PelleNilsson - 12/23/2001 11:57:27 AM True Christmas spirit. 18234. joezan - 12/23/2001 11:57:28 AM Please, Judith. 18235. judithathome - 12/23/2001 11:59:11 AM I wasn't aware that had been proven, Joe... 18236. joezan - 12/23/2001 12:01:30 PM Oh - and are you aware that anything else has been proven? 18237. judithathome - 12/23/2001 12:04:33 PM No, I'm not but I think I'll reserve my celebrating the deaths of people until I know for sure they were indeed the enemy or aiding and abetting such. 18238. joezan - 12/23/2001 12:07:35 PM Exactly. 18239. judithathome - 12/23/2001 12:09:55 PM Oh, but you can continue to be as crass as you please? 18240. CalGal - 12/23/2001 12:15:59 PM RP, 18241. CalGal - 12/23/2001 12:28:06 PM I think Time's denial of Man of the Year to bin Laden is a serious copout. I understand why they did it--I was at the website and thinking about voting. I looked at their description of the requirements, concluded it was definitely bin Laden, and just couldn't vote for the guy. And in fact, I spent time trying to figure out how I could stretch the definition to mean Guiliani. But there just wasn't any way to do it. 18242. jexster - 12/23/2001 1:14:36 PM I'm with you Cal..if they named GWB MaN o Year last year they could do same for OBL this 18243. jexster - 12/23/2001 1:15:10 PM India & Pakistan on Brink of War 18244. jexster - 12/23/2001 1:19:04 PM THE Government presented a catalogue of its fears about the risk of nuclear, chemical and biological attacks on Britain yesterday, as Royal Navy commandos boarded a ship that security reports suggested was carrying terrorist material that would ?rock the City of London?. 18245. jexster - 12/23/2001 1:26:13 PM Islamabad = Tandoori Oven 18246. jexster - 12/23/2001 1:26:33 PM Forrest Gump 18247. jexster - 12/23/2001 1:27:42 PM But asked if India is bluffing about pursuing a military option, the senior official said, "This time we are determined to put an end to terrorism." 18248. PelleNilsson - 12/23/2001 2:36:07 PM I got on line to complain about Guilani being preferred before bin Laden but I see that CalGal was ahead of me. G was just a bit player, albeit a good one, in a production signed bL. 18249. Al D - 12/23/2001 4:49:01 PM Is man of the year or person of the year ever given to a dead man? Is there evidence that UbL is alive? 18250. Cellar Door - 12/23/2001 4:56:13 PM Yes. The Chimp just said he's alive. 18251. RustlerPike - 12/23/2001 8:48:42 PM I wasn't talking about the measures taken in Israel because any solution that would require far fewer flights and several hours per security investigation "doesn't work" in any country with a real world flight schedule, unlike Israel's pretend schedule. 18252. Jenerator - 12/23/2001 9:11:35 PM When my mom went to Israel, she was amazed at the high level of security, the pin in her knee set of the alarm at the airport! 18253. Jenerator - 12/23/2001 9:21:56 PM My God is "Reid" ugly. 18254. RustlerPike - 12/23/2001 9:32:42 PM Jen: 18255. RustlerPike - 12/23/2001 9:37:01 PM When my mom went to Israel, she was amazed at the high level of security, the pin in her knee set of the alarm at the airport! 18256. RustlerPike - 12/23/2001 9:38:38 PM Oh and CruelGal, in case I haven't made it clear: 18257. joezan - 12/23/2001 11:00:23 PM 18258. joezan - 12/23/2001 11:01:03 PM ...looks like he's checking for hanging chads, don't he? 18259. mgleason - 12/23/2001 11:27:54 PM Ahem. A magazine which has named both Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin (twice!) Man of the Year draws the line at bin Laden? 18260. concerned - 12/24/2001 5:38:10 AM Giuliani seems to be holding up a bit better these days than bin Laden. 18261. concerned - 12/24/2001 5:40:06 AM I guess she did. Wouldn't want to be in her shoes.... 18262. RustlerPike - 12/24/2001 5:56:52 AM After this incident, I guess we're all waiting for the other shoe to fall... 18263. RustlerPike - 12/24/2001 5:58:13 AM JoeZ: 18264. jexster - 12/24/2001 10:10:20 AM Bush Anthrax Actions Erode Public Trust, Threaten Lives (LAT) 18265. jexster - 12/24/2001 10:11:05 AM OOOO.jOEz..I love a man in a uniform! 18266. jexster - 12/24/2001 10:16:25 AM Kashmir Islamists Not Afraid of the Big Bad Bush :0 NyT 18267. jexster - 12/24/2001 10:46:15 AM "NEW DELHI, Dec. 23 -- India and Pakistan have increased deployments of troops and military equipment along their shared border in recent days as the Indian government considers whether to strike at Pakistan-based militant groups that officials here hold responsible for a recent attack on Parliament. 18268. jexster - 12/24/2001 10:50:58 AM INDIA and Pakistan rushed troops and heavy arms to their disputed border in Kashmir last night after two Indian soldiers and two leading Islamic militants were killed during battles yesterday. 18269. jexster - 12/24/2001 10:52:09 AM Moron Opens Pandora's Box! 18270. Jenerator - 12/24/2001 11:22:59 AM Rustler, 18271. judithathome - 12/24/2001 11:33:48 AM I simply do not understand the whole kamikaze/suicide terrorist mentality. 18272. Cellar Door - 12/24/2001 12:06:37 PM 18273. jexster - 12/24/2001 1:00:04 PM Excellent Cllr! 18274. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 12/24/2001 1:17:15 PM Nyuk Nyuk! 18275. Greystoke - 12/24/2001 2:13:09 PM I haven't been around for a while, so perhaps this subject has already been discussed. 18276. Greystoke - 12/24/2001 2:15:52 PM Oops. Make that $1.65 million apiece. I would be OK with $1.65 apiece. 18277. CalGal - 12/24/2001 2:22:55 PM Grey! Hiya. 18278. CalGal - 12/24/2001 2:27:46 PM Here it is: A Tragic Calculus 18279. Greystoke - 12/24/2001 2:35:49 PM CalGal 18280. CalGal - 12/24/2001 2:43:50 PM You gruesome wretch. 18281. greystoke - 12/24/2001 2:51:07 PM Unfortunatly, I've been called into work to fix a program problem, so I'll be back later. 18282. OhioSTOPAS - 12/24/2001 3:38:07 PM Although compassionate, the awards to victims' families are at least as much a gift to American and United Airlines (more precisely, their insurers) as they are compensation to the families. The releases of liability the families must give in exchange for the awards greatly benefit the airlines and insurers. 18283. jexster - 12/25/2001 9:18:08 AM NEW DELHI, Dec. 24 — A warlike momentum is building between India and Pakistan as both countries mount large-scale troop buildups along the full length of their border in response to rising antagonism since a suicide attack this month on India's Parliament. 18284. jexster - 12/25/2001 9:22:38 AM 18285. jexster - 12/25/2001 9:23:01 AM Death to the Evil Doers! 18286. arkymalarky - 12/26/2001 12:32:11 AM I tole ya. 18287. jexster - 12/26/2001 10:38:55 AM "ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, Dec. 25 ? The leaders of Pakistan and India traded stiff warnings today about the risks of a wider conflict between them as their armies traded sporadic artillery fire in the mountains of Kashmir and continued an intensive military buildup elsewhere along their 1,800-mile border." 18288. jexster - 12/26/2001 10:44:06 AM After 2 1/2 months of bombing and a manhunt aided by the world's most advanced intelligence-gathering devices, the accused terrorist is still not in anybody's gunsights. 18289. jexster - 12/26/2001 10:45:09 AM Manhunt Uncovers No Trace of OBL 18290. jexster - 12/26/2001 10:47:04 AM Message # 18280 Well said Cal. More evidence that the public opinion climate is rather screwed up about now. 18291. jexster - 12/26/2001 10:56:24 AM Bush Heads to Texas Ranch to See in 'War Year' 18292. Cellar Door - 12/26/2001 1:29:20 PM We seek him here, we seek him there, we seek Osama everywhere. . . and we can't find him. 18293. CalGal - 12/26/2001 1:31:59 PM More demands from the victims' families 18294. Jonesatlaw - 12/26/2001 3:44:05 PM I haven't read the pieces regarding the payouts to the survivors of those killed in the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, and therefore won't comment on the amounts or the calculations except to say two things. 18295. jexster - 12/26/2001 5:45:01 PM Osama has escaped our Warriour King! The Washington Times (a source I always rely on for fair accurate unbaised etc) reports he escaped by ship through the Arabian Sea confirming my CIA sources that he's vacationing in Bora Bora, not Tora Bora. 18296. CalGal - 12/26/2001 5:49:46 PM Jones, 18297. judithathome - 12/26/2001 5:53:20 PM More than someone whose husband was killed by an errant taxi half an hour before the first plane hit? 18298. greystoke - 12/26/2001 5:53:59 PM CalGal 18299. greystoke - 12/26/2001 5:59:06 PM Jones 18300. jexster - 12/26/2001 6:18:55 PM ``When the youths detonated (bombs) in Nairobi of less than two tons, America said that this was a terrorist strike and that this was a weapon of mass destruction, but it has used two bombs, each weighing seven tons, and it is not ashamed of that. 18301. OhioSTOPAS - 12/26/2001 6:38:13 PM A whopper by President Bush about September 11 has gone largely unnoticed. (I read about it a couple of days ago at "Online Journal", www.onlinejournal.com.) 18302. Cellar Door - 12/26/2001 6:53:30 PM Oh let's give him the benefit of the doubt. 18303. OhioSTOPAS - 12/26/2001 6:56:29 PM I know it's common for people to think they remember experiencing dramatic events they did not in fact experience, but it's surprising for a President to do so (even after Reagan!). 18304. Cellar Door - 12/26/2001 7:30:18 PM But HERE'S soemone whose ass should REALLY be kicked to the curb! 18305. jexster - 12/26/2001 8:55:12 PM Bush Ponders Tough Issues at Ranch 18306. jexster - 12/26/2001 8:57:03 PM Ohio - 18307. RustlerPike - 12/27/2001 5:28:33 AM Stopas: 18308. concerned - 12/27/2001 5:53:31 AM jexster, cllrdr - 18309. concerned - 12/27/2001 6:01:51 AM I know it's common for people to think they remember experiencing dramatic events they did not in fact experience, but it's surprising for a President to do so ... 18310. OhioSTOPAS - 12/27/2001 6:36:05 AM Whoever posted #18309, that is an EXCELLENT pastiche of a typical spittle-spewing post by "concerned". The misspelling of "timbre" is a particularly nice touch. Bravo! 18311. concerned - 12/27/2001 6:46:40 AM Glad you agree with the point I made, Ohio. No misspelling - it was a play on words relating to Bore's wooden aspect; however I apologize if it was a bit too cerebral for some. 18312. OhioSTOPAS - 12/27/2001 6:51:59 AM Sure it was, whoever you are. 18313. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 9:58:35 AM Well-reasoned Ayaz Amir column from Dawn. 18314. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 10:17:16 AM The new Bin Laden video will be shown in its entirety today on Al Jazeera TV. 18315. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 10:17:49 AM Anyway, the rest of the content of this tape will be interesting. I see Bin Laden as having an opportunity here, perhaps his last great chance to talk to his preferred audience in the Muslim world (and beyond) freely, because interest is heightened, across the board, in his comments. Certainly, whole transcripts of his statements are available and displayed by a huge array of media organs right now, which was not at all the case when similar tapes kept surfacing before and after September 11. 18316. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 10:39:43 AM Independent editorial - As calls for peace echo around the world, is the Middle East listening? 18317. judithathome - 12/27/2001 11:10:23 AM CNN is reporting bin Laden may be in custody of a radical Islamic organization in Pakistan...why they report this stuff til they know for sure, I don't understand. I suppose I'm guilty of it now, too. 18318. judithathome - 12/27/2001 11:15:13 AM Here is an AP News Story On Possible Location Of bin Laden 18319. judithathome - 12/27/2001 12:35:03 PM Okay, now CNN is saying a spokesman from the Defense department of Pakistan says bin Laden IS there...so does this mean if Pakistan doesn't hand him over, we'll attack them? If he's there and they know it and aren't turning him over, isn't that harboring terrorists? 18320. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 2:50:27 PM 18321. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 2:53:08 PM More from Reuters - the tape, Afghanistan, Karzai's government and Pakistan. 18322. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 3:06:21 PM Excellent article by Rahimullah Yusufzai on the possibility that Bin Laden is in Pakistan. 18323. PelleNilsson - 12/27/2001 3:11:04 PM Yusufzai. That's PE's clan isn't it? 18324. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 3:20:16 PM The Yusufzais are Jews, according to some of them, and according to some Jewish nutter who has "discovered" these semitic links which make the Pathans one of the lost tribes. 18325. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 3:22:19 PM Yusufzai simply means "sons of Joseph". 18326. PelleNilsson - 12/27/2001 3:25:41 PM Even have understood that. 18327. PelleNilsson - 12/27/2001 3:26:01 PM Even I ... 18328. RustlerPike - 12/27/2001 3:34:56 PM Pathans are pathetic. I've always said that and I stand by my claim. 18329. concerned - 12/27/2001 3:38:20 PM Re. 18328 - 18330. concerned - 12/27/2001 3:41:09 PM Re. 18322 - 18331. PelleNilsson - 12/27/2001 3:43:09 PM whatever gods the Pathans believe in 18332. RustlerPike - 12/27/2001 3:44:56 PM Well, someone's going to do this so it may as well be me: 18333. concerned - 12/27/2001 3:47:09 PM Re. 18331 - 18334. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 3:47:20 PM That's actually quite funny and apt. 18335. concerned - 12/27/2001 3:48:30 PM And here I was thinking that Pelle understood nuance. 18336. concerned - 12/27/2001 3:49:29 PM IAC, Happy holidays! 18337. Jonesatlaw - 12/27/2001 4:00:06 PM Rustler- 18338. Cellar Door - 12/27/2001 4:01:16 PM Is it just me or does Osama look like a Drag King Celine Dion to you too? 18339. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 4:02:29 PM Celine Dion is much more evil. 18340. Cellar Door - 12/27/2001 4:03:24 PM ROTFALMAO! 18341. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 4:38:56 PM Kabul, December 27: Fresh bands of Pakistani mercenary groups of Harkat-ul-Mujahideen and Jaish-e-Mohammad captured in Tora Bora mountains while fleeing Afghanistan along with al Qaeda fighters claimed they had been directed by their "controllers" in Islamabad to sneak into Pakistan-occupied-Kashmir (PoK) for "new operations". 18342. marjoribanks - 12/27/2001 4:43:05 PM So let's review: 18343. pseudoerasmus - 12/27/2001 5:12:21 PM One may be part Pathan, but one cannot be part Yusufzai. Membership in a tribe, which is determined by patrilineal descent, is either /or. 18344. concerned - 12/27/2001 9:43:10 PM Who can tell me what the term is for the cloth that is worn over the head of certain middle eastern women, not covering the face? How widely used is this style of dress? 18345. pseudoerasmus - 12/27/2001 10:43:36 PM The headscarf -- the piece of cloth which drapes over the head and shoulders but not the entire body, and which keeps the face exposed -- is called hijab. This is probably the most common amongst Muslim women. 18346. jexster - 12/28/2001 1:03:23 AM Oh, yeah? How about Clowntoon and his claiming to remember church burnings which occurred before he was born? And then there's Pinocchio Bore (not that he's presidential timber, mind you) with his plethora of lies about Love Canal, the Internet, Love Story, etc. 18347. jexster - 12/28/2001 1:05:07 AM "Have you two dingbats considered the possibility that bin Laden might already be dead?" 18348. concerned - 12/28/2001 2:12:39 AM Re. 18345 - 18349. concerned - 12/28/2001 2:15:22 AM Re. 18346 - 18350. concerned - 12/28/2001 2:42:53 AM Hey maybe there's an ambassadorial slot for x42, after all. 18351. concerned - 12/28/2001 5:14:15 AM Hey, jexster - 18352. concerned - 12/28/2001 5:17:35 AM Btw, more seriously, this could work out badly for Musharraf if it is determined that top Al Qaeda leaders are encamped in Pakistan. Particularly if there are any further terrorist incidents tied to Al Qaeda in the US, I don't the believe the US will hesitate in the least to project military force into Pakistan itself. 18353. jexster - 12/28/2001 7:21:55 PM Damn right Concerned! 18354. jexster - 12/28/2001 7:37:50 PM In fact now that the Afghans have told Bush to stop bombing their country in 3 days, the Warriour King is gonna have a helluva time meeting his goal of making 2002 The War Year much less his longer range objective "War Until 2004" 18355. concerned - 12/28/2001 11:21:02 PM Seeing as how we really didn't project substantial military force INTO Afghanistan, your parellelism falls apart at the start. 18356. jexster - 12/29/2001 12:36:03 PM Well try this Moron...a 4 page analysis of the so-called "war" in today's NyT..... 18357. jexster - 12/29/2001 12:41:18 PM This was the most incompetent adversary the United States has fought since the Barbary pirates in the early 1800's. They had no understanding of U.S. military capability. Gen Wesley Clark, USA(ret) 18358. jexster - 12/29/2001 12:44:43 PM First in war, first in peace, just what ole Commander Baba Jex called for happened! 18359. jexster - 12/29/2001 12:46:09 PM Wooden saddles..Blazing Saddles! 18360. concerned - 12/29/2001 1:35:00 PM I think you're losing it, jexster. 18361. concerned - 12/29/2001 1:52:43 PM It appears I was involved in an incident with an Islamist a couple days ago. While running an errand and driving on a busy multilane highway at about 60mph in the right lane, I noticed the car to the left of me, an early '90's GM with body damage on the side facing me, edging into my lane. The driver of that car kept it there for approximately a quarter of a mile in an apparent half assed attempt to intimidate me or create some sort of accident. When I looked over at the driver, I saw that it was a woman of Middle-Eastern descent in her '20's or '30's with a head covering typically worn by Muslims. 18362. CalGal - 12/29/2001 2:30:55 PM Rules Will Allow Screeners to Remain in Jobs 18363. jexster - 12/29/2001 7:30:56 PM The Wingnuts on "Capital Gang" are goin APE over King Moron's response to reporter's question, "You haven't got dick in Afgh. no Osama, thousands of Talibee terrorists disappeared do have any comment (you imbecile)?" 18364. jexster - 12/29/2001 7:34:49 PM "First, you're the only one bringing up the ridiculous implication of a full-bore US military assault on Afghanistan." 18365. jexster - 12/29/2001 7:45:40 PM 18366. jexster - 12/29/2001 7:47:14 PM From Slate "Why Shouldn't India Make War on Terrorists Too?" 18367. jexster - 12/29/2001 7:55:33 PM Mark Shields: "The DoD has war gamed 25 scenarios India/Paki and every single time it went nuclear" 18368. jexster - 12/29/2001 7:59:20 PM King Moron had better watch what he prays for on "War Year's" Eve - he just might get it 18369. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 9:40:07 AM I recently read Black Hawk Down. The book is a first rate entry in reportorial war history. The author manages to communicate political judgments without making many political pronouncements. The men and their circumstances are the book, including some chapters from the vantage point of Aidid's men. In the epilogue, the author comes to some well-articulated, common-sense conclusions which speak both to the practicality of such actions and to the effective imposition of The American Empire in the Third World. 18370. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 9:40:42 AM Somalia, like any American intervention, has become the bogeyman of those who loathe The American Empire (you may have heard that four oil companies had 83% of the Somalia's land mass under lease at the time of intervention - it was a true fact, but either the oil was too deep or 19 deaths too steep for big business, because we withdrew quickly). But the author recognizes that there are 100 Somalias out there, each at varying degrees of civilization. And where life is the cheapest (it got no cheaper than Mogadishu in 1993), we should be wary of intervening. It speaks well of this Administation's policy of using the United Nations and the forces of other nations to patrol Afghanistan, for while I hope the Karzai regime succeeds, I have my doubts, and if it all goes to pot and the locals cannot coalesce, we can just as easily obtain our limited security objectives from the air, as I do not subscribe to Molly Ivins' argument that a failure to nation build in Afghanistan will engender more terrorism. 18371. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 9:41:08 AM Indeed, the 500 figure (some analysts raise the level as high as 1000) is misleading, for we have to take into account that life was and is so cheap in Somalia, as it will be in future places of endeavor. And where life is cheap, heavy losses are heavy largely from our eyes. Tack on that heavy losses do not really register with the likes of an Aidid (or a bin Laden or a Sadaam or a Milosevic), and the numbers game becomes less of a desirable goal. 18372. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 9:41:24 AM Black Hawk Down also serves as a stark reminder of the service given by the centurions of American Empire. At a time when the bereaved families of slaughtered civilians are dickering over $1.6 million payments, and Paul Simon and Bruce Springsteen immediately (and charitably) pony up time and money to pitch in, it helps to remember that 19 men lost their lives in Somalia. Given that the nature of American involvement abroad will be less than protracted, we will always take casualties. In Afghanistan to date, Mike Spann died in Afghanistan, and we have had other deaths (accidental) connected to the action. Paul Simon and Bruce Springsteen should offer their art for the families of those folks. 18373. RustlerPike - 12/31/2001 9:56:26 AM They will comply, not as a result of diplomacy, but because Afghanistan is littered not with the dead of ignorant and unfortunate civilians, but with Taliban and Taliban families. 18374. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 10:05:47 AM Substitute the link that does not work above (on Somalia as a future battleground) with 18375. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 10:06:34 AM Those fighting the Afghan war have benefited from the work of a small cadre of military thinkers who vowed that the mistakes leading to the carnage in Mogadishu would never be repeated. Researchers at the services' war colleges, notably Kenneth Allard of the National Defense University, have minutely analyzed the Somalia operation. At least as important, virtually everyone involved in military planning has read and taken to heart the book about the tragic events in Somalia by Philadelphia Inquirer investigative reporter Mark Bowden, "Black Hawk Down." 18376. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 10:07:00 AM Fourth-generation adversaries often strike in unexpected ways, and it's best to counter them from unexpected directions and to think preemptively. As one Defense Department strategist suggests, you don't take a sledgehammer to knock down a chair, you knock out one of its legs and render it useless. In Pentagon circles, this oblique approach is called Effects-Based Operations, and the Afghanistan war demonstrates its possibilities. 18377. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 10:07:29 AM In Somalia, the commandos begged for the fearsome AC-130 Spectre gunship to help get them out of intense firefights in downtown Mogadishu. But a nervous Clinton defense secretary, Les Aspin, never made the gunship available. With its precise and overwhelming firepower and hours-long loitering time, the Spectre is a ferocious weapon. It's also a symbolic weapon that Clinton officials thought would "escalate" the Somali conflict more than was comfortable, so they pulled that punch and let the commandos fend for themselves. 18378. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 10:07:42 AM The battle in Mogadishu nine years ago is considered by the ill-informed to have been a defeat of mighty America. Not since Vietnam had the United States lost so many in such a short engagement. But troops who were involved in the fight know better. They know that for every American killed, more than 30 Somali guerrillas perished. They also know that Mogadishu taught Pentagon thinkers powerful lessons. It showed us the future of warfare, and what we learned we're now turning against our enemies. 18379. rubberducky - 12/31/2001 10:19:38 AM Caesar: learn to link 18380. glendajean - 12/31/2001 10:24:13 AM Here's inside look at Bush's war room from Time. It highlights some of the new kind of thinking that went into our military response to 9/11. 18381. Julius Caesar - 12/31/2001 10:33:57 AM rubberducky 18382. rubberducky - 12/31/2001 10:42:27 AM ok.... 18383. judithathome - 12/31/2001 10:43:02 AM Rubberus Duckus, Caesar hath spoken... 18384. Indiana Jones - 12/31/2001 11:00:54 AM William Safire predicted yesterday that Saddam would be out within the year, effectively dooming my bet with Pincher. 18385. jexster - 12/31/2001 11:23:34 AM Though concerned "gave serious consideration" to the matter, those of us who are not Moron Minions or who otherwise have brain with a functioning left side... 18386. jexster - 12/31/2001 11:26:21 AM JC? lemme guess. Can only be the Mote's own drag queen 18387. jexster - 12/31/2001 12:10:23 PM About to cut Paki in two and bake in the tandoor... 18388. joezan - 12/31/2001 12:22:58 PM Pike - Message # 18373: 18389. RustlerPike - 12/31/2001 12:36:45 PM Hmmm. Mebbe UbL was in there. 18390. jexster - 12/31/2001 1:06:06 PM Mebbe so, prolly not. 18391. jexster - 12/31/2001 1:08:38 PM From Bora Bora, Osama will head to Argentina, a New World treasure trove of opportunity for Allah's Bois (not to mention a much nicer place to live) 18392. RustlerPike - 1/1/2002 1:01:36 AM Lots of postwar Nazis favored Argentina too. 18393. sakonige - 1/1/2002 4:33:29 AM That was then, when Europeans called the shots. 18394. RustlerPike - 1/1/2002 9:31:39 AM Yasir Arafat: not just another pretty face. 18395. Cellar Door - 1/1/2002 6:24:31 PM 18396. Cellar Door - 1/1/2002 9:29:25 PM 18397. amax - 1/2/2002 9:03:23 AM Hi JC, 18398. amax - 1/2/2002 9:05:42 AM On a strategic level, the clear lesson I took away from the book is that engaging in military force when there is no popular political will to do so is a sure way to lose both the political objective and military credibility. The US govt is too decentralized and small 'd' democratic to be able to sustain more than a handful of military casualties when there is little public support for or interest in the issue at hand. 18399. wonkers2 - 1/2/2002 9:20:43 AM Frank Lindh gay? The plot thickens! Now there's another villain in addition to Malcolm X. 18400. judithathome - 1/2/2002 10:21:28 AM Apparently some liberals still see being gay as something so shameful that it is "disgusting" to report on it unless the individual has actually screamed his or her sexual orientation from the rooftops. 18401. Julius Caesar - 1/2/2002 1:09:16 PM Our post-September 11th life gets more and more garish. The initial rush to aid was and always will be a thing of beauty, but as the attack has transformed from reality to cable-based commodity, the excesses mount. 18402. Julius Caesar - 1/2/2002 1:10:07 PM Third, The parents of the Taliban man/boy In Washington, D.C., when it snows an inch, everyone runs to their car and speeds to the grocery store to stock up on milk and bread. In their haste, twenty percent of the drivers slip on the ice and smash into telephone poles. Similarly, in the United States, when you have a child who has humiliated him or herself and, by extension, you, instead of waiting for the weather to clear, you rush to the nearest television camera before you can say "Dr. Bernard Lewinsky" to compound your offspring's disgrace by confirming without question that the error committed was genetic. 18403. Julius Caesar - 1/2/2002 1:10:21 PM Fourth, Ground Zero, World Trade Center. 18404. Julius Caesar - 1/2/2002 1:12:21 PM Amax 18405. Julius Caesar - 1/2/2002 1:14:23 PM amax 18406. CalGal - 1/2/2002 1:15:06 PM losses are terrible, but they are also the same losses suffered by many who lived in Oklahoma City 18407. jexster - 1/2/2002 1:16:03 PM Tarin Kot, Afghanistan -- What may have been the decisive battle in the Afghan war could also qualify as the most obscure. 18408. Julius Caesar - 1/2/2002 1:34:50 PM 18409. vonKreedon - 1/2/2002 6:52:45 PM 18410. concerned - 1/2/2002 7:05:08 PM Re. 18384 - 18411. concerned - 1/2/2002 7:08:19 PM The moral of Mogadishu is not to give the military on the ground any damn weapon they ask for, but rather to accept that the deaths of US soldiers is an integral part of US military deployment. 18412. vonKreedon - 1/2/2002 7:13:47 PM 18413. OhioSTOPAS - 1/2/2002 9:23:06 PM "We are fighting terrorism on all fronts with a three-pronged strategy. First, we are working to rally a world coalition with zero tolerance for terrorism. Just this month I signed a law imposing harsh sanctions on foreign companies that invest in key sectors of [rogue nations'] economies. . . . Second, we must give law enforcement the tools they need to take the fight to terrorists. We need new laws to crack down on money laundering and to prosecute and punish those who commit violent acts against American citizens . . . [and] .. . extend the same power police now have against organized crime . . . . 18414. Jenerator - 1/2/2002 9:31:25 PM The threat of terrorism is from Illegal Aliens by the Phyllis Schlafly Report. 18415. ronski - 1/2/2002 10:04:43 PM When Schlafly quotes Bandow, it makes me think she cannot be all bad. 18416. mgleason - 1/2/2002 11:55:07 PM I wonder if she's been told to tone down the conspiracy theories now that President New World Order Jr. is in office. 18417. RustlerPike - 1/3/2002 1:35:31 AM Me and my mother used to think Schlafly was a hoot. I was raised to be a feminist by my Jewish momma, you see. 18418. Cellar Door - 1/3/2002 10:31:00 AM Of course she "made peace" with her gay son. There was no "war" to begin with. The creep worked for her for crying out loud! 18419. Cellar Door - 1/3/2002 10:32:21 AM The "Threat of Terorism" is now making racism Patriotic 18420. marjoribanks - 1/3/2002 10:46:12 AM I've commented on this phenomenon before. Suddenly, in a slightly worrisome way, it has become okay to air deep prejudices and xenophobia publicly as a result of this "war". The interesting thing for me has been hearing some of the views that my peers had obviously held for quite a long time. 18421. Andonly - 1/3/2002 12:08:50 PM Eh, Spanks. Psycho Schlafly has been at it since the '70s. 18422. Andonly - 1/3/2002 12:14:43 PM Good Jonathan Rauch article on what to do about samllpox vaccination, which at the moment is not all that safe. 18423. ronski - 1/3/2002 12:14:58 PM What I meant to say was whether Schlafly made peace with her son's being gay. I do recall he was always supportive of her. 18424. jexster - 1/3/2002 12:52:11 PM War or Joke? 18425. jexster - 1/3/2002 12:54:19 PM "Marines Find Few Clues In Empty: Al Qaeda Caves 18426. Jenerator - 1/3/2002 1:00:41 PM Jex, 18427. judithathome - 1/3/2002 2:45:39 PM I wonder how many pilots will come forward and question suspicious persons trying to fly the friendly skies now that it seems any disgruntled person so pegged will sue the asses off the airlines...I'm sure if the guy had had explosives in his shoes rather than Secret Service credentials, this pilot would be getting a gold star from GW. 18428. robertjayb - 1/3/2002 3:29:26 PM Bernard Lewis on the radio... 18429. Al D - 1/3/2002 7:02:00 PM robertjayb 18430. amax - 1/3/2002 7:11:44 PM JC, 18431. amax - 1/3/2002 8:06:39 PM The problem with Somalia was that we were not there to conquer (it was of no strategic or military value, and even though American businesses had leased most of the land, the oil possibilities were not that urgent). We were there to cripple Aidid's operation, because that operation was stealing United Nations aid. And we were attempting to intervene delicately (i.e., capturing Aidid and his lieutenants instead of killing them), which required intricate and dangerous use of our military. 18432. amax - 1/3/2002 8:07:26 PM This scenario is not all that different than the one we set ourselves in Somalia. The reason that we appear to be succeeding in Afghanistan where we failed in Somalia is ultimately because of two things: 18433. jexster - 1/3/2002 8:34:34 PM Listening to Our Inner Ashcroft 18434. mgleason - 1/3/2002 8:38:26 PM It was a good interview, Robert. Here's a summary of what Lewis talked about: What Went Wrong? (The audio's available after 9 pm ET.) 18435. jexster - 1/3/2002 8:54:22 PM ABC News: 18436. jexster - 1/3/2002 8:56:02 PM Jen: 18437. jexster - 1/3/2002 8:56:59 PM After all we all recall the Wag the Dog wags barking about asprin factories in Sudan etc. etc. etc. 18438. mgleason - 1/3/2002 11:40:20 PM The audio link in the summary of NPR's Lewis interview doesn't seem to be working, but you can get to it from here. Scroll down to 'Muslim World' and click on the Real Audio link. It's definitely worth listening to. 18439. RustlerPike - 1/4/2002 1:41:34 AM If the peoples of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression, culminating sooner or later in yet another alien domination; perhaps from a new Europe reverting to old ways, perhaps from a resurgent Russia, perhaps from some new, expanding superpower in the East. 18440. vonKreedon - 1/4/2002 2:41:19 AM Isreal is in the Middle East and continuing on the present path, so I'd say yes, you are included. 18441. Adrianne - 1/4/2002 7:06:42 AM Darn, missed the discussion of Black Hawk - great book. Julius Caesar, if you're interested in EBO (effects-based ops), Dave Deptula wrote an interesting paper "The Changing Nature of Warfare" re the strategy that I'd be happy to send you via email. Let me know (profile address is good). 18442. RustlerPike - 1/4/2002 9:04:53 AM vK: 18443. Cellar Door - 1/4/2002 11:00:19 AM J.G. Ballard (the only real expert on this subject) says 18444. RustlerPike - 1/4/2002 11:16:26 AM What's a psychosity? Who is this Ballard and why is he the only expert? Is he gay? Is that why? 18445. rubberducky - 1/4/2002 12:32:33 PM dumb or brilliant? 18446. Julius Caesar - 1/4/2002 1:24:34 PM VonKreedon 18447. Julius Caesar - 1/4/2002 1:25:11 PM VonKreedon 18448. Julius Caesar - 1/4/2002 1:25:42 PM amax 18449. Julius Caesar - 1/4/2002 1:26:25 PM In sum, my point is not to malign the soldiers or the Clinton Administration. But more than one lesson can be drawn. Lessons I've drawn (some drawn by Bowden and Hackworth as well) are that you defer to the military on the ground when the command requests what it deems necessary to do the job (it was not as if they requested tactical nuclear weapons); you apply lethal and massive force against the enemy, as opposed to finely tuned, urban snatch-and-grabs (i.e., the operation that caused the significant American casualties in Mogadishu - the seventh in a series - called for helicopter drop and support, four teams on each corner of an urban block, a snatch team, kicking in doors and taking prisoners, handcuffing, and a ground transport exit of 12 minutes through city streets to the American compound, all to net 22 Aidid lieutenants, 20 of whom were released); you fully armor (the snatch-and-grab force was lightly supplied with ammo, had only front half body armor and took no night vision googles); and, you do not let casualties bloody your nose to the extent that you pick up stakes and bolt. 18450. judithathome - 1/4/2002 1:29:18 PM Asked whether the leaflet could be used by some to say the United States is willing to doctor or make up things -- as has been alleged about the videotape found in Afghanistan by the United States -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had not thought about the possibility 18451. judithathome - 1/4/2002 1:32:33 PM U S Serviceman Killed in Battle 18452. Adrianne - 1/4/2002 1:37:43 PM 18453. CalGal - 1/4/2002 1:40:11 PM I voted for Itsy Bitsy Spider as his new moniker, but the size compensation jones won out. 18454. judithathome - 1/4/2002 1:40:49 PM Why must you change your name? 18455. Adrianne - 1/4/2002 1:44:41 PM Now Itsy Bitsy Spider, that would have been funny. 18456. vonKreedon - 1/4/2002 2:14:51 PM 18457. vonKreedon - 1/4/2002 2:37:34 PM Spike - I believe you are not included as possible conqueror because the conqueror, in this formulation, but be outside of and not a part of the system of violence. 18458. Cellar Door - 1/4/2002 3:58:17 PM "What's a psychosity?" 18459. Cellar Door - 1/5/2002 10:23:47 AM 18460. jexster - 1/5/2002 10:34:56 AM Bush Cuts Aid to Anti-Sadaam Alliance 18461. judithathome - 1/5/2002 10:57:29 AM Just as patriotism isn't the jingoistic bluster that Mr. Shields punctures, neither is it the new form of political correctness that has broken out since Sept. 11. In the new p.c., anyone who says anything critical about the president or his administration is branded an anti-American akin to the Marin County Taliban. But if Donald Rumsfeld is good at his job, that's his talent, not a magic spell that automatically rubs off on John Ashcroft and Norman Mineta. If George W. Bush has been a strong practitioner of war, that doesn't elevate his pettier domestic policies, whether an Enron-friendly energy plan or an inequitable economic "stimulus," to the holy grail or brand his critics as evildoers akin to Saddam Hussein (as one conservative group did to Tom Daschle in a recent ad). 18462. RustlerPike - 1/5/2002 11:38:00 AM Spike - I believe you are not included as possible conqueror because the conqueror, in this formulation, but be outside of and not a part of the system of violence. 18463. RustlerPike - 1/5/2002 11:39:00 AM Read Ballard. 18464. RustlerPike - 1/5/2002 11:41:42 AM Bush Fires Rage in Australia. 18465. judithathome - 1/5/2002 11:42:19 AM YOU have an aversion to things gay? 18466. judithathome - 1/5/2002 11:45:25 AM Why would Bush&Co. drop leaflets with doctored photos of bin Laden all over Afghanistan at a time when there was a controversy about doctored video tapes raging all over the Muslim world? 18467. judithathome - 1/5/2002 11:48:21 AM Ah...it took me a bit but I finally got it. 18468. Cellar Door - 1/5/2002 12:51:42 PM Of course I have enthusiasm forthings that aren't gay. 18469. Cellar Door - 1/5/2002 12:52:10 PM Oh wait -- I love Bach. 18470. LohrM - 1/5/2002 1:27:36 PM Anyone who grew up in the 1970s had only to look at the leaflets with bin Ladin in Western clothes (a white disco suit, too-- the single most appalling and vile male attire ever created) to experience a shock of recognition. 18471. judithathome - 1/5/2002 1:37:43 PM Your theory is very intriguing, LohrM....there was never a funeral, per se, for Croce. Hmmmmmm. 18472. Cellar Door - 1/5/2002 1:42:57 PM Nah. I'm sticking with Celine Dion. 18473. RustlerPike - 1/5/2002 2:06:16 PM jah: 18474. RustlerPike - 1/5/2002 2:09:56 PM Cellar: 18475. Julius Caesar - 1/5/2002 2:25:04 PM Cellar 18476. jexster - 1/5/2002 2:31:17 PM imaginary rightist McCarthyists questioning one's patriotism at every step 18477. Julius Caesar - 1/5/2002 2:35:36 PM The tenderness of the American left should be cause for concern, that they can take such wise counsel from our Attorney General and imagine yet another smear upon their rights and good nature. But I suppose juvenile egocentrism is perhaps the last true hallmark of American liberal thought. 18478. Cellar Door - 1/5/2002 2:37:24 PM "Rich is selling the idea that after September 11th, a true patriot, one who fully understood the lessons of that day, would think as Mr. Rich thinks on all the issues of this day." 18479. Cellar Door - 1/5/2002 2:38:54 PM " that they can take such wise counsel from our Attorney General and imagine yet another smear upon their rights and good nature. " 18480. Cellar Door - 1/5/2002 2:41:16 PM Welfare "reform" is exactly like that economic "stimulus passage" and those Iranian "moderates" we've all heard so much about. 18481. CalGal - 1/5/2002 2:41:50 PM they can take such wise counsel from our Attorney General 18482. Julius Caesar - 1/5/2002 2:45:08 PM Cellar 18483. vonKreedon - 1/5/2002 6:43:52 PM Is Julius Niner really arguing that there is not a campaign of attacks on dissent against our war on terror and its tactics? Jules really needs to get out more. 18484. Cellar Door - 1/5/2002 8:05:15 PM And Racism has become the new "Patriotism." 18485. vonKreedon - 1/5/2002 8:25:20 PM 18486. Cellar Door - 1/5/2002 8:44:20 PM Right. Them injuns was just....scenery. 18487. vonKreedon - 1/5/2002 8:46:22 PM 18488. joezan - 1/5/2002 8:55:44 PM Oh, please. 18489. arkymalarky - 1/5/2002 9:08:40 PM Quit whining that the exercise of free speech is endangering the nation, if not actually tantamount to treason and we might. 18490. joezan - 1/5/2002 9:19:51 PM And another squeak from the lefty peanut gallery. 18491. PincherMartin - 1/5/2002 9:23:20 PM Von Kreedon -- 18492. PincherMartin - 1/5/2002 9:23:38 PM Guess what, Von Kreedon. Free speech is not the right to have speech free of consequences. You are free to speak your mind in this country. But you are not free to have speech devoid of consequences. You can still be kicked out of someone's house for your speech; your business (or movie) can still be blackballed by citizen's groups for what its owner says; newspaper editoricals are still free to call you an "unpatriotic idiot" for what you say. 18493. justears - 1/5/2002 9:27:33 PM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64452-2002Jan4.html 18494. arkymalarky - 1/5/2002 9:33:10 PM And another squeak from the lefty peanut gallery. 18495. justears - 1/5/2002 9:34:29 PM Torture < /a> 18496. Adrianne - 1/5/2002 9:58:12 PM Pincher 18497. Al D - 1/5/2002 10:19:22 PM Adrianne 18498. PincherMartin - 1/5/2002 10:37:37 PM Adrienne -- 18499. PincherMartin - 1/5/2002 10:39:07 PM I mentioned both articles, but I did so separately. The only thing the two have in common is they are evidence of Von Kreedon's hysterical leftist views. 18500. mgleason - 1/5/2002 10:44:39 PM Just heard on the news that a teenager (15, I think) with six hours of flying lessons stole a small plane and flew it into the Bank of America building in Tampa. He's dead, of course; reports are that he was depressed. 18501. mgleason - 1/5/2002 10:54:20 PM Here's the story on the Tampa plane crash. I must have misheard the amount of flying time he had; the story says he'd been taking lessons for two years. 18502. PincherMartin - 1/5/2002 10:55:20 PM Maria -- 18503. mgleason - 1/5/2002 11:00:43 PM Thank goodness is right, Pincher. I felt faint with worry when I heard the news. 18504. joezan - 1/5/2002 11:20:54 PM Justears - Message # 18495: 18505. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 11:32:47 AM The response to my statement that Frank Rich was imagining right-wing McCarthyites questioning one's patriotism at every step was an inapt quote from Ashcroft, who stated that those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty only aid terrorists (they do), followed by concerns over a Hollywood actor, a freshman at Durham Tech, and various other post-September 11th indignities, including an exhibit in Houston that was visited by government agents, thereafter sending its employees into a clucking dither ("People should be worried that their freedoms are being taken away right and left", said the director of the museum, after his establishment was visited by two agents - and that was that). 18506. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 11:33:23 AM The conclusions, however, suggest that history began for some right about 1980 (otherwise known as "The Dark Ages"). And the concern over an art gallery, college freshman with a "Free Mumia" poster on her wall, teenage "anarchists", and a multi-millionaire actor are more than likely raised because they deal with core constituencies of today's left. Pervading the entire charge is a desperation to find Naziism and McCarthyism in everything. Oh, to use those words, to be victimized by same, just like back then in 1936. Or 1926. Oh, you know. Some time back before the Dark Ages. 18507. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 11:34:14 AM As for Katie Sierra's inability to organize an anarchist club and wear the t-shirt of her choosing in West Virginia, Katie's doing just fine, as you can see Infoshop: What happened in court? Katie Sierra: Besides staring at Mr. Mann's strange comb-over and missing thumb lol. I didn't win. I don't really know why. At least everything I said was factual, but everything Mann said was opinion or hearsay 18508. CalGal - 1/6/2002 11:55:23 AM who stated that those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty only aid terrorists (they do) 18509. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 12:02:51 PM Cal 18510. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 12:06:46 PM The narrow and hysterical interpretation of Ashcroft's words comes from many of the same folks who balloon military tribunals to Naziism and visits from Secret Service agents to McCarthyism. Go figure. 18511. jexster - 1/6/2002 12:24:57 PM Narrow? Hysterical? 18512. jexster - 1/6/2002 12:26:11 PM Onto other words... 18513. CalGal - 1/6/2002 12:46:19 PM (hint, cue on phantoms) 18514. CalGal - 1/6/2002 12:53:25 PM The narrow and hysterical interpretation of Ashcroft's words comes from many of the same folks who balloon military tribunals to Naziism and visits from Secret Service agents to McCarthyism. 18515. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 1:09:43 PM Cal 18516. CalGal - 1/6/2002 1:14:08 PM You said: The narrow and hysterical interpretation of Ashcroft's words comes from many of the same folks who balloon military tribunals to Naziism and visits from Secret Service agents to McCarthyism. Go figure. 18517. wonkers2 - 1/6/2002 1:22:00 PM What Julius is talking about is normal political hyperbole in which he is engaging as he speaks. What is his objective analysis and commentary is someone else's narrow, hysterical ranting. 18518. Cellar Door - 1/6/2002 1:26:29 PM Noam Chomsky has a new mini-book out 9-11 that is very much worth reading. 18519. joezan - 1/6/2002 1:39:11 PM Pakistani spy plane shot down over India. 18520. joezan - 1/6/2002 2:01:12 PM 18521. CalGal - 1/6/2002 2:23:25 PM What I find astonishing is that we don't hold her responsible for her actions. If she'd been a man and a buddy of her husband, she'd be in jail as a material witness at least. She knew her husband was working with bin Laden and she didn't go to the Feds, who she knew were bugging her phone. 18522. CalGal - 1/6/2002 2:33:14 PM Mirror, Mirror of The Fall 18523. joezan - 1/6/2002 2:45:33 PM Yup. 18524. justears - 1/6/2002 2:45:40 PM Interesting article on "West Haters" and how we are perceived: 18525. justears - 1/6/2002 2:46:04 PM Interesting article on "West Haters" and how we are perceived: 18526. justears - 1/6/2002 2:48:48 PM 18527. CalGal - 1/6/2002 2:51:53 PM Joe, 18528. wonkers2 - 1/6/2002 2:55:22 PM I doubt that Ms. Ray El-Hage received an American liberal education. 18529. joezan - 1/6/2002 3:03:37 PM Wishful thinking on everyone's part. 18530. vonKreedon - 1/6/2002 3:09:24 PM PM pooh poohs any concern about neo-McCarthyism, and Jules "me-toos", with the following: 18531. vonKreedon - 1/6/2002 3:10:33 PM Let's examine the reports more closely and put them together with other matters. The "blown-up stories" on "routine" visits by G-men include a visit by FBI and SS agents to an art gallery because of reports of "anti-American activity." Somehow this does not chill PM or Jules, that art is now considered possibly anti-American and liable to Federal sanction. PM claims that there is no overt attempt to intimidate. But the woman involved says, " ...they asked me where I went to school, and if my parents knew if I worked at a place like this, and who funded us..." Now if I were asked these questions I would take it as attempted intimidation. Already the Feds have said that they were investigating anti-American activity, then "They were pointing out things that they thought were negative...". They ask for names of donors, where my school transcript is located. Then they ask if my parents know that I worked at "a place like this". Remember, these are members of two of our Federal law enforcement agencies at an art gallery. Why are they asking where one went to school? Why are they asking about ones parents? Why are they asking about funding for an art gallery? 18532. joezan - 1/6/2002 3:10:56 PM Wonk: 18533. vonKreedon - 1/6/2002 3:11:15 PM Regarding Danny Glover, the issue is not, as intimated by PM, that he was heckled and that the Trentonian received anti-Glover mail and there was call to boycott The Royal Tennenbaums. The main issue, beyond the death threats, is that the Modesto City Council decided that his principled and longstanding opposition to the death penalty meritted, in the present context, withdrawing their sponsorship of him as the featured speaker at an MLK Day event. A bizarre decision given MLK's opposition to both the death penalty and war, and chilling given that this is a government body sanctioning an individual for unpopular speach. 18534. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 3:50:41 PM VonKreedon 18535. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 3:57:08 PM Second, your assertion that the indignities post-September 11th are a new McCarthyism demonstrates ignorance of what has been going on in this country for some time. Silly county councils banned smoking in one's home. School boards suspended, expelled, and otherwise sanction t-shirts, from pro-life to Goth. Art museums got hassled, one even from Our Hero of 9/11. Ivy league schools made speech suppression part of the curriculum. And the Scret Service jails people for 24 to 48 hours on the flimsiest of prestext in extra-vigilance, be that vigiliance in the service of Bush I, Clinton, or Bush II. 18536. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 4:03:03 PM Third, you are left with your conceit, i.e., that you are a harbinger of blacklists and internments and gulags to come. As you say: 18537. vonKreedon - 1/6/2002 4:10:24 PM 18538. Cellar Door - 1/6/2002 4:39:23 PM "no one asked you to be quiet (only to be sensible)" 18539. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 4:44:48 PM In this forum, Caesar is, sadly, not the government, so when I call upon VonKreedon or others to be sensible, it is without the muscle of either a Praetorian Guard or the Secret Service. 18540. Cellar Door - 1/6/2002 4:50:18 PM Well you see that's why I was sorry you weren't here. 18541. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/6/2002 4:54:23 PM Cellar- You will pay for this, I'm working on the sarcophagus the FBI ordered for you, last week. 18542. Cellar Door - 1/6/2002 5:22:54 PM Very chic. 18543. jexster - 1/6/2002 6:00:23 PM Next Step for Niner... 18544. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 6:17:01 PM jexster 18545. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/6/2002 6:17:57 PM And me an Jexster will get visits next, I suppose. 18546. OhioSTOPAS - 1/6/2002 6:42:20 PM We discussed here a few weeks ago an incident in which a college commencement speaker, publisher Janis Besler Heaphy, was booed off the stage for questioning Bush Administration law enforcement policies. Here is a good Columbus Dispatch editorial (There's a phrase I rarely use!) discussing that incident. 18547. Julius Caesar - 1/6/2002 7:16:02 PM Heaphy took some shots from tuition paying parents. They should have been respectful, but for years, speakers of words more interesting than Heaphy's bland truisms have been getting jeered off of stages and out of auditoriums by smelly, subsidized Ivy Leaguers. Where were the pious concerns over liberty then? 18548. jexster - 1/6/2002 8:36:35 PM Charles Bishop, Tampa suicide bomber, expresses sympathy for the Cause. 18549. jexster - 1/6/2002 8:38:51 PM 109109.. 18550. ronski - 1/6/2002 8:47:56 PM Just because a bunch of vocal wimps can't manage the national anthem is no reason to change it. I have not the slightest problem with it (as long as it is played in or near my key, of course). 18551. OhioSTOPAS - 1/6/2002 11:00:32 PM Groucho (Message # 18547): 18552. RustlerPike - 1/6/2002 11:49:50 PM Bonzo is good, wiz. 18553. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/6/2002 11:55:08 PM Thanks Pike - you visual guy, you! 18554. Wombat - 1/7/2002 8:55:03 AM Is it just me, or is niner becoming more pompous and prescriptive with each name change? 18555. jexster - 1/7/2002 10:07:46 AM I confess to an error. 18556. Rama - 1/7/2002 10:18:01 AM Thumbs down to the yahoos who can't abide noxious and ill-timed blather for a quarter of an hour. 18557. Julius Caesar - 1/7/2002 10:58:17 AM Wombat 18558. Julius Caesar - 1/7/2002 11:03:10 AM Rama 18559. PelleNilsson - 1/7/2002 11:36:42 AM Scribe! Let the record show that Caesar laughed. 18560. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2002 1:01:07 PM He claimed to, anyway. 18561. LohrM - 1/7/2002 1:33:16 PM I agree with #18558... If you don't like the speech, walk out or sit insilence rather than applauding... But don't drown out others who might want to listen, even if only to critique the speech and the speaker. 18562. jexster - 1/7/2002 1:33:22 PM Lieberman & McCain are on CNN, an Afghan junket... 18563. LohrM - 1/7/2002 1:36:15 PM #18547-- note: 'The Star Spangled Banner' is torture to sing, play (I did trumpet in high school band) or hear. The national anthem should be 'Battle Hymn of the Republic', which is both singable and ideologically/historically meaningful. 18564. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2002 2:45:55 PM If you're being tongue-in-cheek, it's very subtle. But in case you're serious, a Christian hymn should not be our national anthem. 18565. CalGal - 1/7/2002 2:52:09 PM I like God Bless America, which isn't a Christian hymn, but will never be accepted. I'd take America the Beautiful, which is probably safest. 18566. concerned - 1/7/2002 3:12:26 PM From Slate's 'Direct Hits and Misses': 18567. concerned - 1/7/2002 3:12:51 PM typo....happening... 18568. PelleNilsson - 1/7/2002 3:36:06 PM See it as a self-correcting mechanism. Incompetents get weeded out by the system itself. 18569. jexster - 1/7/2002 5:10:38 PM Jen and I weigh in on our vote for National Anthem... 18570. Rama - 1/7/2002 8:22:42 PM Julius Caesar, 18571. jexster - 1/7/2002 8:27:12 PM * U.S. 'Chasing Shadows,' Continues Afghan Bombing 18572. jexster - 1/7/2002 8:27:32 PM Damned cloaking device! 18573. Cellar Door - 1/7/2002 8:47:36 PM "To think that denying Heaphy an open mike at a graduation ceremony harmed anybody is at best silly and at worst really silly." 18574. jexster - 1/7/2002 8:57:41 PM Don't our Moron King know ANYTHING? 18575. Rama - 1/7/2002 9:37:06 PM If I should get anywhere near Ann Coulter --I'll kill her. 18576. justears - 1/7/2002 10:39:55 PM I would like to recommend an article I read yesterday, in the latest issue of the New York Review of books titled "Occidentalism". I tried to link a posting to it but for some reason it didn't work. The article traces various sources of "West" hating starting with WWII era Japan. The article is interesting and well done. 18577. joezan - 1/7/2002 11:02:47 PM People are pissed about the crowd's reaction to Heaphy for just the same reason they could not seem to accept Republicans holding demonstrations in Florida during the 2000 election flap: indignation at their own tactics being turned against them. 18578. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2002 11:10:04 PM A full transcript of President Bush's Saturday "over my dead body!" town hall meeting discloses a statement not commented on by the press: The President again (see Message # 18301) related his delusion that he saw the first hijacked plan hit one of the World Trade Center towers live on television. 18579. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2002 11:19:50 PM And why don't the President's assistants point out to him that he is making these mistakes? 18580. OhioSTOPAS - 1/7/2002 11:22:41 PM What if Benjamin Franklin could travel through time to speak to us today? 18581. CalGal - 1/7/2002 11:27:46 PM Anyway, I was sitting there, and my Chief of Staff -- well, first of all, when we walked into the classroom, I had seen this plane fly into the first building. There was a TV set on. And you know, I thought it was pilot error and I was amazed that anybody could make such a terrible mistake. And something was wrong with the plane, or -- anyway, I'm sitting there, listening to the briefing, and Andy Card came and said, "America is under attack." 18582. CalGal - 1/7/2002 11:29:00 PM 18583. judithathome - 1/7/2002 11:30:48 PM That kid who flew into the bank building in Tampa was up there in the sky for an hour after take-off and spent some of that time in restricted air space over McDill AFB and around the Tampa airport. Doesn't exactly give one confidence in our emergency plans to stop rogue fliers, does it? 18584. joezan - 1/7/2002 11:31:23 PM 18585. CalGal - 1/7/2002 11:34:26 PM People are pissed about the crowd's reaction to Heaphy for just the same reason they could not seem to accept Republicans holding demonstrations in Florida during the 2000 election flap: indignation at their own tactics being turned against them. 18586. RustlerPike - 1/8/2002 1:31:35 AM Zan: 18587. RustlerPike - 1/8/2002 1:37:47 AM JoeZan: 18588. marjoribanks - 1/8/2002 9:56:33 AM You're with the terrorists, anti-American, and a seditious traitor, Spike. 18589. marjoribanks - 1/8/2002 10:04:33 AM Spike (and others), I recommend a look at this rather sobering NYTimes article - Gul Agha gets his province back. 18590. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/8/2002 10:29:11 AM To believe the cause of America's ills is something outside ourselves, like bin Laden or Al Qaeda--someone or something that can be "eliminated"--cannot fail to appeal to a simplistic mob. 18591. marjoribanks - 1/8/2002 10:29:26 AM The Pentagton has finally said that it will cease speculating about Bin Laden's location. 18592. jexster - 1/8/2002 11:18:44 AM And why don't the President's assistants point out to him that he is making these mistakes? 18593. jexster - 1/8/2002 11:19:49 AM That's right Pike. We aren't going after the Iraqis. 18594. marjoribanks - 1/8/2002 11:21:04 AM Well, Bush yesterday referred to "the Pakis" which has pissed off some. The term is an epithet in the UK, though Pakis themselves use it all the time. 18595. jexster - 1/8/2002 11:27:01 AM I do it all the time. ;) 18596. jexster - 1/8/2002 11:30:51 AM Notably absent from the Wolfowitz "leak", IRAQ. 18597. rubberducky - 1/8/2002 12:24:56 PM i think Bush's next move will be to head to a country that won't oppose the U.S. and will willingly help us look good in the world community. which nation though? Slate's Today's Papers suggests the Philippines 18598. robertjayb - 1/8/2002 12:37:03 PM This I would like to have seen... 18599. RustlerPike - 1/8/2002 12:51:22 PM Were the two guards nicknamed cellar and jex, perhaps? 18600. RustlerPike - 1/8/2002 12:53:05 PM To believe the cause of America's ills is something outside ourselves, like bin Laden or Al Qaeda--someone or something that can be "eliminated"--cannot fail to appeal to a simplistic mob. 18601. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 1/8/2002 2:31:22 PM Oh, you're a rapper too. Pike--very good! 18602. wonkers2 - 1/8/2002 2:56:51 PM He's "The Greatest!" 18603. marjoribanks - 1/8/2002 4:04:24 PM Ahmed Rashid has a brilliant article in this week's New Yorker. 18604. Cellar Door - 1/8/2002 4:45:57 PM New York Press 18605. Cellar Door - 1/8/2002 4:46:38 PM From the standpoint of U.S. foreign policy, we desperately need Saudi oil if we’re going to keep consuming it the way that we do, so we have to play it cool. (Nine percent of U.S. oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, not a figure to sneeze at.) As most people know by now, the Saudi royal family is teetering on a volatile kingdom where rebellious Islamic fundamentalism is rife, to some extent due to the royal family’s own repression and corruption. The crooked Al Saud family encourages such fundamentalism, in part to show the masses that it upholds the most stringent and controlling form of Islam, Wahhabism–while it continues skimming millions of oil income dollars off the top for itself. The family panders to the extremists just enough to ensure against being toppled–including allowing the extremists to thrive and then letting them go off to plot against the U.S., hijacking jetliners, destroying our buildings and killing our people. 18606. Cellar Door - 1/8/2002 4:47:53 PM We can at least find comfort by telling ourselves that in the United States we of course don’t do things like that. No, in the U.S. you would never be arrested and taken away for engaging in homosexual acts–except in 16 states, including Texas, sometime home of our compassionate conservative President, who governed there for eight years. In 1998, under George W. Bush’s watch, two Houston men were arrested when a creepy neighbor called police, falsely claiming a break-in at their apartment. Police showed up, found the men having sex and hauled them into jail. (The men were found guilty of the charge of sodomy, had their case overturned on a first appeal, but then lost on a second appeal.) You may ask: Why on earth is there a 122-year-old sodomy law on the books in Texas? Why is it still considered a crime in Texas for people to engage in sex in the privacy of their own homes? 18607. Cellar Door - 1/8/2002 4:48:09 PM Well, you are sadly wrong. As Texas governor, Bush praised sodomy laws, calling them a "symbolic gesture of traditional values." At the 2000 Republican National Convention in Philadelphia, I had a chat with a Bush buddy, Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, a former Texas Supreme Court justice. 18608. Cellar Door - 1/8/2002 4:49:58 PM Still, some might say that Bush, a seemingly reasonable enough man, can’t really believe in such archaic laws, that his position is strictly for political reasons. But if that is true, then isn’t he doing just what the Saudi royal family does, and just what Hosni Mubarak does, throwing homosexuals to the wolves to keep the wolves at bay a bit–and allowing those wolves to continue to thrive? 18609. jexster - 1/8/2002 4:51:47 PM Our Warriour King has guts! 18610. jexster - 1/8/2002 4:52:55 PM BUt you may see MORON... 18611. Julius Caesar - 1/8/2002 5:29:31 PM I'm not sure there are any nations outside of the first world to whom we could trade or with whom we would otherwise deal pursuant to Signorile's rigid template. 18612. concerned - 1/8/2002 6:02:00 PM 18613. concerned - 1/8/2002 6:04:41 PM Just wondering how much responsibility US gays accept for the propagation of AIDS....I imagine probably none at all, judging from the fact that they pretty universally discountenance any discussion of the matter. 18614. concerned - 1/8/2002 6:16:54 PM Bombarded by Brutal Rhetoric 18615. concerned - 1/8/2002 6:33:59 PM It appears that the 15 yr old Limey punk Charles J. Bishara, er, Bishop, was taking Accutane, an anti-acne medication which is under investigation for possible links to suicide and depression. 18616. CalGal - 1/8/2002 6:39:37 PM Taking Accutane is hardly rubber room material. But I agree that the link between Accutane and suicide are a tad scary. 18617. robertjayb - 1/8/2002 8:28:35 PM Oh mercy, this is nasty... 18618. CalGal - 1/8/2002 8:31:05 PM But do you think it's true? 18619. jexster - 1/8/2002 8:34:51 PM I have a friend who works for Unocal International Govt Relations...I spoke with her last night. 18620. jexster - 1/8/2002 8:36:04 PM Gee Concerned, I'd be happy to discuss AIDS with you. 18621. jexster - 1/8/2002 8:59:02 PM Or the maggots who are profaning the Holy Corpse of Babs Olson OR>>>>>> 18622. joezan - 1/8/2002 10:36:41 PM Cal - Message # 18585: 18623. Cellar Door - 1/8/2002 11:20:30 PM I'd be happy to discuss AIDS with connie too. 18624. ronski - 1/9/2002 12:06:24 AM Connie, 18625. ronski - 1/9/2002 12:15:04 AM And as for the esteemed Cellar's condemnation of the president on gay issues, the Bush administration's thaw on the gay issue has been well documentated. He has gone as liberal on the issue, comparatively speaking, as Clinton did (compared to his position on the issue when in Arkansas). 18626. Cellar Door - 1/9/2002 12:26:28 AM I fly the black flag, dear. 18627. ronski - 1/9/2002 12:39:12 AM She well may well be, darling. 18628. mgleason - 1/9/2002 12:41:25 AM What's going on with Michael Petrelis and David Pasquarelli? I'd read that the FBI had been asked to investigate them under the Patriot Act, but that the FBI had declined. Are they still in jail? 18629. ronski - 1/9/2002 12:42:01 AM ...that it is the black... 18630. ronski - 1/9/2002 12:44:12 AM mgleason, 18631. concerned - 1/9/2002 4:02:37 AM Unfortunately for another Motier who will go nameless for the moment, he is wrong that I oppose 'gay marriage'. He is equally wrong regarding most of the rest of his assertions in the same post, also, particulary ironic since I believe he is gay. 18632. Wombat - 1/9/2002 9:17:44 AM Ronski: 18633. Wombat - 1/9/2002 9:18:58 AM He is also by far and away the most intelligent poster here; and is always right (ex post facto). 18634. Property of Jesus - 1/9/2002 9:42:46 AM Absolutely correct, concerned. 18635. Cellar Door - 1/9/2002 10:12:48 AM That is such absolute and utter bullshit! JESUS FUCKING CHIRST ON THE CROSS HOW MANY TIMES DO WE HAVE TO FIGHT THE SMAE BATTLES WITH THE SAME MORONS? 18636. Cellar Door - 1/9/2002 10:13:34 AM WELL IF WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, THEN SULLY DIES FIRST IN SCREAMING AGONY !!!! 18637. Cellar Door - 1/9/2002 10:14:32 AM "PROPERTY OF JESUS" MY FOOT! 18638. Cellar Door - 1/9/2002 10:15:07 AM I'VE HAD TO BURY MORE PEOPLE THAN YOU'VE EVER KNOWN!!! 18639. Rama - 1/9/2002 10:19:26 AM You guys really should be more considerate of Cellar's blood pressure. Men of his age are much given to stroke. 18640. judithathome - 1/9/2002 10:22:36 AM Cellar, don't let Rosetta have the satisfaction. 18641. jexster - 1/9/2002 10:37:39 AM The candidates did joust over the question of the proper role of the U.S. military. Bush called for an end to what he described as ``nation-building'' activities...." 18642. jexster - 1/9/2002 10:38:27 AM 18643. jexster - 1/9/2002 10:49:21 AM Bush's credibility on defense readiness took some knocks last week when Pentagon leaders, including Defense Secretary William Cohen, himself a Republican, rebutted a claim Bush made in his acceptance speech that two Army divisions are not ready for duty. 18644. jexster - 1/9/2002 11:00:22 AM While many of the examples Mr. Cheney cited echoed his past remarks --that fewer units were ready for combat, recruitment was down, aging equipment posed a danger and low pay was damaging morale -- he cast his criticisms in a much more partisan light. 18645. ycmeehan - 1/9/2002 11:00:41 AM Test Your Observation Skills--Nab yourself a terrorist 18646. judithathome - 1/9/2002 11:04:43 AM Is that a REAL site? 18647. ycmeehan - 1/9/2002 11:50:08 AM Yes, Judith. I found it in that article in Le Monde. 18648. judithathome - 1/9/2002 12:02:42 PM Well, I may send for my decoder ring today! 18649. PincherMartin - 1/9/2002 12:12:01 PM Von Kreedon Message # 18530 18650. PincherMartin - 1/9/2002 12:21:39 PM The "blown-up stories" on "routine" visits by G-men include a visit by FBI and SS agents to an art gallery because of reports of "anti-American activity." Somehow this does not chill PM or Jules, that art is now considered possibly anti-American and liable to Federal sanction. 18651. PincherMartin - 1/9/2002 12:23:35 PM Now, federal agents are determined not to be leave any clue untouched. They follow up on reports that might seem to be nothing at first, but who knows what might be revealed if they ask the right question. I would bet that for every interview taken after 9-11 which revealed something useful, a hundred of them revealed nothing at all. But given the stakes at risk, the government thinks --and I agree - that those questions must be asked. 18652. PincherMartin - 1/9/2002 12:26:21 PM Has no one mentioned that Singapore detained fifteen men who were planning on blowing up the American embassy there? Apparently, they had gone so far as to draw out maps and make other detailed plans for carrying out their operations. 18653. PincherMartin - 1/9/2002 12:35:24 PM Von Kreedon -- 18654. jexster - 1/9/2002 1:06:45 PM Here we are a scant nine days into Our Warriour King's "War Year" and what is CNN featuring? 18655. judithathome - 1/9/2002 1:33:22 PM Also from CNN: 18656. Cellar Door - 1/9/2002 2:28:24 PM 18657. jexster - 1/9/2002 3:45:25 PM Heeee's b-a-a-ack! 18658. Property of Jesus - 1/9/2002 3:57:13 PM Thanks. Another book to read...I just finished BIAS by Bernie Goldberg. 18659. jexster - 1/9/2002 3:57:31 PM 18660. jexster - 1/9/2002 4:00:52 PM Travel bidniss off you say Rosie! 18661. jexster - 1/9/2002 4:01:36 PM That ought to get you through to 01/04 &the Daschle Inaugural. 18662. jexster - 1/9/2002 9:11:40 PM Afghan "Allies" Learn Texas Two-Step: Release Top Taliban Leaders 18663. Property of Jesus - 1/10/2002 10:31:46 AM A "President" Gore would have been a Disaster 18664. Wombat - 1/10/2002 11:13:48 AM Gore would have most likely handled things the way Bush has. The difference is that the Republicans would be all over Gore for not doing "enough." This mind set has been shown by the more red blooded posters here, who have been quite critical of how Bush is waging the fight against Al Quaeda and its supporters. I would point out to your freeper friend that Bush is not placing Iraq at the top of his list either. 18665. Andonly - 1/10/2002 12:43:18 PM New book out by Robert Kaplan: Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos. 18666. jexster - 1/10/2002 12:49:58 PM Wotan ando you Amazon you! 18667. Andonly - 1/10/2002 12:55:24 PM He argues that international politics cannot be moral in the intimate sense--that is, according to Judaeo-Xtian standards of interpersonal morality, since when one is responsible for the welfare of whole populations intention doesn't matter nearly as much as results. What is "right" or "wrong" is what preserves or achieves the welfare of one's people, not that one intends righteousness and commits to "principled" behaviour. 18668. judithathome - 1/10/2002 12:59:08 PM I'll bet not many are jumping on the bandwagon to praise him, are they? If you just hint that we've no business imposing democracy on other countries, you're branded a traitor or pinko at the least.. 18669. glendajean - 1/10/2002 12:59:12 PM Didn't the theologian Reinhold Nieber argue the same back in the 40s? (that politics and societies are not moral in the same sense of individual morality). 18670. Wombat - 1/10/2002 1:08:19 PM Judith: 18671. judithathome - 1/10/2002 1:10:53 PM Some think pinko/commie/fascist... it's all the same. It's the old "you're not with us then you're against us" thinking. 18672. Property of Jesus - 1/10/2002 1:11:57 PM Another great column by Andrew Sullivan, this time published in Salon.com. 18673. jexster - 1/10/2002 1:13:49 PM Go wag Miss Andrews dog Rosie 18674. jexster - 1/10/2002 1:14:34 PM Osama and Mullah O are using the Cloaking Device they stole from the Tal Shiar...stay tuned. 18675. judithathome - 1/10/2002 1:28:21 PM I wonder if they gave the detainees Valium before they put them on the plane. It was discussed the other day as way of keeping them from getting agitated. This is probably the first plane ride some of them have ever been on... 18676. concerned - 1/10/2002 6:16:47 PM From Vote.com 18677. concerned - 1/10/2002 6:22:17 PM re. 18664 - 18678. judithathome - 1/10/2002 6:32:39 PM Oh sure...that is a VERY likely scenario. 18679. concerned - 1/10/2002 6:48:42 PM Are you saying that Bore wouldn't have accepted the Taliban's first offer to negotiate bin Laden's surrender? 18680. judithathome - 1/10/2002 7:23:22 PM How the hell would I know? And for that matter, how would YOU know? Neither one of us knows dip about what All Gore would've done...the only thing we know for certain is that you and others would've griped and moaned about any thing he did so why even bother filling in the blanks? Just say: 18681. Absensia - 1/10/2002 10:17:30 PM This is terrorism at home and has been going on well before 9/11: 18682. joezan - 1/10/2002 10:27:34 PM Funny, Abs... 18683. RustlerPike - 1/10/2002 10:45:58 PM Jozejan: 18684. joezan - 1/10/2002 11:05:48 PM Sorry, Pike - I'd thought you must've gotten into the vicodin or Manishewitz - or both. 18685. Absensia - 1/10/2002 11:16:44 PM Joe, Joe, Joe...I'm a leftie, even when on those meds you prescribed...these nice folks did a little work up here at the U W so all the flannel shirt wearers are mad as hell and aren't going to take it any more. 18686. judithathome - 1/11/2002 3:17:22 PM So we're going to give the detainees held in Cuba Afghanistani meals? Are you kidding me? 18687. marjoribanks - 1/11/2002 3:25:49 PM Well, issuing them with US rations might well get America in trouble under the Geneva Conventions. 18688. judithathome - 1/11/2002 3:29:57 PM Funny, I don't recall those guys in Viet Nam getting burgers and fries... 18689. marjoribanks - 1/11/2002 3:33:21 PM Cuba, Guantanamo Bay, is one place I'd really like to be for the next couple of weeks. 18690. judithathome - 1/11/2002 3:35:48 PM No kidding...basking on the beach with MaiTais would loosen those lips. 18691. marjoribanks - 1/11/2002 4:34:12 PM Indian general shoots his mouth off . 18692. thoughtful - 1/11/2002 4:41:53 PM actually, hubby thinks and I agree that they should build a camp in the middle of the Alaskan tundra and dress these guys in shorts and t-shirts. No chance of escape that way. 18693. wonkers2 - 1/11/2002 5:10:48 PM I thought I heard on TV that the prisoners at Guantanamo will be kept in 4x8 foot metal cages. Seems like they could do better than that. 18694. jexster - 1/11/2002 6:11:09 PM Lost in the fog (wet-fart?) of war and thanks to Robt for reminding me, but the Bu$hies during the first seven months of the King's Reign, were engaged in high-level talks with the Talibees to normalize relations to the point that the Unocal Led consortium could build the Silk Road pipeline. 18695. jexster - 1/11/2002 6:23:29 PM Are you saying that Bore wouldn't have accepted the Taliban's first offer to negotiate bin Laden's surrender? 18696. RustlerPike - 1/12/2002 4:28:52 PM Joe: 18697. robertjayb - 1/12/2002 4:34:53 PM Hello mother, hello father...Greetings from Camp X-Ray... 18698. Property of Jesus - 1/12/2002 8:40:43 PM Things must be getting back to normal in the USA since my kids are watching "AIRPLANE" on TV tonight. 18699. joezan - 1/12/2002 10:09:36 PM Pike: 18700. angel-five - 1/12/2002 10:54:50 PM >Now it seems as if India's got Musharaf shitting his drawers, so I don't think Pakistan will be the safe haven the Talis thought it would. 18701. CalGal - 1/12/2002 10:58:17 PM So we're going to give the detainees held in Cuba Afghanistani meals? 18702. judithathome - 1/12/2002 11:02:13 PM That's the way CNN referred to it. 18703. joezan - 1/12/2002 11:14:24 PM Al Qaeda, Taliban - whatever. 18704. RustlerPike - 1/12/2002 11:34:03 PM Joezejan: 18705. Cellar Door - 1/12/2002 11:35:15 PM This phony "War" is over. 18706. joezan - 1/12/2002 11:39:15 PM Pike: 18707. joezan - 1/12/2002 11:40:09 PM Cellardweller, war correspondent. 18708. RustlerPike - 1/13/2002 3:59:50 AM Joe: 18709. RustlerPike - 1/13/2002 4:01:15 AM And tell Rumsfeld to do something about that gastric reflux. 18710. PincherMartin - 1/14/2002 7:03:14 AM Angel-five 18711. PincherMartin - 1/14/2002 7:06:01 AM The author of "Guns, Germs, and Steel" has some bad ideas on how to avoid the next 9-11. 18712. PincherMartin - 1/14/2002 7:35:07 AM Two modern-day Orwells fighting the good fight 18713. marjoribanks - 1/14/2002 7:51:36 PM The CIA is now "confirming" what I've been speculating about for weeks - Bin Laden has fucked off not only from Afghanistan but most probably Pakistan as well. His whole Al Qaeda nerve center is intact, at least in terms of personnel and funding mechanisms, and the international network is most likely untouched except perhaps for bits in the West. 18714. sakonige - 1/14/2002 7:57:08 PM 18715. Al D - 1/14/2002 10:41:51 PM banks 18716. joezan - 1/14/2002 10:49:09 PM I think he's in ANWR - they'll never find him there. 18717. sakonige - 1/14/2002 11:32:27 PM 18718. RustlerPike - 1/14/2002 11:39:41 PM What's ANWR? 18719. robertjayb - 1/15/2002 12:37:27 AM Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 18720. RustlerPike - 1/15/2002 2:11:53 AM Ah. I think the coolest thing would be for UbL to pop up in an occasional cameo role in Pakistani films. 18721. Wombat - 1/15/2002 8:49:01 AM I think what's left of him is moldering in a cave (unless he pops up on video again, in which case I will eat crow fricasee). 18722. stostosto - 1/15/2002 8:53:01 AM Is that kosher? 18723. marjoribanks - 1/15/2002 10:33:46 AM Al, 18724. Property of Jesus - 1/15/2002 1:15:06 PM Moving ceremony on Fox today where about 25 U.S. soldiers in KY were given medals, including the Purple Hearts, for their service in Afghan. 18725. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 1:17:53 PM "Very-normal looking people. Unfortunately some were missing arms and legs." 18726. judithathome - 1/15/2002 1:20:59 PM The world must be back to business as usual...Larry King is addressing "those wacky Royals...Prince Harry and the latest scandal" tonight. 18727. judithathome - 1/15/2002 3:01:48 PM Ashcroft just announced Walker will be charged with "aiding and abetting the enemy in terroristic activities". CNN 18728. Al D - 1/15/2002 3:15:55 PM banks 18729. judithathome - 1/15/2002 3:16:46 PM Okay, make that "aiding and abetting a terrorist organization." 18730. judithathome - 1/15/2002 4:04:02 PM This from the AP newswire: 18731. judithathome - 1/15/2002 4:04:33 PM Hmmmm...forgot the tags... 18732. thoughtful - 1/15/2002 4:58:09 PM If no one else will say it, I will....isn't that similar to what they charged Clinton with a-bedding an aide? 18733. CalGal - 1/15/2002 5:02:04 PM charging him with one count of conspiracy to kill an American citizen 18734. Jonesatlaw - 1/15/2002 6:11:31 PM ObL is possibly hanging out with some rich Saudi outside the Kingdom, dinking coffee laughing his figs off at Bush. 18735. Rama - 1/15/2002 6:50:55 PM ObL is possibly hanging out with some rich Saudi outside the Kingdom, dinking coffee laughing his figs off at Bush. 18736. judithathome - 1/15/2002 6:53:08 PM There is no reason to believe ObL shares your fixation on Bush. 18737. Cellar Door - 1/15/2002 7:01:25 PM Well I say he's shaved the beard and hit the road as a Celine Dion impersonator. 18738. judithathome - 1/15/2002 7:02:13 PM Some people think he's in Utah. 18739. PincherMartin - 1/16/2002 1:24:26 AM Signs that U.S. officials are finally tiring of Saudi's two-faced game 18740. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 2:00:04 AM Yes we've got to make Saudi Arabia safe for Brittany Spears and Jennifer Lopez. 18741. concerned - 1/16/2002 2:33:38 AM Re. 18735 - 18742. stostosto - 1/16/2002 6:35:42 AM On a lynd: 18743. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 10:18:05 AM Watch what you say -- Goldie Hawn is listening! 18744. joezan - 1/16/2002 10:24:42 AM No skin off my nose, Cellar. 18745. Cellar Door - 1/16/2002 10:29:22 AM Actually you mean "No Collagen off my lips," joe. 18746. joezan - 1/16/2002 10:35:07 AM Hey - be quiet about that! 18747. RustlerPike - 1/16/2002 11:11:23 AM Friedman: 18748. Andonly - 1/16/2002 11:14:42 AM Sto, sorry, no time to dig up links just now. Kaplan is a longtime correspondent for the Atlantic, if that helps. Check Amazon for his many books, which are reviewed there. (That's Robert Kaplan, not Lawrence Kaplan.) 18749. judithathome - 1/16/2002 11:19:33 AM Are you sure that's the address? I got nothing when I tried to find it... 18750. judithathome - 1/16/2002 12:39:27 PM Here is the link to the report from the Federation of American Scientists 18751. Jonesatlaw - 1/16/2002 1:11:37 PM Rama- any projection regarding ObL and Bush is yours. I have not criticized President Bush in his conduct of the war against Afganistan and the terrorists there, in large part because I think that the goals are difficult and the administration has done well. 18752. jexster - 1/16/2002 3:44:29 PM The Turkish PM is at the Moron House telling the Warriour King that they'd be happy to help in Bush's nation building project but it will cost us... 18753. jexster - 1/16/2002 3:45:45 PM Also in the news, Sen Carl Levin has called for an end to US millitary presence and Saudi Arabia and a review of relations with those Towelheads 18754. OhioSTOPAS - 1/16/2002 5:17:10 PM Here is a thoughtful article on something that has become a mini-cause celebre among conservatives, the proposed statue memorializing NYC firefighters who died at the World Trade Center. 18755. CalGal - 1/16/2002 5:18:36 PM I'd read that one. I think he's right that conservatives should pick their battles wisely. 18756. CalGal - 1/16/2002 5:19:33 PM I don't see how the US could manage without the Saudi base. There aren't equivalent facilities in the region. 18757. OhioSTOPAS - 1/16/2002 5:24:39 PM Cal (Message # 18755): But the statue isn't about those three firemen, it's about those who didn't survive to do any flag-raising. 18758. CalGal - 1/16/2002 5:36:56 PM Ohio, 18759. judithathome - 1/16/2002 5:47:44 PM The decision to alter the racial composition of the trio was made by the Fire Department and the property-management company that owns the department's headquarters (which commissioned the work). An FDNY spokesman said: "Given that those who died were of all races and all ethnicity and that the statue was to be symbolic of those sacrifices, ultimately a decision was made to honor no one in particular, but everyone who made the supreme sacrifice". 18760. CalGal - 1/16/2002 5:52:21 PM Yes, I can imagine you saying that if the three men had been black and had the race changed to white. 18761. judithathome - 1/16/2002 6:01:22 PM I was speaking of what actually goes on between an artist and his client, a sculptor and the person who commissions his work. It's a reality that very much exists, Orwellian or not. 18762. CalGal - 1/16/2002 6:05:16 PM The artist, in this case, is the photographer. 18763. judithathome - 1/16/2002 6:12:12 PM I guess I missed that part in the article where it said the photographer is suing the sculptor. 18764. CalGal - 1/16/2002 6:17:35 PM I didn't say that he or she was. I'm just pointing out that the sculptor isn't "the artist", in this case, since the reality is the photograph--not the sculptor. (I think I read that the photographer donated the picture to the FDNY? Probably before it was so egregiously distorted, if so.) 18765. OhioSTOPAS - 1/16/2002 6:54:25 PM So who is getting slighted by the statue? The three flag-raisers? The dead white firefighters? I just don't think the inclusiveness of the proposed statue it should be the big deal that conservatives think it should be. 18766. Rama - 1/16/2002 7:13:45 PM Yes, I can imagine you saying that if the three men had been black and had the race changed to white. 18767. Rama - 1/16/2002 7:16:47 PM So who is getting slighted by the statue? 18768. CalGal - 1/16/2002 7:46:40 PM In general, I agree with Ohio, as well as with the guy who wrote the WSJ article, in that I think it's a bad fight for conservatives to pick. There was a time when I would have agreed with him entirely, and not seen the damage done as being all that significant--because, say, 20 years ago, it might have been the right thing to do. But I really feel that we've moved well beyond doing good in the name of race relations and are now in the area of distortion, manipulation, and often flat out lies just to make certain minorities feel better--about themselves, about the country, about the fact that despite all our efforts they are still well behind whites in many areas. The damage is no longer insignificant compared to the good done, because there is no good done. 18769. joezan - 1/16/2002 10:30:59 PM That firefighters statue thing is stupid, but we've had worse recently, in Grand Rapids. 18770. RustlerPike - 1/17/2002 1:56:44 AM Joe: 18771. Wombat - 1/17/2002 8:42:08 AM Senator Levin must be aware that the US leaving Saudi Arabia would fulfill one of the few demands that Bin Laden has continually expressed: "infidels out of the holy places." Major no-no to hand terrorists a victory...when they have just been defeated. 18772. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 9:09:20 AM Wombat -- 18773. Wombat - 1/17/2002 9:31:06 AM Pincher: 18774. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 9:46:04 AM It is quite strange to see Americans refer to the Saudi Arabians as "one of the most despicable regimes in the world". This phenomenon is not limited to this forum, there is a pundit fringe where the sentiment has become quite fashionable. 18775. Wombat - 1/17/2002 10:03:54 AM I think a number of Americans have had their eyes opened to the fact that one of the largest contributors to the "atmosphere" from which Bin Laden and his extreme form of Islam sprang was Saudi Arabia. I am also suprised that someone who likes to "go beyond" conventional news coverage takes US platitudes on Saudi cooperation without a considerable grain of salt. 18776. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 10:10:52 AM It's not just the surface platitudes, Wombat, I the US has a lot to be grateful to Saudi Arabia for. It has been, by virtually any gauge, a stellar ally these last few decades. 18777. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 10:15:11 AM Banks, 18778. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 10:16:03 AM Even in this "war on terrorism", the Saudis have been lauded by virtually every important decision-maker in the Bush II administration for ponying up what is required, but mostly behind the scenes. 18779. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 10:20:27 AM You know, it's hard to read Pincher nowadays without laughing. It's pure gonadal prose, bloated with faux aggressiveness like a puffer-fish inflated with air, like a steroid-enhanced woman wrestler pretending to take on the men in the WWF. 18780. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 10:28:08 AM It's not just the surface platitudes, Wombat. I the US has a lot to be grateful to Saudi Arabia for. It has been, by virtually any gauge, a stellar ally these last few decades. 18781. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 10:32:49 AM Banks, 18782. stostosto - 1/17/2002 10:38:09 AM Regarding Sauds, I was surprised to see on my recent visit to Gibraltar a large and brand new mosque sitting on its southern shore at what is called the Europa Point. It had a big inscription on the wall that said the mosque had been built and paid for by the Saudi King's foundation for Islam or something. I asked our guide why they had a mosque there. He shrugged and said that he didn't really know since there is hardly any Muslims left after Moroccan guest workers have largely left the place. He reckoned the Gibraltar government had received at pile of money and obliged. And it did appear that there was very little activity at the place. In fact it looked totally deserted. Strange. 18783. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 10:39:33 AM PincherPuff, 18784. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 10:48:59 AM Sto, 18785. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 10:58:07 AM Sto, 18786. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 11:24:10 AM Marj -- 18787. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 11:24:36 AM To suddenly start bleating about such matters in Saudi Arabia would be completely ridiculous. It is this fact that made Laura Bush's inanities about the Taliban's treatment of women so unwelcome and farcical. 18788. stostosto - 1/17/2002 11:30:18 AM 18789. Jonesatlaw - 1/17/2002 11:33:00 AM The Saudis have been about finessing and placating opposition both without and within for years. They have been very helpful in accepting US troops and basing in the area. They have exerted influence to restrain the most virulent anti-Israeli policies and actions in the Arab block. They altered their oil production in order to stabilize prices during the Gulf War and provided a large chunk of cash, men and material in that war. 18790. Jonesatlaw - 1/17/2002 11:37:21 AM con't- 18791. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 11:38:40 AM Saudi Arabia is despicable, as are many American allies. It is when those allies become less critical to our aims that we find the time to assess their moral value. 18792. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 11:39:32 AM Banks calls it "fashionable" to take a hard line on Saudi, and pokes fun at my use of "despicable" to describe its ruling regime. 18793. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 11:42:01 AM Are we in a position to do without them? 18794. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 11:47:04 AM Pincher 18795. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 11:53:19 AM For example if we can get the Saudis to pony up as follows, I'd be thrilled. 18796. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 11:54:32 AM Julius -- 18797. CalGal - 1/17/2002 11:56:03 AM Why should the Saudis change their domestic policies? 18798. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 11:58:34 AM Pincher 18799. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 12:03:08 PM CalGal -- 18800. CalGal - 1/17/2002 12:06:13 PM The Saudi domestic policies I was speaking of in that post are the ones that promote a brand of Islam that supports fanatical terrorism abroad. 18801. CalGal - 1/17/2002 12:10:28 PM Pincher, 18802. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 12:20:37 PM I frankly don't have the time to rebut all of the simplifications made since I last checked in. 18803. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 12:27:45 PM It's hard to pinpoint one thing that the Saudis do that actually benefits or sponsors terrorism. The Wahhabi government exports Wahhabism, true, but that is only tangentially linked to terrorism. For example, Wahhabism has been imported, with matching large funds, into the US and the UK, and into Malaysia and Indonesia as well, with no resulting terrorism. It is a confluence of other factors that has made Wahhabists terrorists in places like Afghanistan (and, indeed, the universities of the West). 18804. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 12:33:50 PM By the way, I welcome the US move to withdraw from bases in Saudi Arabia. There are enough willing hosts in the region (look at Qatar and Oman) who can take the spillover, and it is part of a strategic rethink that should be part of the post Sept 11 world. I sincerely hope that this move will be coupled with other US shifts in the region, including a pragmatic distancing from Israel's current hawkish regime. 18805. PelleNilsson - 1/17/2002 12:40:15 PM Any change in Saudi domestic and foreign policies which is based on the will of the people will almost certainly change it from an ally of the US into an adversary. 18806. Wombat - 1/17/2002 12:44:57 PM Oh for chrissakes, where does Al Quaeda come from? The Saudi government does not "sponsor" terrorist organizations in the way that Syria, Iran, etc. do. They provide the religious/ideological wherewithal through Wahabism, and then provide the funds to encourage the spread of it. From the pools of followers that this largesse generates comes Al Quaeda. 18807. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 12:53:35 PM In my opinion, Wombat, Al Qaeda is mostly the result of the Afghanistan campaign against the Soviets, a campaign run by the US, with sponsorship elicited from the Saudis, and then the involvement of the Pakistanis. 18808. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 12:56:45 PM By the way, Al Davis accused me of trying to make the Bush administration look bad, by kind of making up its constant claims to know where Bin Laden is, or to have him and Omar pinpointed, etc. 18809. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 12:59:25 PM Julius -- 18810. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 1:01:24 PM Of course, I'm with Italian President Silvio Berlusconi, quoted as saying We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect certainly does not exist in the Islamic countries. 18811. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 1:16:38 PM CalGal, 18812. Wombat - 1/17/2002 1:18:20 PM Marj: 18813. Andonly - 1/17/2002 1:22:36 PM Q. How many American Muslims are there? 18814. PincherMartin - 1/17/2002 1:27:37 PM Marj -- 18815. Andonly - 1/17/2002 2:35:04 PM "Any change in Saudi domestic and foreign policies which is based on the will of the people will almost certainly change it from an ally of the US into an adversary." 18816. Andonly - 1/17/2002 2:35:19 PM It seems to me, too, that one of the most blatant and pervasive infringements on freedom in the developing world is in fact the oppression of women. 18817. Andonly - 1/17/2002 2:48:44 PM On the subject of US bases in SA, I have a suggestion for our gubmint. We should offer to remove our bases from Saudi territory. But the offer should not be made to the Saudis. Rather it should be made to Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar, in exchange for their unconditional surrender and the surrender of their 'troops'. The deal should include and make explicit a proposal to summarily execute both leaders. 18818. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 4:02:45 PM Pincher, 18819. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 4:11:09 PM Finally, I see no problem in the ideological unnaturalness in close Saudi-US relations. I genuinely think that S. Arabia is a key US ally in a number of areas and has repeatedly answered the call in ways that should be seriously noted. 18820. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 4:15:39 PM Just as in China, where the US.... 18821. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 4:34:57 PM Pincher 18822. Jonesatlaw - 1/17/2002 4:37:44 PM con't- 18823. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 4:38:49 PM Correct link 18824. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 4:41:28 PM Pincher 18825. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 4:41:54 PM Democracy won't come to Saudi overnight. We've been pushing China for democratic reform for years and to little effect. But we are cleared of the charge of hypocrisy that drives the anger of so many in the region. We also ally ourselves with forces that will eventually effect a change. Saudi's rulers will sell oil to us no matter who is in charge. They will ask for our troops if they are threatened by neighbors. Their people will desire to buy our movies even as they insult us. Democracy in Saudi (when it happens) won't change the equations of any of these questions in the long-term. 18826. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 4:44:02 PM As for promoting values, the moral worth of the United States is found in a pattern of dumb luck for the recipients (it is nice that the Taliban are out, but it was not their treatment of women that presaged their ejection) and the fact that even as Empire, we are generous with our largess. Of course, it is the junior partners of Empire that benefit most. 18827. Jonesatlaw - 1/17/2002 4:45:07 PM Sorry about the orphan post, it happened as I fixed a log in problem. 18828. Cellar Door - 1/17/2002 4:45:52 PM "the moral worth of the United States is found in a pattern of dumb luck" 18829. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 4:47:59 PM Cellar 18830. Cellar Door - 1/17/2002 4:51:27 PM They don't kill for me at all. I'm an unintended "beneficiary" of their largesse. 18831. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 4:52:16 PM Caesar speaketh with sagacity. 18832. Julius Caesar - 1/17/2002 4:52:49 PM Be that as it may, American Empire is happy to have you, Cellar. 18833. Cellar Door - 1/17/2002 4:53:22 PM No it's not. 18834. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 4:56:07 PM I am happy to have you, Cellar. It makes me proud, as an American by choice, to note that America's best, most honest, critics come from within these shores. It is a healthy sign, the democracy is in fairly decent shape. 18835. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 5:28:17 PM Recommended - this lengthy article on oil, and Us national and foreign policy from Salon. 18836. Jonesatlaw - 1/17/2002 5:38:47 PM I agree with the proposition that US interests are better served by promoting liberalism- respect for the rule of law, basic (and I do mean basic)human rights, economic freedom in the form of respect for private property and freedom from excessive economic coercion and exploitation, and that those freedoms apply to persons from other nations doing business in their nation. 18837. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 5:43:38 PM I don't know who is channeling whom, but I do find both Jones and Caesar making fine points today, in temperate, finely crafted, prose. Kudos, gentlemen. 18838. marjoribanks - 1/17/2002 5:44:47 PM And with that heartfelt declaration, I shall now retire for the evening. 18839. Jonesatlaw - 1/17/2002 5:48:54 PM In short, we need to promote the kind of economic policies and political policies that protect the freedom of contract, the property rights of the small business owner and the skilled worker. 18840. Cellar Door - 1/17/2002 6:06:58 PM Gee whiz, Marj. You make it hard to be a curmudgeon. 18841. jexster - 1/17/2002 8:13:06 PM What do Poppy - Rummy - Carlucci - OBL and King Georgie have in common? 18842. jexster - 1/17/2002 8:19:21 PM Good article Marj... 18843. jexster - 1/17/2002 8:39:24 PM This is EXACTLY what Georgie & Dickie did in 1997-1998! "But there should also not be blatant hypocrisy wrt this relationship. You cannot have Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Blair addressing sympathetic national audiences deriding the nasty Taliban for not allowing women to vote, or drive, or get an education, while the governments headed by their husbands are snugly in bed with Saudis who do the same. ... Rather than ditching the Saudis, ditch the meaningless, pandering, miserable, rhetoric." 18845. Andonly - 1/17/2002 9:58:00 PM "America generally does a bad, hamfisted, and confused job of promoting such values, and can be counted on pissing off everyone including the women of the region - if it suddenly became a champion of womens rights." 18846. jexster - 1/17/2002 10:02:02 PM Pat Robertson: You're Turn is Coming San Francisco 18847. Andonly - 1/17/2002 10:33:01 PM "I further recommend that the US troops get the hell out. If there is severe internal Saudi dissatisfaction over it, who needs the frigging aggravation?" 18848. Andonly - 1/17/2002 10:33:19 PM "Distance the US, with some strong language, from the black-hole of Israel's continued occupation and suppression of Palestine." 18849. Andonly - 1/17/2002 10:46:45 PM Caesar: "But if Saudi Arabia goes democratic, we may very well lose the hammer of the government (even if that hammer is presently not fully on board with our aims)." 18850. Andonly - 1/17/2002 10:47:56 PM "By nature, as Empire, we are designed to be hypocritical. We cannot divest ourselves of that reality, unless we are willing to commit massive effort, both financial and military, abroad, and accept a significantly reduced standard of living at home." 18851. Andonly - 1/17/2002 11:01:59 PM The second paragraph of my 18849 follows the assumption that we will remain involved in Saudi Arabia and the mideast generally, more or less forever. 18852. CalGal - 1/17/2002 11:14:18 PM Saudis May Seek U.S. Exit 18853. CalGal - 1/17/2002 11:20:59 PM 18854. Andonly - 1/17/2002 11:38:59 PM Cordesman and several Defense Department analysts said the idea of transferring U.S. aircraft and personnel to bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Oman was not realistic because those countries were already "saturated" with U.S. ships, aircraft and emergency war materiel. 18855. CalGal - 1/17/2002 11:47:36 PM The command center we're using there is brand new and state of the art, which means it can't be readily replaced, doesn't it? 18856. stostosto - 1/18/2002 4:30:53 AM Hey Jude: 18857. stostosto - 1/18/2002 4:56:04 AM Regarding the debate on democracy in the Middle East leading to likely fundamentalist takeovers, I have always felt the example of Algeria is a case in point. 18858. stostosto - 1/18/2002 5:05:31 AM This link has it that at least 100,000 people have been killed in Algeria since the elections were cancelled in 1992 (not 1990 as I said), with some observers estimating more than twice that number. 18859. Wombat - 1/18/2002 8:13:37 AM Sto: 18860. Wombat - 1/18/2002 8:15:03 AM I'm sorry, over 20 years. 18861. stostosto - 1/18/2002 8:53:24 AM Wombat, 18862. Jonesatlaw - 1/18/2002 10:12:23 AM I agree that we should consider withdrawing troops from SA. It is a risky stationing, both militarily and politically. As has been pointed out, it must be done in such a manner as not to hand a victory to ObL and his political allies. 18863. Julius Caesar - 1/18/2002 10:32:41 AM Sto 18864. Andonly - 1/18/2002 10:50:14 AM "The command center we're using there is brand new and state of the art, which means it can't be readily replaced, doesn't it?" 18865. CalGal - 1/18/2002 10:56:09 AM That'd probably cost as much as building a new one. 18866. Andonly - 1/18/2002 11:03:22 AM Would we be so silly as to leave the goods behind? 18867. CalGal - 1/18/2002 11:14:47 AM Yes, we could be that silly. Were we to decide to leave, I think it is the cheapest option. I imagine we'd disable various capabilities. 18868. Julius Caesar - 1/18/2002 2:02:43 PM What To Do About Iraq (and when to do it) 18869. Julius Caesar - 1/18/2002 2:12:16 PM More Funny Stuff (I Didn't Know Where to Put It, But It Works in this Thread 18870. CalGal - 1/18/2002 2:15:08 PM I recognize that without clicking--it's Larry wuzzisname, the comedian. That was my favorite bit, too. 18871. Cellar Door - 1/18/2002 2:15:47 PM With all this talk of Empire, I'm beginning to believe that Julius Caesar would be better cast as Alexander the Great. 18872. Julius Caesar - 1/18/2002 2:23:22 PM Cellar 18873. marjoribanks - 1/18/2002 4:01:46 PM Hundreds of millions of dollars have been pledged to Afghanistan's new government for humanitarian and rebuilding purposes. Almost none of it has been delivered. Even Karzai's own security detail is reportedly unpaid. Cash is needed, in bucketfulls, and now. Where to get it? 18874. RustlerPike - 1/18/2002 4:52:23 PM OK marj, anyone else: can you explain why the CNN and BBC insist on calling Richard Reid the 'shoe bomb suspect'? How is he a suspect? 200 people saw him in the act, the police and FBI got him right off the plane - what's there to suspect here? How moronic can the PC world get before we all go insane? Or are we all insane already? 18875. marjoribanks - 1/18/2002 5:03:28 PM Innocent until proven guilty, Spike. 18876. stostosto - 1/18/2002 6:43:03 PM Julio 18877. RustlerPike - 1/18/2002 6:45:52 PM Free rein, not reign. 18878. stostosto - 1/18/2002 6:47:06 PM Eh, Rustler, I hate it when you do that. 18879. stostosto - 1/18/2002 6:48:15 PM Sort of like throwing a tantrum, then discovering your pants are open. 18880. Julius Caesar - 1/18/2002 7:50:33 PM sto 18881. Julius Caesar - 1/18/2002 7:50:49 PM That said, there is no need to shut up and take it like a Roman. Be you an American citizen or one of our junior partners seeking permanent citizenship, you are free to complain in any number of fora about all the nasty byproducts American Empire must inflict in order to give you good medical, dental, heat, air conditioning, running water, frozen pizzas and a vacation that could feed an Afghan village for two years. As we say here in the States, write your congressman (and affix a stamp that represents 20 bowls of rice). 18882. Cellar Door - 1/18/2002 9:44:42 PM That Wacky "Walker" Kid and his Gay Dad 18883. CalGal - 1/18/2002 9:53:53 PM Oh, my lord. 18884. RustlerPike - 1/18/2002 10:20:12 PM I don't know why, but I found this sentence funny. It sounds like it's taken from a spoof of something: 18885. joezan - 1/18/2002 10:32:49 PM Eh... 18886. RustlerPike - 1/18/2002 10:39:04 PM Heh heh. 18887. joezan - 1/18/2002 10:46:10 PM Heard about the suspected (he-heee) ShoeBomber's plea hearing today. 18888. RustlerPike - 1/18/2002 11:00:32 PM No, Joe, they're right. An airplane can hardly be equated with a bus or train. The charge should have been 'conspiracy to destroy a large flying vehicle that makes a shhhhhhhhhhhh sound when it passes overhead'. Then it would have made sense. 18889. judithathome - 1/19/2002 10:19:39 AM I mean, no one's really that stupid, are they? 18890. joezan - 1/19/2002 10:48:21 AM I guess when the only angle from which one ever looks at these flyer things is the jaundiced lefty one - the one which supposes these flyers are intended to change anyone's mind about OBL and Omar...or to disinform them (and which despises the American intelligence community anyway) - then one might quite reasonably (for a hopeless lefty) come to the conclusion that the US would go around wasting millions of dollars, imperiling the lives of its servicemen, and risking alienating our "partners" on a Rumsfeld whim. 18891. judithathome - 1/19/2002 11:41:55 AM Oh get off this Francis Urquart impression, Joe. Please DO explain to me how this flyer is going to force OBL and Omar out of hiding in order to maintain whatever credibility they still may have left will you? I am hardly the only person who thinks these flyers are ridiculous. You can be justly proud of the job done by the military and the President and Rumsfeld and everyone involved because they HAVE done well and accomplished most of what they set out to do in Afghanistan. I have no gripe with any of it. 18892. judithathome - 1/19/2002 11:46:05 AM (and which despises the American intelligence community anyway) 18893. Julius Caesar - 1/19/2002 12:17:57 PM From Larry Miller's essay: 18894. joezan - 1/19/2002 12:20:34 PM Don't be an idiot, judith. 18895. judithathome - 1/19/2002 12:33:58 PM Oh yes, I get it, Joezan. I'm beginning to get much more than you credit me with.. 18896. arkymalarky - 1/19/2002 12:37:30 PM It's truly a stroke of genius. I'm just afraid OBL might figure it out and not reappear. Then what would we do? 18897. joezan - 1/19/2002 12:43:52 PM Mark my words, judith. 18898. arkymalarky - 1/19/2002 12:45:35 PM Nonono. Forget my other idea. They should do door-to-door kidney dialysis. 18899. joezan - 1/19/2002 1:09:01 PM HaHa! 18900. RustlerPike - 1/19/2002 3:41:18 PM judith: 18901. Julius Caesar - 1/19/2002 4:32:43 PM Psychological Operations in Afghanistan, Operation Enduring Freedom, 2001 18902. jexster - 1/19/2002 5:19:16 PM Oh boy I love Psywar..thanks JC... 18903. judithathome - 1/19/2002 5:36:44 PM RP: 18904. RustlerPike - 1/20/2002 12:01:41 AM Judith: 18905. arkymalarky - 1/20/2002 12:12:18 AM And my ideas are chopped liver, I suppose? 18906. RustlerPike - 1/20/2002 5:11:38 AM arky: 18907. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:13:25 AM To All -- 18908. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:14:51 AM I've mentioned several times over the last few posts that the U.S. should begin promoting liberal democracy in the Islamic world. I believe that the adjective is just as important as the noun it modifies here (most of you have chosen to attack my idea, but focused your criticism of it on the promotion of democracy, saying it would lead to the rise of il-liberalism throughout the region). Here is my defense of this proposal. 18909. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:16:18 AM 2) The U.S. receives enormous benefits from cultivating liberal democracies which are sustainable. I'm living in a region of the world of which the majority of democratic states -- Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines -- owe their democratic form of government to U.S. influence. The U.S. often pushed for reforms in these countries despite many of the same arguments you now hear about the Middle East: Communists (read "Fundamentalists") would come to power if democracy was pushed too fast; stability was more important than democracy; the people were not ready for it ("not civilized enough"). Sometimes these arguments won out, and the U.S. made tactical retreats where it would not insist on certain democratic or liberal reforms. But by and large, the U.S. -- during both Republican and Democratic administrations -- pushed its allies to be more liberal and democratic, and, by and large, this prodding had its desired effect. There were other important factors that contributed to democratization in the region, but U.S. policy can't be overlooked. These democratic countries are the US’s most stable allies in the region, in most part because of their greater legitimacy they have by being governments of, for, and by the people. 18910. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:19:06 AM The realistic principle of self-interest is -- and should still be -- the core principle behind U.S. actions overseas, but it is important that morality/idealism guide that policy. As Francis Fukuyama writes in The End of History and The Last Man: 18911. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:19:39 AM Some of you may think this an unfair criticism, and I agree it is not exactly apt. You are not proposing theories here, just a commonsense, workable framework for how to handle our foreign policy in the Middle East. However, I think the comparison has some validity. You seem to be proposing that the U.S. not treat the cancer in the Middle East at all, that instead it deal with it on a strictly ad hoc basis when it becomes a danger to us or our allies. But that defensive strategy is too dangerous. It is in effect the same strategy that led to 9-11. Instead think of a good offense as the best defense. 18912. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:36:30 AM Andonly -- Message # 18815 18913. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:58:06 AM Marjori -- Message # 18818 18914. CalGal - 1/20/2002 10:48:34 AM The U.S. should press the Sauds (and other Arabs) to liberalize women's rights, provide more liberal educaton, respect greater religious tolerance, and other basic individual freedoms before it begins to promote holding elections (which in the best circumstances, would be a long, long time away). 18915. Julius Caesar - 1/20/2002 11:07:52 AM Pincher 18916. Julius Caesar - 1/20/2002 11:09:44 AM The public's tolerance for a less idealistic approach is much higher in more attenuated areas of the world such as sub-Saharan Africa or Bosnia or the Middle East. The average American considers these areas savage and therefore holds a healthy skepticism regarding intercession. The public is quite willing to accept non-idealistic, morally questionable policies in places it deems unworthy of or unprepared for American, First World moralism. Central and South America stand out as good examples. 18917. judithathome - 1/20/2002 11:10:23 AM We can't get our own people to limit births with alleged sex education in schools and common sense...why attempt to force other countries to conform to standards our own country doesn't hold? This sounds like something from a Science Fiction opus. 18918. Julius Caesar - 1/20/2002 11:11:36 AM The U.S. receives enormous benefits from cultivating liberal democracies which are sustainable. I'm living in a region of the world of which the majority of democratic states -- Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines -- owe their democratic form of government to U.S. influence. The U.S. often pushed for reforms in these countries despite many of the same arguments you now hear about the Middle East: Communists (read "Fundamentalists") would come to power if democracy was pushed too fast; stability was more important than democracy; the people were not ready for it ("not civilized enough"). Sometimes these arguments won out, and the U.S. made tactical retreats where it would not insist on certain democratic or liberal reforms. But by and large, the U.S. -- during both Republican and Democratic administrations -- pushed its allies to be more liberal and democratic, and, by and large, this prodding had its desired effect. There were other important factors that contributed to democratization in the region, but U.S. policy can't be overlooked. These democratic countries are the US’s most stable allies in the region, in most part because of their greater legitimacy they have by being governments of, for, and by the people. 18919. Julius Caesar - 1/20/2002 11:12:38 AM Moreover, an argument can be made that our propping up of totalitarian states to fend off the Communist influence was a successful policy. Similarly, I would argue that we prefer totalitarian regimes at least nominally in our corner in the wild, wil Middle East, at least until democratization becomes home-grown and/or fundamentalism loses its luster. 18920. Julius Caesar - 1/20/2002 11:13:33 AM The spread of sustainable democratic governments serves the U.S. interest. There is a good deal of evidence that democratic governments simply get along better, have a higher level of trust, and are able to work together far more closely than other alliances built by non-democracies. There are exceptions (the relationship between India and the United States, for example), but they stand out from the general rule. The realistic principle of self-interest is -- and should still be -- the core principle behind U.S. actions overseas, but it is important that morality/idealism guide that policy. As Francis Fukuyama writes in The End of History and The Last Man 18921. Julius Caesar - 1/20/2002 11:15:19 AM (Huntington continued) . . . in the Gulf War one Arab state invaded another and then fought a coalition of Arab, Western and other states. While only a few Muslim governments overtly supported Saddam Hussein, many Arab elites privately cheered him on, and he was highly popular among large sections of the Arab publics. Islamic fundamentalist movements universally supported Iraq rather than the Western-backed governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Forswearing Arab nationalism, Saddam Hussein explicitly invoked an Islamic appeal. He and his supporters attempted to define the was as a war between civilizations. "It is not the world against Iraq," as Safar Al-Hawali, dean of Islamic Studies at the Umm Al-Qura University in Mecca, put it in a widely circulated tape. "It is theWest against Islam." Ignoring the rivalry between Iran and Iraq, the chief Iranian religious leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for a holy war against the West: "The struggle against American aggression, greed, plans and policies will be counted as a jahad, and anybody who is killed on that path is a martyr.""This is a war," King Hussein of Jordan argued, "against all Arabs and all Muslims and not against Iraq alone." The rallying of substantial sections of Arab elites and publics behind Saddam Hussein called those Arab governments in the anti-Iraq coalition to moderate their activities and temper their public statements. 18922. Julius Caesar - 1/20/2002 11:17:55 AM (Huntington continued) . . . Arab governments opposed or distanced themselves from subsequent Western efforts to apply pressure on Iraq, including enforcement of a no-fly zone in the summer of 1992 and the bombing of Iraq in January 1993. The Western-Soviet-Turkish-Arab anti-Iraq coalition of 1990 had by 1993 become a coalition of almost only the West and Kuwait against Iraq. Muslims contrasted Western actions against Iraq with the West's failure to protect Bosnians against Serbs and to impose sanctions on Israel for violating U.N. resolutions. The West, they allege, was using a double standard. A world of clashing civilizations, however, is inevitably a world of double standards: people apply one standard to their kin-countries and a different standard to others. 18923. Julius Caesar - 1/20/2002 11:18:21 AM Some of you may think this an unfair criticism, and I agree it is not exactly apt. You are not proposing theories here, just a commonsense, workable framework for how to handle our foreign policy in the Middle East. However, I think the comparison has some validity. You seem to be proposing that the U.S. not treat the cancer in the Middle East at all, that instead it deal with it on a strictly ad hoc basis when it becomes a danger to us or our allies. But that defensive strategy is too dangerous. It is in effect the same strategy that led to 9-11. Instead think of a good offense as the best defense. 18924. PelleNilsson - 1/20/2002 12:23:08 PM CalGal Message # 18914 18925. CalGal - 1/20/2002 12:42:39 PM This would be Jordan where it is still legal to kill a woman who was raped, right? That Jordan? 18926. PelleNilsson - 1/20/2002 12:56:04 PM It's not legal, CalGal. Try to inform yourself of the issues before you pronounce on them. 18927. CalGal - 1/20/2002 1:03:52 PM I am informed, Pelle, and I am reminded again that you aren't worth the effort. If you can, demonstrate that the kings of Jordan have instituted democratic and egalitarian reforms far in advance of their populations wishes. 18928. wonkers2 - 1/20/2002 1:14:20 PM 19 18929. wonkers2 - 1/20/2002 1:14:55 PM Shapiro. Sorry, Karl. 18930. PelleNilsson - 1/20/2002 1:42:03 PM Of course the kings of Jordan have not "instituted democratic and egalitarian reforms far in advance of their populations (sic!) wishes". No ruler can do that. 18931. Andonly - 1/20/2002 4:57:54 PM "I agree, but this is mere tactics. Eventually, the liberal mindset must take hold and the final holding house will be a liberal democracy. The U.S. should press the Sauds (and other Arabs) to liberalize women's rights, provide more liberal educaton, respect greater religious tolerance, and other basic individual freedoms before it begins to promote holding elections (which in the best circumstances, would be a long, long time away). This liberalization would have to include, no doubt, a crack down on the extreme fundamentalists, eventually." 18932. Andonly - 1/20/2002 4:58:09 PM "It is not the democratic elements of the Iranian government cracking down on them or keeping them from pursuing an opening to the West." 18933. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 8:06:19 PM CalGal -- 18934. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 8:06:31 PM But it's pretty clear that the restrictive laws are welcomed by their populace. 18935. Andonly - 1/20/2002 8:50:36 PM "Given the volatile nature of the populaces of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states (I understand that the percentage of people in Iran under 30 is staggering), I'm not convinced that Asian model of democracy is in our best interests." 18936. CalGal - 1/20/2002 9:09:18 PM Pincher, 18937. CalGal - 1/20/2002 9:13:49 PM Instead, what seems to be the case is that 1) for cultural reasons, fundamentalists are given greater latitude in espousing their views and 2) those views are given greater financial and educational support. 18938. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:14:25 PM Julius Caesar -- 18939. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:14:55 PM I think you miss a critical distinction in determining what the public will accept. During the Cold War, the public felt that we were fighting for the freedom of people like us, our brethren, or, in the vein of my most recent posts, those most likely to be the junior partners of The American Empire. 18940. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:16:35 PM But the American public itself felt threatened, and thus, it was willing to expend American lives based upon a modified domino theory. 18941. PincherMartin - 1/20/2002 9:17:10 PM Sorry, I've got to go. More later 18942. stostosto - 1/21/2002 4:32:53 AM Jude 18943. stostosto - 1/21/2002 7:41:46 AM It's interesting that Atatürk is mentioned above as an example for Muslim governments to follow. 18944. stostosto - 1/21/2002 7:53:57 AM Also, check out 18945. stostosto - 1/21/2002 7:54:17 AM In reality, I think the Islamists' popular backing is strongest in places where they perform valuable functions in civil society that the state has failed to deliver. This is the case in Egypt, Algeria, and even in Palestine and Lebanon where the Hamas and Hezbollah run various well-regarded social institutions. 18946. stostosto - 1/21/2002 8:21:46 AM I also think that the root of the problem in many Muslim countries is not so much whether democracy or authoritarianism is better. It's that a modern nation state has never really developed there. One hallmark of this is an established, unchallenged center of power with a monopoly on violence and the ability to impose and enforce laws on the entire country. Absent this, people will continue to rely much more on personal connections, relatives, ethnic and tribal relations for doing business and taking care of protecting property, even education and social provisions, than the state whose institutions are weak and underdeveloped and whose very legitimacy is often ill established. (A case in point: Some estimates put the Pakistani rate of tax evasion at 58% Source: Dawn). 18947. Cellar Door - 1/21/2002 11:20:18 AM 18948. CalGal - 1/21/2002 11:34:07 AM I believe Pseuder has previously reported that local elections in the most heavily Taliban leaning provinces have yielded at most 30% Islamo-fascist support. 18949. stostosto - 1/21/2002 1:50:26 PM Cal, agreed, but this was (as I understand it) in the most ardently Taliban-infested part of Pakistan. And not even there would the Islamists get a majority. Friedman's 5% figure is presumably applying to the country as a whole. You've got to admit it isn't all that daunting. 18950. Julius Caesar - 1/21/2002 3:40:44 PM Pincher 18951. CalGal - 1/21/2002 3:41:32 PM Sto, 18952. Julius Caesar - 1/21/2002 3:41:58 PM Pincher 18953. Julius Caesar - 1/21/2002 3:42:33 PM Pincher 18954. Julius Caesar - 1/21/2002 3:43:44 PM Pincher 18955. Julius Caesar - 1/21/2002 3:45:28 PM Sto 18956. concerned - 1/21/2002 3:47:23 PM 18957. concerned - 1/21/2002 3:54:05 PM Fisk: Kumbayah uber alles. 18958. concerned - 1/21/2002 4:12:13 PM What's all this about the so-called 'grotesquely high' standard of living in the US? 18959. Julius Caesar - 1/21/2002 4:21:09 PM Pincher 18960. jonesatlaw - 1/21/2002 6:27:45 PM The US has been guided by a sense of shared ideology/ethics internally for the majority of its existence. The disagreements have been few, but important and violent. The ethics wars in America have been dominated by race since the colonial period. Religion was a factor in the earliest colonial period, but it hasn't been important issue since the adoption of the Constitution. Even the fights over race (remember "race" was defined far more broadly until this century) have been largely about the acheivement of ideals that both sides generally accept. Even some hard core racists refuse to deny that their racial targets should have the same rights as their favored group or share many of the same values. They will acknowledge that the target population should have the same freedoms as the favored group, but that somehow they do not belong in the WASP nation. 18961. Indiana Jones - 1/21/2002 7:12:53 PM The Economist had a leader...Friday that compared Pakistan's Musharraf to Atatürk - and speculated that this might be more than coincidental.... 18962. jexster - 1/21/2002 8:43:13 PM The closing decades of the twentieth century found Americans growing ever less connected with one another and with collective life. We voted less, joined less, gave less, trusted less, invested less time in public affairs, and engaged less with our friends, our neighbors, and even our families. Our "we" steadily shriveled. 18963. jexster - 1/22/2002 12:02:02 AM How Now Kow-Tow? 18964. stostosto - 1/22/2002 3:41:13 AM Do you imagine the American Empire could keep its present grotesquely high standard of living for its citizens with mere "economic activity, investment, technological advance and trade?" 18965. stostosto - 1/22/2002 3:49:26 AM Sorry, Jules, I overlooked this remark of yours to Pincher Message # 18950 18966. stostosto - 1/22/2002 5:02:51 AM Cal: 18967. stostosto - 1/22/2002 5:03:31 AM In other words, there was a climate which no doubt helped foster and nourish leftist terror groups such as Baader-Meinhof and Brigate Rosse. (We had our own branch here, a small secretive band which robbed banks, planned kidnappings, had a large storage of weapons, and on one occasion killed a policeman during a robbery. They used the proceeds to support the PFLP, it turned out). 18968. stostosto - 1/22/2002 5:04:09 AM Shit, this was longer than intended. I guess my mesage is something like: 18969. stostosto - 1/22/2002 5:25:04 AM Indy Message # 18961: 18970. Wombat - 1/22/2002 8:37:06 AM The trickiest part of the Ataturk model for Moslem states is that the armed forces have to be the guarantors of the "secular" constitution, and be required to intervene when the constitution is threatened by religious parties. This would be tough in Pakistan or Egypt. 18971. Wombat - 1/22/2002 8:39:11 AM One would think that with India's own experience in sponsoring terrorist groups (and the resulting blowback), that they would hold Pakistan to a somewhat less strict standard than they are. 18972. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 9:17:14 AM One would think that with India's own experience in sponsoring terrorist groups (and the resulting blowback), that they would hold Pakistan to a somewhat less strict standard than they are. 18973. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 9:18:50 AM The US should put up $1 billion immediately, and lead the peace and rebuilding as it has led the war. One source of additional funds could be those set aside for Egypt and Israel. 18974. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 9:34:48 AM This week's New Yorker has an article by Seymour Hersh, which explores that account of Pak airlifts of Al Qaeda. 18975. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 9:36:57 AM Excerpts: 18976. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 9:37:49 AM The Bush Administration may have done more than simply acquiesce in the rescue effort: at the height of the standoff, according to both a C.I.A. official and a military analyst who has worked with the Delta Force, the American commando unit that was destroying Taliban units on the ground, the Administration ordered the United States Central Command to set up a special air corridor to help insure the safety of the Pakistani rescue flights from Kunduz to the northwest corner of Pakistan, about two hundred miles away. The order left some members of the Delta Force deeply frustrated. "These guys did Desert Storm and Mogadishu," the military analyst said. "They see things in black-and-white. 'Unhappy' is not the word. They're supposed to be killing people." The airlift also angered the Northern Alliance, whose leadership, according to Reuel Gerecht, a former Near East operative for the C.I.A., had sought unsuccessfully for years to "get people to pay attention to the Pakistani element" among the Taliban. The Northern Alliance was eager to capture "mainline Pakistani military and intelligence officers" at Kunduz, Gerecht said. "When the rescue flights started, it touched a raw nerve." 18977. Wombat - 1/22/2002 10:30:32 AM Marj: 18978. rubberducky - 1/22/2002 10:35:12 AM i think the U.S. has put up enough cash, thanks just the same. 18979. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 10:58:28 AM Dear Wombat, 18980. Indiana Jones - 1/22/2002 11:00:20 AM sto: I used Sweden as an example because that's where I thought Myrdal was from. I'm not sure how easy it is for some of the nations to be states at all, but did he mean by hard state "authoritarian" as opposed to just non-anarchic? 18981. Wombat - 1/22/2002 11:08:55 AM Marj: 18982. Wombat - 1/22/2002 11:16:26 AM These efforts culminated in a military confrontation with Sri Lanka, which given the huge military disparity between the two countries, resulted in your aformentioned "invitation" for India to intervene. 18983. Wombat - 1/22/2002 11:22:06 AM I might also add, Marj, that I researched the Sri Lanka-Tamil-India conflict extensively at the time, using local sources, and have a very good idea of what I am talking about. 18984. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 11:25:48 AM Well, maybe, Wombat. 18985. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 11:28:05 AM Wombat, 18986. Wombat - 1/22/2002 11:41:21 AM Marj: 18987. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 11:48:10 AM Okay, Wombat. 18988. marjoribanks - 1/22/2002 11:49:46 AM That's democracy. You are aware that the Bushites in this country are carefully trying to maximize the potential electoral benefits of this "war on terrorism" as well. 18989. concerned - 1/22/2002 12:19:08 PM And the Democrats wouldn't be doing the same, but with more fanfare, given the chance? 18990. Property of Jesus - 1/22/2002 12:49:14 PM I'm looking for this bumpersticker: 18991. jexster - 1/22/2002 1:04:37 PM I have two. Please post your address and phone 18992. judithathome - 1/22/2002 1:04:58 PM So who believed that Bowers guy was really kidnapped by an Afghani warlord? What a joke! He's been exposed as a fraud. CNN. 18993. Wombat - 1/22/2002 1:07:00 PM Marj: 18994. Andonly - 1/22/2002 1:31:09 PM Otsotsots: "In other words, there was a climate which no doubt helped foster and nourish leftist terror groups such as Baader-Meinhof and Brigate Rosse. ... By now, some 10-15-20 years later, one can only wonder what all this fuss was about... It was a fad." 18995. Wombat - 1/22/2002 2:27:57 PM I would think that radical Islam's attitude toward women and sexual "deviance" would be enough to disabuse most self-respecting radicals of the type who espoused revolutionary ideologies in Europe during the 1960s-80s. 18996. PelleNilsson - 1/22/2002 2:48:00 PM andonly 18997. Andonly - 1/22/2002 2:57:16 PM "Given India's (and any country's) experience, one cannot just turn terrorist groups on and off. Musharraf can impliment whatever steps he can, and arrest dozens (hundreds, thousands, etc.) of militants and organizers, but it only takes a few to mount an attack." 18998. Wombat - 1/22/2002 3:20:42 PM Andonly: 18999. Indiana Jones - 1/22/2002 3:22:15 PM Snag? 19000. Indiana Jones - 1/22/2002 3:23:07 PM Now? 19001. PelleNilsson - 1/22/2002 3:23:16 PM Not yet 19002. PelleNilsson - 1/22/2002 3:23:40 PM Shit. 19003. PelleNilsson - 1/22/2002 3:29:23 PM Indy 19004. Indiana Jones - 1/22/2002 3:34:10 PM Pelle: Hmm. I wonder if the US qualifies as one, then. 19005. PelleNilsson - 1/22/2002 3:36:21 PM From what one reads I guess Singapore is the hardest state. 19006. Andonly - 1/22/2002 4:03:00 PM A: "That climate--its support for domestic terror groups, its anti-Americanism, its pro-Palestinianism--emerged in the context of Europeans' post-war Communist sympathies." 19007. Andonly - 1/22/2002 4:03:23 PM Baader and Meinhof's Red Army Fraction was tiny. But it went out into the world and proved to be extremely violent. Kidnappings, bank holdups, murders: the group refrained from nothing. A bombing in 1972 killed four American soldiers. A few years later someone machine-gunned to death the prosecutor who wanted to try the group for killing the soldiers. Reprisals were a specialty. The Red Army Fraction was hardy, too. The West German authorities did their repressive best, but the guerrilla organization managed to keep itself alive, recruiting new members from ever younger generations to replace the fallen, and persisting in its killings and kidnappings from decade to decade into the mid-1990s--a long run in a well-ordered place such as Germany. 19008. Andonly - 1/22/2002 4:09:56 PM "I would think that radical Islam's attitude toward women and sexual "deviance" would be enough to disabuse most self-respecting radicals of the type who espoused revolutionary ideologies in Europe during the 1960s-80s." 19009. stostosto - 1/22/2002 4:24:19 PM Uh-oh. I sense a fierce semantic debate pending on whether Baader-Meinhof was an example of Europe's "post-war Communist sympathies", complete with extensive use of quotes from former posts, accusations on impaired reading comprehension, bitter personal attacks and counter-attacks and triumphant declarations of decisive, if unacknowledged, victories. 19010. PelleNilsson - 1/22/2002 4:25:35 PM andonly 19011. stostosto - 1/22/2002 4:26:15 PM Ando, fwiw, I doubt Pelle doesn't know who Rote Arme Fraktion were. But I suspect you posted that quote mostly because you like the article. I remember you having linked it in before. 19012. Julius Caesar - 1/22/2002 4:26:40 PM sto 19013. stostosto - 1/22/2002 4:29:58 PM Europe's post-war communist sympathies had everything to do with the Soviets having defeated Hitler, plus the national resistance movements in which communists often formed a large and well-organised part. These sympathies were of course totally, completely and indisputably dwarfed by Europe's post-war American sympathies. 19014. stostosto - 1/22/2002 4:37:55 PM Please explain. 19015. Julius Caesar - 1/22/2002 4:38:30 PM sto 19016. Julius Caesar - 1/22/2002 4:41:08 PM sto 19017. stostosto - 1/22/2002 4:43:58 PM Sadaam invaded an ally 19018. stostosto - 1/22/2002 4:47:06 PM I don't understand #19015. 19019. Julius Caesar - 1/22/2002 4:49:12 PM sto 19020. stostosto - 1/22/2002 4:50:15 PM No need, agreed. 19021. judithathome - 1/22/2002 4:54:42 PM stuffedshirted. 19022. Andonly - 1/22/2002 4:55:15 PM "I am not saying that crackdowns are futile. That is your interpretation. Crackdowns can be very effective in weakening a terrorist organization." 19023. Andonly - 1/22/2002 4:55:30 PM Anyway, there has not been a serious crackdown of any kind under Arafat, so that issue is moot. I read varying assessments of Musharraf's crackdown, but India has played it as though he's done as much of what it required of him as he could. (More politics--the mutual nuclear threat and all.) No telling what today's shooting of four police in Calcutta portends, of course. 19024. rdbrewer - 1/22/2002 5:01:37 PM After Friday's arrests of six in Bosnia who were allegedly planning an attack on the US embassy, I was thinking that we all owe Slobodon Milosovic an apology. Then I remembered he was the Serbian president. 19025. stostosto - 1/22/2002 5:08:54 PM Jules, just this: 19026. Andonly - 1/22/2002 5:11:44 PM Pelle: "Any general sympathy for the Soviet Union and its version of communism evaporated in the wake of the Prague coup in 1948" 19027. Andonly - 1/22/2002 5:14:02 PM "But I suspect you posted that quote mostly because you like the article. I remember you having linked it in before." 19028. Andonly - 1/22/2002 5:16:41 PM "Europe's post-war communist sympathies had everything to do with the Soviets having defeated Hitler, plus the national resistance movements in which communists often formed a large and well-organised part. These sympathies were of course totally, completely and indisputably dwarfed by Europe's post-war American sympathies." 19029. stostosto - 1/22/2002 5:22:37 PM Sorry if I sounded condescending there, Ando, that wasn't my intention. Did I read it? Last time around, yes. As to Berman's "vantage point", I have no idea. But you ostensibly copy-pasted a quote with a fairly redundant explanation of the difference between "faction" and "fraktion" in order to demonstrate to Pelle that there were communist sympathisers in Germany that he didn't knew about. Since anybody who lived in Europe in the 1970s has a rather clear idea of who RAF/Baader-Meinhof were, I figured you didn't make that point. So I just thought there could be another explanation for your linking of the article. 19030. stostosto - 1/22/2002 5:26:05 PM Ando, #19028 19031. stostosto - 1/22/2002 5:36:20 PM Correction, I should have said "1968 marked a break with European American sympathies". It didn't, after all, and despite everything, mark a break with America. 19032. Andonly - 1/22/2002 5:38:59 PM Sotto tsos: 19033. Andonly - 1/22/2002 5:41:41 PM "you ostensibly copy-pasted a quote with a fairly redundant explanation of the difference between "faction" and "fraktion" in order to demonstrate to Pelle that there were communist sympathisers in Germany that he didn't knew about." 19034. Andonly - 1/22/2002 5:42:28 PM "Did I read it? Last time around, yes. As to Berman's "vantage point", I have no idea." 19035. Andonly - 1/22/2002 5:46:46 PM "Euro leftist militancy was anti-American first, second and third, then, perhaps, and for lack of any other superpower to cling to, pro-Soviet." 19036. OhioSTOPAS - 1/22/2002 7:32:11 PM There's been much criticism and second-guessing of the Clinton Administration's anti-terrorism, anti-bin-Laden efforts, but according to this weekend's Washington Post, Clinton's efforts compare favorably to those of the Bush Administration. The article should be here. (But if the link doesn't work, look for "A Strategy's Cautious Evolution" by Barton Gellman at www.washingtonpost.com) Examples: 19037. joezan - 1/22/2002 11:58:39 PM You know what rots my socks? 19038. stostosto - 1/23/2002 3:22:22 AM joezie, 19039. stostosto - 1/23/2002 3:29:06 AM Ando, I gave the Berman piece one more cursory reading. I still have no idea about Berman's "vantage point", unless it has something to do with his being clueless about German society and politics, substituting psycho-babble for substance, and long-windedly working himself towards that gushing and totally un-corrobarated and vague conclusion about the Nazi roots of it all. Mein Gott, what a hack. 19040. stostosto - 1/23/2002 3:41:08 AM Ando, I accept your remarks on Saddam, they're quite obvious. 19041. stostosto - 1/23/2002 3:51:46 AM I'm sorry, Ots, but this seems to me a very large oversimplification. [that Euro leftist militants were motivated chiefly by anti-Americanism, and hardly at all by pro-Sovietism] 19042. stostosto - 1/23/2002 4:55:44 AM There is a Danish citizen among the Guantanamo prisoners. The official Danish reaction: The Americans can do what they want with him. 19043. stostosto - 1/23/2002 5:57:01 AM Dolnyan Message # 18994: 19044. joezan - 1/23/2002 7:57:38 AM Sto: 19045. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 9:41:04 AM "....Jules....stated that the American standard of living depended critically on its being an "empire". 19046. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 10:13:22 AM pseudo 19047. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 10:13:35 AM Americans suck up a disproportionate share of the world's natural resources, they value the life of one American centurion 100 fold more than 100 lives of third worlders, they spend more on care for their pets than most nations spend on medical care, the wealth retained by the highest rungs of American society bears no resemblance to wealth in other nations, and as John Thompson said after a trip abroad to some of the harshest areas of the world, "I never let anyone tell me again that I was poor growing up in public housing." 19048. marjoribanks - 1/23/2002 10:31:37 AM America believes it is conducting a righteous war to rid the world of a deadly enemy that will stop at nothing to achieve its fiendish ends. Europe, though, increasingly sees an arrogant superpower on the loose – one that after a brief, tactical flirtation with co-operation in the early stages of the war is back to its old unilateralist ways, safe in the knowledge that its power is unchallengeable. 19049. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 10:44:00 AM "So, using my definition, is American Empire necessary to American wealth?" 19050. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 10:47:42 AM The extent to which empires of the past depended on their imperial power for their wealth, is also exaggerated. The British empire was far more a reflexion of British wealth than a cause of it. 19051. marjoribanks - 1/23/2002 10:49:12 AM I will surely be given the relevant stats, but it seems (off the top of my head) that the US maintains significant markets abroad captive due precisely to its "military, political and diplomatic power". How else do you define the close economic relationship with Japan, with the EU, closer still - with the NAFTA partners? What is the purpose of the MFN designation? 19052. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 10:51:39 AM sto 19053. marjoribanks - 1/23/2002 10:53:27 AM Let's look at a limited example - the Spanish monarchy of Isabella and Ferdinand. 19054. marjoribanks - 1/23/2002 10:56:09 AM The Elizabethans were in a position to exercise imperial power without the possession (and exploitation) of colonies overseas? 19055. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 10:56:11 AM pseudo 19056. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 10:59:22 AM It is bizarre to suggest that the American Empire's accumulation of military, political, and diplomatic power is a mere lark, in no way connected to its economic health. 19057. stostosto - 1/23/2002 11:17:30 AM Jude, 19058. Property of Jesus - 1/23/2002 11:21:26 AM Great new picture of Johnny Walker at Drudge 19059. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 11:32:48 AM Sto 19060. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 11:34:00 AM And the overall economic effects link is from Marxists, no less. 19061. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 11:39:21 AM Moreover, sto, try taking bigger bites. We are militarily engaged. We are not, as you urge, "withdr[awn] from military engagement with the rest of the world." 19062. CalGal - 1/23/2002 11:40:07 AM The cost of the war isn't peanuts, either. We're already in deficit spending, I believe, or will be soon. 19063. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 11:40:53 AM sto 19064. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 11:42:26 AM Interesting debate. I wish I had the time for an extended response to the recent posts on empire. Since I don't, I'll keep my remarks short: 19065. marjoribanks - 1/23/2002 11:49:50 AM To be starkly honest, I don't think the US intervention (the way it has played out) has done terribly much to deter future terrorist acts in this country. 19066. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 11:50:56 AM Pincher 19067. marjoribanks - 1/23/2002 11:51:27 AM America expends "enormous funds" in "blood" to maintain its Empire? 19068. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 11:53:46 AM marj 19069. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 11:58:50 AM Pincher 19070. marjoribanks - 1/23/2002 11:59:42 AM A success evaluated how? 19071. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 12:01:22 PM J.C. -- Message # 19059 19072. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 12:01:24 PM Marj 19073. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 12:02:21 PM Marj -- 19074. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 12:04:53 PM Pincher 19075. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 12:15:57 PM This is somewhat chicken and egg. Empire begets wealth, wealth begets Empire. 19076. CalGal - 1/23/2002 12:22:41 PM White House on 9/11 impact 19077. jexster - 1/23/2002 12:31:36 PM He said it....believe it or not! 19078. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 12:33:38 PM Preferably, not while chewing pretzels and watching football. 19079. jexster - 1/23/2002 12:34:03 PM Osama has vanished... 19080. CalGal - 1/23/2002 12:43:02 PM 19081. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 12:51:06 PM Pincher 19082. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 12:59:23 PM To prove the point that the September 11th attacks had a significant negative effect on the United States economy, name some economists or writers or policymakers upon whom you would rely? 19083. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 12:59:33 PM I assume that you agree that the lack of a military response would have made any negative effects even worse. 19084. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 1:12:35 PM Pincher 19085. jexster - 1/23/2002 1:17:41 PM My language..over hyped 19086. CalGal - 1/23/2002 1:20:23 PM I think that 9/11 could cause a major change in the US economy if we don't get air travel and tourism back on track with the recovery. Hopefully, we won't continue with the laughably inept feel-good "security" measures when things pick up. 19087. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 1:20:39 PM Ha ha ha ha ha. 19088. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 1:21:28 PM Caesar wished to make clear that his 19087 was in response to 19085 19089. CalGal - 1/23/2002 1:22:01 PM True. I may be a fool, but I belong to everyone. 19090. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 2:24:49 PM Cal, 19091. CalGal - 1/23/2002 2:34:13 PM but if nothing else happens, those sectors will probably soon recover. 19092. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 2:37:03 PM Washington Post article on intelligence that pointed to a possible attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen 19093. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 2:38:11 PM On Monday, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III visited Yemen and met with Salih to discuss the investigation of the Cole bombing and the resumed interrogation of the six Yemeni suspects by FBI agents. During the initial part of the investigation, Yemen did not permit the FBI to have direct access to the suspects, and in June 2001, the FBI team withdrew from the country after threats were made against it. 19094. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 2:38:19 PM On Monday, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III visited Yemen and met with Salih to discuss the investigation of the Cole bombing and the resumed interrogation of the six Yemeni suspects by FBI agents. During the initial part of the investigation, Yemen did not permit the FBI to have direct access to the suspects, and in June 2001, the FBI team withdrew from the country after threats were made against it. 19095. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 2:53:56 PM Cal Gal -- 19096. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 2:55:35 PM "it's profitability" to "its profitability" 19097. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 2:57:30 PM Message # 19051 19098. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 2:57:39 PM 19099. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 2:58:46 PM Message # 19055 19100. Property of Jesus - 1/23/2002 3:02:12 PM I took my boys to see Black Hawk Down last night. Terrific film, but no cheering. Others thought otherwise. 19101. PincherMartin - 1/23/2002 3:03:58 PM JonesinLaw wrote a shockingly good post sometime back about the motivations for U.S. military force, correctly noting that the U.S. approaches to the use of force were quite different in the 19th and 20th century. He mentioned examples that showed the U.S. was more motivated by idealism in the 20th than it was in the 19th. 19102. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 3:12:42 PM Of course, volume of trade data do not necessarily reflect the fact that some goods imported by the USA have a far greater importance than their market value relative to GDP, would suggest. There may be strategic resources for which there is either no internal supply or sufficient supplies or adequate substitutes. But I can't think of what they might be off the top of my head. I do not think Middle Eastern oil really counts as one of them, since the USA's oil suppliers are so diverse. 19103. Wombat - 1/23/2002 3:13:13 PM Fortunately, the US was able to work out a large part of its "manifest destiny" on the North American continent. 19104. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 3:20:57 PM pseudo 19105. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 3:23:12 PM Moreover, American Empire, like the Roman Empire, is more than California to New York. We have our provinces, like Japan, and to the extent they are squeezed economically, the American Empire is squeezed economically. 19106. CalGal - 1/23/2002 3:29:43 PM The airlines clearly can't go back to doing things in the same way they did before 9-11. 19107. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 3:55:48 PM Message # 19104 19108. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 3:57:56 PM Message # 19104 19109. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 3:58:09 PM 19110. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 4:26:22 PM Well, the only recent examples I would accept are the US protection of Japan and Western Europe since their emergence as major economic powers. No other recent examples are valid. The 11 September terrorist attacks do not show that US wealth depends significantly, or has depended significantly, on US military & foreign policy actions. 19111. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 4:26:52 PM South Korea is not critical to US prosperity and wealth at all. South Korea could disappear from the face of the earth and you'd barely notice, apart from the fact that the miserable Kia vehicle you are forced to drive by your miserable income, could no longer get serviced. South Korea is a nice bonus, but not at all critical. Still less critical are Iraq and Afghanistan. 19112. marjoribanks - 1/23/2002 4:35:46 PM What does US military power have to do with NAFTA or the MFN designation? 19113. Andonly - 1/23/2002 4:41:08 PM Toots to SS: "Ando, I gave the Berman piece one more cursory reading. I still have no idea about Berman's "vantage point", unless it has something to do with his being clueless about German society and politics, substituting psycho-babble for substance, and long-windedly working himself towards that gushing and totally un-corrobarated and vague conclusion about the Nazi roots of it all. Mein Gott, what a hack." 19114. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 4:41:20 PM An initial statement long since forgotten, and wisely so. 19115. stostosto - 1/23/2002 4:55:06 PM Jullo 19116. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 4:59:45 PM My initial statement, as made in Message # 19049: 19117. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 5:09:56 PM sto 19118. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 5:11:17 PM Sto 19119. stostosto - 1/23/2002 5:11:36 PM Lyndon A: 19120. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 5:11:52 PM Message # 19110 19121. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 5:16:58 PM pseudo 19122. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 5:21:22 PM Why this rigamarole? 19123. CalGal - 1/23/2002 5:24:07 PM Why Let Walker Claim Citizenship? 19124. stostosto - 1/23/2002 5:26:06 PM JC: 19125. Julius Caesar - 1/23/2002 5:30:51 PM sto 19126. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 5:38:43 PM Message # 19121 19127. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 5:50:28 PM My argument is not the same as Sto's. He says basically that the degree of US economic integration with the world is relatively low, so US foreign policies are not relevant to the US economy. I would say that US economic integration with the world has increased significantly in the last 20 years, but today US foreign policy really does little which affects the long-term prosperity of the USA. 19128. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 5:51:48 PM ...or at least the USA does not conduct a foreign policy which is any more relevant to its economic well-being than Sweden or any other country. 19129. Andonly - 1/23/2002 6:38:53 PM "I readily admit I was deliberately dismissive (I think you like that in a man), but you'll have to come up with something better than that." 19130. Andonly - 1/23/2002 6:49:38 PM "One could indeed argue that Western Europe and East Asia were kept from communism by US military power. But how significant are these regions as markets?" 19131. Andonly - 1/23/2002 7:03:07 PM I almost agree with this: 19132. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 7:04:35 PM Message # 19130 19133. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 7:10:35 PM Message # 19131 19134. stostosto - 1/23/2002 7:12:36 PM What if I'm not as interested in impressing you with my earnestness as you are in impressing me with your dismissiveness? 19135. concerned - 1/23/2002 7:18:40 PM Given that there are no serious security threats to these regions today, in what way are the current US security guarantees of these countries critical to US prosperity? 19136. stostosto - 1/23/2002 7:20:32 PM And how the hell can Berman write a 25,000 word essay ostensibly about the roots of West German New Leftism without even mentioning Benno Ohnesorg? 19137. Andonly - 1/23/2002 7:20:36 PM "Europe and Japan are very significant today economically to the USA. But so what? Given that there are no serious security threats to these regions today, in what way are the current US security guarantees of these countries critical to US prosperity?" 19138. stostosto - 1/23/2002 7:21:12 PM (#19136 was to Ando, of course). 19139. concerned - 1/23/2002 7:26:40 PM 19089. CalGal - 1/23/02 6:22:01 PM 19140. Andonly - 1/23/2002 7:27:08 PM "Irrelevant, for the reasons already stated." 19141. Andonly - 1/23/2002 7:31:59 PM "The question is whether "empire" is critical to prosperity. The mere presence of extra money-making opportunities does not show criticalness." 19142. Andonly - 1/23/2002 7:36:11 PM "All short-term issues and therefore pretty irrelevant to whether US foreign policies are critical to US prosperity." 19143. Andonly - 1/23/2002 7:40:23 PM "But we haven't been discussing what the motivations have been. Only whether US foreign policies have been, or are, in fact critical to US prosperity." 19144. stostosto - 1/23/2002 7:41:09 PM A blow to US security such as was manifested by 9-11 might have had lingering effects on confidence had we not responded demonstratively. 19145. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 7:51:28 PM I and Sto had been arguing about whether US foreign policies are, or have been, critically important to US prosperity. 19146. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 8:01:33 PM Message # 19141 19147. Andonly - 1/23/2002 8:41:39 PM Message # 19146 How you can presume to assert this I have no idea, but it's not unusual for you to believe you can pull a single factor out of reality and a predictable alternative will emerge. 19148. Andonly - 1/23/2002 8:51:06 PM "Other countries have suffered regular terror threats and have managed to maintain business confidence fairly independent of this. Examples are Britain, Italy, Germany, even Israel and India. People get used to it, they take precautions, they calculate with the risk. A nuisance it is, but seldom devastating to economic activity." 19149. Andonly - 1/23/2002 9:04:08 PM "By way of response, I will simply repeat what I said before: if the USA reduced its involvement in world affairs to Swedish levels (the hypothesis suggested earlier), then the US economy would barely feel a blip." 19150. Andonly - 1/23/2002 9:05:36 PM "After all, does the USA have "strategic control" of Europe and Japan? No." 19151. joezan - 1/23/2002 9:49:06 PM Sto, JC - Message # 19059: 19152. stostosto - 1/23/2002 10:06:09 PM if the USA reduced its involvement in world affairs to Swedish levels 19153. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 10:13:33 PM Message # 19150: The USA does not have "strategic control" of Europe and Japan, nor of Latin America nor Africa nor East Asia nor South Asia nor the Middle East nor Central Asia. The USA is very influential but not hegemonic. Never was. Perhaps the only places where the USA exercises true 'imperial' hegemony is over Central America and the Caribbean, and even that's doubtful today. 19154. stostosto - 1/23/2002 10:15:10 PM It's fascinating to see these accounts from ordinary Americans on 9-11's devastating effects on the US economy. I can't help wondering what ordinary Iraqis or Serbs might think. (Forgive me. It's true; I really can't). I read somewhere that more explosives were dropped on Iraq in 1991 than on Germany during WWII. Something similar goes for Serbia/Kosovo, I think. 19155. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 10:17:18 PM errata for Message # 19153: 19156. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 10:18:51 PM Stostosto: Americans aren't used to political violence inflicted on its soil. It's unsurprising they are a bit hysterical about its impact. 19157. pseudoerasmus - 1/23/2002 10:20:37 PM One could oppose to my own view, the argument that the collapse of the Soviet Union, which was achieved partly by US efforts, ended decades of national liberation movements in the Third World and thereby created a safer environment for investment in the Third World; and that this safer environment has attracted foreign capital inflows and accelerated economic growth in developing countries; and these countries will one day be large, important markets for US goods. 19158. OhioSTOPAS - 1/23/2002 10:35:50 PM There's a good article in the American Prospect. The author examines the right's criticism of President Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts as compared to the record (or non-record) of President Bush between his inauguration and 9/11/01 (as detailed in the Washington Post article I link in my Message # 19036). 19159. joezan - 1/23/2002 10:43:28 PM Hahahahaha! 19160. RustlerPike - 1/23/2002 11:27:25 PM Get a hold of yourself, Joezan. You're in a public place. 19161. Andonly - 1/23/2002 11:33:07 PM "Because after considering the ensemble of US foreign policies -- its security alliances, its military actions, its trade negotiations, the financial policies the US treasury department encourages the rest of the world, the US positions at UN conferences, etc. -- I reckon that the USA has derived very little economic benefit from "imperial" activism compared to the benefit it might have derived under political / military isolationism." 19162. Andonly - 1/23/2002 11:45:57 PM "Because after considering the ensemble of US foreign policies -- its security alliances, its military actions, its trade negotiations, the financial policies the US treasury department encourages the rest of the world, the US positions at UN conferences, etc. -- I reckon that the USA has derived very little economic benefit from "imperial" activism compared to the benefit it might have derived under political / military isolationism." 19163. Andonly - 1/23/2002 11:53:53 PM That's odd. -61 somehow posted before I'd finished it. 19162 should be clearer. 19164. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 12:39:31 AM Message # 19161 19165. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 12:39:42 AM "...the alternative histories you like to propose as certain are always well beyond the reach of verification.....Message # 19163: "Now that Pseudoerasmus has posted the admirably equivocal Message # 19157, in which he at least acknowledges the long-range argument for "empire," I'm less inclined to quarrel." 19166. rubberducky - 1/24/2002 9:08:34 AM one less sick bitch out there .. for a year at least: 19167. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 9:47:03 AM As American Empire is now defined as American military, diplomatic and political power (not, as pseudo might understandably mutate later in the discussion, hegemonic control), the issue is Has the military, diplomatic, and political power of the American Empire contributed [significantly] to American wealth, or, could we disengage, and maintain the same level of wealth? 19168. Andonly - 1/24/2002 9:50:39 AM "It is pretty much indisputable that US economic growth in the last half century had overwhelmingly internal sources and very few external sources if at all." 19169. Andonly - 1/24/2002 9:51:00 AM "You have my view quite buggered up. In the case of the Afghan war of the 1980s, I was not arguing counterfactuals. What actually happened was that although the USA mostly funded the fanatics during the Afghan jihad, the non-fanatics did most of the fighting that actually drove the Soviets out, but the fanatics led the way in the civil war." 19170. Andonly - 1/24/2002 10:05:00 AM But back to the issue of empire and the US economy--Caesar has alluded to this point already by sneering at Sweden's standard of living, but a lot depends on how you define "critical," or what you consider to be a significant drop in the US's economic well-being. 19171. stostosto - 1/24/2002 10:05:39 AM Hey, Ando and Julius, there is something called input-output accounting which "neatly" captures and divides all these "overlapping" and "impinging" relationships from each other. 19172. Andonly - 1/24/2002 10:07:15 AM "I certainly don't believe fully most of the things I argue forcefully." 19173. Rama - 1/24/2002 10:13:27 AM I too would like to know why they object to this well demonstrated observation? 19174. stostosto - 1/24/2002 10:14:10 AM I used to assume this of you more often than I have over the past year or so. 19175. stostosto - 1/24/2002 10:21:07 AM Perhaps it should be added that if the US didn't have any foreign markets at all in which to sell those 12% of GDP, it wouldn't mean that GDP would be 12%lower. The 12% would still be at its disposal, only it would presumably be valued less than the imports which it presently pays for (since why else would trade occur - oh, yeah, by way of "imperial" dictate, perhaps). 19176. marjoribanks - 1/24/2002 10:22:27 AM Pseuder did rather grandly state that "since turning 30" he's stuck to arguing things that he firmly believes in. 19177. OhioSTOPAS - 1/24/2002 10:31:07 AM In Message # 19159, Joezan responds to my Message # 19158, and the link there to an article discussing the Bush Administration's non-action against terrorism from 1/20/01 to 9/10/01, by saying: 19178. stostosto - 1/24/2002 10:36:37 AM Dan Lyon: 19179. stostosto - 1/24/2002 10:37:04 AM detoy. 19180. stostosto - 1/24/2002 10:37:28 AM ? 19181. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 10:37:33 AM Sto 19182. Andonly - 1/24/2002 10:37:36 AM "But you can't even come up with a scenario in which plausible acts of "imperial activism" would benefit the USA more than diplomatic / military isolationism or less intense activism." 19183. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 10:42:54 AM Message # 19167 19184. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 10:44:14 AM Message # 19168 19185. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 10:44:25 AM Message # 19169 19186. stostosto - 1/24/2002 10:45:10 AM julio; 19187. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 10:48:45 AM And 19188. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 10:51:24 AM Pseudo 19189. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 10:53:06 AM Message # 19181 19190. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 10:56:07 AM pseudo 19191. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 11:08:08 AM Just answer my questions in Message # 19189 from the perspective of the present, and then later we can go backward to 1947. 19192. Andonly - 1/24/2002 11:14:13 AM "Perhaps it should be added that if the US didn't have any foreign markets at all in which to sell those 12% of GDP, it wouldn't mean that GDP would be 12%lower. The 12% would still be at its disposal, only it would presumably be valued less than the imports which it presently pays for..." 19193. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 11:15:43 AM pseudo 19194. Andonly - 1/24/2002 11:19:13 AM Oops, I'm running late... 19195. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 11:57:10 AM Message # 19193 19196. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 11:57:54 AM Message # 19193 19197. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 11:58:06 AM (cont.) 19198. jexster - 1/24/2002 12:05:31 PM Karl Rove, President Bush's top political advisor, is arguing that GOP congressional candidates can build their campaigns around the administration's success in prosecuting the war. But history suggests that won't be easy. 19199. Andonly - 1/24/2002 1:03:28 PM "Hey, Ando and Julius, there is something called input-output accounting which "neatly" captures and divides all these "overlapping" and "impinging" relationships from each other." 19200. Andonly - 1/24/2002 1:03:43 PM But if you have the means to establish your power in a world of competing erstwhile and would-be hegemons (it's so tempting to write "hegemen"), and if you are a country with a capitalist near-religion, are you more likely to place your bet on hunkering down in isolation, or in investing in power? What happens economically if you place that bet on hunkering down when your populus hungers for risk (and justifies its hunger ideologically)? Do folks just get with the program? Do the hunkerers get thrown out of office? Does an economic malaise develop as a result of some social or ideological factor you haven't considered the implications of, and which "imperialism" might mitigate? 19201. Andonly - 1/24/2002 1:19:53 PM But I agree with this: 19202. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 1:40:44 PM Message # 19199 19203. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 1:41:36 PM Message # 19201 19204. wonkers2 - 1/24/2002 1:41:41 PM Car insurance and home insurance and health insurance all provide peace of mind through protection against catastrophic or financially inconvenient losses. This is an economic benefit. 19205. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 2:03:48 PM pseudo 19206. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 2:30:51 PM 19207. Andonly - 1/24/2002 2:33:16 PM "Well, your attempt at cleverness falls flat because the actuarial analogy is incomplete: insurance premia are calculated according to estimated risks. Are the "premia" the USA pays commensurate with the risks? Who knows, maybe Yankistan is hideously overpaying." 19208. concerned - 1/24/2002 2:40:42 PM Re. 19177 - 19209. Andonly - 1/24/2002 2:44:33 PM "The obvious counter-counter-argument to my own hypothetical counter-argument (in Message # 19157) to my own argument is also that Pax Americana does not exist, and cannot exist, on a global scale--" 19210. Andonly - 1/24/2002 2:51:06 PM "I've asked for such repeatedly and only now you put out." 19211. concerned - 1/24/2002 2:56:02 PM Re. 19145 - 19212. Andonly - 1/24/2002 2:56:06 PM "The only thing 'new' about my postulate is the substitution of 'significant' for 'crucial', which I think makes the burden of argument easier for you." 19213. Wombat - 1/24/2002 2:56:58 PM It would be more honest on your part to admit that, counter to your previous assertions, the Clinton Administration did quite a bit more against terrorism than was thought, and given the partisan and self-imposed political constraints it operated under, along with the perceived level of threat that formed its policy, did fairly well. 19214. OhioSTOPAS - 1/24/2002 3:09:29 PM Message # 19208 calls the recent questioning of the Bush administration's lame pre-9/11 anti-terrorist measures an "implied compliment to GWB's presidency, in that some people expect an order of magnitude more effectiveness from him than they are willing to accept from a Democrat [sic] administration." 19215. concerned - 1/24/2002 3:10:54 PM It would be more honest on your part ... yadda yadda yadda 19216. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 3:19:52 PM Message # 19211 is besides the point. I recommend the fat lardy scum who obsesses about Clinton to read my Message # 19196. 19217. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 3:21:54 PM "Would Japanese corporate lobbyists have been allowed to influence US trade legislation to the extent that they have during the '60's through '90's if the US hadn't felt it necessary to be on very good terms with each succeeding Japanese govt. in order to support the ongoing defensive agreements?" 19218. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 3:22:37 PM Is there a stupider person than Concerned? He can't evne maintain the thread of argument. Half the things he's talking about are beside the point. 19219. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 3:23:33 PM Message # 19209 19220. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 3:30:44 PM pseudo 19221. jexster - 1/24/2002 3:39:28 PM 19222. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 3:54:04 PM Message # 19220 19223. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 3:59:05 PM pseudo 19224. Cellar Door - 1/24/2002 4:00:29 PM It depends on what you mean by "American." 19225. PelleNilsson - 1/24/2002 4:01:13 PM In spite of PE's and sto's well-reasoned arguments the idea that the US would have done, and will, do as well (almost) if it were to cut its trade with the rest of the world is counter-intuitive. 19226. Andonly - 1/24/2002 4:05:43 PM "Regional PaxY, sure, but global is doubtful." 19227. stostosto - 1/24/2002 4:06:23 PM Oh, Pelle. Counter-intuitive -- so that's what it is. I knew there was something. This actually explains very well why Hulio and Anny Old persist in their obsessions. 19228. stostosto - 1/24/2002 4:10:16 PM But, Pelle, I haven't argued that the US should stop trading. I can't imagine why it would do so just because it stopped projecting military power in an "imperial" way. Nor have I said that there would be no cost to American withdrawal, in fact I think in my very first post on the subject I said it was probably 5-10%. That's by no means a negligible amount, it's maybe four years of GDP growth. On the other hand, it wouldn't as Jules stated imperil America's "grotesquely high standard of living", only dent it. 19229. PincherMartin - 1/24/2002 4:12:58 PM PE -- 19230. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 4:13:36 PM sto 19231. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 4:17:44 PM Message # 19223 19232. PelleNilsson - 1/24/2002 4:18:25 PM sto 19233. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 4:19:55 PM If it can be agreed that the Marshall Plan, MacArthur's stewardship of post-war Japan, military protection of Western Europe and South Korea, the defeat of Sadaam Hussein, and the reprisals against Afghanistan and al Qaeda were all hallmarks of American Empire (i.e., American military, diplomatic and political power)? 19234. stostosto - 1/24/2002 4:20:18 PM Ando has some points; obviously US policy has been aimed at establishing a stable framework for trade and investment in the world -- apart from its Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union which was first and foremost about countering a very real security threat. And this framework has been to immense benefit for all the countries in the so-called "free-world" camp -- including the USA itself. Thus, I favour much of US "imperial" policy, especially in post-war Europe, and especially when it used its position wisely in a multilateral and principled free trade based institution building approach. Bretton-Woods exchange rate system, World Bank, IMF, GATT (WTO), OECD, UN. 19235. Cellar Door - 1/24/2002 4:21:22 PM "one's ability to project power is often more influential than one's actual use of power." 19236. stostosto - 1/24/2002 4:22:12 PM How does the United States project military (as opposed to diplomatic and political) power in an imperial way? 19237. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 4:23:13 PM Pseudo says Empire is and has been and will be a contributor to American prosperity. 19238. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 4:25:45 PM sto 19239. PincherMartin - 1/24/2002 4:27:44 PM I agree completely with Sto's Message # 19234. 19240. stostosto - 1/24/2002 4:28:51 PM Do you really believe that the US would be where it is economically (more or less) if it had withdrawn from world trade after WWII? 19241. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 4:29:39 PM Message # 19229 19242. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 4:31:33 PM Message # 19229 19243. stostosto - 1/24/2002 4:32:34 PM Julius Caesar: 19244. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 4:33:09 PM Pincher 19245. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 4:33:49 PM sto 19246. Andonly - 1/24/2002 4:40:44 PM A: "though why you wouldn't go so far as to call it hegemony I'm not sure)..." 19247. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 4:45:10 PM Message # 19234 19248. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 4:45:24 PM Message # 19234 19249. stostosto - 1/24/2002 4:47:38 PM Pseud, I knew you were going to say that. That is why I appreciate you so greatly. 19250. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 4:48:28 PM Message # 19239 19251. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 4:53:04 PM pseudo 19252. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 4:56:20 PM Message # 19246: Well, if "hegemonic" simply means "immensely influential", then I agree. All I've been meaning is that US "empire" is much more constrained its ability to exercise power than imperial powers of the past were able to within their own empires. 19253. stostosto - 1/24/2002 4:57:12 PM That's just the way of the world. Power is not the air freshener, gentlemen. It's the engine. 19254. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 5:05:20 PM Power, like Jujyfruit, comes in all shapes and colors. 19255. Andonly - 1/24/2002 5:09:09 PM "one's ability to project power is often more influential than one's actual use of power." 19256. Andonly - 1/24/2002 5:14:16 PM Juli: 19257. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 5:20:39 PM Andonly 19258. Andonly - 1/24/2002 5:24:01 PM "Between 1945 and today, world trade has expanded largely as a result of regional or bilateral movements, not as a result of the USA creating and maintaining some stable framework." 19259. Andonly - 1/24/2002 5:27:58 PM "The World Bank, long controlled by the USA, has been unmitigated disaster.. The same with the "Washington Consensus" " 19260. Jonesatlaw - 1/24/2002 5:29:25 PM And as far as I know, the USA was not imperially active on a global scale before the Second World War. So the appropriate comparison in terms of gauging American ability to project its power & influence is between now and the post-war period, the apex of American power (largely due to the devastation of the previous great powers). 19261. Andonly - 1/24/2002 5:36:53 PM Dairy Queens! 19262. judithathome - 1/24/2002 5:39:07 PM we have Dairy Queens, and 80% of our people eat at those Dairy Queens. 19263. CalGal - 1/24/2002 5:42:19 PM On a hot day, Mr. Mistee Float is the food of the gods. They are still around, you know. 19264. judithathome - 1/24/2002 5:44:38 PM Any day is a good day with a Butterfinger Blizzard. 19265. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 5:47:43 PM 19266. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 5:50:14 PM Message # 19259 19267. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 5:51:10 PM Message # 19256 19268. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 5:53:32 PM Message # 19260 19269. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 5:55:14 PM I'm begining to think that Caesar and Andonly have gotten a major case of Strafor-itis. I hope it's not epidemic. 19270. Julius Caesar - 1/24/2002 5:59:44 PM Pseudo, you have been honorable in taking up my challenge. I will address the falsity of your "1. 3. 4. 5. virtually zero impact" in good time. 19271. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 6:06:14 PM Well, I suspect you have some misconceptions about what the Marshall Fund did or even what it was. It didn't do much reconstructing, and it ended up being largely a stabilisation fund for exchange rates whose necessity was doubtful, etc. Regarding MacArthur's overlordship in Japan, his most lasting reforms are political (such as the constitution) but I don't know how crucial they in fact were to Japan's post-war economic development. His many economic reforms, particularly those regarding industrial structure, were completely reversed. What was absolutely crucial about the US occupation was that it took place at all and the Soviet seizure of Japan (or its northern half) was prevented. 19272. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 6:09:03 PM The most crucial US interventions in Europe during the Cold War were also the earliest ones: Truman's prevention of Italy and Greece from going communist. 19273. jexster - 1/24/2002 8:38:59 PM "Following September 11, many on the right made an instant pastime out of lambasting anyone who dared suggest that U.S. foreign policy might be partially responsible for the attacks -- "blame America first" thinking, as they liked to call it. Recently, though, conservatives have discovered the joys of blaming one American in particular: Bill Clinton. ... Andrew Sullivan summarized the Times-Post case against the former president recently in Salon.com : "[Clinton] was more responsible than anyone for the gaping holes in national security and intelligence that made Sept. 11 possible. The buck must stop with him." 19274. jexster - 1/24/2002 8:39:23 PM "Following September 11, many on the right made an instant pastime out of lambasting anyone who dared suggest that U.S. foreign policy might be partially responsible for the attacks -- "blame America first" thinking, as they liked to call it. Recently, though, conservatives have discovered the joys of blaming one American in particular: Bill Clinton. ... Andrew Sullivan summarized the Times-Post case against the former president recently in Salon.com : "[Clinton] was more responsible than anyone for the gaping holes in national security and intelligence that made Sept. 11 possible. The buck must stop with him." 19275. jexster - 1/24/2002 8:42:07 PM Army Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick, a top National Security Council staffer who stayed with Bush through May: 19276. PincherMartin - 1/24/2002 9:12:36 PM PE -- Message # 19241 19277. PincherMartin - 1/24/2002 9:13:02 PM First, if you are going to compare the relative power of the United States then it is misleading to call the 1990s aberrant and not mention that the post WWII era was even more so. The "relative" power of the U.S. was so high in 1945 for the simple reason that almost every other advanced country in the world was in political and economic chaos. There was no way the same power balance of 1945 would continue, and in the following decades, economic power (and even political power) did become more diffuse. 19278. joezan - 1/24/2002 9:19:12 PM jex - Message # 19275: 19279. arkymalarky - 1/24/2002 9:55:35 PM It helps that Democrats are focused enough on what's really important not to second-guess every presidential sneeze. It's much easier for a president to be effective when he's allowed to do his job without dodging roadblocks every step of the way. 19280. OhioSTOPAS - 1/24/2002 10:07:45 PM "The plan the GWB admin put together in the first few weeks following the 9-11 attack was . . . successful . . ." 19281. joezan - 1/24/2002 10:29:52 PM WTF would anything Bush could have done prior to 9-11 do to prevent the attacks? 19282. joezan - 1/24/2002 10:35:48 PM And don't come back with some junk about how I'm obsessing on Clinton -answer the question wiseguy: 19283. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 11:16:16 PM Message # 19276 19284. pseudoerasmus - 1/24/2002 11:17:38 PM 19285. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2002 6:48:45 AM Joezan: One thing Bush might have done between January and September 2001 is what Bush's political supporters have been blasting Clinton for not doing between August 2000 and January 2001: Track down and capture or kill the murderers, including Osama bin Laden, who conspired to commit the attack on the USS Cole. 19286. joezan - 1/25/2002 7:06:50 AM Yea - I mean, there've got to be at least a couple dozen more aspirin factories between Kenya and Afghanistan, no? 19287. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2002 7:15:56 AM Non sequitur. 19288. joezan - 1/25/2002 7:20:16 AM So, let me get this straight: 19289. Wombat - 1/25/2002 8:29:19 AM Zan: 19290. Julius Caesar - 1/25/2002 1:29:59 PM pseudo 19291. Julius Caesar - 1/25/2002 1:30:42 PM The Plan ended after 45 months, and during the time, Europe's GNP rose from $119.6 billion in 1947 to almost $159 billion in 1951. Industrial production increased 40 percent over 1938 levels and agricultural output exceeded the prewar figure by 11 percent. In 1950, the volume of intra-European trade stood at 24 percent above the 1938 level and by 1953, it had topped 40 percent. 19292. Julius Caesar - 1/25/2002 1:30:55 PM See also Walter Scheel, Karl Schiller, W. Averell Harriman, Jean Monnet Ludwig Erhard, and Walter Hallstein on the benefits of The Marshall Plan 19293. concerned - 1/25/2002 1:32:41 PM ...still chuckling at the way PseudoIrascible hops to attention at his posts now that 109's has renamed himself. 19294. OhioSTOPAS - 1/25/2002 2:36:22 PM JoeZan (Message # 19288) says: 19295. Andonly - 1/25/2002 2:39:22 PM A brief diversion from Caesar's enjoyable Epistle to the Eel, I found this excerpt from a post on the Lebanese Daily Star newspaper's discussion site. It was written almost a year before the World Trade Center was destroyed. 19296. Andonly - 1/25/2002 2:39:59 PM no ital 19297. stostosto - 1/25/2002 3:45:31 PM Curious formulation: 19298. stostosto - 1/25/2002 3:58:33 PM JC, 19299. stostosto - 1/25/2002 4:12:13 PM The stats cited in the quote you offer are almost exclusively concerning Europe, so they say precious little on the effects on the American economy (other than that they were positive). 19300. stostosto - 1/25/2002 4:21:00 PM The only effect on American economy cited which is quantified in what you offer is this: 19301. stostosto - 1/25/2002 4:28:50 PM Correction: 19302. stostosto - 1/25/2002 4:42:14 PM Also, and I hesitate to say this, but possibly, just possibly, Europe would have seen revolutionary communists in government if the Marshall plan hadn't been enacted. There is no doubt that "confidence" at the time was not merely a question of pessimism wrt the next few months' business climate. It was a question of confidence in capitalism as a system which had seen the miserable 1930s and a devastating war which, furthermore, had put plenty of bureaucratic meddling mechanisms into place, such as price controls and rationing of all kinds of consumer goods. There was no recent prosperous capitalist free-market age to want to turn back to. And who, after all, had crushed Hitler? Didn't the Soviet Union suffer infinitely much more from the Nazis and also inflict more suffering on them than anyone else? 19303. ronski - 1/25/2002 4:43:31 PM 19304. concerned - 1/25/2002 5:22:04 PM Steering Hard Left and Out of Control Dept.: 19305. concerned - 1/25/2002 5:26:29 PM Also, and I hesitate to say this, but possibly, just possibly, Europe would have seen revolutionary communists in government if the Marshall plan hadn't been enacted. 19306. concerned - 1/25/2002 5:39:49 PM 'Europe's Concern for Al Qaeda' 19307. joezan - 1/25/2002 11:04:06 PM Ohio criticizes the Bush admin for not following up on the Clinton admin's terrorism "strategy". I asked him in Message # 19282 what, specifically, Bush could have done to stop 9-11 even if he had followed Clinton's "strategy". 19308. joezan - 1/25/2002 11:27:49 PM Wombat - Message # 19289: 19309. arkymalarky - 1/25/2002 11:46:25 PM Mymymy, Joe. You're frothing all over my screen. 19310. joezan - 1/26/2002 12:29:08 AM That differs from "hunt terror wherever it exists" exactly how? exactly how? 19311. joezan - 1/26/2002 12:32:02 AM Delete after in the last sentence. 19312. RustlerPike - 1/26/2002 4:50:24 AM I keep trying to delete it but it's still there, Joe. What to do? 19313. OhioSTOPAS - 1/26/2002 7:48:53 AM Pay attention, Joe. 19314. OhioSTOPAS - 1/26/2002 7:53:46 AM P.S. As for your statement that the Clinton administration didn't even know the 9-11 killers were in the country: Of course not. All, or virtually all, entered the United States legally on visas. 19315. OhioSTOPAS - 1/26/2002 8:14:35 AM How would "blowing up OBL" have stopped 9-11? 19316. joezan - 1/26/2002 9:53:38 AM Ohio: 19317. Wombat - 1/26/2002 11:26:06 AM I am sorry Joe, it is just that when it comes to this area you are a moron. Please tell us how Clinton or pre-Sept. 11 Bush could have inserted troops into Afghanistan to track down Bin Laden. Just drop them in there and hope for the best? Given that after Sept. 11 the arrangements for basing US forces in and around Afghanistan were delicate and complex, before Sept. 11 it would have been impossible. 19318. Wombat - 1/26/2002 11:28:42 AM Oh, and have a nice day. 19319. judithathome - 1/26/2002 11:34:23 AM You, too, Wombat...a very nice one. Good post. 19320. wonkers2 - 1/26/2002 11:38:51 AM Rumsfeld clueless on prisoner treatment according to Tony Lewis 19321. OhioSTOPAS - 1/26/2002 12:00:27 PM Joezan (Message # 19316): 19322. judithathome - 1/26/2002 12:15:52 PM Why, he pulled out of Kyoto, of course! 19323. stostosto - 1/26/2002 6:43:56 PM Ronsk, 19324. robertjayb - 1/26/2002 7:28:18 PM Try to relax, guys, you'll get used to it... 19325. joezan - 1/26/2002 8:45:18 PM Wombat: 19326. joezan - 1/26/2002 8:47:35 PM Ohio: 19327. joezan - 1/26/2002 8:50:29 PM ...first clue, from the post you tried to nail me on... 19328. RustlerPike - 1/26/2002 11:44:49 PM Joe: 19329. judithathome - 1/27/2002 12:15:31 AM I remember you saying we should nuke the entire nation of Afghanistan, Joezan...I remember it because I was so shocked by it coming from you. Of course, now I'm not so shocked by you saying such things but then, I was. 19330. OhioSTOPAS - 1/27/2002 10:03:54 AM Joezan: You say in (Message # 19325) that Clinton "refused to accept ObL's head on a platter from foreign gov'ts on three separate occasions after he had proof positive he was directly responsible for the embassy bombings". This is of course not true. 19331. jexster - 1/27/2002 12:45:43 PM OPEN RIFT - PantyWaist Powell's Pusilanimous Pussy Footing Over King Moron's Detainee Policy 19332. wonkers2 - 1/27/2002 1:16:43 PM Fort Dietrich Supplied the Anthrax 19333. concerned - 1/28/2002 6:20:31 PM Bush announced today in a press conference during talks with Hamid Karzai that he had no intention of using US troops as full time 'peacekeepers' in Afghanistan. 19334. pseudoerasmus - 1/28/2002 8:57:22 PM I think Giulio Cesare's posts about the Marshall Plan, which tiresomely reiterate the standard folk mythology, can be dismissed summarily and without further comment than Stostosto has provided. 19335. amax - 1/28/2002 9:17:55 PM RE the ObL slipping through the previous administration's fingers: 19336. concerned - 1/28/2002 10:40:51 PM This morning, I posted, in another forum: 19337. joezan - 1/28/2002 11:08:17 PM Heard DiFi on NPR today - she says she can't understand what people are whining about wrt the Guantanamo Bay prisoners. Says she's been to over half the prisons in CA, many others around the country, and even quite a few in Europe, and feels these guys have got it quite a lot better than they would in many of those places. 19338. concerned - 1/28/2002 11:19:36 PM Whoah.... 19339. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 9:49:14 AM Pseudo 19340. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 9:49:33 AM I accept your sword, and should you wish to back-up your similarly absurd propositions with regard to the other three major acts of post-World War II American imperialism and their virtually zero impact, I'll let you serve. 19341. Andonly - 1/29/2002 10:04:54 AM Ah, the joys of shari'a in Nigeria: 19342. Andonly - 1/29/2002 10:13:47 AM Nigeria's constitution forbids the establishment of any religion at the national or state level. But those in favor of sharia argue that a precedent has been set by the acceptance of civil aspects of sharia law in the north for a century. Last month, Nigeria's justice minister, Bola Ige, said that the sentence of stoning [adulterers] was ''harsh and crude'' and promised that ''this type of thing will not happen in Nigeria in 2002.'' (He was assassinated in late December; the murder is not believed to be associated with this case.) President Obasanjo has said nothing about the case so far and has barely commented upon the reintroduction of sharia. In one instance, when asked about sharia, the president said simply that he hoped that the problem would go away. 19343. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 10:56:47 AM Message # 19339 19344. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 11:11:25 AM pseudo 19345. Andonly - 1/29/2002 11:15:23 AM Caesar, why do you bother with this argument? Pseudoerasmus has thus far declared that 19th century American imperialism was real, while what you describe as imperialism in the post WWII era is merely "imperialism". 19346. Andonly - 1/29/2002 11:15:39 AM To illustrate, I might as well claim that if all lions vanished from the Serengeti (or wherever it is that lions live), there would be essentially no long-term impact on the population of zebras, since without the competition form lions hyenas would then flourish and take up the gap in zebra predation. 19347. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 12:01:29 PM Message # 19344 19348. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 12:17:26 PM Pseudo 19349. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 12:24:24 PM Message # 19345 19350. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 12:24:55 PM Message # 19346: 19351. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 12:31:34 PM And 19352. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 12:36:30 PM Message # 19348 19353. jexster - 1/29/2002 12:36:33 PM Looks like Ole Panty Waist Powell, the pusilanimous pussyfooter, has prevailed again in a public battle with Krusty the Klown and the Rummy Defence Minister.... 19354. Andonly - 1/29/2002 12:54:35 PM "You obviously have no idea what "ceteris paribas" means." 19355. Andonly - 1/29/2002 12:57:08 PM "If you are asking what would have happened in Europe if the USA hadn't enacted the Marshall Plan, that question implies that all other non-MP variables are held constant." 19356. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 1:00:19 PM pseudo 19357. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 1:00:27 PM Andonly: Stop being so silly. Ceteris paribas means that all variables other than the one you're interested in examining, are held constant. So in the question about the impact of lions on the zebra population, the impact of hyenas on zebras is held constant (though the impact of lions on hyenas is not necessarily). If you asked what if there was something which both affected lions and hyenas, then you would just be changing the terms of the original question. 19358. Andonly - 1/29/2002 1:04:37 PM "Well, then, you're just violating the ceteris paribas condition inherent in your initial question--" 19359. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 1:05:33 PM Message # 19355 19360. Andonly - 1/29/2002 1:06:12 PM "We are afflicted by the same folly." 19361. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 1:07:55 PM Message # 19358 19362. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 1:35:01 PM Message # 19356 19363. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 1:35:24 PM 19364. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 1:44:11 PM Pseudo 19365. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 2:35:56 PM Message # 19364 19366. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 2:39:40 PM Message # 19364 19367. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 3:02:31 PM pseudo 19368. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 3:51:40 PM Message # 19367 19369. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 4:19:58 PM pseudo 19370. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 4:26:02 PM pseudo 19371. Jonesatlaw - 1/29/2002 4:29:51 PM Pseudo- while I am not in a postion to debate you concerning the economic effect of the MP or the lack thereof; I would proffer the following questions concerning your assertion that the CIA was more important in the establishment of a stable Western Europe following WWII- 19372. Jonesatlaw - 1/29/2002 4:40:24 PM Or to put it more succinctly- Compare and contrast the recovery of Europe post WWI and WWII. One bears the effect of a market recovery without mercy, large burdens of public debt and austerity programs and one with intervention and a smoothing of the burdens of recovery over time. Keep in mind the relative loss of life, physical capital, and general infrastructure was far greater in WWII than in WWI. 19373. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 5:03:57 PM Message # 19369 19374. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 5:04:40 PM Message # 19370 19375. stostosto - 1/29/2002 5:08:27 PM Ando, 19376. stostosto - 1/29/2002 5:12:25 PM Ando (ocnt.) 19377. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 5:15:09 PM Message # 19371 19378. stostosto - 1/29/2002 5:17:46 PM Pseuder 19379. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 5:18:59 PM pseudo 19380. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 5:22:09 PM Message # 19372 19381. Jonesatlaw - 1/29/2002 5:24:57 PM Psuedo- I think that the second portion of the second item would shed a great deal of light on the position you take in 19377. I do not think that it is possible to project political power into the creation of a democracy (absent naked military aggression) for any sustained period without co-ordinating that policy with effective economic intervention or engagement. 19382. stostosto - 1/29/2002 5:35:00 PM Pseud, 19383. stostosto - 1/29/2002 6:00:10 PM One final observation on the Marshall Plan before I go to bed. 19384. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 6:03:16 PM Message # 19376 19385. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 6:04:02 PM Message # 19379 19386. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 6:04:26 PM Message # 19381 19387. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 6:04:40 PM Message # 19382: I agree with the last paragraph. Argentina was well integrated commercially with Europe but not with its own region and had been dependent on such a distant market to an extent that Europe was not. In the 1930s, Peronists argued that since markets for Argentine exports were so unreliable (because of war/politics and because of European protectionism), it would be better to try to become more self-sufficient. Moreover, the Peronists argued that Argentina's dependence on agricultural exports retarded its industrial development. Such views were absent in Europe. Whatever anti-market biases might have been present in Europe after the war, there was clearly a bias toward believing that commercial integration would reduce the chances for renewed war in Western Europe. That's why I think it's exaggerated to say that the only thing that "separated Argentina's experience from the European one was its self-inflicted anti-market bias". 19388. stostosto - 1/29/2002 6:19:32 PM JC, dang, I screwed up somethin.... 19390. stostosto - 1/29/2002 6:22:07 PM JC, 19391. stostosto - 1/29/2002 6:27:56 PM The Marshall Plan boosted European economy and transatlantic trade, and transatlantic trade has never stopped growing, probably almost invariably at a faster rate than GDP in Europe as well as in the US. Thus, today we see the result: USA's "grotesquely high standard of living" depends on Europe for a hefty!, nay, staggering!!, nay, whopping!!! --- ladies, and gentlemen ---drumroll!!!! --- 19392. stostosto - 1/29/2002 6:28:56 PM You simply can't do without us. That is really a comforting thought, I have to say. 19393. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 6:36:38 PM And that 3%, if lost, could be made up for rather fast. 19394. pseudoerasmus - 1/29/2002 6:39:59 PM Sto does seem to focus exclusively on trade and neglects FDI and capital flows. 19395. stostosto - 1/29/2002 6:41:52 PM Yep. Throw in another 1% and be done with it. 19396. stostosto - 1/29/2002 6:55:25 PM Actually, the EU site I linked to in Message # 19388 provides figures for FDI as well. in 1999 US FDI into EU was 75 bn euro corresponding to less than 1% of US GDP. EU FDI into US was 197 bn euro or 2.3% of GDP. That's almost as much as its exports. 19397. Julius Caesar - 1/29/2002 7:53:23 PM Sto 19398. Andonly - 1/30/2002 2:25:38 AM Otsots: "Ando (ocnt.) I think what you're arguing...that therefore it is fruitless to speculate. But then you seem, all the same, to come out in favour of the US Marshall Plan as a boost to American prosperity." 19399. Andonly - 1/30/2002 2:27:03 AM 19400. Andonly - 1/30/2002 2:27:58 AM removing caesariana 19401. stostosto - 1/30/2002 3:51:54 AM Gee, I am fast becoming the most most quoted poster in this thread... 19402. marjoribanks - 1/30/2002 9:01:25 AM I watched Karzai yesterday on C-Span, talking to a mixed forum about Afghanistan's potential and the necessity for outside aid. 19403. Andonly - 1/30/2002 9:23:48 AM "But Afghanistan needs a face that sells abroad right now, a person who can persuade the international community that it is worth it to pour billions into the country even in a time of recession. And for that purpose I don't think you could get a person better than Karzai." 19404. Cellar Door - 1/30/2002 9:31:05 AM This isn'tjustamovie review. Very important analysis. 19405. Cygnus X-1 - 1/30/2002 9:41:17 AM I love it! 19406. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 10:00:40 AM Message # 19403: "A lot depends, I think, on whether his claims of Pashtun support for US military action are as accurate or overwhelming as we'd like to believe." 19407. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 10:08:45 AM Message # 19397 19408. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 10:19:21 AM Sto 19409. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 10:19:41 AM And even if the USA was an island unto itself with no links to other countries whatsoever, by how much would its GDP be lower? It would not be a full 10 or 12% lower corresponding to the trade share in its GDP. It would only be lower by the amount that this part of its produce was less valuable when used nationally than when exchanged for foreign goodies. 19410. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 10:21:06 AM Pseudo 19411. Andonly - 1/30/2002 10:44:31 AM Message # 19407 19412. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 10:54:51 AM Message # 19408: "no matter [this and that]....we will all meet in the international marketplace to barter at about the same rate. Like a Coca-Cola commercial." 19413. Andonly - 1/30/2002 11:09:48 AM "And that depends, in part, on whether the USA keeps keeping killing civilians in jackass-like blunders" 19414. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 11:27:06 AM Questions and observations: 19415. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 11:27:16 AM 2) and anyway, this argument demolishes his broader point. If it was military intervention that stabilized Europe instead of the Marshall Plan, then US "imperialism" still had an impact on European stability. 19416. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 11:30:36 AM pseudo 19417. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:32:10 AM According to CNN, "Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle Tuesday to limit the congressional investigation into the events of September 11, congressional and White House sources told CNN. The request was made at a private meeting with congressional leaders Tuesday morning. Sources said Bush initiated the conversation... Daschle said, he has not agreed to limit the investigation... 'Clearly, I think the American people are entitled to know what happened and why,' he said... Privately Democrats questioned why the White House feared a broader investigation to determine possible culpability. 'We will take a look at the allocation of resources. Ten thousand federal agents -- where were they? How many assets were used, and what signals were missed?' a Democratic senator told CNN." 19418. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 11:36:06 AM Rask 19419. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 11:36:45 AM Message # 19415 19420. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 11:40:32 AM Message # 19418 19421. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 11:43:06 AM "With the exception of the fact that the USA saved Western Europe and East Asia from communism." 19422. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:46:38 AM Pseudo claimed that American post-World War II political, diplomatic, and military power (what we have shorthanded to "Empire") has had virtually zero impact on American prosperity 19423. Cellar Door - 1/30/2002 11:47:58 AM There was no threat of communism. 19424. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 11:51:27 AM With the exception of the fact that the USA saved Western Europe and East Asia from communism. 19425. Jonesatlaw - 1/30/2002 11:52:31 AM Pseud- 19426. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 11:52:40 AM Cellar: That is a relief. Serves me right for believing those lying little Poles, Latvians, Lithuanians, Czechs, Hungarians, Slovaks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Koreans, Moldavians, Russians, Estonians, Germans, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Laotians... 19427. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:55:22 AM CD is a communist. 19428. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 11:56:30 AM film critic. 19429. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 11:56:59 AM sorry, that one was just too easy. 19430. jexster - 1/30/2002 11:57:09 AM CD ljuga grovt informellt! 19431. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 12:00:06 PM There have been two separate discussions, which some have conflated. 19432. jexster - 1/30/2002 12:02:51 PM Vad jag förstår 19433. Jonesatlaw - 1/30/2002 12:03:06 PM Pseudo- 19434. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 12:03:23 PM My views in the FIRST discussion are actually best summarised here: Message # 19196 and the subsequent post. 19435. jexster - 1/30/2002 12:04:07 PM Tack du 19436. OhioSTOPAS - 1/30/2002 12:07:36 PM Jex - Your links in Message # 19417 don't work. 19437. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 12:13:17 PM I don't take as much issue with that summary, although I think it takes too narrow of a view of US interests and the sources of a high standard of living, as it ignores the future. What would your assessment of the importance of Japan to the US economy been in 1946, based on pre-war levels of trade? Also, given that instability in Europe in this century has gotten us into two major wars, I don't think trade and FDI adequately sum up the impact a stable Europe potentially has had on the US economy. 3% of US GDP? A drop in the bucket. 19438. Wombat - 1/30/2002 12:14:47 PM Ohio: 19439. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 12:15:47 PM "last century", of course. I am still living in the past. 19440. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 12:17:43 PM pseudo 19441. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 12:18:31 PM Message # 19414 19442. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 12:19:28 PM Message # 19415 19443. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 12:21:13 PM Pseudo: regarding 19196-19197, what "today's imperial activism" are you referring to? You seem to be referring to security guarantees in Europe and East Asia. But these strike me as fairly minor at the moment. Still, I would see it as a hedge in case China or Russia decide to turn nasty on us. I doubt it has any positive current impact on the economy, but 20 years from now? Getting bases in Germany and Japan might be difficult to get again if we give them up now. 19444. Andonly - 1/30/2002 12:33:32 PM Rask: "If there had been a Communist takeover in Europe, we possibly would have had to spend even more on defense, as the increased Red scientific/industrial capacity would have made for a pricier arms race." 19445. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 12:37:02 PM What was trade with Britain, as a % of GDP, just prior to WWII? (Assuming it was very small) would you have argued that Britain was unimportant to US economic interests? It is in our long term economic interests not to have a world governed by liberal democracies rather than apocalyptic nuke-wielding nazis, or luddite fundamentalist zealots. Current trade and investment levels simply don't reflect this. 19446. Andonly - 1/30/2002 12:39:14 PM "the [US's] interest [in saving Western Europe and East Asia from communism lay] not in the economic benefits to the USA that a prosperous Europe & Japan would imply, but in preventing the communists from gaining access to the economic potential of these regions with which they might have posed a more powerful military threat to the USA." 19447. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 12:39:38 PM "Of course, the USA might actually have gained MORE scientific & technological knowledge if Western Europe had been seized by the Soviets --because of the brain drain that would surely have ensued." 19448. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 12:41:02 PM Heisenberg and Sakharov, for instance, stayed in their homelands. You know this, of course, so I think you are just being cheeky. 19450. Andonly - 1/30/2002 12:52:43 PM "There have been two separate discussions, which some have conflated." 19452. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 12:57:36 PM Message # 19444 19453. Andonly - 1/30/2002 12:59:10 PM "I doubt it has any positive current impact on the economy, but 20 years from now? Getting bases in Germany and Japan might be difficult to get again if we give them up now." 19454. Andonly - 1/30/2002 1:07:01 PM Message # 19126 19457. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:19:24 PM I quote my own words which Andonly also quoted: 19459. rubberducky - 1/30/2002 1:22:16 PM Jex's post where he left his toys all over this thread were deleted as were IJ's picking them up (thanks, btw, IJ) 19460. rubberducky - 1/30/2002 1:23:20 PM ditto to Ando & PE 19461. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 1:26:28 PM You think that if the US did nothing with regard to state-sponsored terrorism, that this would be "just a blip" on the long term growth of the national economy? On what basis do you say this? 19462. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:26:55 PM Message # 19416 19463. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:28:03 PM Message # 19425: "...the real effect was probably more to weaken support of the military governments amoungst the economic elites so influential in the region, and unite a sufficient portion of them with the middle classes in support of the democratic movements." 19464. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:28:26 PM Message # 19437: "... I think it takes too narrow of a view of US interests and the sources of a high standard of living, as it ignores the future. What would your assessment of the importance of Japan to the US economy been in 1946, based on pre-war levels of trade?...As such, I prefer to think of US "imperialism" as an investment with potentially huge long term payoffs." 19465. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:28:48 PM Message # 19443: what "today's imperial activism" are you referring to? 19466. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:29:45 PM Message # 19444: "What was trade with Britain, as a % of GDP, just prior to WWII? (Assuming it was very small) would you have argued that Britain was unimportant to US economic interests?" 19467. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 1:33:44 PM "I ask again: even if Western European and East Asian prosperity were crucial to US prosperity, in what way does American "empire" really ensure the 19468. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:45:03 PM Errata to my Message # 19452, which was addressed to Andonly. 19469. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:52:26 PM Message # 19450 19470. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 1:52:30 PM "Secondly, I suppose anything is possible in the future, including "huge long term payoffs" in the future, but that's not indicated in the present 19471. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 1:52:35 PM pseudo 19472. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:52:35 PM MacArthur's stewardship of post-war Japan: 19473. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 1:52:40 PM "I agree, but the issue is whether "apocalyptic nuke-wielding nazis" or 19474. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 1:54:44 PM other than Giulio's scenario in which Islamist radicals keep crashing jumbo jets in the USA and creating a Postman- or Waterworld-style economic-social-total apocalypse. 19475. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 1:55:00 PM Well, now that Rask has joined the discussion, the quality of the opposing views has improved meteorically. 19476. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 2:01:20 PM (blush) 19477. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 2:01:32 PM pseudo 19478. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 2:30:26 PM "Well, I had thought someone would bring up China as a threat to East Asian security and was surprised that no one had done until now. But 19479. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 2:30:53 PM The problem, however, is that it is very difficult to measure the prophylactic impacts of action are almost impossible to quantify, while the detrimental impacts of the same are easy to see. For all we know, humanity would have been annhilated by some biological plague without even the haphazard restrictions placed on Iraq. 19480. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 2:48:50 PM Message # 19447: But now we gain almost all of the productivity benefits of European brainpower *without* having a good share of them working for the enemy, or dead in a camp somewhere" 19481. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 2:50:20 PM Caesar says 19482. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 2:52:25 PM Message # 19461: "You think that if the US did nothing with regard to state-sponsored terrorism, that this would be "just a blip" on the long term growth of the national economy? On what basis do you say this?" 19483. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 2:53:52 PM Message # 19470: "A stable Japan isn't attacking Pearl Harbor and getting us in a major war? or conquering future trading partners in eastern asia?" 19484. Andonly - 1/30/2002 2:53:57 PM "Better yet, Rask is a gentleman, and is less likely to make you his bitch after you make silly pronouncements." 19485. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 2:58:44 PM Message # 19484 19486. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 2:59:31 PM You're a girl? 19487. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 3:00:31 PM Message # 19471: "What is your view [about whether US policy made a nuclear war more or less likely]?" 19488. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 3:01:13 PM Message # 19473 19489. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 3:05:17 PM "The bulk of the post-war (pre-1973) productivity growth in the USA that is attributable to the acquisition of scientific & technological 19490. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 3:18:42 PM Message # 19478: "I don't know, but security guarantees are presently very cheap, and I see them as a worthwhile insurance policy." 19491. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 3:19:03 PM Message # 19479 19492. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 3:34:35 PM "I am not one of those who believe that the terrorists attack the USA because they hate your "way of life" and your "liberties". Their alleged 19493. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 3:34:48 PM 19494. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 3:36:44 PM Message # 19489: "Would US productivity growth had been less if those minds had stayed in a stable and democratic Europe and made their discoveries there?...My point was that we also would have benefited if Einstein, Bohr, et al had remained in a Europe where the Nazis never came to power." 19495. jonesatlaw - 1/30/2002 3:41:00 PM Pseudo- in your 19496. jonesatlaw - 1/30/2002 3:41:19 PM WRT military rule in the region, I think that the role of small relatively cohesive economic and social elites (later in collaboration with private interests from N.Am. and Europe) can hardly be overestimated. 19497. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 3:59:38 PM Message # 19492 19498. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 4:00:25 PM Message # 19492 19499. Andonly - 1/30/2002 4:01:08 PM "your prose, filled with lions who take out life insurance in zebra-meat before murdering their hyenas wives, can cause a headache." 19500. Andonly - 1/30/2002 4:02:12 PM "You're a girl?" 19501. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 4:03:12 PM Message # 19492 19502. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 4:03:46 PM (me)"You agree that it is in our long term economic interest to have 19503. Andonly - 1/30/2002 4:04:33 PM "Unbelievable. After all this time, you are still blind to what I've said. I haven't said that post WWII American imperialism has had virtually zero impact on present American prosperity." 19504. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 4:09:21 PM Pseudo: interesting arguments about Lewis. I'll take them under advisement. But I would assign my views that "that terrorism is a "cover for other motives"" as coming from Lewis, rather than from the "poodle press". 19505. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 4:12:28 PM Andonly uses the word "eel" to mean slipperiness & shiftiness in argument. Naturally her perception is due to the fact that she can't keep threads of argument untangled. She purrs and gnaws on the ball of yarn. 19506. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 4:17:52 PM Message # 19499 19507. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 4:34:31 PM Andonly 19508. jonesatlaw - 1/30/2002 4:40:57 PM Andonly- Beware Ceasar inquiring about Catholic School uniforms! 19509. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 4:46:57 PM Me:"The problem, however, is that it is very difficult to measure the prophylactic impacts of action are almost impossible to quantify, 19510. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 4:47:06 PM 19511. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 4:48:08 PM No, on the very day that this whole discussion began (23 January), I summarised my position in Message # 19116, which I quote in part: 19512. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 4:49:05 PM I will return later to respond to Rask's and Jones's remarks. 19513. Andonly - 1/30/2002 4:52:26 PM "But I think the thesis that terrorism is a "cover for other motives" (i.e., "they hate our way of life", "they have our freedoms", etc.) is self-serving Americocentric hogwash .." 19514. Andonly - 1/30/2002 4:55:45 PM "Do you like lollies?" 19515. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 4:56:44 PM From 19267 19516. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 4:59:51 PM Andonly 19517. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 5:05:05 PM Message # 19513 19518. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 5:08:40 PM JC: I think pseudo is fixated on "critically". 19519. Andonly - 1/30/2002 5:08:50 PM "I think it is very easy to speculate, but impossible to prove. But some examples of what *might* have happened without US active involvement..." 19520. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 5:11:33 PM Message # 19515 19521. Andonly - 1/30/2002 5:14:09 PM "I think pseudo is fixated on "critically"." 19522. Julius Caesar - 1/30/2002 5:15:24 PM pseudo 19523. Andonly - 1/30/2002 5:18:14 PM "I hadn't once had the Bush administration in mind." 19524. Andonly - 1/30/2002 5:21:20 PM ( caesarian italics be gone!) 19525. Andonly - 1/30/2002 5:22:23 PM ...to... 19526. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 5:23:00 PM 19527. Raskolnikov - 1/30/2002 6:28:13 PM Critical: we all become extras in Road Warrior. 19528. transient1a - 1/30/2002 6:28:40 PM 19529. transient1a - 1/30/2002 6:32:50 PM Ouch! 19530. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 6:38:59 PM Transient1a's link is valueless. To advance his own views he should at least cite a peer-reviewed paper by an economist, such as one by De Long and Eichengreen linked to earlier. 19531. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 6:40:06 PM It has been argued that the Marshall Plan allowed US industry to change from wartime production to peacetime production with an economic discontinuity. 19532. pseudoerasmus - 1/30/2002 6:40:57 PM ERRATA 19533. wonkers2 - 1/30/2002 7:22:39 PM Like Bush, the Ames strain came from Texas, not Iowa 19534. concerned - 1/30/2002 7:30:18 PM Sorry to paste this, but link provided didn't work: 19535. concerned - 1/30/2002 7:30:43 PM The prison about 75 miles west of Mazar-e-Sharif is controlled by the forces of Gen. Rashid Dostum, an ethnic Uzbek who rules much of northern Afghanistan. He and other militia leaders are under international pressure to help build a credible central authority in Kabul. 19536. concerned - 1/30/2002 7:31:03 PM Under its mandate as a neutral watchdog of prison conditions, the Red Cross cannot provide a steady supply of food or medicine -- and both are short. It does arrange daily deliveries of 5,200 gallons of water, well below what's needed, doctors say. 19537. concerned - 1/30/2002 7:31:51 PM There were no claims of torture or specific abuse. The prisoners spoke, however, of another type of agony: uncertainty about the future. 19538. concerned - 1/30/2002 7:38:17 PM ...or Taliban fighters, as the case may be. 19539. wonkers2 - 1/30/2002 8:00:49 PM Last night Bush carefully avoided the word "cages" when referring to the quarters afforded the prisoners in Guantanamo. BTW anybody know why it's called "Gitmo?" I have a suspicion but it would only be a guess. 19540. jexster - 1/30/2002 8:43:57 PM TD--- 19541. joezan - 1/30/2002 10:18:58 PM BTW anybody know why it's called "Gitmo?" I have a suspicion but it would only be a guess. 19542. CalGal - 1/30/2002 10:47:41 PM Seven Things You Need To Know About the John Walker Case 19543. Cellar Door - 1/30/2002 10:52:40 PM Very interesting. The blows away a lot of the smoke that's drifted about this entire affair. 19544. Al D - 1/30/2002 11:45:10 PM Capturing terrorist armies is, unfortunately, destined to be a recurring issue. If they’re not prisoners of war because they’re not soldiers in any national army, and if they’re not criminals who violated American laws and should be tried in American courts, then what are they and what does a nation that cherishes the rule of law do with them at these tribunals planned by the Bush administration? 19545. ronski - 1/30/2002 11:47:52 PM Al D nails it, as he does quite often. 19546. CalGal - 1/30/2002 11:56:02 PM That's funny. I hadn't even really noticed the end of the piece. I was focusing on his analysis of the Walker case as far as legal strategy goes. 19547. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:02:08 AM Terms: 19548. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:04:47 AM Summary of my position: 19549. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:05:56 AM (3) I concede that current or future imperial actions may generate unforseen future benefits so non-trivial as to achieve heroical vastitude. But we can discuss the fruits of American imperial venture-capital in 50 years' time when most of us are in our early 80s (except Andonly who will be blessing us with her centenarian wisdom). 19550. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:07:52 AM Message # 19493: "Well, thanks to the stabilization substantially aided by American actions, we never had to find out if Japan would have been an imperial recidivist." 19551. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:09:39 AM Message # 19493: Why do you think this time would have been different? 19552. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:09:55 AM As for the "couple of great power wars" averted, and the US role in the averting, it seems to me that any great power war during the Cold War could only have been between the USA and the USSR. Yes, of course preventing a nuclear war has got its bright side, but surely this goes beyond our discussion of the economic benefits of "imperialism"? 19553. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:15:28 AM Message # 19509: "...US isolationism and Japanese caution avoids American entry in WWII, and Manhattan project is scrapped as too expensive". [Then Germany nukes Russia and Britain surrenders.] 19554. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:16:31 AM Message # 19518: "All this depends on what would have happened if the US hadn't used its power....more likely, based on patterns that existed before WWII, more nasty events would have happened.....all you can do is extrapolate from patterns that existed before the implementation of US post-war policies. And I don't think those patterns give Pseudo's argument much support." 19555. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:18:11 AM Message # 19496: "WRT military rule in the region, I think that the role of small relatively cohesive economic and social elites (later in collaboration with private interests from N.Am. and Europe) can hardly be overestimated." 19556. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 8:09:04 AM PE -- Message # 19284 19557. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 8:09:37 AM It's surprising that even with the phenomenal growth of many areas of Asia during the last three decades, the U.S. economy takes up almost the exact same percentage of world growth as it did nearly thirty years ago. 19558. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 8:24:34 AM Pincher Martin didn't point out errors. He simply cavilled out of context about something which was not said. As for relative decline, perhaps Pincher Martin is right, I've no idea. 19559. stostosto - 1/31/2002 8:36:02 AM I think the USA will decline relatively, and I certainly hope so. Because implicit in this is the prospect that the world's poor and miserable will see their fortunes better faster than the rich and comfortable. And I think they need it the most. (Not that I would think of denying Murkins their legal counselling, plastic surgery and weekly therapy sessions). 19560. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 9:13:34 AM PE accuses me of cavilling and taking his remarks out of context. I have already stated that PE's point about U.S. decline was not important to his overall argument. But I took nothing out of context. PE (and others) simply wandered away from the main points of the original argument before the argument got back on track. That is not an unusual pattern for debates here in The Mote. 19561. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 9:14:12 AM I then responded, perhaps a little provocatively, with Message # 19229. As anyone can read, my comments were certainly fair game. Every one of my points responded to PE's argument made in that part of his post. It was PE who then began throwing out all kinds of irrelevant trivia, like how he never reads zeitgeist political tracts. 19562. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 9:15:23 AM My comments were certainly "fair." 19563. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 9:21:48 AM Sto -- 19564. stostosto - 1/31/2002 9:38:28 AM Yes, Pincher, I will not deny I would have expected a more marked relative decline. But actually the US did expand quite fast during both the Reagan and Clinton terms. Of course, in the rest of the world a significant development was the Soviet block's implosion, which cut between a third and a half of its total GDP. One might say that the post-WWII Soviet dynamism proved superficial and reversible, while that of China was interrupted repeatedly by various disastrous Maoist campaigns and has only taken up persistant (so far) steam since 1979. 19565. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 9:38:35 AM CalGal and Caesar -- 19566. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 9:49:49 AM Sto -- 19567. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 9:49:59 AM I admit I've been only half following the argument here and I find PE's stand surprising. Certainly his view of the value of the Marshall plan is in the minority. A survey ID'd the marshall plan as the number one achievement of government. Perhaps in light of the alternative proposals such as heavy reparations on the defeated countries a la WWI, it's value becomes more evident. 19568. Andonly - 1/31/2002 9:50:29 AM "But we can discuss the fruits of American imperial venture-capital in 50 years' time when most of us are in our early 80s (except Andonly who will be blessing us with her centenarian wisdom)." 19569. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 9:51:50 AM PM, I don't find your characterization of "constant share" when by your own numbers it has moved from 19 to 27%. Shares are difficult numbers to move and as such I would judge them by a finer gauge. 19570. Andonly - 1/31/2002 9:53:10 AM "I might be insulted if I understood what you were talking about. Andonly, in order to be effectively mordant, you need to make your bons mots comprehensible." 19571. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 9:53:44 AM Thoughtful -- 19572. marjoribanks - 1/31/2002 9:55:21 AM "Our entire policy is based on what will happen tomorrow morning; there is no strategic thinking. It doesn't relate to where we want to go," she said. "What is happening now is a dead end for both sides. Neither side is ever going to achieve military victory. 19573. marjoribanks - 1/31/2002 9:56:16 AM wrong thread, sorry. 19574. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 9:59:30 AM Thoughtful -- 19575. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 10:17:57 AM To compare the relative shares of two other parts of the world and see how much they've changed during this same period, let's look at Western Europe and China: 19576. stostosto - 1/31/2002 10:19:14 AM Pincher, 19577. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 10:25:29 AM Sto, 19578. PincherMartin - 1/31/2002 10:27:23 AM Scratch that last comparison. 19579. stostosto - 1/31/2002 10:45:07 AM Pincher 19580. stostosto - 1/31/2002 10:47:09 AM Btw, Pincher, I never said anything about you endulging in jingoism, nor did I perceive that. 19581. wonkers2 - 1/31/2002 10:54:48 AM The figures on the shrinking U.S. share of the world economy are surprising. Could they in part be attributable to post-war European and Japanese recovery and new growth in other parts of the world, e.g. Asia-Pacific, rather than slow growth in the U.S.? 19582. wonkers2 - 1/31/2002 10:55:28 AM Perhaps Pseudoerasmus can enlighten us? 19583. Andonly - 1/31/2002 11:01:41 AM PE to Rask "Yes, of course preventing a nuclear war has got its bright side, but surely this goes beyond our discussion of the economic benefits of "imperialism"?" 19584. CalGal - 1/31/2002 11:06:50 AM Pincher, 19585. stostosto - 1/31/2002 11:09:29 AM Rask and others: 19586. Jonesatlaw - 1/31/2002 11:17:40 AM Pseudo- in your Message # 19555 you state in response to my claim that democracy in Europe developed with the US as inspriration for European democratic movements- Sounds like more jingo patriot swill. Given my caveat that the US as an influence was eclipsed by the experience of France, I stand on my assertion and ask that you provide some refutation other than conclusory brickbats. What would you counter with? The Glorious Revolution? The Swiss Confederacy? The Ancients? I am curious. 19587. Andonly - 1/31/2002 11:18:11 AM "But the question to me seems to be whether the economic benefits of things such as free trade, free market economies, availability of capital, protection of property rights, etc. are so self-evident that, at this stage of the game, the presence or absence of an "imperial" role by the US is largely irrelevant to the continued growth of the world economy." 19588. stostosto - 1/31/2002 11:31:11 AM Cal: 19589. Jonesatlaw - 1/31/2002 11:33:03 AM Psuedo- as for the connection between the established elites and the military in Latin America, you grossly misunderstand. The military did not intervene on behalf of some outside segment of society- the military leadership was thoroughly integrated with the elites it served. Conquistador to caudillo, or hacendos to corporate plantations, that was the progression; not military to the rescue of outsiders. 19590. CalGal - 1/31/2002 11:39:37 AM Sto--I agree. But consumers can't carry the burden forever, especially with unemployment so high. Also, the "new cars" was a key plot point. 19591. Raskolnikov - 1/31/2002 11:44:12 AM Pseudo: Well, that is an admirably circular argument, since the dispute is whether US imperial actions are what prevented Japan's "recidivism". 19592. stostosto - 1/31/2002 11:44:38 AM Jones, 19593. Raskolnikov - 1/31/2002 11:44:39 AM "Really? Can you think of many pre-WWII examples of "total destruction"? Which great power experienced total destruction before the Second World War and became a "recividist"? Germany in WWI experienced almost no physical destruction." 19594. Raskolnikov - 1/31/2002 11:44:51 AM "But the war against Japan was not what motivated the Manhattan Project." 19595. Jonesatlaw - 1/31/2002 11:46:36 AM Pseudo- As far as examples of LA democracy, I'd think Costa Rica first, not Chile. 19596. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 11:49:48 AM stosto, "Nothing wrong with consumer spending..." 19597. stostosto - 1/31/2002 11:50:42 AM Ok, so that's what's wrong with it... 19598. Jonesatlaw - 1/31/2002 11:58:45 AM Sto- I don't think for a minute that European democrats looked to the US as a "beacon of democracy" much beyond the establishment of the Second Republic. By that point there were more than enough home grown exemplars and leaders to look to. But between the time of Washington and Bolivar, the action was in the Americas, not Europe. 19599. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 11:58:46 AM Andonly, I think the bush admin was more than willing to reduce the "imperial" role of the US...or at least they talked that way..."no more nation building"..."no kyoto"..."no UN-human rights". However, the events of 9/11 seemed to thrust the unwilling administration back into the world arena as the effects of globalization necessarily mean the ills of your neighbors, even those on the other side of the world, can be visited upon your doorstep. 19600. Andonly - 1/31/2002 12:20:34 PM "It does furnish you people with a folksy exoticism that we hold very dear." 19601. Andonly - 1/31/2002 12:41:31 PM "Andonly, I think the bush admin was more than willing to reduce the "imperial" role of the US...or at least they talked that way..."no more nation building"..."no kyoto"..."no UN-human rights"." 19602. Andonly - 1/31/2002 12:42:20 PM Oops, my foregoing should have been addressed to Thoughtful. 19603. Julius Caesar - 1/31/2002 12:44:21 PM Sto has accurately recounted our exchange. 19604. Andonly - 1/31/2002 12:44:48 PM Message # 19600 19605. Andonly - 1/31/2002 12:49:58 PM (Shouldn't weekly therapy sessions count as consumer spending? How does that affect the total?) 19606. Julius Caesar - 1/31/2002 12:53:39 PM Caesar gets weekly plastic surgery. 19607. wonkers2 - 1/31/2002 12:59:17 PM The Military Tribunals on Trial by Aryeh Neier 19608. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:00:57 PM Message # 19583: "Well, if American imperialism happens to be one of the possible means by which the economic dislocation of nuclear war is averted, why should it be beyond the scope of such a discussion?" 19609. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:02:10 PM Message # 19591: "...were cheap US security guarantees for Japan worth the expected value of avoided costs?" 19610. wonkers2 - 1/31/2002 1:02:47 PM From Neier: As written, the order violates, in different ways, the rights of all four categories (of prisoners); it recalls Clemenceau's famous comment about the Dreyfus case that "military justice is to justice as military music is to music." 19611. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:02:57 PM Message # 19586: Whatever. Just as you say, the influence of the American revolution in Europe by the influence of the French revolution. So what's there to argue about. 19612. Julius Caesar - 1/31/2002 1:09:43 PM United States policy clearly made nuclear war less likely. Hirsohima and Nagasaki is a stern lesson on a world where the nuclear bomb is retained by only one power - it gets used. 19613. pseudoerasmus - 1/31/2002 1:15:33 PM "Hirsohima and Nagasaki is a stern lesson on a world where the nuclear bomb is retained by only one power - it gets used." 19614. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 1:21:18 PM andonly, I don't and never did take SDI in its various forms seriously as an effective form of defense. I've always viewed it as being an effective way of throwing govt money to our friends in the defense industry. Discussions I've had with people more in the know of such things than I, suggest it is so far from reality as to be truly a pipedream. 19615. Julius Caesar - 1/31/2002 1:21:22 PM pseudo 19616. Andonly - 1/31/2002 2:08:36 PM "I don't and never did take SDI in its various forms seriously as an effective form of defense." 19617. thoughtful - 1/31/2002 2:56:30 PM Without evidence, we'll just have to disagree as to whether events like withdrawing from kyoto, not paying UN dues, etc. constitutes an arrogance that the US can run the world without anyone else's permission or if it signals a shift toward isolationism. I suspect the latter when I see the likes of pat buchanan and other far right gopers bemoaning the "dilution of the stock" with non-christian, non-european immigration into the us. Let's not forget that while bush supposedly separated himself from the xtian coalition, he did have ralph reed put on the enron payroll. 19618. Andonly - 1/31/2002 4:04:02 PM "Let's not forget that while bush supposedly separated himself from the xtian coalition, he did have ralph reed put on the enron payroll." 19619. Wombat - 1/31/2002 4:08:11 PM The arms shipment intercepted by Israel precluded any attempt to skate over Iran's support for terrorist groups for the sake of improved relations. It seems clearer and clearer that Khatami does not have the power to influence foreign relations positively. 19620. stostosto - 1/31/2002 4:17:22 PM Ando: 19621. Andonly - 1/31/2002 4:31:21 PM "...or if it signals a shift toward isolationism." 19622. ronski - 1/31/2002 4:41:43 PM Andonly, 19623. Andonly - 1/31/2002 4:42:28 PM "The arms shipment intercepted by Israel precluded any attempt to skate over Iran's support for terrorist groups for the sake of improved relations." 19624. Andonly - 1/31/2002 4:43:42 PM "All in all a virtuous cycle is created in which also the services of gardeners, pool cleansers, pizza delivery boys and other Mexicans are experiencing a surging demand. The market is largely self-correcting, see?" 19625. Andonly - 1/31/2002 4:50:01 PM Should intelligence reveal a nuclear danger from Tehran coming onstream, however, a surgical airstrike would be called for. Saving our lives comes before winning their hearts and minds. 19626. ronski - 1/31/2002 4:52:39 PM I doubt it. I think he believes there is a threat somewhere down the line that if a fundie regime remains in power in Iran, and Iran develops nukes, that they will be less interested in making sure they do not fall into the wrong hands than say, Pakistan has been. 19627. Andonly - 1/31/2002 4:58:40 PM Well, that's a point. 19628. PincherMartin - 2/1/2002 7:51:36 AM Sto -- 19629. PincherMartin - 2/1/2002 8:22:53 AM CalGal -- Message # 19584 19630. Wombat - 2/1/2002 8:32:56 AM Ando: 19631. Wombat - 2/1/2002 9:09:24 AM For "tolerant," substitute "open." 19632. Andonly - 2/1/2002 10:36:50 AM Wombat, 19633. Andonly - 2/1/2002 10:39:45 AM I shouldn't have shorthanded "conservative clerics" to "clerics". 19634. Jonesatlaw - 2/1/2002 11:02:04 AM Pseudo- The original comparison was in response to your assertion that the Marshal Plan was not as significant to European recovery as was the intervention by the CIA in funding and supporting center-right parties in Europe. I attempted to contrast the results of American policy in Latin America to those in Europe, as US policy has included military and CIA intervetion in support of center-right political movements in each area. The difference in US policy in the two areas to me is characterized by the economic and social intervention that was practiced in Europe in conjuntion with the military and political intervention in favor of center-right parties. The differing outcomes is due at least in part to the differing policies that the US carried out. I will grant that the the overall social and economic development of the two areas is not equal at the begining of the post WWII period, but the level of destruction in Europe as the result of the war narrows the economic gap considerably. After twenty years of differing US policy, economic conditions and the health of democratic governments is stronger in Europe than in Latin America. While the domestic policies of the different states involved are not to be discounted in acertaining the root causes of the success of Europe and the struggles of Latin America, it seems that US policy did result in different outcomes beyond the variables of domestic policy. 19635. Jonesatlaw - 2/1/2002 11:13:27 AM Let's start with the basics - what is the probability of a military coup absent the US role in post-war Japan? 19636. pseudoerasmus - 2/1/2002 11:23:33 AM Message # 19634: "Pseudo- The original comparison was in response to your assertion that the Marshal Plan was not as significant to European recovery as was the intervention by the CIA in funding and supporting center-right parties in Europe." 19637. pseudoerasmus - 2/1/2002 11:24:03 AM Message # 19635: "There is a interesting little volume on how a military coup was attempted just prior to the release of the Emperor's recorded announcement to the nation concerning the surrender." 19638. pseudoerasmus - 2/1/2002 11:42:25 AM During the Cold War, the USA supported military dictatorships in Greece, as well as South Korea and Taiwan. Didn't turn out to be so bad in the long term. 19639. Jonesatlaw - 2/1/2002 11:49:47 AM Psueo- 19640. Jonesatlaw - 2/1/2002 11:53:08 AM Pseudo- High marks for posturing, low marks 19641. pseudoerasmus - 2/1/2002 11:59:56 AM Jonesatlaw, your idea that the difference between the political / economic underdevelopment of Central America and the political/economic development of Western Europe is due, in any significant way, to the difference in the kind of US interventions in each region, is profoundly stupid on its face, and requires no further refutation than a dismissal by wave of hand. 19642. Jonesatlaw - 2/1/2002 12:12:25 PM Message # 19641 19643. Andonly - 2/1/2002 12:58:34 PM Jones consents to play, puppy eats ball. 19644. pseudoerasmus - 2/1/2002 1:19:14 PM By the way, Andonly, yesterday you said that I am given to routinely "discounting of the likelihood of events' causative factors including anything to do with personalities, cultures, or ideologies...." 19645. pseudoerasmus - 2/1/2002 1:25:14 PM "Jones consents to play, puppy eats ball." 19646. Andonly - 2/1/2002 1:30:39 PM "You are of course not obliged to pay close attention to what I say. But then you really shouldn't be flapping your pudenda that you try to pass off as a speech organ, either." 19647. sakonige - 2/1/2002 4:47:20 PM The puppy is fastidious about what he plays with. 19648. betty - 2/1/2002 4:50:10 PM PE, 19649. arkymalarky - 2/1/2002 8:32:51 PM Sorry. I'm busting a gut here. 19650. joezan - 2/1/2002 11:03:41 PM Very funny Matt Labash piece about the Gitmo prisoners, from The Weekly Standard: 19651. concerned - 2/2/2002 1:10:54 AM Western Justice is infinitely preferable to Slavery and Stoning 19652. concerned - 2/2/2002 1:13:06 AM I think the USA will decline relatively, and I certainly hope so. Because implicit in this is the prospect that the world's poor and miserable will see their fortunes better faster than the rich and comfortable. And I think they need it the most. (Not that I would think of denying Murkins their legal counselling, plastic surgery and weekly therapy sessions). 19653. concerned - 2/2/2002 1:17:11 AM I prefer to think of poorer people being uplifted economically, than of attempting to wring a vicarious sense of revenge out of their improving fortunes. 19654. concerned - 2/2/2002 1:20:42 AM del ',' from my last. 19655. concerned - 2/2/2002 1:23:51 AM What is the point of keep asking this question since I have expounded from Day 1 that Yankistan's guarantee of Japanese security generated non-trivial benefits. 19656. concerned - 2/2/2002 1:39:13 AM And I mistrust this admin, drenched in the energy industry, isn't also eyeing big oil when it talks about the evil iraq, iran nations. 19657. concerned - 2/2/2002 1:43:36 AM Or should I have posted: What's with this Lefty fixation on oil, anyway? 19658. RustlerPike - 2/2/2002 7:55:42 AM I'm trying to think of why they're putting toothpaste up their ass. 19659. joezan - 2/2/2002 8:23:56 AM Maybe they've been brushing their teeth with the K-Y Jelly? 19660. joezan - 2/2/2002 8:36:08 AM Bin Laden: Yes, I did it. 19661. joezan - 2/2/2002 8:43:30 AM ..."Furthermore..", said the ample-bosomed (and bottomed) former Secretary of State, hiking her skirt up over the lacy tops of her painfully-stretched thigh-highs, "...this administration has refused my repeated requests that they allow me to go over and give those Arabs a little peek of this - totally ignoring the positive, liberating effects my little show has had on the leaders of oppressive Muslim regimes in the past..." 19662. joezan - 2/2/2002 8:45:36 AM OOOps! 19663. joezan - 2/2/2002 8:46:35 AM Toys. 19664. RustlerPike - 2/2/2002 10:05:26 AM Joe, 19665. joezan - 2/2/2002 10:38:16 AM Could be. 19666. Jonesatlaw - 2/2/2002 11:33:23 AM What's wrong with acknowledging that the Geneva Convention covers the detainees as a preliminary? I haven't taken the time to review the specific provisions of the convention, and will defer to any poster who has and would be kind enough to provide a link, but I think it would be a good idea to allow full access by outside investigators to insure that there is no question of our humane treatment of the prisoners, and that our sorting out process will fairly identify war criminals for appropriate treatment and relegate the remaining to POW status. If it is the position of the military that the sorting out is already completed, then we should make that crystal clear to world opinion. 19667. joezan - 2/2/2002 11:37:14 AM jones: 19668. joezan - 2/2/2002 11:43:40 AM And, really, if I happened to be a captured combatant - legal or otherwise -while I might whine about The Geneva Convention, blah-blah-blah, I would not really expect to be treated any better than the Gitmo guys are being treated. 19669. judithathome - 2/2/2002 12:01:21 PM Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 19670. joezan - 2/2/2002 12:27:04 PM ...also, according to the convention, we cannot use weapons on them if they attempt to escape; we'd have to pay them at least what our own guys are paid (so they can go home in a couple of months and buy a fiefdom, I guess); let them work in the kitchen (yea - give these animals knives - riiiiiiight); etc..... 19671. judithathome - 2/2/2002 12:35:05 PM Hmmmm...I haven't read the entire link, which is very long, but thus far, I haven't come across what you've mentioned, Joe. 19672. joezan - 2/2/2002 12:36:07 PM Your point being? 19673. judithathome - 2/2/2002 12:44:06 PM Nothing in particular...maybe you could point to me to the specific Articles where it says we are required to arm the detainees with knives? 19674. joezan - 2/2/2002 12:47:49 PM Start at Art. 25 - I don't remember the exact article. 19675. judithathome - 2/2/2002 12:50:21 PM Thanks... 19676. judithathome - 2/2/2002 12:55:44 PM Labor is in Section III, Articles 49 through 57. 19677. RustlerPike - 2/2/2002 1:32:25 PM What's this about allowing the prisoners the same number of wives as they had at home and no less porn channels than are available in the town next to where they are being detained? 19678. joezan - 2/2/2002 1:37:37 PM Pike: 19679. judithathome - 2/2/2002 1:39:52 PM Is this the same way you came to the conclusions about the Geneva Convention rules? Because no one denied it? ;-) 19680. joezan - 2/2/2002 1:54:32 PM No, judithataloss - the Convention articles are there for you to read - (HINT - not in the labor articles). 19681. RustlerPike - 2/2/2002 2:04:47 PM The asswiping prohibition is from the Haddith. 19682. judithathome - 2/2/2002 2:17:57 PM Jeez, joezan, there's no need to get snotty. 19683. Andonly - 2/2/2002 2:22:46 PM I bet any actual (as opposed to counterfeit, Joezanian) Islamic asswiping prohibition requires using objects other than the hand to actually wipe off the shit from one's ass. 19684. RustlerPike - 2/2/2002 2:46:48 PM In Kiswahili, the expression for 'right hand side' is 'upande wa kulia' -'the feeding/eating side'. The phrase for left is 'upande wa kushoto' - but I've never managed to find a dictionary, or anyone, who could translate 'kushoto' on its own. I always figured it was an archaic word for asswiping. 19685. RustlerPike - 2/2/2002 2:47:31 PM I think Joe and Judy like each other. 19686. judithathome - 2/2/2002 2:57:10 PM You jest... 19687. Andonly - 2/2/2002 3:05:30 PM Okay, Zan, here are a couple ahadith on the subject of asswiping which should set you straight: 19688. Andonly - 2/2/2002 3:10:43 PM Oh, and also, if you eat onions or garlic, you're not permitted in a mosque until the smell wears off because if you stink you'll distract others from prayer. 19689. Andonly - 2/2/2002 3:18:33 PM Book 2, Number 0502: 19690. joezan - 2/2/2002 6:21:12 PM I dunno, Ando - this doesn't explain the reports the prisoners aren't using the TP generously provided by Uncle Sam. Perhaps it's cultural as opposed to religious. But one of the Muslims in the chatroom seemed to agree (reluctantly) - he was the one who mentioned Haddith. 19691. joezan - 2/2/2002 6:24:42 PM No - WAIT! I've got it - how stupid of me! 19692. joezan - 2/2/2002 8:50:18 PM Ya ask me, these two "media giants" deserve each other. 19693. joezan - 2/2/2002 8:58:00 PM Ando: 19694. Absensia - 2/2/2002 9:57:03 PM Gee Joe, this chat room of yours sounds absolutely fascinating. I'd like the url if you don't mind, or, if it's on mIRC please tell me which server and channel. 19695. joezan - 2/2/2002 10:34:50 PM Abs: 19696. Absensia - 2/2/2002 10:38:54 PM Stalk you? Me? Hahahahahahahahahahah. I'm surprised you found one where they were speaking english. Most would be taling in urdu or arabic. 19697. joezan - 2/2/2002 10:59:50 PM Who here is Muslim? 19698. RustlerPike - 2/3/2002 2:20:59 AM I find that Ossama bin Laden is behaving a lot like a dead person would in these circumstances, lately. 19699. Andonly - 2/3/2002 10:11:24 AM Where anyone can get it. The ahadith are written down, therefore they can wind up on the internet just like Talmudic stuff and Biblical stuff can. Open up your favorite search engine and plug in "hadith defecation" and you'll get thousands of hits, several of which will be relevant. 19700. Andonly - 2/3/2002 10:13:34 AM Well, not an apostle, actually, more a compiler. Ezra without the literary bent. 19701. Andonly - 2/3/2002 10:16:38 AM "I find that Ossama bin Laden is behaving a lot like a dead person would in these circumstances, lately." 19702. CalGal - 2/3/2002 7:05:29 PM The End of NATO? 19703. CalGal - 2/3/2002 7:06:47 PM I find that Ossama bin Laden is behaving a lot like a dead person would in these circumstances, lately. 19704. concerned - 2/3/2002 8:43:30 PM Re. 19701 - 19705. Cellar Door - 2/4/2002 12:49:57 AM There is no "War on Terrorism." It's just a propaganda campaign to keep the Bush dictatorship in power. 19706. concerned - 2/4/2002 12:58:42 AM cllrdr - 19707. joezan - 2/4/2002 7:56:40 AM One giant plus I can see right off the bat in a NATO-less world: 19708. jexster - 2/4/2002 4:34:42 PM Much of the U.S. delegation to a major security conference in Munich came away concerned yesterday that the Europeans aren't ready to play a larger role in the war against terrorism and that President Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric hadn't improved matters. 19709. joezan - 2/4/2002 6:31:02 PM Hah - screw 'em. 19710. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:31:11 PM Perhaps we need to convince our enemies that there is a softer target in Europe. Buchanan has a funny line in his new book. 19711. Al D - 2/4/2002 7:32:06 PM What cellar means is that if the War were serious they would be after him. 19712. joezan - 2/4/2002 11:09:28 PM 19713. Jonesatlaw - 2/4/2002 11:54:48 PM Joezan- Did you ever read the Geneva protocols that were linked? The majority of your contentions are absolutely untrue, and that is clearly spelled out in the link. For example, the provision regarding use of weapons against prisoners attempting escape does not ban them. It does indicate that deadly force should not be used without warning. A simple sign in Arabic and a few direct verbal warnings would suffice- along the lines of "cross this line and you will be shot, and we will shoot to kill" or "see that fence Mahmoud? It's got about 1500 volts at 20 amps running through it- anybody who touches it is instant shisk-ke-bab? Got it? Good." 19714. RustlerPike - 2/5/2002 4:59:08 AM Help! 19715. joezan - 2/5/2002 7:55:18 AM Jones: 19716. thoughtful - 2/5/2002 8:42:57 AM An aside, we are in the throes of designing our new home and I wanted to see if they make residential urinals...so a search on the internet revealed an opportunity to by Osama bin Laden urinal cakes....just cracked me up. 19717. concerned - 2/5/2002 12:26:12 PM From the WSJ Opinion Journal - I really want to see Wombat read this and then tell us what an 'excellent' job x42 did combatting terrorism: 19718. concerned - 2/5/2002 12:26:32 PM When Sen. Alfonse D'Amato pushed through legislation that sought to cripple the Iranian funding of terrorism by mandating U.S. retaliation against foreign or American companies that aided its oil industry, Mr. Berger advised a veto unless the bill were amended to allow the president to waive the sanctions. When the bill passed--with the waiver--Mr. Berger successfully blocked the implementation of sanctions in virtually every case. 19719. concerned - 2/5/2002 12:26:53 PM President Clinton refused to adopt proposals that he establish a "president's list" of seemingly charitable groups that were really fund-raising fronts for terrorists, to warn Americans to stay away. Despite evidence from a 1993 FBI wiretap that the Homeland Foundation was raising money for the terrorist group Hamas, Mr. Clinton did not seize its assets, and the group functioned until President Bush closed it down. 19720. concerned - 2/5/2002 12:27:11 PM 19721. concerned - 2/5/2002 12:27:27 PM The real question, however, is why Mr. Clinton was so tentative in the war on terror. Everything else seemed to come first. He wouldn't toughen immigration enforcement because he feared a backlash from his political base. He waived sanctions against companies doing business with Iran because he worried about European reaction. There was no effort to cut off the flow of money to terror fronts because Janet Reno raised civil libertarian concerns. (Mr. Clinton did freeze the Hamas assets, but since they didn't maintain accounts in their own name, it netted no money.) 19722. OhioSTOPAS - 2/5/2002 12:37:14 PM Dick Morris, Connie? You must be desperate. 19724. rubberducky - 2/5/2002 12:42:13 PM i know this thread hasn't been a hotbed of activity recently, but i'd like to keep copy/paste jobs to a single post; two as an absolute max. 19725. OhioSTOPAS - 2/5/2002 12:48:43 PM Jonesatlaw (Message # 19713): Don't bother Joezan with the facts. He's admitted he considers them irrelevant: 19726. concerned - 2/5/2002 12:54:20 PM Re. 19722 - 19727. OhioSTOPAS - 2/5/2002 1:10:42 PM " . . . working with the Pentagon to revamp the military to better respond to rogue nation and terrorist threats . . ." Good one. Translation: "Abandon existing efforts to track down Osama bin Laden and instead focus on 'Star Wars'." 19728. OhioSTOPAS - 2/5/2002 1:16:37 PM Bush: "on the job" 19729. concerned - 2/5/2002 1:23:40 PM Maybe 'shiftless' isn't quite the right adjective. x42 was a champion fundraiser for the Democrat Party, if nothing else. 19730. Andonly - 2/5/2002 8:53:26 PM [Why can't you yawner Clinton obsessives stay over in Politics where you belong?] 19731. joezan - 2/5/2002 10:50:45 PM thoughtful: 19732. joezan - 2/5/2002 10:53:28 PM Ohihole - Message # 19725: 19733. OhioSTOPAS - 2/6/2002 1:25:55 PM Well, you actually did have several of your facts wrong, as Jonesatlaw pointed out. 19734. thoughtful - 2/6/2002 2:32:12 PM question for someone of a legal bent...the things they are charging lindh with like "conspiring to contribute services to al qaeda"...are these even laws on the books or are they something dreamt up post 9-11? 19735. judithathome - 2/6/2002 2:36:58 PM I don't know but what sort of services are they talking about, exactly? "Conspiring" to contribute them must require more than one person... 19736. thoughtful - 2/6/2002 2:46:41 PM joez, I know you can get commercial ones, but they are UUUUGGGGLLLLYYYY. I was hoping for something smaller, more discreet. I didn't go for the suggestion of one friend that said, just get a short hose and put a funnel in the end of it! 19737. Jonesatlaw - 2/6/2002 2:49:07 PM I'll post in the inferno re urinals. 19738. PelleNilsson - 2/6/2002 3:00:02 PM Why not in The Good Life? It certainly feels goood after a couple of pints. 19739. thoughtful - 2/6/2002 3:21:29 PM jones, I was hoping you'd reply to my question about the charges against lindh in # 19734 above. 19740. jexster - 2/7/2002 11:23:33 AM I don't know about anyone else, but JoeZ and I are ready to die for Mullah Moron in his Holy Crusade against the Axes of Evil! 19742. rubberducky - 2/7/2002 11:29:59 AM Jex's toys 19743. rubberducky - 2/7/2002 11:30:16 AM Now that the Afghanistan war is simmering down, where should America go next? Should America even turn its attention to another nation or stop with what has thus far been accomplished? 19744. CalGal - 2/7/2002 11:33:32 AM Ducky, did you hear that some guy tried to get into the cockpit and was ko'ed by an ax? 19745. OhioSTOPAS - 2/7/2002 11:42:57 AM Look out, Axis of Evil, we've got axes too. 19746. CalGal - 2/7/2002 11:44:03 AM hahahaha. 19747. greystoke - 2/7/2002 11:53:25 AM Drone strikes convoy. 19748. OhioSTOPAS - 2/7/2002 11:53:25 AM The pilot decided to swing first and ax questions later. 19749. judithathome - 2/7/2002 12:18:48 PM Has anyone heard about the release of 27 prisoners we rounded up from a village a few days ago? 19750. greystoke - 2/7/2002 12:37:08 PM judith 19751. jexster - 2/7/2002 12:44:42 PM French Foreign Minister Calls Bush Axes of Evil Policy "Simplistic" 19752. judithathome - 2/7/2002 12:47:42 PM Yes, but I can also understand admitting to a mistake when you make one. 19753. judithathome - 2/7/2002 12:48:07 PM Make that "when" an "if". 19754. jexster - 2/7/2002 12:50:34 PM "The red ink that Bush wants us to bleed to line the pockets of the defense industry, along with the tax cuts for the rich, will do more damage to our country than any terrorist. The result will be an economically hobbled US, unable to solve its major domestic problems or support meaningful foreign aid, its enormous wealth sacrificed at the altar of military hardware that is largely without purpose. Why the panic to throw billions more at the military when even the Pentagon brass have told us it is not needed? Our military forces, much maligned as inadequate by Bush during the election campaign, proved to be lacking in nothing once the administration decided to stop playing footsie with the Taliban and eliminate those monsters of our own creation... His astonishing budget makes sense only if we are planning to use our mighty military in a pseudo-religious quest to create a super-dominant Pax Americana" 19755. greystoke - 2/7/2002 1:01:07 PM judith 19756. judithathome - 2/7/2002 1:11:24 PM I agree that you must shoot back at someone shooting at you but, from the sketchy details we're getting, it would seem they were sleeping. It's too bad things like this happen but I think it would be wiser to admit to it and as you say, roll heads if they made such a huge mistake. But I've seen enough military life to know heads seldom roll...more likely, heads will be transferred to another assignment until retirement is made. 19757. greystoke - 2/7/2002 1:28:24 PM judith 19758. judithathome - 2/7/2002 1:31:15 PM Ha! I rather like it! ;-) 19759. rubberducky - 2/7/2002 2:30:35 PM CG: 19760. Julius Caesar - 2/7/2002 3:10:40 PM 19761. Julius Caesar - 2/7/2002 3:12:14 PM Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) told me that "Lumping those countries together was a failed strategy if it was designed to make people take sides." 19762. jexster - 2/8/2002 2:11:32 AM We are at war, and we must pay the price to fight a war," the White House pronounces in its proposed budget for fiscal year 2003. But that price doesn't appear to include $20 billion that the Bush administration promised—and that Congress subsequently authorized—to help rebuild lower Manhattan after terrorists leveled the World Trade Center. In the Feb. 5 New York Times, Raymond Hernandez reports that only $11.1 billion has been turned over to New York. The Bush budget does not include the remaining $9 billion 19763. jexster - 2/8/2002 2:26:00 AM If the "Axes of Evil" line weren't enough to clue you into the fact that the War on Terror is at best a bad joke, at worst a scam...consider that Bu$h Defense budget 19764. joezan - 2/8/2002 7:48:56 AM We non-defense experts are a bit puzzled about why an attack by maniacs armed with box cutters justifies spending $15 billion... 19765. RustlerPike - 2/8/2002 8:13:56 AM What are 3,000 people between friends, Joe? 19766. OhioSTOPAS - 2/8/2002 8:48:55 AM Spare us the phony outrage, fellas. 19767. judithathome - 2/8/2002 9:08:45 AM I don't see you harping when Bush maximizes 9/11, Joe. He is using it to justify getting his own way. What would be so illogical about canceling tax cuts to get the money he "needs" for the military build-up? Or cutting some of the bureaucratic SNAFUs that make it so expensive to have a military? 19768. judithathome - 2/8/2002 9:12:40 AM This is, after all, your "President with a MBA"...let him use some of that business acumen to solve this problem. I run a business, too, and I can't solve my problems by asking the bank for a lot of money to run it while at the same time cutting all my prices by 70% so the buyers of antiques will feel better. 19769. joezan - 2/8/2002 9:23:22 AM Ohio: 19770. judithathome - 2/8/2002 9:28:05 AM Then why aren't you sane non-defense experts raising hell tht the CIA was asleep on the job or didn't have the moles in place to get the info about the box cutters or the bombs or the plans they are currently making? Why not build up the dike where the leaks are appearing? 19771. joezan - 2/8/2002 9:32:01 AM judith: 19772. judithathome - 2/8/2002 9:40:25 AM So that means you can't give a good argument? I was making the point that you guys were the ones who rah rahed GW's mighty MBA...."NOW we'll have a business man in there! NOW we'll see the government run as a business!" 19773. joezan - 2/8/2002 9:50:33 AM Then why aren't you sane non-defense experts raising hell tht the CIA was asleep on the job or didn't have the moles in place to get the info....blabbedy-blah-blah-blah... 19774. joezan - 2/8/2002 10:06:27 AM ...though, of course, all efforts to improve our intelligence-gathering will be met by patriots such as yourself and Ohio with scorn, derision, mistrust, and much upper-gastrointestinal rumblings as unnecessary impositions on our "freedoms". 19775. judithathome - 2/8/2002 10:13:44 AM I wasn't criticizing Bush's actions re: the CIA; I was criticizing your not bringing it up as a function that needs improvement while yelling for SDI and beefed up tanks, etc. I know he has been putting forth efforts to improve what had been allowed to lag in the CIA and kudos to him for it. 19776. Absensia - 2/8/2002 10:21:14 AM Joe, your responses above are clearly hubris filled. Ohio and Judith do have their own businesses. You scorn them, saying they don't understand the facts. Well, as I understand it, you aren't running your own business, so how can you put them down for business accumen? 19777. joezan - 2/8/2002 10:42:29 AM Abs: 19778. joezan - 2/8/2002 10:43:08 AM Did someone mention hubris? 19779. judithathome - 2/8/2002 10:48:49 AM Joezan, it is clear everytime you respond to someone who thinks differently than you do, scorn is the tenor of your post. 19780. joezan - 2/8/2002 11:49:27 AM I love the way you pre-judge what Ohio and I will have to say...why should we even bother to engage you in conversation? Just write the little script in your head; you've already done it, anyhow, so I needn't bother to suggest it. 19781. jexster - 2/8/2002 12:06:37 PM His point is that al-Qaeda lacks the wherewithal to do the US any real harm. His point is that they shot their wad on 911, afterwhich we drove them out of Afghanistan, and now there's nothing to worry about. 19782. jexster - 2/8/2002 12:07:34 PM Advice to JoeZ - it is horribly difficult to tackle PK on substance... 19783. jexster - 2/8/2002 12:18:51 PM Or the equivalent of Saginaw PD buying an F16... 19784. joezan - 2/8/2002 12:23:40 PM jex: 19785. Wombat - 2/8/2002 12:24:07 PM Zan: 19786. jexster - 2/8/2002 12:27:50 PM In the clearest sign that the statehouse boom times of surplus politicking are history, proposals to raise taxes are under consideration in 19 states, says the survey, by the National Conference of State Legislatures.NyT 19787. jexster - 2/8/2002 12:29:10 PM Krugman NEVER stated that he didn't want a military which is why I ask you to provide some support for your sputum 19788. jexster - 2/8/2002 12:33:00 PM Now I must admit a certain love of heavy artillery...ever since I learned about Krupp in the 10th grade. I pee in my pants every time I read The Arms of Krupp and Guns of August but really...Rumsfeld tried to kill this program BEFORE 911... 19789. PelleNilsson - 2/8/2002 12:50:09 PM jex 19790. PelleNilsson - 2/8/2002 12:54:06 PM The snotty Europeans strike again. 19791. Jonesatlaw - 2/8/2002 12:57:28 PM To give credit where it is due, I must commend Bush's initial handling of the 'war on terroism' though I quibble with a few points. 19792. Jonesatlaw - 2/8/2002 1:05:29 PM Jex- like you, I have a fascination with arms and the technology of war, though since adulthood it has always been tempered by a healthy skepticism of military procurement policies. 19793. jexster - 2/8/2002 3:36:33 PM That's right Pelle... 19794. joezan - 2/8/2002 8:23:39 PM Wombat - Message # 19785: 19795. jexster - 2/8/2002 11:01:16 PM George$ Bu$h simplisme et moronique! 19796. jexster - 2/8/2002 11:14:38 PM Bu$h's Money-grubbing Game 19797. jexster - 2/8/2002 11:14:55 PM 19798. joezan - 2/8/2002 11:25:32 PM jex: 19799. Al D - 2/8/2002 11:32:43 PM joezan 19800. Julius Caesar - 2/9/2002 9:41:21 AM Canning Krugman 19801. OhioSTOPAS - 2/9/2002 10:31:20 AM Julius: "intellectual thuggery" 19802. judithathome - 2/9/2002 10:50:19 AM Judith "distinctly remembers" my calling for the nuking of Muslims - in fact, she was "shocked" by my statements. 19803. judithathome - 2/9/2002 10:51:34 AM I guess we could blast them off the face of Erath but I meant earth. 19804. jexster - 2/9/2002 11:02:01 AM Is there no limit for this clown? 19805. jexster - 2/9/2002 11:05:05 AM JoeZ you have a point. A very good point. A most excellent point. 19806. Julius Caesar - 2/9/2002 11:19:23 AM Jexster 19807. Julius Caesar - 2/9/2002 11:19:43 AM if=I 19808. jexster - 2/9/2002 11:31:58 AM You are welcome O Mighty One... 19809. jexster - 2/9/2002 12:31:05 PM "Now that the Bush administration has taken the tarp off its proposed 2003 budget, I've got one piece of advice for all you children of the future: Stay in the womb as long as you can... As long as you are surrounded by amniotic fluid -- if you've simply begun to subdivide and consist solely of a dozen cells --you'll have health insurance. That's a lot more than 40 million Americans (almost 11 million of them actual children) can say... Post-born American children had better hope... they never get sick; their parents will never need job protection or training; they live in a region in which the weather makes housing unnecessary... Maybe there's a better option for future children than staying in the womb. They should figure out a way to turn themselves into F-22 fighter jets, AC-130U gunships or Hellfire anti-attack missiles," all part of Bush's $70 billion weapons budget. 19810. jexster - 2/9/2002 5:45:12 PM Bellicosity Breakdown: Snookered by Bu$h's Warmongering 19811. jexster - 2/9/2002 5:48:30 PM " 'War' as a Republican political ploy is taking off in all directions. But "war" in its original packaging -- the way it was sold in so many loud editorials last fall -- is crumbling to pieces. The recent uproar over the Geneva Convention status of the Al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo Bay serves as a case in point. Bush may be right about the detainees' status; but this very fact proves that his earlier bellicosity was off base." 19812. jexster - 2/9/2002 8:17:32 PM IN AN INTERVIEW with the Guardian newspaper, EU External Relations Commissioner Patten urged European governments to stand up to the United States, which he said is in danger of going into “unilateral overdrive.” 19813. jexster - 2/9/2002 10:35:45 PM Hail Caesar! 19814. Cellar Door - 2/10/2002 1:30:39 AM The latest from MWO: 19815. joezan - 2/10/2002 8:31:39 AM Actually, I was feeling pretty bulletproof, living in the state with the most Muslims and all. At least they won't poison any of the Great Lakes, or fly any planes into Michigan's nuke plants. 19816. joezan - 2/10/2002 8:36:51 AM ...then again, they lobbed missiles willy-nilly back and forth between Baghdad and Teheran for a decade. 19817. Cellar Door - 2/10/2002 10:20:17 AM joezan's Own Private Idaho ? 19818. joezan - 2/10/2002 10:29:03 AM Cellar: 19819. judithathome - 2/10/2002 10:33:27 AM Well, Joe, move to Montana and we can bring up Frank Zappa. 19820. jexster - 2/10/2002 12:43:16 PM Dental floss 19821. jexster - 2/10/2002 12:44:23 PM "The REAL question I have about 911 is why aren't we investigating the failure to discover it beforehand." 19822. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/11/2002 11:29:21 AM The patriotic fervor and nationalistic pride (and all of it's variants at the Winter Olympics), convince me that too many Americans are desperate for respect. 19823. marjoribanks - 2/11/2002 11:56:59 AM Read this article. 19824. betty - 2/11/2002 1:30:00 PM Well, the world does need more sharp dressers in power, CoCo Channel for goddess! 19825. joezan - 2/11/2002 10:49:35 PM 19826. joezan - 2/11/2002 11:05:23 PM I predict a double-suicide: Banks and his boy Fisk. 19827. RustlerPike - 2/11/2002 11:32:34 PM I'll admit I was part of the cacophony sometimes, too, Jozejan. My only excuse is that - well, how can I explain it? I think if I were living in the US I would have had a more consistent attitude about this war. From my Israeli-centered perspective, I (still) can't seem to get my geopolitical radar to properly decipher this subject and develop a more consistent approach to it. 19828. RustlerPike - 2/11/2002 11:34:37 PM However, I distinctly remember a NYT piece from a few days ago that suggested a much larger civilian toll. 19829. joezan - 2/12/2002 6:43:28 AM I read that too. 19830. judithathome - 2/12/2002 8:05:21 AM I suppose the reports from Ground Zero, which have gone down in the estimated numbers of victims, wouldn't be an example of the theory that it takes time and a lot of work to get it the total numbers right, would it? 19831. RustlerPike - 2/12/2002 10:05:22 AM This sexual tension between you two, Joe and Judy - it's unbearable sometimes. 19832. Jonesatlaw - 2/12/2002 11:29:59 AM Osama, where you bin Hidin? 19833. marjoribanks - 2/12/2002 12:29:06 PM Amazing, I just got an e-mail from a Dutch former classmate telling me that not only were we at the same college at the same time as the person suspected to have kidnapped Pearl, but that we once shook hands with him and talked about local politics at a meeting of the college debating body. 19834. marjoribanks - 2/12/2002 12:29:47 PM Zan is on drugs again, I see. 19835. judithathome - 2/12/2002 12:52:47 PM Pike, you really must get out more. You hallucinate far too often for a healthy man. 19836. RustlerPike - 2/12/2002 4:58:50 PM Judith: 19837. joezan - 2/12/2002 11:34:37 PM judith - Message # 19830: 19838. joezan - 2/12/2002 11:34:56 PM I don't think so. 19839. concerned - 2/13/2002 12:07:37 AM Haven't posted in this thread in a little while. I just wanted to mention what seems to be a salutary effect, from where I sit, of GWB's classification of N. Korea, Iraq and Iran as an 'evil axis'. This has tended to marginalize these extremist regimes worldwide, and I have even run across mention that Iraq may be willing to 'compromise' regarding the resumption of arms inspections. 19840. concerned - 2/13/2002 12:11:03 AM joezan - 19841. concerned - 2/13/2002 12:41:23 AM From the NYT: 19842. concerned - 2/13/2002 12:41:52 AM Because the critics are missing the larger point, which is this: Sept. 11 happened because America had lost its deterrent capability. We lost it because for 20 years we never retaliated against, or brought to justice, those who murdered Americans. From the first suicide bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April 1983, to the bombing of the Marine barracks at the Beirut airport a few months later, to the T.W.A. hijacking, to the attack on U.S. troops at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, to the suicide bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa, to the attack on the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, innocent Americans were killed and we did nothing. 19843. concerned - 2/13/2002 12:48:07 AM "Never mind," he answered, "just get me back my turkey." But the sons ignored him and a month later someone stole the old man's camel. "What should we do?" the sons asked. "Find my turkey," said the father. But the sons did nothing, and a few weeks later the man's daughter was raped. The father said to his sons: "It is all because of the turkey. When they saw that they could take my turkey, we lost everything." 19844. joezan - 2/13/2002 7:09:56 AM "We don't know exactly what we're going to do about it, but if you think we are going to just sit back and take another dose from you, you're wrong. Meet Don Rumsfeld — he's even crazier than you are." 19845. judithathome - 2/13/2002 8:55:43 AM Joezan, despite your foaming over my one little remark, I was only trying to point out that sometimes, estimates of casualities are imprecise. Since I wasn't one of the people bemoaning the fact we might kill gazillions of innocent bystanders in this war, I am wondering why you felt the need to bother with responding to my post at all. 19846. Wombat - 2/13/2002 9:17:53 AM Concerned: 19847. Indiana Jones - 2/13/2002 10:37:40 AM We don't know exactly what we're going to do about it, but if you think we are going to just sit back and take another dose from you, you're wrong. Meet Don Rumsfeld — he's even crazier than you are. 19848. Wombat - 2/13/2002 10:46:00 AM Assuming that the terrorist or sponsoring state is a rational actor, and applied at a macro level, the above may be valid. 19849. Indiana Jones - 2/13/2002 11:01:46 AM Wombat: 19850. Indiana Jones - 2/13/2002 11:03:53 AM (On rereading, I see your comment was specifically about "barricade, hostage-type" incidents, but that wasn't what I was specifically talking about.) 19851. Wombat - 2/13/2002 11:09:28 AM An actual examination of Israel's actions in regard to Israeli soldiers captured and held hostage by terrorists indicates that in spite of their long-held policy of no negotiations/no concessions, Israel has freed dozens--if not hundreds--of suspected and convicted terrorists. 19852. betty - 2/13/2002 1:51:16 PM 19853. Cellar Door - 2/13/2002 4:53:52 PM FINALLY -- A Gay Angle to Terrorism! 19854. concerned - 2/13/2002 5:33:17 PM Re. 19852 - 19855. joezan - 2/13/2002 11:31:00 PM Al-Qaida suspect blows himself up. Yemeni was related to Sept. 11 hijacker, U.S. officials say 19856. RustlerPike - 2/14/2002 1:58:37 AM This is great: 19857. joezan - 2/14/2002 6:39:33 AM Yea...come to think of it, I've never heard of a Yemeni pitcher. 19858. judithathome - 2/14/2002 9:01:02 AM When you care enough to send the Bear-y best 19859. Andonly - 2/14/2050 1:47:42 PM Pakistani kidnapper says Daniel Pearl is dead. 19860. concerned - 2/15/2050 7:48:12 PM What if it was France which was attacked on 9/11? 19861. Cellar Door - 2/15/2050 8:01:39 PM 19862. Al D - 2/15/2050 8:07:11 PM concerned 19863. concerned - 2/15/2050 8:18:07 PM 'Hey, Rube' about nails it. 19864. concerned - 2/15/2050 8:21:16 PM Re. 19862 - 19865. joezan - 2/15/2050 8:22:25 PM Enough of this damned France-bashing already! 19866. Cellar Door - 2/15/2050 9:35:40 PM Enough of this Francophobia ! I cannot bear desecrating the land of the matchless Marcel Proust ! 19867. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 10:23:35 AM Another Funny Larry Miller Piece 19868. PincherMartin - 2/16/2050 10:39:16 AM Julius, that is hilarious. 19869. CalGal - 2/16/2050 10:41:35 AM I imagine that's the one about flags? He's pretty funny. I like the Weekly Standard's daily online format. 19870. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 10:43:16 AM Pincher 19871. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 10:48:05 AM Gregg Easterbrook on Bombing Sadaam 19872. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 10:50:29 AM But the Iraq problem exists independent of September 11: It is that Saddam Hussein is acquiring atomic, chemical, and biological weapons. Baghdad has now had several years, without inspection or bombardment--but with hard cash from the relaxation of the U.N. oil embargo--in which to manufacture the means of mass murder. Decisive action must be taken before Saddam uses what he has acquired. This would be the case even if September 11 had never occurred. 19873. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 10:51:16 AM Easterbook correctly states The current Iraq debate basically pits the timid--who want U.N. resolutions, scolding, and bluster--against the interventionists, including this magazine, who believe that the Iraqi National Congress can become the next Northern Alliance. 19874. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 11:06:11 AM And there's something for those who fall a little harder on the moral side of the scale: 19875. joezan - 2/16/2050 11:17:38 AM Oh geez no. 19876. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 11:21:08 AM joe 19877. joezan - 2/16/2050 11:36:29 AM JC: 19878. stostosto - 2/16/2050 11:40:27 AM Is it just me, or are you Murkins really, truly gearing up, seriously, for an invasion of Iraq? I mean, for real? 19879. joezan - 2/16/2050 11:43:37 AM I think it's just that everyone knows that something is next, and Iraq wins by the process of elimination. 19880. stostosto - 2/16/2050 11:43:50 AM I just relate this, because if this is so, the European media has seriously misjudged the American government and general mood vis-a-vis Iraq. Any large scale military move there will be met with shock here. 19881. stostosto - 2/16/2050 11:47:46 AM Just discovered this at the FA site, btw: 19882. PincherMartin - 2/16/2050 11:52:09 AM The only reason the U.S. doesn't deal with Iraq is because it feels it will lose too much in the capitols of Europe and Middle East, especially the latter. And I mean "lose," not just a lack of support for the idea, but actual resistance to it with the fear of backlash. 19883. Property of Jesus - 2/16/2050 11:58:51 AM The sooner we "drain the swamp" the better. 19884. ronski - 2/16/2050 12:04:16 PM I think Pincher is correct. In any case, the U.S. will not permit Saddam to develop nuclear weapons, and may not permit Iran to develop them either. The threat of them falling into the wrong hands is just too great. We have enough problems with Russia and Pakistan. 19885. stostosto - 2/16/2050 2:37:25 PM Pincher's #19882 is interesting. I didn't know Cheney (why Cheney, btw?) was about to go on such a tour. It's also somewhat comforting that the US government is actually at least taking the risk of a backlash into consideration. Because I think it is, well, considerable. 19886. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 2:46:10 PM The backlash may be considerable, but given that it is unavoidable, I'm not sure it matters. As long as Blair is on board, Bush should fulfill the mandate he's been given by the public and follow-through on the direction he set in his State of the Union. 19887. stostosto - 2/16/2050 2:50:04 PM JC, 19888. Cellar Door - 2/16/2050 3:02:33 PM What "mandate"? 19889. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 3:09:50 PM sto 19890. stostosto - 2/16/2050 3:13:53 PM "I'm guessing Churchill would have been an extremist in your parts. " 19891. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2050 3:16:08 PM JC has become very predictable in his dotage. 19892. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 3:18:47 PM I'm trying to gently nudge you to sense by harkening back to the last time we pulled your ass out of the fire.(g) 19893. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 3:23:06 PM Pelle 19894. stostosto - 2/16/2050 3:27:13 PM I'm a real war lover. 19895. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 3:29:28 PM Sto 19896. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 3:30:35 PM I'm sure he's no threat to the global lambs in "your parts." 19897. stostosto - 2/16/2050 3:31:29 PM He has already done it. 19898. Julius Caesar - 2/16/2050 3:32:44 PM Well, then just lay back and enjoy it. 19899. CalGal - 2/16/2050 3:33:21 PM Sto, 19900. stostosto - 2/16/2050 3:36:18 PM Cal, 19901. stostosto - 2/16/2050 3:37:17 PM ..insofar as a gap can be massive. 19902. CalGal - 2/16/2050 3:39:44 PM If so, I can only say there is a massive gap between public discourse in Europe and America. 19903. stostosto - 2/16/2050 3:45:01 PM I believe you, alright, it just never seizes to amaze me how much out of step we are. 19904. CalGal - 2/16/2050 3:48:53 PM Exactly. You have to care. We don't. 19905. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2050 3:49:53 PM American governments are usually more in touch with realities than the great unwashed. And Europeans couldn't care less about the opinions of American couch potatoes. 19906. CalGal - 2/16/2050 3:51:54 PM seizes 19907. stostosto - 2/16/2050 3:53:06 PM Yep, that was Thomas Friedman who started that after having witnessed NATO Sec-general John Robertson's recent NATO address. 19908. stostosto - 2/16/2050 3:55:48 PM Cal, 19909. PelleNilsson - 2/16/2050 3:59:56 PM Poor Abject Europeans? 19910. stostosto - 2/16/2050 4:02:09 PM "Exactly. You have to care. We don't. " 19911. ronski - 2/16/2050 7:30:04 PM Herringistas and others, 19912. joezan - 2/16/2050 8:33:35 PM sto: 19913. CalGal - 2/16/2050 8:41:22 PM The End of Nato?, another representative Friedman column. 19914. PincherMartin - 2/16/2050 10:25:41 PM As much the Europeans here like to think they are the center of attention, I am less worried about Europe than I am about finding any Muslim allies, at least enough for us to have bases close to Iraq. In the end, the European governments will wake up and decide they don't want to be thought of as the protector of Saddam Hussein's efforts to make nuclear weapons. 19915. PincherMartin - 2/16/2050 10:32:16 PM This British Rag says Bush is pushing for Saddam to be out of power within the year. 19916. PincherMartin - 2/16/2050 10:48:27 PM A superb article (from Europe, no less) on America's current "Europe" problem. An excerpt: 19917. PincherMartin - 2/16/2050 10:52:34 PM The article counsels caution on both sides, ending by saying that if military action against Iraq is to go forward, it should go forward as part of a considered policy. The article leans towards the European side, but gives enough of an American perspective to make it "balanced," which is quite unusual from that side of the Atlantic recently. 19918. joezan - 2/16/2050 10:59:52 PM One American analyst, himself of European birth, suggested that Europeans had ceased to think of war as acceptable under almost any circumstances except in the constrained form of humanitarian intervention. 19919. PincherMartin - 2/16/2050 11:04:30 PM Well, Joe, you certainly know how to put a spin on it. 19920. RustlerPike - 2/16/2050 11:13:54 PM Pincher: 19921. PincherMartin - 2/16/2050 11:14:40 PM In the end, the Europeans will not want to rupture the transatlantic alliance over protecting Saddam Hussein. 19922. RustlerPike - 2/16/2050 11:17:07 PM 'Crazier than thou' was precisely Sharon's rationale for Sabra and Shatila, btw. I'm willing to bet on it. 19923. PincherMartin - 2/16/2050 11:21:51 PM Rustler, 19924. joezan - 2/16/2050 11:28:36 PM PM: 19925. joezan - 2/16/2050 11:34:05 PM Anyway, it's too late in the evening to be starting big, philosophical discussions. 19926. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 12:20:03 AM Joe -- 19927. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 12:20:12 AM Pat Buchanan is a sharper thinker than most know (I've read one of his books), but he is a racist and a theocrat of sorts. He believes that the success of Western culture is tied up in the genes and the church of white men. It is not. The most valuable aspects of Western culture, the ones worth keeping and propagating, are its political and economic (and perhaps our intellectual outlook) ways of organizing the world. 19928. CalGal - 2/17/2050 1:05:45 AM He believes that the success of Western culture is tied up in the genes and the church of white men. 19929. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 1:32:04 AM CalGal -- 19930. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 1:32:18 AM His argument is that America is becoming increasingly...unAmerican. So we see Muslims over here building businesses while selling their daughters in marriage at the age of 14 and all the women wearing veils*, or Indian engineers with a startup run back home to the motherland to pick up a wife. 19931. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 1:42:42 AM Here is the Amazon.com review of the book: 19932. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 1:49:01 AM And I love this: Buchanan's solutions are "higher wages and tax breaks for parents than for singles, a dramatic rollback of immigration quotas, and a National History Bee." 19933. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 1:57:09 AM Buchanan's book, that CalGal says is striking a chord, is currently #16 on Amazon's best seller list, behind the What Went Wrong: Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response by Bernard Lewis, Stupid White Men by Michael Moore, and Body for Life. 19934. CalGal - 2/17/2050 10:09:44 AM would you rather have 20,000 people of English ancestory immigrate to the U.S. or 20,000 Zulus 19935. CalGal - 2/17/2050 10:22:30 AM It's not just white people, either. I was thinking of Buchanan's Zulu question. But I imagine many other non-white populations would answer the same. 19936. ronski - 2/17/2050 10:25:25 AM Buchanan continues to appeal to that segment of the U.S. population that fears immigrants, much as the talk show host Bob Grant (well known in the metro NY area) does. But there has always been a sizable portion of the U.S. that has feared whatever the current makeup of immigration is. Eventually, the general public happily accepts the new immigrants after they have been here for a generation and have more or less assimilated. 19937. CalGal - 2/17/2050 1:49:11 PM Buchanan is marginal as a politician, but I don't think anyone who makes a nice living as a pundit can ever be called marginal. 19938. ronski - 2/17/2050 3:05:09 PM Religious views do not necessarily equal hostility to gay people. Quite often they are used to justify other reasons for homophobia. But Buchanan's animus towards gays is most certainly rooted in his theology, imo. 19939. ronski - 2/17/2050 3:07:05 PM And Alan Keyes is now making a nice living as a pundit. I think he's pretty marginal, too, in the sense that his views are not very representative of American society as a whole. 19940. PelleNilsson - 2/17/2050 3:24:01 PM CalGal 19941. Julius Caesar - 2/17/2050 3:36:13 PM Yes. That's exactly what she said. 19942. CalGal - 2/17/2050 4:01:52 PM Ronski--I thought of Alan Keyes, and almost mentioned him because he's just now starting to make a living as a pundit. In five years, I won't call him marginal. (g) 19943. stostosto - 2/17/2050 4:09:04 PM ronski #19911, 19944. stostosto - 2/17/2050 4:18:48 PM Pincher #19114 19945. CalGal - 2/17/2050 4:24:37 PM Sto--I didn't say it was news. You were looking for representative, generally held views in the US, weren't you? 19946. stostosto - 2/17/2050 4:36:28 PM Cal, that, and an opportunity to comment and disagree with any such views. 19947. CalGal - 2/17/2050 4:44:52 PM No, I'd forgotten that you'd commented on it the first time I linked it in, Sto. Sorry about that. 19948. stostosto - 2/17/2050 5:02:11 PM Just read the Guardian article that Pincher linked in #19916. 19949. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 8:40:30 PM CalGal -- 19950. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 8:41:43 PM ****** 19951. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 8:42:52 PM That is Bernard Lewis, not "Bernand Lewis." 19952. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 8:55:11 PM I didn't say you have to worry about Europe. What I am saying is you ought to worry about whether it's a good idea to set a precedent whereby countries are free to attack other countries and oust their leaders without having some international approval based in international law. 19953. ronski - 2/17/2050 8:59:00 PM sto, 19954. PincherMartin - 2/17/2050 9:00:00 PM Sto -- 19955. CalGal - 2/17/2050 9:27:48 PM It was you, not I, who chose to focus on immigration. 19956. ronski - 2/17/2050 11:17:25 PM sto, 19957. RustlerPike - 2/18/2050 3:54:24 AM 19958. stostosto - 2/18/2050 4:24:00 AM ronsk: 19959. stostosto - 2/18/2050 4:24:09 AM 19960. stostosto - 2/18/2050 5:46:09 AM ronsk 19961. stostosto - 2/18/2050 5:59:08 AM Pincher: 19962. stostosto - 2/18/2050 6:11:50 AM Pincher: 19963. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 6:28:11 AM CalGal -- Message # 19955 19964. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 6:30:16 AM Nothing in my comments was offbase. You assumed, and still assume, I was talking about Buchanan's specific book, probably because I used the words "Decline of the West," which is coincidentally very similar to the title of Buchanan's new book. I wasn't. I hadn't even known Buchanan wrote a book with that title until after you entered the debate. Up to then, I was referring to Buchanan, generally, and to the "Decline of the West" literature, generally, because that was obviously the type of book Zan was talking about. If Buchanan's book is specifically about immigration policy, then Zan was simply taking Buchanan out of context. 19965. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 6:38:08 AM Sto -- 19966. stostosto - 2/18/2050 6:50:35 AM international law is so unevenly applied and enforced, so grotesquely unformed 19967. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 6:52:40 AM CalGal -- 19968. stostosto - 2/18/2050 6:56:25 AM Was NATO's action, circumventing the U.N., that led to the fall of Milosevic legal? 19969. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 7:12:31 AM Sto -- 19970. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 7:16:01 AM It would make a huge difference if America took the initiative and started thinking seriously about international institutions. But the American instinct is to distance itself from anything that might impede its own freedom of action, be it nuclear test bans, anti-proliferation measures, international courts of justice, Kyoto treaty, or simply paying its dues to the UN. And all the while nobody speaks more indignantly of "rogue states" than the Americans. 19971. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 7:35:22 AM No, it wasn't, and I actually think that was a big problem. Was it big enough that the action should have been avoided? I don't think so on the basis of human rights considerations -- if you have the power to stop atrocities, aren't you complicit if you don't use that power? 19972. stostosto - 2/18/2050 7:35:46 AM Pincher, my point isn't that the US breaks international law in those instances, but that it seems to disregard and dismiss any value of international commitments. 19973. stostosto - 2/18/2050 7:41:33 AM Then we are complicit in Tibet, Sierra Leone, Kashmir, and a hundred other places around the globe, where the U.S. had (or has) the power to go in and stop atrocities. 19974. joezan - 2/18/2050 7:43:24 AM sto - Message # 19943 19975. stostosto - 2/18/2050 7:46:45 AM Why? It [the Hague tribunal] hasn't changed a thing except to give international justice a bad name. 19976. stostosto - 2/18/2050 7:51:36 AM joezan, do you understand the word 'unilateral'? 19977. joezan - 2/18/2050 8:06:40 AM Pincher: 19978. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 8:09:09 AM Sto -- 19979. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 8:09:19 AM My point is also that the USA should work to strengthen international law and international institutions. After all, if the USA doesn't, who will? 19980. joezan - 2/18/2050 8:14:48 AM sto: 19981. stostosto - 2/18/2050 8:30:17 AM Pincher, I missed your #19969: 19982. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 8:39:21 AM A bad name where? Not here. The Hague tribunal has resulted in the amassing of huge documentary material on atrocities committed on the Balkans by all parties involved, in bringing some of the personally responsible thugs to justice and in forcing people like Karadzic and Mladic in permanent hiding. 19983. PincherMartin - 2/18/2050 8:41:56 AM Sto, 19984. stostosto - 2/18/2050 8:46:15 AM Regarding the "unique status" of the USA, that's very interesting. Clearly, there is a need for some kind of policing of world relations, and it's inarguable that today the US is the only country able to perform that role. But good policing requires legitimacy from the public served, otherwise we are talking a police state. Or law of the jungle. 19985. stostosto - 2/18/2050 9:02:26 AM They believe the reason Milosevic is on trial, and NATO is not, is because of power, not justice. 19986. stostosto - 2/18/2050 9:34:58 AM 19987. stostosto - 2/18/2050 9:37:50 AM Not that attacks should be ruled out, I hasten to add, but it just appears any path not involving an attack is being ruled out by Bush/Rumsfeld(/Wolfowitz). 19988. ronski - 2/18/2050 9:40:36 AM sto, 19989. ronski - 2/18/2050 9:42:32 AM I looks to me like the threatening language may be working. 19990. stostosto - 2/18/2050 9:53:10 AM ronsk, 'ultimately' being the operative word. 19991. OhioSTOPAS - 2/18/2050 10:52:01 AM This just in: 19992. concerned - 2/18/2050 11:40:49 AM An indictment of the NYT, et al journalistic laziness regarding Afghanistan 19993. CalGal - 2/18/2050 12:14:47 PM German argues that the wise Yurrupeens just know better 19994. stostosto - 2/18/2050 4:59:28 PM Good article, although I'd prefer for Nauman to argue his case for sanctions and diplomacy on its merits alone rather than appeal to Americans on the notion that they "need" Europe. They don't. 19995. CalGal - 2/18/2050 5:04:56 PM He has to argue that we need Europe, because otherwise he'd have to acknowledge how far behind they are. 19996. stostosto - 2/18/2050 5:23:06 PM I don't think there is any reluctance in Europe to acknowledge that Europe is hopelessly incapable of projecting military power outside its borders. Especially not in Germany. (France may be a slightly different case). 19997. CalGal - 2/18/2050 5:28:23 PM Really? No need to save continental face? 19998. stostosto - 2/18/2050 5:33:08 PM No. You're just projecting your hyper-pressurised mungo-macho psyche into other people. 19999. OhioSTOPAS - 2/18/2050 5:34:32 PM If we don't have a millennial run, the terrorists win. 20000. CalGal - 2/18/2050 5:35:13 PM ? 20001. stostosto - 2/18/2050 5:35:28 PM Allahu akbar! 20002. OhioSTOPAS - 2/18/2050 5:36:25 PM Nicely snagged, Cal! 20003. CalGal - 2/18/2050 5:37:07 PM Sto, 20004. CalGal - 2/18/2050 5:38:50 PM Ohio--Why, thank you. I would have thought of something clever to say in that post but time was short and being first is better than being clever. 20005. concerned - 2/18/2050 5:39:58 PM I believe Stos, and Europeans in general, are still suffering from colonialism withdrawal. 20006. stostosto - 2/18/2050 5:54:55 PM No, I am not saying any of that. Europeans are neither hopelessly backwards, inept, lazy or willing to "let Americans do everything". Europeans don't bitch and moan - again, that's your own projection. As for having inferiority revealed, that was "revealed" long ago - insofar as we are talking military inferiority. 20007. stostosto - 2/18/2050 5:58:27 PM (#20006 was to CalGal's '03). 20008. stostosto - 2/18/2050 6:02:21 PM I believe Stos, and Europeans in general, are still suffering from colonialism withdrawal. 20009. CalGal - 2/18/2050 6:05:49 PM Why you think Europeans harbour illusions of military grandeur is beyond me. 20010. stostosto - 2/18/2050 6:20:32 PM I think this summation of Naumann's is pretty apt: 20011. stostosto - 2/18/2050 6:23:31 PM Right, Cal, you were goofing, but you weren't goofing out of the blue. And I thought I'd just explain the Euro mood to you and others here because I don't think Americans have that right. 20012. concerned - 2/18/2050 7:41:41 PM Re. 20008 - 20013. PelleNilsson - 2/19/2050 12:16:26 PM sto argues a good case for the European mainstream position. 20014. Wombat - 2/19/2050 12:54:44 PM Europe has a long and unfortunate history of war and devastation, which the US has largely avoided. Imagine the WTC x tens of thousands and you'll have an idea of a bad night over Britain or Germany a little more than a half-century ago. 20015. Ms. No - 2/19/2002 2:07:16 PM Wonder what happens if I post in these threads that currently have the weird year. 20016. jexster - 2/19/2002 2:57:36 PM Republicans generally think of themselves as apostles of tough love. Ask them about welfare mothers, juvenile delinquents, or failing schools, and they'll tell you that without high expectations and stern punishments, compassion usually does more harm than good. During his presidential campaign, George W. Bush vowed to usher in a "responsibility era." 20017. jexster - 2/19/2002 3:02:12 PM "Not a single Iran-desk chief during the eight years that I worked on Iran could speak or read Persian. Not a single Near East Division chief knew Arabic, Persian, or Turkish, and only one could get along even in French." 20018. jexster - 2/19/2002 3:05:13 PM 20019. rubberducky - 2/19/2002 3:12:14 PM 20020. robertjayb - 2/20/2002 12:28:02 AM Office of Strategic Mendacity...Maureen Dowd, NYTimes 20021. marjoribanks - 2/20/2002 10:47:01 AM Indeed, all the participants in the Middle East conflict are now engaged in a game of self-deception, a massive and fraudulent attempt to avoid any examination of the critical issues that lie behind the tragedy. The Saudis want to appeal to America's "conscience", not because they are upset at Arafat's predicament but because 15 of the 11 September hijackers were themselves Saudis. Sharon's attempt to join in the "war against terror" – the manufacturing of non-existent Iranian enemies in Lebanon, for example, along with some very real enemies in the West Bank and Gaza – is a blatant attempt to ensure American support for his crushing of the Palestinian intifada and for the continuation of Israel's colonisation of Palestinian land. 20022. jexster - 2/20/2002 11:36:17 AM Civilized people -- Muslims, Christians and Jews -- all understand that the source of freedom and human dignity is the Creator," Ashcroft said in prepared remarks released by the Justice Department. "Civilized people of all religious faiths are called to the defense of His creation. We are a nation called to defend freedom -- a freedom that is not the grant of any government or document, but is our endowment from God." 20023. Jonesatlaw - 2/20/2002 11:40:51 AM So let me see if I understand Fisk correctly- the difficulties in the middle east result from flawed American foreign policy, and all the participants are killing each other in endless orgy of retaliation [in the case of Israel and the Palestinians] or turning a blind eye to terrorists in their midst [or becomming one], or oppressing their peoples because they are helpless to do anything other than what American foreign policy would dictate? Further, everyone is lying or silent when it comes to the reality of the first proposition, because they don't want to admit its truth? 20024. jexster - 2/20/2002 11:49:54 AM A Time for Dissent 20025. marjoribanks - 2/20/2002 11:50:45 AM Jones, 20026. jexster - 2/20/2002 11:55:28 AM Reminds me of a poor man's Erich von Ludendorff 20027. OhioSTOPAS - 2/20/2002 2:50:11 PM Axes of Evil? 20028. glendajean - 2/20/2002 4:01:34 PM This is from the Guardian web site: Italian police may have stopped a group of terrorists. 20029. jexster - 2/20/2002 4:11:06 PM I think the South Korean legislator had it about right.. 20030. Julius Caesar - 2/20/2002 5:14:53 PM Well. Someone is. 20031. judithathome - 2/20/2002 5:22:22 PM I heard him say it and thought it was an unfortunate coincidence...who would've thought he'd have occassion to come upon AXES to comment on so near one third of the Evil Axis...it's just one of those strange things that turn comedians on sooo much. It'll make the late shows tonight for sure. 20032. concerned - 2/20/2002 5:26:24 PM Maybe they can work a Lizzie Borden skit into that. 20033. Julius Caesar - 2/20/2002 5:27:10 PM On Allies and Unilateralism 20034. stostosto - 2/20/2002 5:41:01 PM From JC's link: 20035. Julius Caesar - 2/20/2002 5:48:36 PM Grammar, schmammar. 20036. concerned - 2/20/2002 5:56:21 PM Kurdish state in the offing? The word from Pravda. 20037. Jonesatlaw - 2/20/2002 6:00:51 PM mountebanks- no, sadly I have. Granted what I boiled the article down to is coarse and unnuanced, but I think that it fairly states the case argued by Fisk. He notes several distortions of public discussion both in the US and in the middle east. His premise is that the distortion in the discourse is the result of appeals to American opinion and a taboo concerning failed American policy and its effect on its allies. 20038. concerned - 2/20/2002 6:04:21 PM Should we let Saddam have nukes? Whaddaya think? 20039. concerned - 2/20/2002 6:37:19 PM If once Iraq is brought to terms, perhaps it will be time to say to the Iranian mullahs: "We have you surrounded! Step away from those ashnas, and come out with your robes down and your hands up!" 20040. jexster - 2/20/2002 7:42:19 PM Yes we should let him nuke Axis of Evil Incarnate, 1600 Penn Ave. Wash DC 20041. Al D - 2/20/2002 9:31:03 PM I fail to understand America's policy that only certain countries should have so called weapons of mass destruction. U.S., England, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, China (have I left anyone out) have atomic weapons. Where is the logic that says Iran or Iraq should not have the same weapons? Or South Korea, North Korea, Somalia, Denmark, Cuba or any soverrign Country. 20042. jexster - 2/20/2002 9:45:11 PM You can't tell your 20043. jexster - 2/20/2002 9:45:39 PM should read 20044. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 2/21/2002 12:34:41 AM 20045. Jonesatlaw - 2/21/2002 2:11:42 AM AlD- your last post sounds like you are the product of a LSD induced mutual pawing between Ronski and Sakonige. 20046. PincherMartin - 2/21/2002 9:27:52 AM AlD -- 20047. PincherMartin - 2/21/2002 9:28:03 AM You, like Joe Zan, must have been reading Patrick Buchanan lately. To be fair to you, Joe, and Buchanan, I don't think this is an intellectually disrespectable position, but it would certainly be difficult to pull off practically. 20048. rubberducky - 2/21/2002 9:51:51 AM the inevitable happens: 20049. concerned - 2/21/2002 10:40:14 AM I believe the US has already launched airstrikes against one or two of the more contentious warlords. This appears to be something that Iran is also involved in. 20050. jexster - 2/21/2002 11:46:12 AM Bu$h Continues to Kow Tow: Treats China Differently than NK for Same "Sins" 20051. jexster - 2/21/2002 11:47:11 AM concerned is correctamundo....nation building phase now in full swing...Pentagon looks forward to 15-20 year effort 20052. rubberducky - 2/21/2002 12:06:24 PM if that's so, Jex, then why is the Pentagon publicly opposing the increased presence? 20053. jexster - 2/21/2002 12:23:48 PM I only relate what I hear on Rummy's daily brief....today, yesterday, day before, day before that.... 20054. jexster - 2/21/2002 4:59:14 PM * Kidnapped WSJ Reporter Appears Dead -U.S. Official 20055. jexster - 2/21/2002 4:59:40 PM *Bush Still Anthrax Free 20056. CalGal - 2/21/2002 6:06:15 PM Priority Lane Violation 20057. jexster - 2/21/2002 7:13:27 PM They sent our Warriour King a Snuff Film! 20058. jexster - 2/21/2002 7:38:08 PM A snuff film! 20059. Cellar Door - 2/21/2002 8:26:27 PM I'm sure he enjoyed it. 20060. jexster - 2/21/2002 9:19:23 PM CIA Warns of New Afghan Civil War 20061. jexster - 2/21/2002 10:35:48 PM 20062. concerned - 2/22/2002 1:35:59 AM jexster - 20063. jexster - 2/22/2002 2:27:14 AM TD - 20064. jexster - 2/22/2002 2:28:22 AM Dressed in a green army jacket, he cited an episode in 1976 when two US army officers were killed by North Koreans with axes in a scuffle on the border. "No wonder I think they are evil," he called out from a camouflaged bunker to waiting journalists. 20065. stostosto - 2/22/2002 5:04:26 AM "No wonder I think they're evil". 20066. Julius Caesar - 2/22/2002 9:14:31 AM Some sense from a smart guy -- 20067. jexster - 2/22/2002 10:44:00 AM jexster - 20068. jexster - 2/22/2002 10:45:11 AM Yo Nino 20069. concerned - 2/22/2002 3:18:23 PM I'm starting to come around to the viewpoint that the West should require and maintain a capability of being able to ensure that all majority Moslem countries include and enforce constitutional provisions guaranteeing equal civil rights for all persons, separation of mosque and state and religious freedom for observers of any religion. 20070. concerned - 2/22/2002 3:27:38 PM Fouad Ajami, on the difference between the two major branches of Islam: "the Sunnis are homicidal and the Shiites are suicidal." 20071. LohrM - 2/23/2002 2:14:25 PM I have my own problems with Bush, but...look-- there's a serious difference between being articulate and being intelligent. And Bush comes from a place and a culture that places no premium at all on off-the-cuff verbal style. 20072. wonkers2 - 2/23/2002 4:14:10 PM #20666 Axis of Evil. Value of laying our cards on the table. 20073. LohrM - 2/23/2002 4:33:10 PM Myself, I prefer "The only thing a wog should have in his hands is a broom or a tray with drinks." 20074. jexster - 2/23/2002 4:52:25 PM And Bush comes from a place and a culture that places no premium at all on off-the-cuff verbal style. 20075. jexster - 2/23/2002 5:01:26 PM Almost forgot... 20076. jexster - 2/23/2002 5:11:57 PM The reviews are in, and they are bad. President Bush's characterization of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil" has been met by our allies' puzzled annoyance and by massive rallies in Iran that only strengthened hard-line elements there. How, one wonders, did the president and his speech writers blunder into this mess? 20077. jexster - 2/23/2002 5:37:08 PM Robert Kaplan is keen to alert us to the danger of 'drive-by ethnography'. He warns against relying upon the perceptions of an international diplomatic elite whisked through VIP lounges towards their protected compounds. 20078. jexster - 2/23/2002 5:37:41 PM "Anthropology Today" 20079. Property of Jesus - 2/23/2002 5:58:39 PM DOD Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz Interview with Atlantic Monthly 20080. arkymalarky - 2/23/2002 8:01:44 PM And Bush comes from a place and a culture that places no premium at all on off-the-cuff verbal style. 20081. jexster - 2/23/2002 11:43:47 PM Arkies have the gift of gab. 20082. jexster - 2/23/2002 11:48:34 PM Rumblin, Bumblin, Stumblin 20083. jexster - 2/23/2002 11:48:59 PM Paper Tiger eat plane chow mein eh TD? 20084. jexster - 2/24/2002 12:27:05 AM Iraq: Imbecilic Rhetoric Outstrips Reality 20085. Cellar Door - 2/24/2002 11:06:00 AM An Indian view of Operation Enduring Press Release 20086. jexster - 2/24/2002 12:39:33 PM Excellent Cllrdr. 20087. jexster - 2/24/2002 1:28:52 PM 20088. Al D - 2/24/2002 4:44:02 PM PincherMartin 20089. Al D - 2/24/2002 4:56:34 PM stostosto 20090. PelleNilsson - 2/24/2002 5:01:46 PM personaly. I don't think he took us to war just to save Uncle Joe, although that might have been the main reason. 20091. jexster - 2/24/2002 5:03:10 PM That's my Al..drunk again 20092. jexster - 2/24/2002 5:04:26 PM Axes of Evil - UPDATE 20093. stostosto - 2/24/2002 5:14:40 PM Al, I explained quite straightforwardly why I rolled my eyes at Bush's North Korean border remarks, and it wasn't to do with any axes/axis mistake. Nor with his demonisation of the "evil countries". 20094. mgleason - 2/24/2002 5:29:09 PM Pat Buchanan, in A Republic, Not an Empire, according to Issues 2001: 20095. Al D - 2/24/2002 6:46:01 PM MG 20096. mgleason - 2/24/2002 7:20:24 PM Al D, 20097. concerned - 2/25/2002 5:00:34 AM From the WT: 20098. concerned - 2/25/2002 5:01:09 AM Those storage problems, with their attendant risks, are a certainty, since about 2,000 additional tons of high-level waste pile up each year. As planned, the repository at Yucca offers at least a partial solution: It will isolate nearly 80,000 tons of that waste in a desert area about 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the closest major metropolis. Opponents of the plan, namely every political player in Nevada, complain that the repository's science still isn't sound, that the state was picked on due to its paucity of political pull and that the risks from transporting materials to Yucca far outweigh the benefits of storage there. While there is no sure bet that the transports bringing waste to Yucca won't wreck, the federal government has so far maintained an enviable safety record — since 1965, over 2,500 shipments of such spent fuel have arrived safely at their proper destination. Each of the casks that will be used for transport will supposedly have survived a series of tests that any Battlebot engineer would envy, including a 30-foot drop onto an 'unyielding surface', a 40-inch free-fall onto a steel rod six inches in diameter, a 30-minute trial by a fire burning at about 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit, and an hourlong immersion under more than 650 feet of water. 20099. concerned - 2/25/2002 5:01:27 AM If those casks do arrive for storage at Yucca, it might well be partially due to the state's lack of political influence, but it will also be due to Yucca Mountain's geographic and geological suitability. There simply aren't that many other places in the United States with Yucca Mountain's unique combination of ultra-dry conditions, dense volcanic walls, and height above the local water table. Moreover, taxpayers already have at least a $4 billion stake in seeing the project through, and if the science behind Yucca's 10,000-year storage life is still not absolutely certain (as if anyone knows what they will be doing in 12002), it's still a safe-money bet. While Nevada's NIMBY-esque opposition to proceeding with the repository is understandable, it's no reason to fold the project. Hopefully, Congress will follow the administration's lead in deciding that high-level nuclear waste should be dealt to Yucca. 20100. concerned - 2/25/2002 5:09:44 AM Is Vir Sanghvi a little stupid, maybe? 20101. RustlerPike - 2/25/2002 7:36:21 AM Al: 20102. zojak quafeth - 2/25/2002 11:45:46 AM Nice to see we're coordinating all our training exercises so well.... 20103. thoughtful - 2/25/2002 4:50:38 PM sleeping with the enemy? 20104. OhioSTOPAS - 2/25/2002 6:11:15 PM Thoughtful: That story's been out a couple of months. It is a story that fits nicely with the Bush Administration's lame anti-terrorism efforts before 9/11 and Vice President Cheney's determination not to disclose what his energy task force talked about. However, Barton Gellman, the Washington Post writer, is skeptical of the authors' claims (see here, about 10% of the way down the link). 20105. concerned - 2/25/2002 6:21:50 PM Thanks, Ohio, for putting paid to that ugly accusation. 20107. stostosto - 2/26/2002 6:36:33 AM 20108. joezan - 2/26/2002 7:42:37 AM Well, stos - what can we say? 20109. joezan - 2/26/2002 8:10:17 AM Signed: 20110. Wombat - 2/26/2002 8:11:11 AM Truer words were never written. 20111. jexster - 2/26/2002 8:11:45 PM First he screwed New York, now its the rest of the states 20112. jexster - 2/26/2002 8:12:43 PM But hey the King takes care of his Kronies very well thank you. 20113. jexster - 2/26/2002 8:13:11 PM 20114. jexster - 2/27/2002 11:53:24 AM Like rats on a sinking ship, Shit-canned Bu$sh Speechwriter Denies "Axis of Evil" Authorship 20115. stostosto - 2/27/2002 12:46:25 PM More evidence of the job Charlotte Beers, US gov. PR honcho, has cut out for her: 20116. jexster - 2/27/2002 12:49:19 PM Hate to say it but I'd answer with the 77% myself for entirely different reasons....3 billion dollars a month...30 billion dollars since 9.1.1 20117. jexster - 2/27/2002 12:50:04 PM It would have been more cost effective to send LAPD/NYPD task force in 20118. Wombat - 2/27/2002 1:18:29 PM Easy for you to say now, jex. 20119. Jenerator - 2/27/2002 4:08:32 PM I wonder if the remains found in Afghanistan *are* from Osama. 20120. jexster - 2/27/2002 9:44:36 PM Yea well hindsight is 20/20 and I DID say at the time that all the now conventional US tactics of cruise missles, smart bombs, daisy cutters would wind up doing would be to scatter Al Quaeda to the four winds. 20121. jexster - 2/27/2002 9:56:59 PM 20122. jexster - 2/28/2002 11:05:28 AM Why you'd think I lived in Arlington.... 20123. jexster - 2/28/2002 11:05:47 AM 20124. Jonesatlaw - 2/28/2002 2:03:00 PM Hollings has a point. Things are very broad and fuzzy at the moment and the War on Terrorism is turning into The Phony War Redux. Time for some calm reassessment of available resources, objectives and timelines. Some of this is going to require that it be done with some public debate and discussion. The administration is fooling itself if it thinks that public support for the current "war" will last indefinitely. 20125. jexster - 2/28/2002 7:38:36 PM 20126. concerned - 2/28/2002 11:59:42 PM More witless from the leading Leftist 'Intellectual', Noam Chomsky 20127. Jonesatlaw - 3/1/2002 11:31:14 AM My take on the war on terrorism is that it is time for it to go low key. We need to grab some sacrificial AlQeda "leadership," pronounce the rest dead or incapacitated and declare "military victory." 20128. Property of Jesus - 3/1/2002 11:34:50 AM Bush-hating Ann Richards Booed by NYC audience when she badmouths President Bush 20129. Indiana Jones - 3/1/2002 4:57:08 PM An attack on Iraq is inevitable 20130. concerned - 3/1/2002 5:05:14 PM When people jeered Richards' partisan attacks, she said to Clinton-loving honoree Liz Smith, "I didn't know you had so many Republican friends." 20131. jexster - 3/1/2002 6:05:27 PM Inevitable when Indy? Afer Phillipines? Georgia? Yemen? Somalia? Sudan? 20132. concerned - 3/2/2002 12:35:40 AM I'm curious about why the person who was making loud wet farting noises in the Mote about taking guns away from 'right wing nuts' to 'avoid violence' in the wake of 9/11 is so eerily silent about the systemic slaughter now going on in his homeland? 20133. jexster - 3/2/2002 12:40:03 PM 20134. jexster - 3/2/2002 12:55:28 PM Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) yesterday rejected Republican criticism that he had unpatriotically challenged President Bush over the war on terrorism and said Democrats will stand their ground. 20135. robertjayb - 3/2/2002 3:01:49 PM U.S. Troops attack Eastern Afghanistan...(AP) 20136. LohrM - 3/2/2002 3:26:54 PM I'm of two minds about a low key, "criminal" strategy for attacking terrorist groups. It has the advantage of being less visibly political. Asking that a country extradite someone for murder or drugs instead of "terrorism" is less likely to raise political hackles. The problem is that, when a large concentration of terrorists is found, or a government is seen to have sponsored or even tolerated them, it's harder to suddenly shift to a military mode. 20137. Jonesatlaw - 3/2/2002 3:27:50 PM POJ- what does anything mentioned in Message # 20128 have to do with the war on terrorism? 20138. LohrM - 3/2/2002 3:32:27 PM The Republicans were way wrong to go ballistic about the Daschle thing. It's the Senate's job to question the conduct of the war, and Daschle raised valid issues-- are we through in Afghanistan yet? Will broadening the war make the US lose focus? However anyone answers those questions, they deserve to be raised. 20139. AytchMan - 3/2/2002 3:32:57 PM This just in-- 20140. joezan - 3/2/2002 3:37:44 PM Lohr: 20141. Jonesatlaw - 3/2/2002 3:45:20 PM Lohr- I can appreciate your reservations. I am afraid that for domestic political reasons we're unlikey to see such a shift as well. I think that the administration is keen on keeping the wagons circled in a war mode- it stiffles criticism and creates political impediments for the democrats. 20142. joezan - 3/2/2002 3:47:16 PM Uh, Jones? 20143. robertjayb - 3/2/2002 3:56:19 PM Hired guns in Afghanistan...(AP) 20144. LohrM - 3/2/2002 4:10:01 PM I have no problem with hired guns. You might want to quote the closing lines of A.E. Housman's "Epitath for an Army of Mercenaries"... 20145. jexster - 3/2/2002 4:37:02 PM So JoeZ its now treason to ask the 2bit Cowboy Bubblehead-in-Chief what his strategery is or if he even has one? 20146. robertjayb - 3/2/2002 5:16:24 PM LohrM, 20147. jexster - 3/2/2002 9:44:26 PM Talibees Regroup, Fighting Fierce, Bush Strategerizing, Cheney Bunkered 20148. jexster - 3/2/2002 9:45:55 PM Congress Not Advised Of Shadow Government: Bush Calls Security 'Serious Business' ( 20149. concerned - 3/3/2002 2:02:44 AM Daschle raised valid issues-- are we through in Afghanistan yet? 20150. concerned - 3/3/2002 2:45:45 AM Would like to see Daschole's reaction to this: 20151. concerned - 3/3/2002 2:46:08 AM The CIA told Bush at one point of not only the published arrests by Pakistan of two former nuclear scientists who visited reputed terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden, but of a third Pakistani scientist who, the newspaper said, tried to sell a nuclear bomb to Libya. 20152. concerned - 3/3/2002 3:46:01 AM Powell: US Won't Be Tied Down By War on Terror 20153. jexster - 3/3/2002 10:21:51 AM CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. John Kerry, in New Hampshire to support Democratic candidates for Congress, on Saturday accused Republicans of hiding behind a "false cloak of patriotism" as they attacked Democrats for questioning White House plans to expand the war on terrorism. 20154. jexster - 3/3/2002 10:23:08 AM 20155. jexster - 3/3/2002 10:24:23 AM What is the strategery anyway? 20156. joezan - 3/3/2002 10:28:42 AM jex: 20157. jexster - 3/3/2002 10:31:28 AM Speaking of Baby Killers....two words - Gray Davis 20158. concerned - 3/3/2002 6:50:06 PM re. 20154 - 20159. Cellar Door - 3/3/2002 7:28:22 PM And Ken Lay slept over in the Lincoln bedroom -- SHOCKING!!!!! 20160. jexster - 3/3/2002 8:39:33 PM How so doofus? 20161. concerned - 3/3/2002 8:47:18 PM Re. 20160 - 20162. jexster - 3/3/2002 9:02:39 PM Bush has dispatched a shadow government of about 100 senior civilian managers to live and work secretly outside Washington, activating for the first time long-standing plans to ensure survival of federal rule after catastrophic attack on the nation's capital. Execution of the classified 'Continuity of Operations Plan' resulted not from the Cold War threat of intercontinental missiles, the scenario rehearsed for decades, but from heightened fears that the al Qaeda terrorist network might somehow obtain a portable nuclear weapon, according to three officials with first-hand knowledge. U.S. intelligence has no specific knowledge of such a weapon, they said, but the risk is thought great enough to justify the shadow government's disruption and expense. Deployed 'on the fly' in the first hours of turmoil on Sept. 11, one participant said, the shadow government has evolved into an indefinite precaution." 20163. jexster - 3/3/2002 9:03:21 PM Again the issue is not your bogus objection to the war. Its your treason. 20164. jexster - 3/3/2002 9:04:05 PM So we'll hear no more of your horseshit, unless you can tell us what the BubbleBrain's strategery is 20165. jexster - 3/3/2002 9:04:59 PM Have you had enough of the Bush Dictatorship YET??? 20166. Wombat - 3/4/2002 8:36:39 AM I would be interested to have Concerned explain how well previous diplomatic attempts to resolve Kosovo had worked, and also to elucidate on how the air campaign against Yugoslavia violated international law. 20167. stostosto - 3/4/2002 9:10:09 AM I think it's interesting that concerned is concerned about the legality of U.S. military intervention. Few Americans seem to be. 20168. stostosto - 3/4/2002 9:10:50 AM For instance, was the capture of Noriega legal? 20169. jexster - 3/4/2002 10:24:52 AM Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) said yesterday that the failure to tell Congress about the existence of a "shadow government" that is operating at two secret locations outside Washington was "a pretty profound illustration" of the Bush administration's unwillingness to share information about the war against terrorism. 20170. jexster - 3/4/2002 10:58:11 AM Last weekend, three of the top five Republicans in Congress--Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi, Senate Majority Whip Don Nickles of Oklahoma, and House Majority Whip Tom DeLay of Texas--went on television to discuss the war. Here's what they said. 20171. jexster - 3/4/2002 10:59:23 AM Patriot Pukes 20172. Jonesatlaw - 3/4/2002 11:25:38 AM Only the most obstinantly blinkered partisan would argue that the executive branch must be given free rein to conduct business without the knowledge and co-operation of congress. We're not talking about wholesale sharing of sensitive operational details with the entire congress, but rather that the appropriate members of committees responsible for military and intelligence matters be included. These are patriotic Americans of both major political parties with the highest security clearances who have a constitutional duty to provide a counterbalance to the actions of the other two branches of government. 20173. judithathome - 3/4/2002 3:15:28 PM Nine U S Troops Killed In Eastern Afghanistan Battles 20174. concerned - 3/4/2002 3:45:55 PM Looks like it's time for somebody to shut his Dasc - hole. 20175. jexster - 3/4/2002 5:35:52 PM The dead don't care about Strategery. 20176. Jonesatlaw - 3/4/2002 5:48:53 PM Concerned- 20177. concerned - 3/4/2002 5:54:45 PM Re. 20176 - 20178. stostosto - 3/4/2002 5:57:18 PM 'Daschole' --- I get it! 20179. concerned - 3/4/2002 5:58:22 PM As I recall, it is the Left which is traditionally in favor of nation building. Should the US repeat what we did in 1989 and simply walk away from Afghanistan? That is what Daschole seems to be advocating to me. 20180. Jonesatlaw - 3/4/2002 6:03:09 PM Concerned- Please provide a quote from Daschle that was directly critical of a continuing involvement in Afganistan or prosecuting the war on terrorism. I've seen nothing that argues we should disengage from Afganistan or that we should give up the war against terrorists, but perhaps the liberal media conspiracy has suppressed it. 20181. concerned - 3/4/2002 6:09:34 PM Perhaps you will consider the words of fellow Democrat John Corzine who finds repugnant Daschole's blatantly transparent politicking here: 20182. judithathome - 3/4/2002 6:10:16 PM That is what Daschole seems to be advocating to me. 20183. jexster - 3/4/2002 6:16:46 PM Brig Gen David Grange (CNN) - "The American public is entitled to know what the strategery is; what the objectives are and whether we have the forces to accomplish." 20184. jexster - 3/4/2002 6:17:55 PM Concerned is a fake patriot puke and a traitor to Old Glory 20185. jexster - 3/4/2002 6:22:56 PM 20186. concerned - 3/4/2002 6:23:18 PM Re. 20182 - 20187. jexster - 3/4/2002 6:24:19 PM You're damned right! 20188. Jonesatlaw - 3/4/2002 6:27:36 PM Concerned- I take your quote of Corzine as a concession that no Daschle quote would support your assertion that the Senator advocated a withdrawl from Afganistan or cessation of the war against terrorism. 20189. jexster - 3/4/2002 6:29:01 PM Kerry To GOP Chickenhawks - I Served My Country, You Ran and Hid 20190. jexster - 3/4/2002 6:30:13 PM ''Let me be clear tonight to Senator Lott and to Tom DeLay: One of the lessons that I learned in Vietnam, a war they did not have to endure, and one of the basic vows of commitment that I made to myself, was that if I ever reached a position of responsibility, I would never stop asking questions that make a democracy strong,'' Kerry said to an estimated 400 people attending the New Hampshire Democratic Party's annual 100 Club dinner in Concord. 20191. judithathome - 3/4/2002 6:32:13 PM ''Those who try to stifle the vibrancy of our democracy and shield policies from scrutiny behind a false cloak of patriotism miss the real value of what our troops defend and how we best defend our troops. We will ask questions and we will defend our democracy.'' 20192. jexster - 3/4/2002 6:34:37 PM Death to GOP ChickenHawks! 20193. concerned - 3/4/2002 6:36:19 PM ....support your assertion that the Senator advocated a withdrawl from Afganistan or cessation of the war against terrorism. 20194. judithathome - 3/4/2002 6:38:14 PM Many are supporting it, too.... 20195. concerned - 3/4/2002 6:44:09 PM Guess we'll see just how persuasive Daschole is, then:) 20196. judithathome - 3/4/2002 6:47:19 PM ...or how Bush's bandwagon may be rolling a little more slowly. :-) 20197. jexster - 3/4/2002 8:11:01 PM Dasshole Uber Morons! 20198. jexster - 3/4/2002 8:12:28 PM I move the convocation of a Mote Tribunal to try Concnerned on charges of treason. 20199. jexster - 3/4/2002 10:05:00 PM Sunshine Patriots???? 20200. jexster - 3/5/2002 12:27:59 AM WASHINGTON (AP) -- Homeland security chief Tom Ridge is turning down a bipartisan request from a Senate committee that he testify, his spokeswoman said Monday, the latest White House-Congress difference over the war on terror. 20201. Jonesatlaw - 3/5/2002 11:30:06 AM Looks like my plan for a shift in the war strategy was premature with the increased fighting in the east. I hope that we are more successful in sealing off escape routes this time than we have been in the past. 20202. Jonesatlaw - 3/5/2002 12:53:36 PM It is time to examine how the Bush administration was asleep at the switch regarding 9-11. 20203. CalGal - 3/5/2002 1:21:50 PM How is it you are putting the airline screening on the Bush administration's snoozing at the switch? 20204. Jonesatlaw - 3/5/2002 1:37:25 PM Cal- The attacks on 9-11 were not the first time that AlQeda had attempted to use a civilian airliner as a missile. As for 9-11 and the hijackers getting on board- yes, the screening was conducted by private contract outfits, but the FAA had to approve them even then. Obviously, there were a few gaping holes in the system. 20205. CalGal - 3/5/2002 3:37:44 PM The attacks on 9-11 were not the first time that AlQeda had attempted to use a civilian airliner as a missile. 20206. jexster - 3/5/2002 7:13:47 PM US Commmanders watched in horror as a Predator's camera showed the execution of one of our GI's. 20207. jexster - 3/5/2002 7:14:12 PM But Bush has a secret strategery. 20208. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/5/2002 8:39:35 PM 20209. jexster - 3/5/2002 9:01:59 PM This just in from NPR 20210. jexster - 3/5/2002 9:02:39 PM at least we know who the BubbleHead was talking to in the SOTU mess 20211. jexster - 3/5/2002 9:11:12 PM 10th Mountain in the Deep Shit 20212. jexster - 3/5/2002 9:14:47 PM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Seeking to quell criticism that Democrats were kept in the dark about a secret standby government established after Sept. 11, the White House on Tuesday briefed Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle about the program. 20213. Property of Jesus - 3/5/2002 10:58:35 PM Strange that Jexster would find it funny that a U.S. soldier would be dragged away by our enemy and executed in Afghan. 20214. jexster - 3/5/2002 11:05:58 PM I didn't find it funny. 20215. concerned - 3/6/2002 12:59:04 AM Re. 20212 - 20216. concerned - 3/6/2002 1:01:55 AM More on this prevaricating dick monkey: 20217. concerned - 3/6/2002 1:03:23 AM How's that crow taste, Daschole? 20218. Property of Jesus - 3/6/2002 1:16:13 AM Don't do a Daschole on me, Jexster. I am not "amused." 20219. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/6/2002 2:25:10 AM You guys are just so compelled to jujitsu dissent into the same kind of either/or, with-me-or-agin-me" horseshit as your commander & "okay Dick!" spews out. 20220. Jonesatlaw - 3/6/2002 11:28:54 AM Jex- 20221. Wombat - 3/6/2002 11:34:06 AM I am getting increasingly fed up with Jex's attitude on this thread. 20222. Julius Caesar - 3/6/2002 11:39:09 AM I'm sure hehas a rational explanation. 20223. marjoribanks - 3/6/2002 11:40:05 AM 20224. concerned - 3/6/2002 11:53:39 AM Re. 20219 - 20225. marjoribanks - 3/6/2002 12:03:19 PM I really can't recommend that Economist series highly enough - it's calmly written, quite authoritative, and takes on many of the thorniest issues on our collective minds. Really, first rate. 20226. stostosto - 3/6/2002 12:04:31 PM Three Danish engineering troops killed in Kabul, two wounded. It was an accident caused by an explosion of two missiles that they were in the process of dismantling. Two Germans were also killed. 20227. marjoribanks - 3/6/2002 12:06:57 PM The distinguishing feature of Islam, which at the moment separates it from all of today's other would-be global cultures, is its belief not only that man's day-to-day visible life is surrounded by an invisible life but also that the two have to be kept in connection with each other. The West held the same combination of beliefs until not long ago; but at some time during the present century most people in Europe, and many Americans, have ceased to make such a connection. 20228. stostosto - 3/6/2002 12:35:27 PM 20229. concerned - 3/6/2002 12:47:56 PM Rather than being a war "on Islam", I mused, this conflict may well be termed one day as a war "for Islam" - the by-products could well include a multiplicity of Islamist regimes where currently various shades of despots rule (often with US assistance). 20230. concerned - 3/6/2002 12:51:06 PM The West held the same combination of beliefs until not long ago; 20231. concerned - 3/6/2002 1:07:00 PM slight typo correction of above: 20232. robertjayb - 3/6/2002 2:16:27 PM I'm sorry for the loss of your countrymen, stostosto. 20233. PelleNilsson - 3/6/2002 2:52:32 PM Note from Marj's table that with a GDP per capita of $8,000 Saudi Arabia is no longer a rich country. Not too long ago it was in the $20,000 range. 20234. CalGal - 3/6/2002 3:35:14 PM Yes, it's a combination of a population explosion, dropping oil prices, and paying off Desert Storm. 20235. concerned - 3/6/2002 3:51:02 PM Re. 20234 - 20236. stostosto - 3/6/2002 4:27:28 PM RJB, 20237. CalGal - 3/6/2002 4:39:52 PM I don't have a unique perspective on the problems of the last couple decades, and I was in fact surprised to discover that Saudi Arabia's population was exploding. When I was there it had a small population and I thought an unexceptional birth rate. Now it's something like 6 kids per woman, which is alarming. 20238. stostosto - 3/6/2002 4:41:28 PM But they sit on an ocean of oil. 20239. CalGal - 3/6/2002 4:42:54 PM Prices are way down. And, as mentioned, they have a lot of Desert Storm debt. 20240. stostosto - 3/6/2002 4:43:50 PM Yeah, they have a temporary cash flow problem. 20241. CalGal - 3/6/2002 4:44:14 PM I should say, since I don't really track oil prices, that I've read several pieces on Saudi economics that mentioned the fact that oil prices have been down and stayed down for a long time. I should go look it up, though. 20242. concerned - 3/6/2002 4:44:56 PM I would normally say this is wacky, but I would, at this point, consider that Islamists might deliberately breed like rabbits to create the proper air of discontent and poverty among their offspring so encourage their behaving like berserk morons in the name of their pagan moon god religion. 20243. stostosto - 3/6/2002 4:46:13 PM In fact, prices aren't that way down. Two three years ago they touched on $10 a barrell, now they're hovering around double that. 20244. stostosto - 3/6/2002 4:47:38 PM I would normally say this is wacky 20245. concerned - 3/6/2002 4:51:01 PM Re. 20244 - 20246. stostosto - 3/6/2002 5:00:10 PM Cal: 20247. stostosto - 3/6/2002 5:17:54 PM Prices: 20248. CalGal - 3/6/2002 5:19:32 PM Thanks, I found a couple as well: 20249. CalGal - 3/6/2002 5:21:02 PM Except I was too lazy to enlarge. First and second 20250. stostosto - 3/6/2002 5:23:24 PM Cal: 20251. jexster - 3/7/2002 11:55:41 AM Kudos to the graphsters 20252. jexster - 3/7/2002 11:56:59 AM Attack Iraq? Think Again - Foreign Policy 20253. jexster - 3/7/2002 11:58:45 AM Should the War on Terrorism Target Iraq? 20254. Julius Caesar - 3/7/2002 12:45:53 PM 20255. jexster - 3/7/2002 12:46:56 PM Does anyone know what the detainees are being detained FOR? 20256. Julius Caesar - 3/7/2002 12:47:49 PM Wrong place, wrong time. I also think there are some parking violations involved. 20257. CalGal - 3/7/2002 1:20:39 PM Sto, 20258. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2002 3:02:55 PM I think the "irregularities" are explained by movements in the guest worker population. If you look at the period 1989-92, the decrease from -89 to -90 is almost certainly caused by the expulsion of Palestinians and Yemenis in connection with the Gulf crisis. They were then replaced by Pakistanis and other Arabs. Then many of the Yemenis drifted back while the newly arrived workers presumably stayed on which would explain the big increase 1991-92. 20259. jexster - 3/7/2002 3:17:14 PM Not so sure about that. 20260. CalGal - 3/7/2002 3:25:54 PM Pelle, 20261. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2002 3:37:48 PM Yes, the birth rate in Saudi is very high. I had occasion to look into that last year. There is a very strong correlation between GDP and fertility: high GDP = low fertility and vice versa. Saudi is the odd man out in this respect (although its GDP per capita has decreased over the last decade it is much higher than most). It seems to indicate that although it has a modern economy its social norm system has not developed in the normal way. 20262. CalGal - 3/7/2002 3:40:07 PM But isn't it really that high GDP is some sort of correlation with educated women? 20263. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2002 3:59:22 PM Yes, there is a strong covariance between GDP - increased literacy among women - increased participation in the salaried work force - reduced fertility. 20264. concerned - 3/7/2002 4:19:48 PM The point I was going to make when the Mote went down yesterday is that if there is indeed some sort of population explosion in Arab countries with the intent to create an army of jihadis through self inflicted impoverishment, etc., then even the most delusional Lefty could not make a plausible case that such is due to 'dastardly' Western Exploitation/Neglect/Culture. Not that the likes of Noam Chimpsky don't keep on trying. 20265. concerned - 3/7/2002 4:25:10 PM Speaking of reduced fertility, what are the long term effects on the general pool of intellectual qualities most associated with achievement considered likely to be resulting from accumulating generations of the nominally most capable women reproducing the least? 20266. concerned - 3/7/2002 4:26:24 PM The pusillanimous and narrow minded are invited to ignore my previous post. 20267. PelleNilsson - 3/7/2002 4:30:03 PM I suggest you look at your own country for an answer. It's probably the best case study around. 20268. Jonesatlaw - 3/7/2002 4:42:00 PM Pelle- Thus our need for the global brain drain to out universities and tech employers. 20269. CalGal - 3/7/2002 4:45:47 PM Yet both of you would be appalled if someone said, "We need to reduce the birth rate of the poor" or "Women on welfare who get pregnant could be given strong incentives to abort". 20270. AytchMan - 3/7/2002 4:49:47 PM cal-- 20271. Wombat - 3/7/2002 4:54:33 PM Three, I think. 20272. Wombat - 3/7/2002 4:55:56 PM #20265 20273. CalGal - 3/7/2002 5:17:21 PM I did say Islamists, not Muslims. Althought that was very amusing. 20274. stostosto - 3/8/2002 7:59:16 AM Cal: 20275. judithathome - 3/10/2002 1:53:13 AM If This Isn't Scary, What Is? 20276. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/10/2002 2:28:21 AM 20277. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 12:26:14 PM BIG DOG EXPLAINS THE FACTS OF LIFE TO THE TERRORIST NATIONS: U.S. nuclear plan sees New Weapons and New Targets 20278. judithathome - 3/10/2002 12:46:04 PM Do you never read posts? I linked this story 2 posts above you. 20279. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 12:52:54 PM Second-day story, more details, Judith. 20280. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 12:56:07 PM "Saddam is the most destructive terrorist in the world today. No more rope a' dope. We have take him on," Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT). 20281. judithathome - 3/10/2002 12:57:47 PM I think it's rather reckless to shoot off weapons of mass destruction. 20282. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 1:12:06 PM These are "dead enders," Judith. They are either going to surrender or they are going to die. 20283. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/10/2002 1:28:42 PM Yes, let's ignore the ignorance and poverty that afflicts this planet, that breeds and nourishes the terrorist impulse to destroy. 20284. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 2:22:52 PM We're going to turn the whole world into Palestine. 20285. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 2:24:01 PM ...that's why they call it the Holy Land. 20286. jexster - 3/10/2002 2:26:42 PM Thomas Friedman - America's Most Important Political Columnist 20287. judithathome - 3/10/2002 2:28:07 PM William Bennett ought to get a job as producer...he just suggested the 9/11 program they are running tonight ought to be full of the gruesome bits, too. He thinks we don't understand the gravity of what happened. 20288. jexster - 3/10/2002 2:28:28 PM Since Sept. 11, thanks to his column and numerous TV appearances, Friedman has emerged as the best explainer of how the United States should relate to the Arab, Muslim, and Israeli worlds. This is not because of ideology, or rhetorical brilliance, or even analytical power, but because of his gritty, intimate knowledge of the places he is writing about. 20289. Cellar Door - 3/10/2002 2:28:31 PM 20290. jexster - 3/10/2002 2:29:25 PM JAH - 20291. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 2:32:55 PM CNN hired Bennett to give them some balance against its news anchor Judy Worthless. 20292. judithathome - 3/10/2002 2:37:31 PM He's on Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer...Woodruff has nothing to do with it. She's a news reader, nothing more. 20293. OhioSTOPAS - 3/10/2002 3:14:13 PM I was watching "Late Edition" too. Jonah Spawn-of-Lucianne Goldberg said opponents of Judge Pickering were "Mau-Mau-ing". What exactly the hell is THAT supposed to mean? 20294. jexster - 3/10/2002 3:24:41 PM Ohio... 20295. OhioSTOPAS - 3/10/2002 3:27:43 PM I've heard of the Mau Mau. I just don't see how opposing a conservative judge constitutes "Mau-Mau-ing". 20296. jexster - 3/10/2002 3:29:10 PM Its a Citizens Counsel thing...you Yankees wouldn' t understand.. 20297. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 3:29:24 PM Reuters reports that Iraq refuses to allow UN weapons inspectors to visit their terrorist nation. Just the excuse we needed... 20298. jexster - 3/10/2002 3:30:50 PM Yea right.. 20299. jexster - 3/10/2002 3:33:43 PM Even Bob Novak concedes that Rosie and her crowd of to use his term "super hawks" are out to lunch on Iraq. 20300. jexster - 3/10/2002 3:40:04 PM The New Nuclear "Policy" Leak - Outcry Against Bushie Super Hawk Saber Rattling Abuilding 20301. jexster - 3/10/2002 3:43:41 PM Mote Poll - 20302. jexster - 3/10/2002 4:41:29 PM Attack on Iraq - Super Hawks and Simpletons Face Reality 20303. judithathome - 3/10/2002 5:57:04 PM Ohio: 20304. judithathome - 3/10/2002 5:59:51 PM Radical Chic & Mau-Mauing the Flak Catchers 20305. jexster - 3/10/2002 7:42:00 PM JAH...you literati you... 20306. jexster - 3/10/2002 7:42:49 PM I used to hear it in Southern school yards in very unflattering references to the nigras 20307. Property of Jesus - 3/10/2002 7:48:44 PM This was while you were wearing your Nazi SS Panzer T-shirt, Jex? 20308. jexster - 3/10/2002 7:52:18 PM When I was child fer Jesus sake Rosie! 20309. jexster - 3/10/2002 7:53:33 PM stop eating so much Rosie...stop reading the National Enquirer and Goldberg's gibberish...take a trip to DisneyLand's new California Adventure 20311. jexster - 3/10/2002 8:10:00 PM CLARE SHORT issued a warning yesterday that all-out war against Iraq was not the way to handle the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. 20312. wonkers2 - 3/10/2002 8:53:15 PM Not only the Blair government will be split on Iraq. Our government will be split two if you count the Congress. 20313. Property of Jesus - 3/11/2002 9:10:36 AM Andrew Sullivan has a great review of the CBS documentary on 9/11 last night. 20314. judithathome - 3/11/2002 10:01:27 AM Jex: 20315. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/11/2002 10:09:30 AM 20316. betty - 3/11/2002 10:20:02 AM Judith, 20317. joezan - 3/11/2002 10:24:07 AM Speaking of which: 20318. Cellar Door - 3/11/2002 10:31:55 AM So does that mean we're not going to hear anymore bellyaching about black juries? 20319. betty - 3/11/2002 10:36:53 AM joe, 20320. jexster - 3/11/2002 10:41:42 AM Our little Monkey Moron seemed a more than a bit subdued today. More like a funeral director than Evil World Warriour 20321. Property of Jesus - 3/11/2002 12:24:27 PM For the record. H. Rap Brown killed a black man, a sheriff, after the police had stopped him regarding his driving a stolen vehicle. 20322. judithathome - 3/11/2002 12:37:17 PM For the record, you are full of it. 20323. rubberducky - 3/11/2002 12:39:29 PM what does H. Rap Brown have to do with 'War on Terrorism'? if nothing, then please move the discussion to a more appropriate thread, thanks. 20324. judithathome - 3/11/2002 12:40:26 PM Well, ask Joezan...he brought him up. 20325. jexster - 3/11/2002 1:37:37 PM I wish I could visit NYC and see the Light Memorial.... 20326. joezan - 3/11/2002 1:46:41 PM judith: 20327. judithathome - 3/11/2002 1:48:45 PM Joezan: 20328. jexster - 3/11/2002 1:52:33 PM 20329. jexster - 3/11/2002 2:14:44 PM Whatever "mau-mauing" may mean at the NR, I suppose we'll never know. 20330. jexster - 3/11/2002 4:59:22 PM TONY BLAIR today met US vice president Dick Cheney, saying there was "no doubt" that Iraq posed a threat but insisted the international coalition against terrorism would take action in a "calm and measured way". 20331. jexster - 3/11/2002 7:26:37 PM Hey Rosie...I found you an army! 20332. ronski - 3/11/2002 7:57:39 PM The WTC tribute in light is visible from the Tappan Zee Bridge, a good ways up the Hudson. 20333. ronski - 3/11/2002 8:04:53 PM 20334. RustlerPike - 3/11/2002 9:40:59 PM 20335. Property of Jesus - 3/11/2002 10:23:15 PM Too much electricity... They need 160 search lights 20336. ronski - 3/11/2002 10:24:55 PM There are some problems with migrating birds, and aircraft, apparently. 20337. jexster - 3/11/2002 11:22:42 PM I think it pees...............We need more shit like this and less NapoleonBoneHead 20338. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2002 9:40:58 AM . . .Cicero offering his famous dictum: Oderint, dum metuant — Let them hate, so long as they fear. 20339. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2002 9:41:33 AM Toys 20340. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 10:25:59 AM 20341. Jonesatlaw - 3/12/2002 11:07:25 AM The thermobaric bomb is nothing terribly new, really, though it makes for a sexy piece of journalism. The Marines were very fond of flamethrowers in WWII's Pacific campaign because of the very phenomenon the article leads with- sucking the oxygen out of a bunker or cave. Japanese positions were expertly dug in, and bravely and desparately defended. Marines would attempt to locate airholes and alternate exits, and would grenade them. The entrance would be smothered with flame and the oxygen sucked out. Flamthrowing Shermans were used on Okinawa for this purpose and would cover the area, and then focus on the entrance. Napalm bombs were used to similar effect in Vietnam. The only real innovation is the hardened delivery system. A very useful, if horrible, weapon. 20342. Wombat - 3/12/2002 11:08:32 AM Its just a firestorm, writ small. 20343. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 11:14:58 AM I thought the "new" aspect of the thermobaric bomb was its ability to penetrate and then turn oxygen to flame. Did I read that wrong, or is the author wrong? 20344. robertjayb - 3/12/2002 12:03:24 PM What's the color today? 20345. Jonesatlaw - 3/12/2002 12:23:43 PM Julius, All incidiaries turn oxygen into flame technically. The new aspect is the ability to place the flame inside the hardened site directly, in the hypothetical where it penetrates without having to use the entrance. 20346. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 12:29:05 PM Gracias for the clarification. 20347. robertjayb - 3/12/2002 1:47:14 PM Good News! The terror color of the day will be determined the old snake-handler himself, Saint John Ashcroft. 20348. rubberducky - 3/12/2002 1:57:52 PM wonder what the color for Christ's anticipated return is? 20349. betty - 3/12/2002 1:58:34 PM Hey wiz, 20350. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 2:15:44 PM Along with the thermobaric bomb, another tool being used against Al Qaeda, from The Washington Post: 20351. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 2:18:24 PM In October, for instance, a Yemeni microbiology student wanted in the bombing of the USS Cole was flown from Pakistan to Jordan on a U.S.-registered Gulfstream jet after Pakistan's intelligence agency surrendered him to U.S. authorities at the Karachi airport, Pakistani government sources said. The handover of the shackled and blindfolded student, who was said to be an operative for Al-Qa'ida, occurred in the middle of the night at a remote corner of the airport without extradition or deportation procedures, the sources said. 20352. rubberducky - 3/12/2002 2:19:06 PM and what's your opinion on that JC? 20353. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 2:19:23 PM U.S. involvement in seizing terrorism suspects in third countries and shipping them with few or no legal proceedings to the United States or other countries - known as "rendition" - is not new. In recent years, U.S. agents, working with Egyptian intelligence and local authorities in Africa, central Asia and the Balkans, have sent dozens of suspected Islamic extremists to Cairo or taken them to the United States, according to U.S. officials, Egyptian lawyers and rights groups. U.S. authorities are urging Pakistan to take the same step with the chief suspect in the kidnapping and killing of Wall St. Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. 20354. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 2:23:46 PM Duck 20355. zojak quafeth - 3/12/2002 2:39:59 PM And as the report states, t'aint new. 20356. betty - 3/12/2002 2:44:06 PM Good Gawd. 20357. zojak quafeth - 3/12/2002 2:45:08 PM 20358. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 2:45:11 PM Shred, shred, shred! 20359. betty - 3/12/2002 2:47:31 PM (not that I'm surprised by this, just that I hate seeing my worst suspicions verified.) 20360. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 2:55:49 PM (for sto) 20361. jexster - 3/12/2002 3:18:03 PM Robert... 20362. jexster - 3/12/2002 3:23:57 PM Yesterday we were on GREEN alert until last night when the Metropolitan Police apphrended Rosetta Christ rolling down 11th Street @ G NE 20363. jexster - 3/12/2002 3:26:53 PM They found anthrax in her purse. 20364. zojak quafeth - 3/12/2002 3:27:42 PM The new motto: 20365. robertjayb - 3/12/2002 3:29:09 PM 20366. bubbaette - 3/12/2002 3:33:16 PM A recent article in the Atlantic Monthly noted that information gained through torture is very unreliable. 20367. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 3:35:18 PM Whoops. 20368. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 3:38:53 PM In a recording heard by CNN, the prisoner on Monday night shouted in English: "We are on a hunger strike. We've been on a hunger strike for 14 days, and nobody cares. We need the world to know about us. We are innocent here in this cage. We have no legal rights, nothing. So can somebody know about us? Can you tell the world about us?" 20369. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 3:39:38 PM Three detainees were being fed intravenously Tuesday to combat dehydration. 20370. betty - 3/12/2002 3:41:05 PM bubba, 20371. CalGal - 3/12/2002 3:44:47 PM JC, 20372. Jonesatlaw - 3/12/2002 3:49:07 PM I agree that torture is not really a good tool, even if one takes a purely amoral view. It supposes that the torturer can "break" a person through pain such that they will tell the truth to the torturer and surrender their will. The problem is that it takes a good deal of psychological skill to know when the victim is lying, when they have broken and are telling the truth, or are broken and are saying anything that they think the torturer wants to hear in order to stop the pain. With determined subjects, it is possible that the point where they would surrender to the will of the torturer is so far along that physilogical limitations interfere with the effect. The victim goes into shock, or blacks out or is otherwise mentally impaired such that even if they were truly willing to cooperate, they may not be coherent enough to do so, let alone with any detailed recollection of the information desired. 20373. Julius Caesar - 3/12/2002 3:52:33 PM 20374. CalGal - 3/12/2002 3:53:34 PM Jones, 20375. zojak quafeth - 3/12/2002 3:58:36 PM The KGB was very good at systematic torture, and they lost control of the USSR. 20376. Wombat - 3/12/2002 4:19:44 PM The Atlantic article was very good, and was written by someone who I have worked with and have a great deal of respect for. 20377. Jonesatlaw - 3/12/2002 4:21:38 PM Folks, please.... I didn't assert that the only cause of the fall of the Soviets was their torture policy. It certainly spread terror, and helped prop them up for some time, but it did not prevent the eventual failure of their regime, depite extraordinary systems of surveilance, intimidation, execution and exile imposed on a captive population. 20378. betty - 3/12/2002 4:24:23 PM It dehumanizes both the torturer and the tortured. 20379. Wombat - 3/12/2002 4:26:18 PM Betty: 20380. Jonesatlaw - 3/12/2002 4:29:27 PM If Solzhenitisyn (I know I butchered the spelling) is to be believed, the really effective methods are far less physical and more psychological in any event. I wonder if any are being applied in Gitmo. 20381. betty - 3/12/2002 4:37:44 PM Wombat, 20382. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/12/2002 4:50:06 PM With regard to Ashcroft, if you haven't seen this video yet, you are in for an experience so astonishing that it left me utterly dumfounded. 20383. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 6:37:30 PM Did anybody catch Chris Matthews last night on the Pentagon leak that somebody is advocating dropping or changing our no first strike policy and the nuclear targeting, in addition to Russia and China, North Korea, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen and Libya? 20384. concerned - 3/12/2002 6:37:49 PM Re. 20382 - 20385. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 7:46:19 PM Strike Yemen from the Pentagon's new list of nuclear targets. Chris Matthews devoted half his show to this topic again tonight--expanded scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons by the U.S. are being developed and recommended by unknown madmen in the Pentagon. 20386. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 8:04:05 PM Frank Gaffney on Pentagon's New Nuclear Policy 20387. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 8:07:25 PM Sorry, I'm unable to make the link work. Gaffney's editorial appears on www.TownHall.com. 20388. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 8:33:34 PM Doesn't anybody care that some wacko Strangelove in the Pentagon is apparently re-writing our entire postwar nuclear policy and possibly bringing us closer to Armageddon? 20389. betty - 3/12/2002 8:38:52 PM wonkers, 20390. arkymalarky - 3/12/2002 8:41:55 PM Yes. 20391. arkymalarky - 3/12/2002 8:46:36 PM To elaborate, I'm reserving my remarks for after Armageddon, when I can point out that we never elected that bozo to begin with, and I can smugly end with "I told you so." 20392. Al D - 3/12/2002 8:46:39 PM Those in favor of assited suicide, as I am, must protest the governments forced feeding of the detainees who choose to die by starvation. If we don't have the right to end our life, what do other rights matter? 20393. betty - 3/12/2002 8:50:34 PM arky, 20394. arkymalarky - 3/12/2002 8:55:10 PM No, I haven't read much of anything except news headlines since Christmas. Fill me in. 20395. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 8:56:26 PM America as Nuclear Rogue 20396. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 8:59:18 PM Al, I agree. 20397. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 9:01:33 PM What do you think about changing U.S. policy from mutually assurred destruction to strike first and ask questions later? 20398. arkymalarky - 3/12/2002 9:06:53 PM It's not the same thing? 20399. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 9:50:22 PM I'm no expert on nuclear policy, but heretofore I believe our policy has been to use nuclear weapons only after another country used them first on us or a NATO country. The theory was that neither side would start a nuclear war because they would face unacceptably massive retaliation from the other side. Nuclear armed B52s, submarines, etc. were (are?) constantly deployed (in the air and sea) so that we could retaliate against the USSR no matter what. I believe our stated policy always was that we would never launch the first nuclear strike. Now, the Pentagon is re-examining this policy and some nutcase is recommending we not eschew a first strike. 20400. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 9:52:45 PM See Jexter's link #20300 which I just noticed. He brought the issue up three days ago and linked a good NYT article. 20401. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 9:56:05 PM Re: #200301 Was the leak intentional by Bush or the advocates of the policy? 20402. jexster - 3/12/2002 10:02:30 PM I think it was an inside job because we'd have heard King Moron's minions screaming TREASON by now and maybe we'd even be on ORANGE ALERT. 20403. jexster - 3/12/2002 10:02:57 PM 20404. wonkers2 - 3/12/2002 10:17:38 PM Who knows there may be some pinko Powell loyalists lurking around the Pentagon! 20405. arkymalarky - 3/12/2002 10:18:32 PM Wonk, 20406. arkymalarky - 3/12/2002 10:32:27 PM IOW, my joke was supposed to be along the Strangelove line, based on the concept that, combining the principles of MAD with the current nuclear buildup and proliferation, such a loony policy statement--particularly in light the destabilization of the balance created by two superpowers which made MAD workable that came with the breakup of the USSR--makes every first strike, including ours--no matter how small the target--have the serious potential to result in MAD. The old MAD just assumed an instant tit-for-tat between two superpowers, not from escalation over a minor incident in the current international nuclear climate. The 21st century's Gavrilo Princip/Franz Ferdinand spark for the powder keg could be a special-made little nuke dropped in an Afghan cave. 20407. jexster - 3/12/2002 11:46:19 PM 20408. PelleNilsson - 3/13/2002 1:18:02 AM wonkers 20409. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/13/2002 1:22:10 AM What blithering Neolithic logic. We should threaten people who are willing die for their cause with nuclear destruction because it will make them stop and think twice about using nuclear weapons. 20410. wonkers2 - 3/13/2002 7:37:15 AM Pelle, I can't dispute your memory on the point. This may well have been an exception, albeit a significant one. 20411. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 8:31:52 AM What blithering Neolithic logic. We should threaten people who are willing die for their cause with nuclear destruction because it will make them stop and think twice about using nuclear weapons. 20412. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 8:34:44 AM From the NYT atricle linked in #20300: 20413. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 8:43:16 AM A bit more: 20414. wonkers2 - 3/13/2002 9:06:24 AM Zeke, "What's illogical about being prepared?" 20415. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/13/2002 9:16:35 AM zoj- Osama, Saddam and Qaddaffi are indeed cowards, but they are the ones who fund and insight the cowardly acts of terrorism. What good is a nuclear device against a clandestine terrorist living in South Florida or the Philipines? 20416. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/13/2002 9:17:56 AM are insane=is insane 20417. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 9:35:20 AM W2- 20418. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 9:44:23 AM WoW- 20419. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 9:46:13 AM Yes ecnomic aid is necessary and appropriate, but so is being ready to beat the crap out of any nutjob who decides to come after us. 20420. Jonesatlaw - 3/13/2002 10:04:07 AM Officially, the US had a no first strike policy in the cold war. The strategy for dealing with the imbalance of conventional power in Europe was that NATO technological superiority would effectively balance out the numerical advantage the warsaw pact had in armor and artilery. It was thought that the German Leopard and British Cheiftan series tanks were far superior to Warsaw pact armor, and the US M60's would hold their own. The latter was doubtful, thus priority was given to the A10 tank killer and the development of the M1. 20421. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 10:16:34 AM Exactly, Jonesatlaw. Which is why the US arsenal and planning has to evolve. It's not new since 9/11 by the way. Rumsfeld was talking to NATO about in June of 2001. 20422. wonkers2 - 3/13/2002 10:38:01 AM ZQ, Obviously, US nuclear policy has to evolve. But the question is in which direction. It should be evolving toward reduction and deproliferation, not expansion and building more weapons. The Pentagon is now going in the wrong direction. We should continue and accelerate our program with Russia. Instead the cretins in the Pentagon have convinced Bush to store, not dismantle our nuclear weapons. Another step backward. And now we are announcing a first strike and tactical nuclear weapons policy. Complete insanity. 20423. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 10:47:15 AM W2- 20424. wonkers2 - 3/13/2002 10:54:37 AM Who is gaining on U.S. weapons technology? Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia? I would rather not throw my money into the bottomless pit of the military industrial complex. The Pentagon will spend every penny they get and cry for more. Meanwhile our highways are full of potholes, the bridges are falling down, many people can't afford health care. You worry about making sure our technology is superior while the rest of us worry about our educational system falling behind the rest of the world. 20425. wonkers2 - 3/13/2002 10:56:30 AM We do need to be able to respond to threats. Nuclear weapons are not needed for this. The 9-11 attack was not exactly high tech. Neither are suitcase bombs. 20426. concerned - 3/13/2002 11:03:06 AM In ZQ's excerpt, Rumsfeld was clearly talking about giving the US a real world ballistic missile defense capability, which threatens nothing but the illegitimate plans of foreign aggressors. 20427. Jonesatlaw - 3/13/2002 11:22:08 AM I agree with Wonkers- there is no advantage to the US in nuclear proliferation, and a great deal of risk. Our nuclear policy should be as it has been in the last 20 years, insuring that we have an accurate and reliable delivery capability of the warheads we have. The less said about targeting etc the better. 20428. PelleNilsson - 3/13/2002 11:23:04 AM Jones 20429. concerned - 3/13/2002 11:31:18 AM Listen to the (deeply hypocritical, ungrateful, Leftist educated) Kuwaitis 20431. jexster - 3/13/2002 12:07:59 PM Yea that's gratitude fer ya! 20432. jexster - 3/13/2002 12:09:16 PM Not to mention those greasy, sleazy TURKS! 20433. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/13/2002 12:24:38 PM If Saddam and Qadaffi know that they are going to be vaporized for sponsoring a chem/nuke attack on the US they are less likely to do it b/c they are cowards. 20434. PincherMartin - 3/13/2002 12:25:55 PM I disagree with JonesAtLaw's comments that the U.S. did not have a nuclear first strike policy in Europe during the Cold War. 20435. PincherMartin - 3/13/2002 12:30:38 PM I should say the Carnegie article is not so much about the history of U.S. or NATO nuclear strategy as it is an advocacy piece to get the U.S. to drop its nuclear first use policy as an antiquated leftover of the Cold War. 20436. Jonesatlaw - 3/13/2002 12:56:24 PM Pincher- I was referring to a strategic strike where we did have a policy of renouncing a first strike. You are correct in referrence to a tactical use in the European hypo- that was left ambiguous. 20437. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 1:01:56 PM WoW- 20438. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/13/2002 1:27:55 PM Hating the President? There's a difference in knowing that someone is an imbecile and hating them. Your'e making imbecilic statements, but I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you because you swallow this crap about R&D for new weaponry--with your logic, guns would "deter" murder and newer guns would deter more murders. 20439. wonkers2 - 3/13/2002 1:30:43 PM Better, smaller nukes---that says it all! 20440. jexster - 3/13/2002 1:38:46 PM Rummy finally commented on the Leak. 20441. jexster - 3/13/2002 1:41:27 PM Down the block is ARC, an agency that helps the mentally challenged. 20442. jexster - 3/13/2002 1:49:03 PM So what if His Royal Immigration Service gave visas to the dead hijackers? 20443. zojak quafeth - 3/13/2002 2:25:50 PM WoW- 20444. betty - 3/13/2002 3:12:22 PM jex, 20445. jexster - 3/13/2002 4:20:30 PM ARC 20446. jexster - 3/13/2002 4:23:27 PM Let's Roll, Rosie! 20447. jexster - 3/13/2002 5:08:09 PM Bush 'Stunned' by INS Handling of Hijacker Visas 20448. wonkers2 - 3/13/2002 8:10:31 PM Zojak, do you, by any chance, work at the Pentagon or elsewhere in the military? Just curious. 20449. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2002 12:20:39 AM Wonk- Is it because he doesn't know the meaning of the word fear? Then again, it's obvious from his earlier posts, he doesn't know the meaning of a lot of words! 20450. judithathome - 3/14/2002 12:27:42 AM Yesterday, however, the only warmth that the Vice-President felt was the wind that blows off the Arabian Desert at this time of year... 20451. zojak quafeth - 3/14/2002 8:26:25 AM w2- 20452. zojak quafeth - 3/14/2002 8:33:30 AM Anyone looking for a little light reading? 20453. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2002 10:39:35 AM zoj, "Light reading" is an understatement--it's called exploitative propaganda (to help me get a bigger job than Senator or doctor), and YOU are the one depriving a village somewhere of a genuine idiot! 20454. zojak quafeth - 3/14/2002 11:36:39 AM See WoW. You're hatred blinds you so that you are only bent on trying to find a silly insult. Staying true to my word, I'll stick with substance. 20455. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 3/14/2002 12:06:16 PM 20456. jexster - 3/14/2002 12:12:42 PM After playing with their dicks for over a year... 20457. jexster - 3/14/2002 4:11:27 PM House Panel Pushes $1 Billion in Afghan Aid 20458. wonkers2 - 3/14/2002 4:30:49 PM Shh! 20459. concerned - 3/14/2002 6:34:34 PM I'm starting to suspect that the Bush administration is holding off on a possible invasion of Iraq until after the November elections, and is working in other theatres such as Yemen and the Philippines until then. 20460. Property of Jesus - 3/14/2002 6:57:26 PM That makes sense, concerned. 20461. jexster - 3/14/2002 7:05:15 PM Rosie just ROLLED in! 20462. jexster - 3/14/2002 7:07:20 PM Let's see... 20463. jexster - 3/14/2002 7:29:34 PM 10/04/04 - Bush Attacks Iraq 20464. Jexster - 3/14/2002 9:39:43 PM Canadian troops led mop-up operations in Afghanistan today, MSNBC.com reports. Operation Harpoon landed U.S. and Canadian troops on the mountain ridge called "the whale" to search caves and hunt down the estimated 100 remaining Taliban and al-Qaida fighters. But the search is turning up more questions than answers: Though officials say the Americans and their allies killed hundreds of enemy soldiers, searchers are finding few bodies... 20465. jexster - 3/15/2002 2:17:20 AM WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Lawmakers from both parties blistered the Bush administration on Thursday for "a severe attitude problem" in its dealings with Congress, threatening to withhold requested funds because of Homeland Security chief Tom Ridge's refusal to testify on Capitol Hill. 20466. stostosto - 3/15/2002 5:37:23 AM Hey! I found a picture of jexster! 20467. jexster - 3/15/2002 11:56:48 AM Perfekt! 20468. jexster - 3/15/2002 11:56:52 AM Perfekt! 20469. jexster - 3/15/2002 12:00:32 PM Hvor er toilettet? 20470. Property of Jesus - 3/15/2002 12:09:05 PM Russia "will stand by coalition even if Iraq is attacked." 20471. jexster - 3/15/2002 12:15:08 PM Rosie's rolling again... 20472. jexster - 3/15/2002 12:34:56 PM Bush Loves Poindexter BECAUSE He Lied to Congress 20473. Property of Jesus - 3/15/2002 12:38:50 PM Helen Thomas, the "journalist" that drove UPI to bankruptcy. 20474. jexster - 3/15/2002 12:42:38 PM "Has anyone else following the aftermath of Sept. 11 been struck by the similarity to George Orwell's '1984' - in which a never-ending, faraway war against ever-changing enemies serves as a rationale for political and social repression? In the past five months numerous Americans, and not a few Europeans, have not dared speak their minds, and many more have not dared to think things through to a point at which the urge to speak one's mind becomes unbearable. There was no genuine war after Sept. 11 - there could not have been. And no country, not even one as powerful as the US after it lost the Soviet Union as its only rival, can hijack such an important concept as war without in the long run bringing disaster upon itself. Orwell, that great beacon of political common sense in the 20th century, educated at least two generations of reasonable observers of political reality in the danger of misusing words in this way." 20475. jexster - 3/15/2002 12:43:21 PM The what Rosie? 20476. jexster - 3/15/2002 12:43:45 PM Telephone 202-562-4000 20477. ronski - 3/15/2002 2:45:37 PM In the land of our allies and friends, the Saudis, 15 young girls were forced to burn to death by local religious police who refused to let the children leave a burning building without the traditional headscarves and black robes they must always wear in public. 20478. jexster - 3/15/2002 2:57:38 PM Yea and how about those fag trials in Eygpt?!?!? 20479. ronski - 3/15/2002 3:07:04 PM I couldn't have said it better myself. 20480. ronski - 3/15/2002 3:09:14 PM BTW, they haven't gotten around to lesbians yet, perhaps because, like Queen Victoria, they cannot imagine women doing such things. 20481. Cellar Door - 3/15/2002 5:25:03 PM 20482. Cellar Door - 3/15/2002 5:25:37 PM Just in case this hasn't been posted before. 20483. jexster - 3/15/2002 6:22:56 PM Krusty the Klown said his visit to USS Sennis was the "highlight" of his trip. 20484. LohrM - 3/16/2002 3:08:30 PM Gay Egyptians... Now there's a terrifying idea-- lounge lizard clothes and unwashed bodies. The Gyppo cops are just reacting to the stomach-churning visuals brought up by the idea of Sand Monkey Studs in Love. 20485. jexster - 3/16/2002 3:55:29 PM http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/03/16/MN158128.DTL 20486. jexster - 3/16/2002 3:59:22 PM That would be 20487. wonkers2 - 3/16/2002 5:33:00 PM Why doesn't that surprize me about Lindh? 20488. jexster - 3/16/2002 8:32:04 PM Axis of Evil Flexes Satanic Muscle - Panty Waist Powell, Spawn of Satan 20489. jexster - 3/16/2002 10:15:04 PM AP is reporting that there is evidence that the Al Qaedites are rebuilding..heavy financial activity.... 20490. jexster - 3/16/2002 10:16:02 PM Hell they're all in Pakistan anyway.... 20491. jexster - 3/16/2002 10:38:12 PM Paul Wolfowitz has found his calling, jester in the Court of a moron king... 20492. jexster - 3/16/2002 11:05:34 PM "There's lots of signs al-Qaida is reconstituting itself," said Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA (news - web sites) counterterrorist chief. "Internet traffic has picked up enormously. Money is moving around. There is some evidence leadership is active." 20493. wonkers2 - 3/16/2002 11:26:31 PM AIDS will be cured before terrorism. 20494. jexster - 3/17/2002 3:51:32 AM "I do not believe it is in the United States' interests, or the interest of the region, or the world's interest, to do so," Crown Prince Abdullah told ABC News. "And I don't believe it will achieve the desired result." 20495. jexster - 3/17/2002 3:54:47 AM let's roll 20496. jexster - 3/17/2002 3:55:23 AM let's roll 20497. jexster - 3/17/2002 11:01:18 AM Jordan's King Abdullah II is urging the Bush administration to abandon ideas of taking on the regime of Saddam Hussein, predicting that any U.S. military action against Iraq could produce an "Armageddon" in the Middle East - LAT 20498. betty - 3/17/2002 11:13:30 AM Jex and Ronski, 20499. jexster - 3/17/2002 11:18:26 AM I'll get 'em for ya...its a been an inside cause celebre for a year or 2 now... 20500. betty - 3/17/2002 11:20:03 AM found one mention of ~50 men on BBC (from July 2001) but outside of that mention at BBC I can't find anything from a "real" news source. 20501. jexster - 3/17/2002 11:20:08 AM What kind of war is this? How do we defeat an abstract noun, terrorism? How can we help the war effort, besides paying taxes to the kind of bureaucrats who gave visas to two dead terrorists and Lord knows how many living ones? 20502. betty - 3/17/2002 11:21:11 AM that's a sarcastic "real" in case you couldn't tell. 20503. jexster - 3/17/2002 11:22:50 AM 20504. jexster - 3/17/2002 11:29:30 AM Betty, your post made me wonder. All the news I have read on the subject is from Planet Out or local gay rags. 20505. jexster - 3/17/2002 11:30:20 AM 14 of 33 20506. betty - 3/17/2002 11:37:35 AM jex, 20507. jexster - 3/17/2002 3:45:24 PM 20508. jexster - 3/17/2002 4:01:34 PM Saudi to Cheney/Bush - Eat Shit! 20509. jexster - 3/17/2002 4:02:17 PM Krusty should return to life support. 20510. Cellar Door - 3/17/2002 4:37:18 PM 20511. jexster - 3/17/2002 10:45:55 PM Excellent! 20512. concerned - 3/18/2002 2:41:11 AM Anyone who thinks it's safe to ignore Al Qaeda now is a moron 20513. concerned - 3/18/2002 2:42:35 AM That means you, jexster. 20514. jexster - 3/18/2002 9:54:30 AM I never said its safe to ignore AL Quaeda. 20515. jexster - 3/18/2002 9:55:47 AM Bahrain Joins Axis of Evil - Lectures Cheney on Iraq 20516. Jonesatlaw - 3/18/2002 12:32:31 PM AlQeda escape again. I think we need to get used to hearing that phrase. We are out of touch with the locals, too ignorant of the agendas of our "friends" and too simplistic in our view of the enemy. None of this sounds good. It is similar to our problems in Vietnam. It took a good while to get the lay of the land there, and we were screwed by the time we knew what was going on. 20517. Julius Caesar - 3/18/2002 12:33:49 PM You sound almost hopeful. (g) 20518. Jonesatlaw - 3/18/2002 1:09:57 PM Nah, I don't have the hair for it or a draft card these days. Besides, those protest songs are never lyrical enough... 20519. jexster - 3/18/2002 1:49:13 PM Come gather round Jonsey wherever you roam 20520. robertjayb - 3/18/2002 5:13:12 PM Handsome young general said today on CNN that Operation Anaconda was successfully completed. Going into this deal our Fearless Leaders said that the bad guys had but two choices: Surrender or Die. Pretty chesty stuff, even for dubya's boys. Impressed me, I'll tell you. So? So? Did they surrender of die? You don't know? Oh. 20521. jexster - 3/18/2002 7:51:56 PM actually the Pentagon changed the definition of sucess post facto. 20522. jexster - 3/18/2002 7:55:28 PM 20523. robertjayb - 3/18/2002 10:36:17 PM 20524. zojak quafeth - 3/19/2002 7:57:50 AM Top Al Qaeda Official Captured in Sudan 20525. robertjayb - 3/19/2002 3:54:29 PM Hiding out, biding time... 20526. Julius Caesar - 3/19/2002 4:00:12 PM I wonder if the Taliban comeback will be anything like the Journey comeback. 20527. glendajean - 3/19/2002 4:02:41 PM I wonder if they have read the latest research of the Koran that indicates that paradise will have crystal clear rasins for martyrs rather than virgins. 20528. jexster - 3/20/2002 4:00:24 AM Senior Bush administration intelligence officials told Congress yesterday that U.S. forces in Afghanistan face increased danger of attack by pockets of al Qaeda and Taliban fighters that remain hidden in the country's mountains and cities. 20529. alistairConnor - 3/21/2002 4:11:03 AM An interview with Desmond Tutu 20530. concerned - 3/21/2002 4:28:20 AM IMO, the United Nations is perfectly entitled to try OBL in the ICC if they capture him. 20531. concerned - 3/21/2002 4:40:42 AM Anybody miss the irony? 20532. concerned - 3/21/2002 4:57:58 AM Cultural Freedom Returning to Afghanistan, UN Official Temporarily Sets Agenda Aside 20533. Cygnus X-1 - 3/21/2002 9:44:13 AM The war is all just about differences in culture, right? We just have to respect Islamic culture: 20534. wonkers2 - 3/21/2002 10:12:47 AM Who says they are morally equivalent? Mr. Ali Al-Sibiki is obviously lagging in the civilization department. 20535. Cygnus X-1 - 3/21/2002 10:16:08 AM You're right. Let's just nuke the bastards. 20536. wonkers2 - 3/21/2002 10:17:10 AM However, some Americans are also lagging in the civilization department! 20537. Wombat - 3/21/2002 10:38:28 AM See 20535 above. 20538. jexster - 3/21/2002 12:01:21 PM Rumblin bumblin stumblin into where Bush has not a clue... 20539. jexster - 3/21/2002 3:23:50 PM 'Two-Bit Terrorists' Won't Stop Peru Visit -Bush 20540. Cygnus X-1 - 3/21/2002 3:58:12 PM "It would be good if no one paid attention to those who criticize Bush..." 20541. jexster - 3/21/2002 8:29:49 PM Better dead than RED! 20542. concerned - 3/22/2002 1:34:59 AM Re. 20539 - 20543. concerned - 3/22/2002 1:39:23 AM To all on the sinister side of politics, what strategies can you develop to use when negotiating with Al Qaeda, which requires their soldiers to swear the following oath: 20544. OhioSTOPAS - 3/22/2002 6:03:23 AM "[President Bush] has already accomplished more against terrorism in a year than [President Clinton] managed in eight . . ." 20545. joezan - 3/22/2002 7:31:08 AM concerned - Message # 20543: 20546. jexster - 3/22/2002 1:23:26 PM "There is no way that the U.S. will be able to garner any sustained support for taking out Saddam Hussein in Iraq unless it can stabilize both Israel-Palestine and Afghanistan. If we cannot do that minimum, we will have no legitimacy, no credibility and no support for taking apart Iraq." TFriedman 03/22 20547. CalGal - 3/22/2002 3:17:13 PM Watchdog Group Issues Rebuke on Poll on Islamic Countries 20548. robertjayb - 3/22/2002 3:49:26 PM "I didn't do the arithmetic," Stone said. 20549. jexster - 3/23/2002 12:08:13 AM Reuters Headline: Reeling From Blast, Peru Prepares for a Visit From Bush 20550. jexster - 3/23/2002 2:13:22 PM Peru Riot Police Mobilized for Bush Arrival 20551. LohrM - 3/23/2002 2:17:19 PM War is the natural relationship with Foreigners... 20552. jexster - 3/23/2002 10:57:46 PM "In a recent Slate "Today's Papers" column, Eric Umansky drew attention to a Wall Street Journal item reporting the impending arrival of 1700 British troops in Afghanistan at the U.S. military's request. Quite rightly, Umansky was most interested not in what was included in the dispatch, but what wasn't. "Given that the US presumably still has plenty of troops available," he wrote, "it would have been helpful if the paper had asked why the US requested the deployment." 20553. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 11:18:32 AM Can someone explain the case for invading Iraq to me? There's a piece in this week's New Yorker, and I simply can't follow the reasoning. 20554. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2002 11:33:50 AM To redeem Bush pére? 20555. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 11:49:24 AM Well, that one occurred to me. But that's an awful lot of people to plan to kill and be killed because of a previous foreign policy mistake. 20556. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 11:51:53 AM And the Saddam is a really bad man argument is not all that compelling. There are a lot of really bad men in power. 20557. PelleNilsson - 3/26/2002 12:42:49 PM I don't understand the rationale either. But remember that what is now seen as a policy mistake (i.e. the decision not to slaughter the remnants of the Iraqi army) was not seen as such at the time, at least not by many. The accepted wisdom was that the sanctions would topple Saddam in the near term. I guess important parts of the US foreign affairs and national security establishment are very antagonized by the way a "primitive" like Saddam has upstaged them over the last decade and that's coming to the surface now disguised as a step in the fight against terrorism. 20558. Indiana Jones - 3/26/2002 12:50:44 PM An article I linked about a month ago. 20559. Raskolnikov - 3/26/2002 1:03:08 PM "If it's about weapons of mass destruction, either he has them, in which an invasion leads to use 'em or lose 'em scenarios. Or he doesn't, in 20560. concerned - 3/26/2002 1:10:42 PM Re. 20559 - 20561. concerned - 3/26/2002 1:15:41 PM If one gives credence to such estimates, then there would be only a limited time in which to take any action deemed necessary to prohibit Iraqi access to a nuclear arsenal. 20562. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 1:18:57 PM Yes, this article presumes that deterrence carries no weight with Saddam, but doesn't discuss that presumption directly. He knows that if he nukes us with the one bomb that he was working on in that article, he will be nuked. Now it's true that he doesn't care about the lives of any of the Iraqi citizens, but he does care about his own life. He may even care a little bit about Baghdad. 20563. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 1:46:53 PM It matter none that Sadaam may be "really bad." What matters is his capability and his predisposition. The former is growing. The latter is known to be hostile and vicious. And to view Sadaam in the same vein than one might have pre-9/11 is an exercise in dangerous ignorance. 20564. Raskolnikov - 3/26/2002 2:53:31 PM Can one of the programmers on the site make a bot that will automatically post comments blaming Clinton for every single piece of bad news so that we can save concerned the effort of having to do it manually? 20565. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 3:00:57 PM I'm all for stopping and destruction the production of these systems by this guy. I don't see how an invasion does that. Effective intelligence and preemptive strikes do that. And I don't see why I shouldn't believe that he can be deterred. 20566. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 3:06:11 PM Rask, 20567. Raskolnikov - 3/26/2002 3:18:03 PM "I'm all for stopping and destruction the production of these systems by this guy. I don't see how an invasion does that." 20568. Raskolnikov - 3/26/2002 3:20:08 PM "Its a good idea, especially if we use a nice green with envy font. And we also need a different one in blazing red to save jexster all the time he spends blasting Bush." 20569. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 3:39:54 PM jay 20570. zojak quafeth - 3/26/2002 3:49:42 PM If the stateless criminal syndicate is as effective as you say, the result of an invasion could well be transfer of any mass destruction technology to that syndicate. 20571. zojak quafeth - 3/26/2002 3:52:24 PM You have recast MADD in an almost absurdist light, as if Iraq were a reliable signatory to mutual-defense agreement with Al Qaeda. 20572. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 3:58:38 PM zojak 20573. zojak quafeth - 3/26/2002 4:07:41 PM OK. Reading the whole statement, he's saying, don't invade, because if you do, Iraq will hand out its weapons to al Qaeda before Iraq goes down. You won't be able to deter al Qaeda as well as you deterred Iraq. 20574. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 4:08:27 PM "I don't see why I shouldn't believe that he can be deterred. " 20575. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 4:12:09 PM 20576. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 4:22:38 PM jay 20577. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 4:22:55 PM But I have to say I understand the case a little better. It is seen to be inevitable that Saddam will acquire weapons of mass destruction, and it appears that he doesn't have any yet. So take out the regime before he does. 20578. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 4:22:58 PM 20579. Raskolnikov - 3/26/2002 4:26:02 PM "If you fear their development in the near future, you run the risk of their being transferred somewhere else, in the worst case, to a stateless organization. MADD doesn't work with stateless organizations. " 20580. wonkers2 - 3/26/2002 4:28:52 PM Saddam Hussein can be deterred. He could have been deterred from invading Kuwait if the U. S. ambassador, April Glaspie, had talked tough instead of sweet talking him. 20581. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 4:30:47 PM Yes, jay's "fear of transfer is greater than the fear of completion" is confusing, but I understand him to mean that if you wait a long time to gather an international coalition and rattle your saber, you do incur a greater risk of transfer. 20582. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 4:35:26 PM I'm arguing against massive. I'm arguing for soon, and precise, or not at all. 20583. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 4:38:58 PM jay 20584. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 4:39:33 PM despose=depose 20585. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 4:41:03 PM Where did I say resign myself to operability with payload capability? 20586. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 4:43:14 PM I'm arguing for soon, and precise 20587. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 4:43:38 PM There still an open question from my first post. 20588. jayackroyd - 3/26/2002 4:45:20 PM "Which states unequivocally NO INTERVENTION, and with no intervention, there will eventually be operability with payload capacity." 20589. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 4:57:59 PM jay 20590. concerned - 3/26/2002 4:53:20 PM Re. 20587 - 20591. Al D - 3/26/2002 6:26:29 PM The argument for attacking Iraq because Saddam may get nuclear weapons is bull shit to the max. Yes, he is a tyrant, and a tyrant who wants to stay in power, which he knows he can not do if he ever attacked either U.S. or Israel. He, unlike bin Laden, is not an Islamic fanatic. We should be more interestied in detante with Saddam and perhaps intertain the idea of turing him loose of Saudi Arabia, a much greater potential threat to the west than Saddam. 20592. concerned - 3/26/2002 6:32:53 PM Re. 20591 - 20593. concerned - 3/26/2002 6:34:43 PM I meant 'playbook', not 'playback'. 20594. Al D - 3/26/2002 6:42:28 PM concerned 20595. concerned - 3/26/2002 6:50:08 PM Well, that's my scenario. Saddam oh so surreptitiously gives nuclear arms to said Islamic idiots, and then.... 20596. concerned - 3/26/2002 6:53:11 PM I remember Saddam as somebody who was willing to fight an eight year war of attrition with Iran, and soon after invade Kuwait. It seems to me that he cannot be counted on to be rational in a context we're familiar with or to care what happens to his people. 20597. concerned - 3/26/2002 6:54:48 PM Seems Will is missing the forest for the trees, or maybe he just needs something to write about 20598. concerned - 3/26/2002 7:17:59 PM I'm all for stopping and destruction the production of these systems by this guy. I don't see how an invasion does that. Effective intelligence and preemptive strikes do that. And I don't see why I shouldn't believe that he can be deterred. 20599. concerned - 3/26/2002 7:20:47 PM 'preemptive strikes' don't reassure me much as a panacea. 20600. concerned - 3/26/2002 7:26:06 PM Re. 20564 - 20601. jexster - 3/26/2002 10:07:10 PM Here is a summary of the latest good news and bad news in the war on terrorism. 20602. concerned - 3/26/2002 10:24:09 PM This Robert Wright is clueless. Also, he seems to have an unhealthy obsession about being 'hated' by Muslims. 20603. jexster - 3/26/2002 10:27:05 PM Jay there simply is NO case for invading Iraq. 20604. joezan - 3/26/2002 10:34:43 PM Jex: 20605. concerned - 3/26/2002 10:36:35 PM jex - 20606. joezan - 3/26/2002 10:38:04 PM Also, the Kurds Hussein gassed are still very dead. 20607. joezan - 3/26/2002 10:40:36 PM ...as are the thousands of children who died as a result of Hussein's squandering the Iraqi GDP on palaces, and rebuilding a military that's only going to get its ass kicked again. 20608. jexster - 3/26/2002 10:41:01 PM You might as well worry about Lichtenstein. Its really ludicrous to wee the lengths to which the Bushies will go to create something out of nothing and quite sad to see how many suckers there are for that pap 20609. wonkers2 - 3/26/2002 10:45:22 PM The U.S. will never attack Iraq absent some new provocation. The downside will become increasingly apparent as time passes. Bush is just walking loudly and carrying a little stick. 20610. concerned - 3/26/2002 10:50:11 PM jexster - 20611. jexster - 3/26/2002 10:55:30 PM He's just dumb enough to waste his time trying wgat Zinni dubbed a Bay of Goats. 20612. concerned - 3/26/2002 11:01:56 PM jex - 20613. jexster - 3/26/2002 11:02:26 PM What have they done in Afghanistan TDaschole? 20614. concerned - 3/26/2002 11:02:40 PM He'll wind up just like Al Qaeda and the Taliban - the new Wandering Jews. 20615. jexster - 3/26/2002 11:06:25 PM What in the fuck have you been drinking TD? 20616. concerned - 3/26/2002 11:07:13 PM What have they done in Afghanistan 20617. jexster - 3/26/2002 11:07:21 PM AlQ and the Talibees are right were they were on 9-10...Afghanistan....trouble with those people, they all look alike 20618. concerned - 3/26/2002 11:13:34 PM I can see that jexster has indeed been iced in the Mote Mystery Theatre. Rigor mortis just has not set into his fingers yet. 20619. jexster - 3/26/2002 11:19:51 PM Hey that's great TD! And that is a noble thing indeed....clean up the mess Raygun made of the place. 20620. joezan - 3/26/2002 11:24:37 PM Long-range wishful thinking....bitter, bitter, sour grapes. 20621. jexster - 3/26/2002 11:31:34 PM Strategery JoeZ,,,good old fashioned deep strategeric thought 20622. Raskolnikov - 3/27/2002 9:35:56 AM concerned:"The buck just stops at the x42 administration here, wouldn't you agree?" 20623. rubberducky - 3/27/2002 10:02:28 AM Re: Message # 20609, wonkers2. 20624. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 10:27:59 AM There is plenty of blame to go around. For concerned and jexster, however, a reasoned allocation of that blame brings on paralysis. 20625. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 10:42:42 AM Again, we are not talking about semi-stable regimes with regard to Iraq and North Korea. Even Iran is more of a threat in exporting terrorism, largely to Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in the region. North Korea and Iran are working on the Taepo Dong 2 and the Shahab. 20626. concerned - 3/27/2002 10:46:07 AM Re. 20624 - 20627. Raskolnikov - 3/27/2002 10:46:09 AM "i dunno... i think invasion depends on his poll numbers in late 2003, myself. " 20628. concerned - 3/27/2002 10:49:12 AM Re. 20622 - 20629. jayackroyd - 3/27/2002 10:55:24 AM JC 20630. zojak quafeth - 3/27/2002 10:55:37 AM Bush stated that he would not wait until danger gathered to strike. 20631. zojak quafeth - 3/27/2002 10:55:50 AM (Con't) 20632. Raskolnikov - 3/27/2002 10:56:43 AM "Are you suggesting that the US should have allowed Iran to decisively win the Iran/Iraq war here? If so, why?" 20633. zojak quafeth - 3/27/2002 11:02:28 AM jay- 20634. Raskolnikov - 3/27/2002 11:03:25 AM "In fact, Bush did wait for danger to gather to strike. I do not think Bush or Clinton would have had the support of the nation to strike as we have without more provocation than the Cole." 20635. jexster - 3/27/2002 11:06:06 AM But (anger over the Bush Trade War]all is minor compared to European angst about Iraq. 20636. Raskolnikov - 3/27/2002 11:07:11 AM Well, I do think that if Bush had bombed an aspirin factory in response to 9/11, the American people would have demanded his head on a plate. Immediate and forceful steps to eradicate al Qaeda was the minimum acceptable goal. Bush did take a bolder stance, however, with his goal of eliminating state sponsored terrorism. 20637. jexster - 3/27/2002 11:07:42 AM You can always conjure a varmit to hunt down and convince the Julio's of the world that the phantasm is real 20638. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 11:11:01 AM jay 20639. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 11:12:37 AM zojak 20640. Cellar Door - 3/27/2002 11:13:00 AM "I really could care less about pre-September 11 culpability" 20641. jexster - 3/27/2002 11:20:12 AM Its good that JC doesn't care about 9-1-1 connections. But that begs the question that he raised... 20642. jexster - 3/27/2002 11:20:43 AM Good enough for Deputy Dawg, good enuf for Julio. 20643. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 5:01:05 PM Jexster, the Scott Ritter of The Mote. 20644. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 5:02:53 PM Except, of course, jexster doesn't get paid to flack. 20645. jexster - 3/26/2002 5:07:15 PM No I do it out of passion... 20646. Julius Caesar - 3/26/2002 5:18:09 PM jexster 20647. concerned - 3/26/2002 5:18:17 PM Re. 20632 - 20648. concerned - 3/26/2002 5:22:20 PM Additionally, I don't view alternatives to past (ostensibly reasonable) foreign policy decisions as merely ameliorating some unfortunate present day result of said policy, but consider all the probable likely consequences, some of which often would have been less desirable than what has actually obtained. 20649. jexster - 3/26/2002 5:25:48 PM Oh none too keen on Saddam? 20650. jexster - 3/26/2002 5:26:47 PM 20651. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 12:01:43 PM jexster 20652. concerned - 3/27/2002 12:34:12 PM In an attempt to avoid appearing excessively biased and tendentious, I'm going to call this: 20653. jexster - 3/27/2002 12:40:30 PM Julio, 20654. jexster - 3/27/2002 12:41:11 PM "He actually used gas on his own people!" 20655. concerned - 3/27/2002 12:45:34 PM Absent of course, is any evidence whatsoever that Saddam has the capability much less the inclination after all these decades to actually be a present threat. 20656. jexster - 3/27/2002 12:48:42 PM Saddam with inspectors is better than Saddam without inspectors but not by much for at bottom, he doesn't have effective delivery capability, nor as long as our planes occupy his airspace and Iraq is essentially an isolated and impoverished world pariah, will he have any. 20657. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 12:49:53 PM Jexster 20658. jexster - 3/27/2002 12:56:06 PM Just come forward and make the case that Saddam is a real danger beyond his borders. Its a simple question, "Why is Saddam more dangerous today than he was in 1990?" 20659. jexster - 3/27/2002 12:58:23 PM I have been all through your prolix prose. If you have the links, have mercy on me and deliver them will ya? 20660. jexster - 3/27/2002 12:58:50 PM Its a simple question, "Why is Saddam more dangerous today than he was in 1990?" 20661. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 12:59:33 PM Jexster 20662. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:01:32 PM IF you can answer that question, Julio, perhaps you SHOULD work for the administration. Clue clueless. 20663. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:05:43 PM On the basis of the last seven years' experience, the world's experts conclude that enough production components and data remain hidden and enough expertise has been retained or developed to enable Iraq to resume development and production of WMD. They believe Iraq maintains a small force of Scud-type missiles, a small stockpile of chemical and biological munitions, and the capability to quickly resurrect biological and chemical weapons production. 20664. Raskolnikov - 3/27/2002 1:06:38 PM "Just come forward and make the case that Saddam is a real danger beyond his borders. Its a simple question, "Why is Saddam more dangerous today than he was in 1990?" " 20665. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:09:02 PM Note the fuzzy double talk 20666. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 1:11:08 PM More information 20667. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:12:16 PM If its nuclear risk we are worried about, truly worried about, then I suggest that since 9-1-1, the danger that Islamic nut cases will gain control Pakistan's existing arsenal (real missles, real breeder reactors, real warheads) is infinitely more likely, not to mention more susceptible of a solution. 20668. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 1:13:12 PM Jexster, a thimbleful of brains, but a very loud voice. 20669. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:15:00 PM But of course, that is not what Bush is fretting over now is it? 20670. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:16:24 PM If undetected and unobstructed, Bush would attack Iraq. 20671. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 1:16:34 PM Inspectors would be a nice way to convince jexster. But wait. Iraq expelled UNSCOm inspectors. 20672. Julius Caesar - 3/27/2002 1:17:37 PM Ah. 20673. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:17:51 PM With sufficient black market plutonium and a CU physics grad student, Julio could take out the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. 20674. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:25:15 PM I was most troubled by the claim that Saddam "may have retained" Mirage F-1 CBW sprayers. 20675. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:27:58 PM Enjoy your phatasms Julio and be sure to check under the bed before you retire...that's where the boogey man lives 20676. jexster - 3/27/2002 1:33:34 PM For the record, I have never said Bush was evil. 20677. zojak quafeth - 3/27/2002 3:28:25 PM Julio- 20678. zojak quafeth - 3/27/2002 3:40:15 PM Ya know. I'm constantly amazed at how one can be SO absolutely partisan as to think that EVERYTHING that Bush/Clinton does/did was wrong/stupid/evil/etc. So all of a sudden people with proven track records of wanting to destroy the US become phantasms. Of course if we leave it alone and another building goes down, then stupid Bush shoulda seen it coming, right Jex. No way to win. 20679. concerned - 3/27/2002 3:43:11 PM ZQ - 20680. concerned - 3/27/2002 3:45:52 PM Besides, those in the Middle East are born and bred on the idea of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. There's a grain of validity to that, IMO. 20681. concerned - 3/27/2002 3:51:24 PM In my view, it's not based on any real moral choice, other than what some policy wonk in a small windowless office somewhere convinces someone else is best for John Q. Public on Main St. USA at that point in time. 20682. zojak quafeth - 3/27/2002 4:08:13 PM Concerned - 20683. concerned - 3/27/2002 4:24:37 PM Re. 20682 - 20684. concerned - 3/27/2002 4:25:58 PM ...insist... 20685. concerned - 3/27/2002 4:29:29 PM I mentioned the USSR instead of Russia because Russia is still absorbed in sorting out its internal issues, whereas the USSR has had a powerful international impact from WWII until the mid '80's. 20686. zojak quafeth - 3/27/2002 4:35:38 PM Concerned - 20687. concerned - 3/27/2002 4:35:52 PM Once the enemy of your enemy is dead, what are you left with? 20688. PelleNilsson - 3/27/2002 4:42:44 PM Seems to me that zojak is the only sane person around. 20689. zojak quafeth - 3/27/2002 4:43:09 PM Concerned - 20690. concerned - 3/27/2002 5:05:39 PM Re. 20688 - 20691. zojak quafeth - 3/27/2002 5:42:29 PM First glib. Then transparent. 20692. jexster - 3/28/2002 12:40:53 PM CNN reports that after 911 the Field Marshalls drew up an updated Iraq Invasion Plan...it called for hundreds of thousands of troops, a massive buildup, huge naval ops, and Saudi basing.. 20693. jexster - 3/28/2002 12:42:51 PM The two leakiest departments in the King's Kabinet are the Defense Department and the Justice Department, the departments controlled by the most right of the rightists and departments whose middle managers are the most conservative of any in the goverment... 20694. rubberducky - 3/28/2002 1:01:27 PM Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty in Moussaoui Case 20695. jexster - 3/28/2002 1:18:15 PM LONDON (Reuters) - If President Bush (news - web sites) extends his "war on terror" to strike against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), he will not just be walking into a military minefield. 20696. jexster - 3/28/2002 1:19:03 PM yikes there's a Moron on the loose... 20697. jexster - 3/28/2002 1:38:47 PM "There is no provision for enforcement in the resolution which authorizes states to carry out military action," said Durham University's Professor Colin Warbrick. "It's for the Security Council to decide what action to take." 20698. CalGal - 3/28/2002 6:01:25 PM Honoring Flight 93 20699. jexster - 3/28/2002 6:11:59 PM Cheney srews up.... 20700. jexster - 3/28/2002 6:14:26 PM Can't bite one axis, then are always 2 left...but then again, S. Korea would piss on Bush too. 20701. jexster - 3/29/2002 12:14:55 AM The Arab leaders declared today that they reject "the threat of an aggression on some Arab countries, particularly Iraq, and assert the categorical rejection of attacking Iraq or threatening the security and safety of any Arab state, and consider it a threat to the national security of all the Arab states." 20702. Julius Caesar - 3/29/2002 9:47:25 AM 20703. Julius Caesar - 3/29/2002 9:50:11 AM And since Kuwait has normalized relations with Iraq, I withdraw all my argument regarding the threat of Sadaam and the need for military intervention. 20704. jexster - 3/29/2002 10:35:23 AM Don't fret Julio..we'll launch the Empire Strikes Back from your front lawn 20705. jexster - 3/29/2002 10:41:17 AM Bush hat eine jüdische Frage zu beantworten. Die Juden sind sein Unglück. Daß viel jetzt gewiß ist. 20706. rubberducky - 3/29/2002 10:48:28 AM let's keep the posts in English, thanks. 20707. jexster - 3/29/2002 10:49:30 AM There are growing signs that the Afghan government over which Hamid Karzai presides is sustained almost entirely by his charisma and Western cash. 20708. jexster - 3/29/2002 10:51:14 AM Buh has himself a Jewish question to answer. The Jews are his misfortune. That much is now certain. 20709. jexster - 3/29/2002 10:52:03 AM That plus the 1/2 of a frontal lobe he seems to have misplaced. 20710. Julius Caesar - 3/29/2002 11:38:08 AM 20711. jexster - 3/29/2002 1:00:50 PM Bush Hard-Liners See End of N.Korea Accord 20712. jexster - 3/30/2002 2:49:06 PM Bush Tells Iran, Syria to End Support for Terror 20713. jexster - 3/30/2002 6:14:45 PM For academic interest in an issue now quite moot (not that it EVER was a live issue) 20714. jexster - 3/30/2002 6:20:49 PM Anything short of a ground invasion would run a high risk of failure...Removing Saddam will be opening a Pandora's box, and there might not be any easy way to close it back up" - Philip Gordon,he Brookings Institution 20715. jexster - 3/30/2002 6:21:16 PM Fools rush in.... 20716. jexster - 3/30/2002 6:25:44 PM Aaahh here's something the WarLord already is going for... 20717. jexster - 3/30/2002 7:35:25 PM 20718. Two-Minute Hate - 3/30/2002 8:51:16 PM Another FP achievement for our President and his topnotch team: Russia is going along with a new sanctions regimen for Saddam and company...something x-42 couldn't accomplish in how many years? 20719. jexster - 3/31/2002 12:57:05 PM Hiya Rosie..let's roll 20720. jexster - 3/31/2002 1:15:05 PM St Elizabeth's Mental Hospital 20721. joezan - 3/31/2002 3:07:50 PM Know what book is at the top of the French best-seller list? 20722. PelleNilsson - 3/31/2002 3:39:27 PM The story, or similar ones, has been around on the net for quite some time. Its fatal weakness is that it doesn't provide any convincing explanation of what became of the passengers who were "purportedly" killed in the crash. 20723. joezan - 3/31/2002 5:01:12 PM Yes - I've seen the pictures...Pike linked to some site with surveillance photos which "proved" a plane never hit the building. Don't know if that was connected in any way with this book. 20724. judithathome - 3/31/2002 5:49:13 PM Oh, and no one here in this country would ever believe any lunacy about another country, right? I think you might not get out enough, Joezan...for every nutcase in Europe, there is an equallly bizarre one here who believes stupid things about the rest of the world. It's human nature everywhere. 20725. joezan - 3/31/2002 6:13:17 PM 20726. Snowowl - 3/31/2002 6:33:34 PM That people are willing (or, in the French case, eager, imo) to believe such absolute, easily disproved nonsense about those from another country -because they are from that other country - speaks to a much more dangerous type of idiocy. 20727. stostosto - 3/31/2002 7:01:33 PM #20721 20728. CalGal - 3/31/2002 7:12:43 PM I can't find the book on Amazon. 20729. joezan - 3/31/2002 7:26:00 PM You wouldn't - "Frightening Fraud" is the (probably bad) American translation of the book's French title. 20730. stostosto - 3/31/2002 7:39:11 PM Voila: 20731. Liberty and Justice - 3/31/2002 8:13:30 PM Well it is all a matter of liberty and justice for all. We freedom lovers have to show the world that we don't tolerate no dictators no how. Those damn Arabs just want to control our oil and they got to be taught a lesson!!! 20732. judithathome - 4/1/2002 10:13:29 AM Our oil? If we had our own oil, we wouldn't need theirs. 20733. jexster - 4/1/2002 10:26:16 AM U.S. Senators Warn Taliban Could Return to Afghanistan 20734. jexster - 4/1/2002 11:03:08 AM Stephen P. Cohen, a Middle East expert at the Brookings Institution. Winning support for a confrontation with Iraq was the first item on Vice President Dick Cheney's list, and the Middle East seemed a distraction. 20735. vw - 4/1/2002 12:41:53 PM In this day and age, such questions as whether or not a plane really flew into the Pentagon are easily, damn near immediately verifiable. 20736. CalGal - 4/1/2002 12:53:02 PM I could buy the people in Palestine not believing in it, but in France? Surely a few of them go on vacation. 20737. CalGal - 4/1/2002 12:54:54 PM What it Takes to End the War on Drugs--the Taliban 20738. CalGal - 4/1/2002 3:11:18 PM Government Lacks Evidence Lindh Killed Americans 20739. glendajean - 4/1/2002 3:33:25 PM Are suicide bombers a "unique to Palestine" experience, or will we be seeing this in other places? Where? Europe? The US? 20740. CalGal - 4/1/2002 3:34:58 PM That's the new fear and I confess I share it. I think it's coming our way. 20741. judithathome - 4/1/2002 3:39:54 PM I do, too... 20742. betty - 4/1/2002 4:12:12 PM 20737 is not news. It's just depressing. 20743. Snowowl - 4/1/2002 4:20:22 PM Suicide bombers are far from unique, and Palestinians are not the most practised at it. The Tamil Tigers have that dubious honour. 20744. CalGal - 4/1/2002 4:23:57 PM I didn't mean that they were unique, but that they haven't come to Western countries yet. This is really the first time that we've ever paid close attention to them, and I worry that someone will want to keep that attention. 20745. Snowowl - 4/1/2002 4:31:03 PM Sorry, I misunderstood, Cal, although Glendajean did ask if suicide bombers were unique to Palestine. 20746. thoughtful - 4/1/2002 4:34:15 PM I shouldn't have read the NYer on a holiday weekend...very depressing Nick Lemann's article "The Next World Order" which suggests that the move on Iraq + Afghanistan which is not yet over let alone stabilized + the tenuous thread of Musharraf and Pakistan + the Israeli/Palestinian issue + the reaction of Russia, Iran, Egypt, etc. to any invasion and he calls it, "So it's really the entire region that is in play, in much the way that Europe was immediately after the Second World War." 20747. CalGal - 4/1/2002 4:35:15 PM I am pretty sure I have read that phrase somewhere--he has quotes around it, you note. But I was responding to the second part of his post. 20748. jexster - 4/1/2002 6:16:06 PM Iraq calls on Arabs to cut off oil....prices rise to 6 month high... 20749. jexster - 4/1/2002 7:59:12 PM WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration accused Iran, Iraq and Syria of fomenting terror while it urged Yasser Arafat (news - web sites) on Monday to ban suicide attacks and Israel to "carefully consider the consequences" of its military thrust into Ramallah. 20750. stostosto - 4/2/2002 6:12:25 AM Guardian had the story yesterday: 20751. RustlerPike - 4/2/2002 9:29:23 AM Would a book denying the Holocaust make it to number one on the NYT bestseller list though? 20752. stostosto - 4/2/2002 9:47:01 AM Well, a more cogent parallel (and perfectly in the spirit of JC) would be a book denying the German assault and occupation of France. 20753. thoughtful - 4/2/2002 9:57:35 AM I'm more concerned about the prospect for a significant war now than I have been for many, many years. 20754. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2002 9:57:41 AM The news from Kabul are not good. The ex-king's return has been delayed for mysterious reasons. At 87 he is of course a has-been, but apparently a well-liked one, and he has an inportant walk-on role in calling the loya girga (sp?). 20755. CalGal - 4/2/2002 10:05:55 AM Thoughtful, 20756. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2002 10:14:26 AM thoughtful 20757. betty - 4/2/2002 10:17:22 AM my question in regards to the French book for our dear Francophobe joezan...just because people are buying the book means they believe it? 20758. Rama - 4/2/2002 10:19:07 AM Guardian had the story yesterday: 20759. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2002 10:22:05 AM Rama 20760. thoughtful - 4/2/2002 10:24:08 AM pelle? huh? 20761. stostosto - 4/2/2002 10:27:08 AM Rama, nice as it would be, it was not an April's fool story. The book is in fact #1 at amazon.fr 20762. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2002 10:34:07 AM thougtful 20763. thoughtful - 4/2/2002 1:14:27 PM Pelle, if you want me to understand what you are talking about, you will have to be more specific. If not, so be it. 20764. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2002 1:16:51 PM My hands are tied. The hands that count are Aytch's. 20765. judithathome - 4/2/2002 1:20:57 PM Thoughtful, go to the Mote Mystery Theatre....all will be made clear. 20766. betty - 4/2/2002 1:24:59 PM Pelle, 20767. PelleNilsson - 4/2/2002 1:47:03 PM betty, 20768. Indiana Jones - 4/2/2002 2:39:43 PM We could be living in an era so stupid that even the most intelligent among us are cement-heads....Maybe the laureates are speaking, more powerfully than they realize, for radical democratization and perfect egalitarianism. Nothing in their statement indicates that the opinions of common men are worse or more foolish than the opinions of Nobel Prize winners. 20769. concerned - 4/2/2002 2:57:51 PM 20757. betty - 4/2/02 3:17:22 PM 20770. CalGal - 4/2/2002 3:08:43 PM Indy, 20771. Indiana Jones - 4/2/2002 3:26:32 PM Thanks, Cal. 20772. betty - 4/2/2002 3:43:47 PM concerned, 20773. betty - 4/2/2002 3:53:16 PM Pelle, 20774. concerned - 4/2/2002 4:01:53 PM Re. 20772 - 20775. judithathome - 4/2/2002 4:13:02 PM I've been building those 'critical thinking skills' that you are so proud of having achieved, since my early years in grade school. So, please shuck the bogus elitist attitude, why don't you? 20776. Wombat - 4/2/2002 4:18:46 PM Concerned's self-proclaimed "critical thinking skills" are not noticeably apparent in his political, foreign policy, or religious musings. 20777. Wombat - 4/2/2002 4:22:11 PM Also, IMO, someone who constantly proclaims their superior intelligence is either unhealthily egotistical or is masking a great deal of intellectual insecurity. 20778. CalGal - 4/2/2002 4:28:12 PM Has anyone mentioned that we caught a super baddie? 20779. betty - 4/2/2002 4:34:43 PM Peanut, 20780. judithathome - 4/2/2002 4:41:00 PM And how would someone know if they agreed with, say, Goldberg, without reading his book? I seem to recall you suggesting we all reserve judgement until we'd read his book Bias. Did you expect us to automatically agree with the book or believe it without having first read it? 20781. stostosto - 4/2/2002 4:45:39 PM A comment on that book from a British "blogger": 20782. stostosto - 4/2/2002 4:56:54 PM And here is a refutation of the hoax (which has been around at the internet for several months). 20783. concerned - 4/2/2002 6:28:17 PM Re. 20775 - 20784. concerned - 4/2/2002 6:31:38 PM You may call me 'concerned', only. 20785. concerned - 4/2/2002 6:38:02 PM and I'm wondering Peanut, what exactly you mean by "many" and "great many"? the majority? 30%, 10%? 20786. concerned - 4/2/2002 7:21:47 PM Actually, since Betty apparently is determined to act like a nitwit who can do no better than project her internal nastiness onto those she feels she has ideological differences with, screw her. 20787. concerned - 4/2/2002 11:57:02 PM 20788. joezan - 4/3/2002 12:24:05 AM "Non-fiction" books - especially exposé-type books - do not, I repeat, NOT become bestsellers because of a desire amongst the book-reading public - even the Frog public - to snicker at them. 20789. RustlerPike - 4/3/2002 1:11:21 AM I'm more concerned about the prospect for a significant war now than I have been for many, many years. 20790. RustlerPike - 4/3/2002 1:17:06 AM betty: 20791. jexster - 4/3/2002 5:24:42 AM Btw, I've been building those 'critical thinking skills' that you are so proud of having achieved, since my early years in grade school. So, please shuck the bogus elitist attitude, why don't you? joe, 20793. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2002 8:50:22 AM Understanding America 20794. joezan - 4/3/2002 9:32:56 AM betty: 20795. judithathome - 4/3/2002 9:51:02 AM Of course I object when a total stranger tries to incorrectly categorize me in a way which suits her agenda. 20796. CalGal - 4/3/2002 11:03:47 AM What an excellent essay, Indy. I know I just said this, but thanks for linking it in. 20797. ronski - 4/3/2002 11:29:31 AM It is a good essay. 20798. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2002 11:59:43 AM I'd always heard that about Iceland, too, and wondered when I read that in the essay. Will do some factchecking. 20799. Indiana Jones - 4/3/2002 12:07:53 PM Iceland's democracy appears to have been interrupted, though this article says they have the oldest still-existing parliament. 20800. stostosto - 4/3/2002 12:25:31 PM joezie: 20801. ronski - 4/3/2002 12:43:27 PM Indy, 20802. Wombat - 4/3/2002 12:50:30 PM Sto: 20803. PelleNilsson - 4/3/2002 1:13:28 PM Indy 20804. stostosto - 4/3/2002 2:02:12 PM Wombat, indeed, and I remain a bit skeptic about the claim (or perhaps merely speculation) which was reported in a background radio news story I heard today. Perhaps Alistair cares to weigh in. He has promised some coverage of that election over in International. And since this thread is RIP'ed, we will prolly have to go there anyways. 20805. CalGal - 4/3/2002 2:15:30 PM I am mulling over names for the new thread. Right now I am thinking The Middle East Dilemma, or something like that, encompassing the various problems: terrorism, immigration, different Western world policies, and so on. 20806. Ms. No - 4/3/2002 2:22:01 PM Oops. Okay,I already made the thread, but you can change the title to whatever you prefer. 20807. CalGal - 4/3/2002 2:26:06 PM Yeah, I'm in the admin tool now. 20808. rubberducky - 4/3/2002 2:32:20 PM well, whatever it is, make it article-less so that it's easier to find in the alphabetical listings on the right hand side. 20809. jexster - 4/3/2002 2:33:25 PM Why the RIP? 20810. Ms. No - 4/3/2002 2:33:28 PM Crisis in the Middle East? 20811. stostosto - 4/3/2002 3:50:56 PM Indy, 20812. stostosto - 4/3/2002 4:14:09 PM I have some factual quibbles, though. 20813. stostosto - 4/3/2002 4:21:34 PM I remember I read that more Americans were actually of German stock than any other ethnicity, which I don't think is reflected at all in that quote which contrasts British-Anglo-Protestant with Jewish-Greek-Italian-SouthEast Euros-Hispanics. 20814. stostosto - 4/3/2002 4:30:29 PM And another thing: Harries is rather niggardly with his conclusions for current policy, wouldn't you say? He seems to simply worry and caution. His bullet point analysis is very astute though. 20815. CalGal - 4/3/2002 4:33:26 PM I think we track immigrants by country going way back, don't we? 20816. judithathome - 4/3/2002 5:36:20 PM 1871, German Empire unification. 20817. CalGal - 4/3/2002 5:46:11 PM So if your ancestors came over in 1850, did that count as German? 20818. judithathome - 4/3/2002 5:47:56 PM I don't know...maybe you were Prussian or something. I've been in castles that were built in the 12th century and they call them German... 20819. concerned - 4/3/2002 6:09:43 PM I thought Germany wasn't even a country until late in the 1800s. 20820. wonkers2 - 4/3/2002 6:40:28 PM The "war on terrorism" is just in its early stages. How come we are RIPing it? Do we think this will make it go away? 20821. concerned - 4/3/2002 7:05:38 PM Muslim Nations endorse suicide bombings as 'not terrorism' 20822. Erinys - 4/4/2002 1:03:14 AM Better make it through today. 20823. rubberducky - 4/4/2002 9:16:22 AM for those that are curious... 20824. wonkers2 - 4/4/2002 9:18:36 AM No thanks, wonkers isn't into heavy monitoring and moderating. 20825. wonkers2 - 4/4/2002 9:19:42 AM Cap'n Dirty sez "I like heavy breathing better'n heavy monitorin'." 20826. rubberducky - 4/4/2002 9:25:46 AM wonk: well, i'm sure you'd agree a thread of this nature could use more conversations being started rather than just being a place to sling news updates and the anti-whatever links with purple fonts that we've seen lately. 20827. wonkers2 - 4/4/2002 9:31:53 AM Okay, I agree. I just don't like all the recent talk about banning or limiting individuals who participate in the Mote. We need more participants. Take RP for example. I don't agree with a lot of what he says. He isn't very PC. But watching an unfettered, uncensored stream of consciousness from an Israeli settlement does interest me. 20828. rubberducky - 4/4/2002 9:39:56 AM i agree, wonk. but, hey, talk is just that -- talk. 20829. CalGal - 4/4/2002 10:24:09 AM Wonkers, 20830. rubberducky - 4/4/2002 10:35:08 AM noon is fine with me, CG 20831. rubberducky - 4/4/2002 10:40:18 AM i copied over the Military link, CG. the rest i'll leave here and let you set up. 20832. wonkers2 - 4/4/2002 10:47:23 AM Cal, Okay. I'll rely on your libertarian tendencies. The movie thread is one of the best! 20833. judithathome - 4/4/2002 12:00:40 PM Noon CalTime or Noon DuckTime? 20834. CalGal - 4/4/2002 1:02:35 PM Is it something about which you feel a burning sense of urgency, Judith? Or is that your pesky bladder infection? 20835. judithathome - 4/4/2002 1:04:31 PM Screw you...no, it was just an interest which I see now is misplaced. 20836. judithathome - 4/4/2002 1:06:29 PM You'll make an excellent hostess, Cal... 20837. CalGal - 4/4/2002 1:10:42 PM Oh, right. You've asked twice. Had I ignored you further, you would have then made a post in Suggestions saying "well, it's still not open". You are a monumental pain in the ass and for some perverse reason saw this as an opportunity to complain about something else. And if that's not true, understand that it is your endless passive aggressive cavilling that gives rise to my skepticism and give thought to changing your ways if it bothers you too much. 20838. judithathome - 4/4/2002 1:17:55 PM I asked you twice because I wanted to know. You might spend some of your time giving people the benefit of the doubt once in awhile because you are extremely inept in reading what they actually mean half the time. 20839. judithathome - 4/4/2002 1:19:19 PM And I suggest YOU chill, queenie...and you might want to look into changing some of YOUR more obnoxious ways yourself. 20840. CalGal - 4/4/2002 1:21:18 PM The only reason I suggested you change, Judith, is because of your wounded behavior when you are misunderstood. I myself could give a fuck. 20841. judithathome - 4/4/2002 1:24:35 PM I never said I wouldn't post in ANY thread you hosted but with your usual tactic of misreading posts and changing arguments, you're trying to turn this into me being the bitch...too late, that role is all yours. 20842. rubberducky - 4/4/2002 1:27:38 PM um, ok. 20843. rubberducky - 4/4/2002 1:37:56 PM just wanted to say thanks to all the participants in this thread for making it one of the more topical and interesting threads in recent memory.
Thanks for posting the article about Dayna and Heather. Again, the reports are contradictory. Supposedly, they had been moved earlier, and as for the girls being in "good health", they're covered head to toe in veils! no one can even see what kind of health they're in, and I have it on good authority that the Taliban are starving them.
There's an excerpt from Peter Bergen's upcoming book
The United States had urged the alliance not to take the capital, 
"It should be noted that contrary to Urkel's trumpetings, the German chancellor is having a great deal of trouble mustering political support for his troops commitment to the US-led coalition. He's even threatened to resign if he's not backed."
Could there be a stronger show of support than when a European leader is prepared to give up his office if the nation's legislative body does not back him in lending aid to the United States?
Well, yes. A hearty backing by the legislative body. But just as Pakistan and Saudi Arabia and Japan act with constraints, so to the European democracies, and at a time when you were bemoaning the entire campaign as a fiasco fast losing international support, I merely pointed out that Britain, Turkey, Japan, Italy, Germany, and the former Soviert republics were promising or delivering on military assistance.
I applaud your "The first part of the campaign worked. Simple as that . . ."
By the way, the BBC has some footage of Arab Taliban being hounded by NA soldiers. One Arab look absolutely terrified. 
I guess I just got carried away.
Like that's some big consolation I know.
"By the way, the BBC has some footage of Arab Taliban being hounded by NA soldiers. One Arab look absolutely terrified."
Then let's get those U.N. peacekeepers in their pronto. We wouldn't want any of the Taliban to suffer the indignity of absolute terror.
While ole Pervez & King George are havin tea in the Ovary Orifice (("Say Pervie, I didn't even know your name a year ago, UR a swell guy!) Pervez's Paki trash have crossed the border to fight with the routed Talibees....
What do you think I Abdullah^2 am gonna do when asked to stop?
Its going to be impossible to restrain the NA...what they will do, they will do...
Some speculation that the 'cave phase' may be easier since we can now bribe disaffected Taliban to reveal intell about likely OBL hideouts- maybe even locate him themselves.
What's your take on Ismail Khan? He's got some supporters claiming he is the best bet to:
1.) Work with other ethnic groups (evidently Herat was relatively cosmopolitan/)
2.) Is a civic improvement kind of guy who could use aid grants to start cleaning up this mess and get the infrastructure fixed.
BTW, hats off to the Brits- these guys are pretty good. Some French moron wandered through and wanted to assemble staff for a lecture on the intellectual distinctions of Taliban thought. Typical.
"So my question to you, Francis, is how all that does not comprise at least a complicit knowledge and acceptance of terrorist tactics? This is not a ticky-tack finesse question -- if we are operating on principles in this war on terrorism, it would greatly seem that we are simultaneously flouting those principles."
We are terrorizing civilians in Afghanistan. We are bombing and killing them in the aims of a greater good, for us and almost assuredly for them. But they are innocents nonetheless. As such, a simplistic view of maintaining our "principles" would require that we stop.
Your view of principles is pure, but placed in practice, how could we adhere to our principles and terrorize German civilians during the waning days of World War II?
Obviously, you are not that strident. If so, there is no need to continue the discussion.
So, that leaves whether Plan Colombia is a terrorist act against Colombian civilians or whether the unfortunate and often difficult rigors of foreign policy initiatives, especially with developing nations, produces some unintended and unpleasant consequences.
As you brough Plan Colombia up in the context of September 11th, I'm curious as to your answer.
I am glad someone else around here appreciates the Brits as much as I do...
But then again, proved again...the axiom great minds ever think alike...
JRoth/Commander Baba Jex Uber Alles! 
Who Dares, Wins
What's your take on Ismail Khan?"
Ismail Khan, along with Hamid Karzai (still operating somewhere in southern Afghanistan) and the late Abdul Haq, are the most progressive of the former mujahiddin. Ismail Khan is certainly the most progressive leader of the Northern Alliance.
"2.) Is a civic improvement kind of guy who could use aid grants to start cleaning up this mess and get the infrastructure fixed."
As I've told you before, most of the mujahiddin warlords outside Kabul had been the "civic improvement" kind of guys. Even Dostum was a responsible and efficient administrator of Mazar between 1992 and 1997. But unlike Dostum, Ismail Khan didn't skin his opponents alive.
Working toward reconstruction and "civic improvement" is not really the problem Most non-Taliban groups are interested in those things within their own regions. The question is whether fragmentation along regional lines will could be stable in the long term.
"Work with other ethnic groups (evidently Herat was relatively cosmopolitan/)"
All cities in Afghanistan are ethnically mixed.
If the Taliban believe that they will gain a significant advantage by 'circling their wagons' in SE Afghanistan, they are likely to receive some very unpleasant surprises, courtesy of US air superiority and access to ground installations in Afghanistan.
Marg's repeated references to some prospective 'US gravy train' for Afghanis is, I assume, primarily an attempt at humor.
I trust that fleeing Taliban forces are being hammered from the air as they head south. Very few should arrive in Kandahar, and those that do should be panic-stricken and demoralized.
If you think that the Indian military will be welcome in Afghanistan, you should think again.
It is now possible to declare a bombing halt for Ramadan, and devote the time to rushing food and other assistance to Kabul and other NA held cities. It will also give Pushtu leaders a chance to hop on the bandwagon, and allow people to vote with their feet and head north for food and safety.
Secondly, my reference to a US-funded gravy train in the region is not in the least bit humorous. It's a fact, and it is a big part of all these defections you've seen to the NA. A gravy train is expected, it has been promised, it's already being spooned out.
Concerned should note that the US has promised Pakistan a billion, has promised UNHCR another 500 million, has paid up all of its UN arrears, and has apparently (unreliable Pak reports) earmarked further hundreds of millions to buy Pashtun support in the Afghan south. All this before the rebuilding of Afghanistan, which will cost a great deal more than the money I've mentioned so far.
Which ones? 1200 troops defected from the Taliban to the NA in Bamiyan at the weekend, but none of them was Pashtun.
The policy may well work in the short term. The Taliban is clearly on the retreat, the writing for anyone who supports them is on the wall, and there cannot be that significant Pashtun support for the Taliban ideology. I admit that tribal loyalties run deep, but if the choice is live rich or die miserably, and this is seen to be a clear choice, I suggest that many Pashtuns will see their future framed in greenbacks and not in terms of martyrdom.
I read a news item yesterday in which the UN claims the US still owes the UN a billion dollars. How would you correlate that with your statement?
Thanks.
I have some doubts about that, simply from the fact that the Taliban has now been revealed to all as little more than Koran-thumping weaklings with a particularly atavistic cruel streak. Who in their right mind would want to continue to emulate that?
What makes me say that? I don't know, maybe it was the street vendor who asked me exactly what color Osama bin Laden T-shirt I wanted — the yellow one with his picture on it or the white one simply extolling him as the hero of the Muslim nation and vowing "Jihad Is Our Mission." (He was doing a brisk business among the locals.) Or maybe it was the wall poster announcing: Call this phone number if you want to join the "Jihad against America." Or maybe it was all the Urdu wall graffiti reading "Honor Is in Jihad" and "The Alliance Between the Hunood [Indians] and Yahood [Jews] Is Unacceptable." Or maybe it was the cold stares and steely eyes that greeted the obvious foreigner. Those eyes did not say "American Express accepted here." They said "Get lost."
Welcome to Peshawar. Oh, and did I mention? This is Pakistan — these guys are on our side. Fat chance. This whole region of northwest Pakistan is really just an extension of Afghanistan, dominated by the same ethnic Pashtuns that make up the Taliban. This is bin Laden land. This is not a region where America is going to sink any friendly roots. In part it's because the Pashtuns here all, understandably, side with their brothers in Afghanistan; in part it's because they were jilted once before by the Americans — after the U.S. just dropped Pakistan like a used hanky once the Soviets left Afghanistan. But most important, it's because of the education system here.
We could stop bombing entirely and it might slow the entire collapse by a couple of weeks. Or it might not. Our first priority has to be getting a functional government in place. If we can keep the UN from bolixing up the situation, so much the better.
1200 troops defected from the Taliban to the NA in Bamiyan at the weekend, but none of them was Pashtun.
The reports I've been reading talk about far more widescale defection than that, like the one reported here.
Hundreds of pro-Taliban Pakistani fighters appear to have been systematically massacred in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif after being callously abandoned by retreating Taliban fighters, sources suggested last night.
The Taliban soldiers fled from Mazar four days ago but failed to inform a contingent of up to 1,200 Pakistani jihadis that they were leaving. Opposition troops trapped the Pakistanis in a school on the outskirts of the city and then shot up to 200 of them, a commander confirmed yesterday.
"We gave them warnings to surrender," Mohammed Muhahiq, a spokesman for the opposition Shia militia, the Hizb-i-Wahdat, said. "They asked us to send representatives over several times, but unfortunately they shot them. Finally we gave the order to attack them. Some 200 of them [Pakistanis] have been killed."
It was not clear last night whether the Pakistani volunteers, many of whom had only just arrived in Afghanistan, were killed in battle or executed after surrendering. The Pakistanis, trapped in Sultan Reza school, continued to resist for at least 48 hours after Mazar fell, sources suggested.
"There are unconfirmed reports of incidents of violence and summary executions," Stephanie Bunker, the UN's spokeswoman in Islamabad, said last night.
Excerpts:
As an Afghan, I could understand the rationale for US intervention, provided it was principled and motivated by goodwill towards the Afghans. But we were naive to invest hopes in the judgment of Bush and Blair. After a month's bombing of an already devastated country, the folly of the strategy makes me speechless.
...
Military intervention should have been part of a political strategy to develop a broad-based governance. Before the bombing started, there were indications of a political process and a hope that a national leadership would emerge, perhaps under the auspices of the former king, Zahir Shah. Political elements were on the ascendant within the largely military alliance. There were opportunities that could have helped create a political process - former commanders assembling in Peshawar, moderate members of the Taliban, and the possibility of an anti-Taliban revolt by the people of Paktia and Khost in south-eastern Afghanistan.
However, ill-advised military strikes overtook the political process. The king receded; the alliance politicians retired behind their military commanders; no more anti-Taliban assemblies were organised; and there was no more threat of popular revolt. The military strategy of the coalition forces robbed Afghans of a rare opportunity to forge an enduring solution. Afghans have often been treated like this.
Yes, but those defections took place amongst locals from Parwan province, which is not a Pashtun province. What's worrisome is that despite the collapsing Taliban formations there has been no confirmed case of Pashtun defections.
Not yet. But there are reports like this one of Pashtuns ready to join in an anti-Taliban drive. It all depends on whether the coalition can be seen to have the upper hand in the South militarily. If that happens, perhaps through bombing or a few special ops hits, the picture may change rapidly.
Some pictures of defectors from the Taliban: 
By contrast, I mentioned yesterday (Message # 15126) that General Rahim Wardak is currently somewhere in Afghanistan. Well, according to Radio Pakistan, he is operating right now in Wardak province; and another Pashtun general, Shah Nawaz Tani, is also confirmed to be operating in Paktia province. Both Paktia and Wardak provinces are core Pashtun areas.
To the tank treads!
Harum, Varum, Kahn, Kalil, Karzai...all sound the same to me.
--
Pseuder, the Arab Afghans have no choice but to fight. But the Pathans who have till now backed the Taliban do have a choice. Do you think they'll turn on the Arabs (and Pakis) given a chance? In other words, shocking as it sounds, do you think there's a fighting chance now that the main shooting could be over by Ramzan, with the hardcore hanging on only in the mountains?
Yes that's him...just heard him by phone on CNN.
A typo....panee lao!
And its not a good day to be a Taliban...not good idea to hang around Peshawar much longer I should think.
My #315246 may be coming true as we speak.
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/0745312748.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Griffin's book on the Taliban is much less well written and organised than Ahmed Rashid's book, but it's also less superficial. Griffin's chapter on the civil war of 1992-96 is the best account I've ever read, and his analysis of the involvement of ex-communists with Taliban ranks makes for a more complicated picture of the origns of the Taliban than Ahmed Rashid's somewhat simplified story.
"This is not a 'strategic retreat' by any means. With the lightening changes of the past few days, the uprisings in the south, this is a rout. They will try to hide in their caves but they will die."
"Afghanistan 'could be split in two'
(Filed: 13/11/2001)
A DEFENCE analyst has warned Afghanistan could be split in two over the fight for Kandahar, the Taliban's spiritual home.
Neil Partrick, head of the Middle East and North Africa programme at the Royal United Services Institute in London, said the Northern Alliance would face a more difficult fight once the Taliban had withdrawn to their strongholds in the south, particularly Kandahar.
Mr Partrick said the ease with which Mazar-i-Sharif and Kabul fell would not be repeated as the cities were traditionally unsympathetic to the Taliban and might have been allowed to fall for tactical reasons.
"I think there is a degree of surprise over the speed with which the Northern Alliance have moved into Kabul and there is a question mark there about the extent to which they can hold it as a unified force - not that I think the Taliban can resume control," he said."
He reports massive security crackdown by Talibees, searching vehicles for foreigners and spies.
Kamal (talks like Elmer Fudd) says its terror time on the streets of beautiful downtown Khandahar
Every group except the Hazaras is opposed to a partition of Afghanistan.
Travellers from the area arriving in the Pakistani border town of Chaman said they had seen 4,000 to 5,000 fighters capture the airport, some 30 km (20 miles south of Kandahar, earlier on Tuesday. They said they could threaten the city in the evening or on Wednesday morning.
The fighters were seen on the march at Shorandab mountains, some 28 km (18 miles) from the city, the travellers told Reuters. "
Who in that part of the world was closer?
How is this realted to my not feeling hostility to it?
"but it's ridiculous to say it was the "closest to a liberal democracy in that part of the world"."
Who in that part of the world was closer?
India.
No offense taken. (Unless you think I should. Then I'll be happy to oblige.) I should have narrowed the statement to "Islamic nations in that part of the world". Who else let their women vote?
India still isn't really "that part of the world" quite like the old Soviet Republics, Iran, Pakistan and etc. Geographically somewhat, but not in a lot of other ways I think you'd agree. Maybe it is just my prejudice, but to me India is part of south Asia and Afghanistan is in central Asia.
I'm not sure what part of the world Kashmir belongs in. Perhaps the next war wil settle it?
On Saturday, in a U.N. General Assembly meeting, President Bush both thanked our allies for their support and urged them to do more to help the United States in its war against terrorism: “The time for sympathy has now passed; the time for action has now arrived.”
What grade would you give the following countries with regard to the amount of help they have offered the U.S. in the war against terrorism?
Great Britain - A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
Israel - A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
Pakistan - A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
Russia -A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
Saudi Arabia - A, B, C, D, F, Not Sure
my answers: Britian - A, Israel - A, Pakistan - C, Russia - B, SA - C
Britain: A
Israel: A, considering the stress
Pakistan: B, on a curve
Russia: B
SA: D-
"I should have narrowed the statement to "Islamic nations in that part of the world". Who else let their women vote?"
Pakistan.
In 1973, when Zahir Shah was overthrown, Pakistan also had an elected government. (To be overthrown in 1977.)
"but to me India is part of south Asia and Afghanistan is in central Asia."
Afghanistan is neither. It is best described as Indo-Iranian. (Central Asia, I would describe as Turko-Iranian.)
"I'm not sure what part of the world Kashmir belongs in."
Definitely South Asia.
Now I ask anyone, which country has done more and yet faced greater difficulties and oppostion?
Great Britain - A (curve buster!)
Israel - C
Pakistan - B
Russia - A
Saudi Arabia - D
Israel: A, considering the stress
Pakistan: B, on a curve
Russia: B
SA: D-
What has Israel done?
The grade would improve if they shipped fat boi Sharon out
Of course Kashmir is part of South Asia: east of the Hindu Kush and south of the Himalayas.
Actually, Kashmir is somewhat in the midst of the Himalayas.
What should be the southeastern frontier of Central Asia?
Geographically, the Hindu Kush. Linguistically, the Indus. Culturally and politically, the Oxus.
However, officials at the border post said the Taliban were still manning the border post.
However, a Reuters cameraman said that at about 6.30 p.m. (1300 GMT), Taliban fighters on the Afghan side of the border moved aside as fighters of the opposition approached.
Fighters opposed to the Taliban swept into Kabul on Tuesday and said they were heading east toward Pakistan to take the city of Jalalabad, which lies about halfway between Kabul and the Pakistan border."
The above reports a different movement from the one described in Message # 15267. That was a border crossing by anti-Taliban Pashtun forces at Chaman, in Pakistani Baluchistan near Quetta. This latest is a crossing from the border near Peshawar, in the north.
"I am afraid that we have an ally in the NA like the Contras or the Vietnamese River pirates"
Its Loya Jirga time...bathhouses will rock; beards shaved; men kissing on the cheek (+++???) and they'll be those games with the horsies and the severed calves' heads.
Loar, Srinagar is in the vale, an area of (relative) lowlands which make a gaping hole in the western Himalayas.
If the Taliban is indeed fleeing Kandahar and Jalalabad, is Pakistan going to be the 'lucky' recipient? Perhaps Musharraf is readying his troops to take a few thousand prisoners?
DUBAI, Nov 13 (Reuters) - The Northern Alliance interior minister was quoted by Iranian television as saying alliance forces expected to take the southern city of Jalalabad later on Tuesday or early on Wednesday following their capture of Kabul.
"Our forces are moving toward Jalalabad and we expect to clear things up by tonight or early tomorrow morning," an Iran television correspondent quoted the minister, Yunis Qanuni, as saying.
"We have put Vardak province south of Kabul behind us."
Qanuni, the most senior Alliance official at present in Kabul, told the television in an interview earlier his movement wanted to set up a council to prepare for a transitional Afghan government following a lightening series of victories over the Taliban in recent days.
As opposed to a darkening series of losses, I suppose.
--
How can tens of thousands of Taliban + foreign supporters flee into the mountains to wage guerrilla war? I don't think it's possible. The core Taliban must be losing support dramatically even among its elite troops, if there is such a thing, and they and the remaining foreigners must simply be running, shit scared. This really could all be over, save some mopping-up, by Ramadan.
Wow. If so, what a devastatingly effective and swift campaign, so much for those vaunted and battle-hardened warriors. I'm thinking that all such in the taliban number (save the Arabs) have simply upped and left the Omar faction for where the dollars proliferate.
Now that whole bit I posted about earlier, about the NA (and Iran and Russia and India) making facts on the ground contrary to wishful US thinking comes into play.
Afghans did just that in the 1980s. (Admittedly with support in the countryside, and a base in Pakistan.) But it's not going to be tens of thousands. I expect a few thousands.
MSNBC has frequently been ahead of the game in reporting news from Afghanistan: link.
It should be terribly revealing. Jalalabad is a city as thoroughly Pashtun as Kandahar. (Kandahar is the seat of Durrani Pashtuns; Jalalabad is the seat of Ghilzai Pashtuns.) It is also within breathing distance of Pakistan; Jalalabad is in fact the entrepot between Kabul and the Khyber Pass.
An NA entry into Jalalabad will should be revealing about:
(1) how Pashtuns will receive the NA;
(2) whether a local Pashtun insurrection will actually emerge to help the NA
(3) how Pakistan will react to the NA being so close to the Pak border
Jalalabad is a harbinger of Afghanistan's short-term future.
This will no doubt lead, down the road, to reprisals and all kinds of unnecessary side-effects, but that's what you get with the NA. One wonders how long exactly Rabbani and some of the other top leaders will be able to contain their own Islamist extremism, but they will presumably manage to do so at least as long as the aid keeps flowing.
However, guerrilla warfare is very difficult when the local populace doesn't support you. My hunch is that the extent to which the remainder of the war will be a "mop up" depends on how well the coalition and the NA do in winning over the Afghans in the south.
I hope Pakistan mobilizes whatever troops it can along its border. Unfortunately that's something of a fools game in the FATA since said troops could well come under fire from both sides, and it's impossible to close it in any case.
But I hope he has left Afghanistan. Pakistan is already allied with us in this matter, unlike southern Afghanistan. It should be much easier to catch him or kill him in Pakistan.
I am definitely not jumping to believe Concerned's rumor, however the story that emerged this morning (from an NA source) that Omar has decamped is quite plausible. Remember that the Taliban came from Pakistan in the first place. No one has done anything to the madrassas (yet) they're still there.
However, if he merely transits the FATA and hides in the Northern Areas, he might escape capture or death through the winter but will be captured by the Pak army in the spring.
Hahahaha!
I didn't say that UbL has gone to Pakistan. I was merely commenting on others who said so.
But it is not at all implausible for Usama bin Ladin to go to Pakistan. He has millions of supporters there and thousands of cadres of the religious parties with a vast network of shelters for terrorists.
Could you link to the reports you've read about this??? That is the one piece of information I'm looking for.
As you then said in 15325, there are many reasons for him to have done so, therefore, making it sensible for him to have done so. Especially since it is quite likely that the mountains and hills of southern Afghanistan are going to endure a lot of bombing, while Pakistan will not.
There is a giant question mark about what will happen now in Pakistan, with a cloud of smaller question marks. Events on the ground may well dictate what the leadership does, at this point I'm not sure anyone has a plan or a sense of what will happen, including Musharraf.
The Afridis, the tribe that control that Khyber Pass, were even paid by the communist government in Kabul to shoot at Afghan mujahiddin.
In Afghanistan the Taliban/al-Qaeda has no established central government to coordinate an attack on them, the possibility of ethnic or regional civil war, and experience with guerrilla fighting in the terrain.
In Pakistan all of those factors are considerably reduced, but you *might* get more support from the locals. I am skeptical of that claim, but even if it is true I very much doubt that it outweighs the advantages of Afghanistan.
If the Taliban and al-Qaeda are indeed on the run, my level of optimism has skyrocketed.
I don't have a link. The BBC (TV, in England) reported an hour or two ago that thousands of Pashtuns loosely allied to the NA are marching on Kandahar, which itself is seeing an exodus. A related group has reportedly seized the Kandahar airport without facing much resistance. My young and excitable sister-in-law e-mailed me with this info.
The bit about them tramping around the mountains is conjecture.
I have only seen it mentioned in secondary sources. The Economist, for instance, says that Kandahar is being beset by "hostile tribes", which I assume means Pashtuns.
"The BBC (TV, in England) reported an hour or two ago that thousands of Pashtuns loosely allied to the NA are marching on Kandahar, which itself is seeing an exodus. A related group has reportedly seized the Kandahar airport without facing much resistance."
I have been listening to the BBC live on streaming audio all day, as well as Pakistan Radio. I have heard no such reports.
I have heard unconfirmed reports about the Kandahar airport, but nothing about who did it.
The only things I have heard are those two Reuters reports, posted here, about border crossings by anti-Taliban Pashtun groups from Pakistan.
We are not disagreeing, are we?
Pseuder, here's the Times of India, on that airport, and on the fall of Jalalabad.
There appears to be no more organized resistance to the NA. Forget about stopping them, by remote control, outside Kabul. They're sweeping into every city in all of Afghanistan!
Now, let's play: 'Where is Osama-Waldo>'
Now, let's play: 'Where is Osama-Waldo?'
Iran doesn't want him, the other key coalition partners (india, Russia) are ambivalent, the NA contains his sworn enemies and there is a real resentment about him among the Pathans who fled to Pakistan over the years. Apparently he has never visited them, or done a single thing for them, in all those years of exile.
Actually, every single Pashtun leader in Pakistan supports the return of Zahir Shah, not to reestablish the monarchy, but to provide a temporary national figurehead and to preside over the loya jirga.
I also think that if the NA does decide to behave -- and it appears increasingly that is now the case -- and if a loya jirga is indeed convened, Iran, Russia and Pakistan will actually lose influence.
All in all, the US appears to have won a resounding military victory, but the political questions still remain and now are writ large because they're no longer "if" questions, since the NA is essentially in charge.
All in all, a highly satisfactory war from the Iran, Russia, and India standpoint. Everything gained, at very little or no cost.
That is a giant if. Certainly there will be no lya jirga before the winter. Give the NA six months as de facto rulers of Afghanistan and their apparent compliance with Western rhetoric may change.
is this a case of wanting to right wrongs?
What leads you to this observation? Has their behavior to date in Mazar and Kabul exceeded Pashtun expectations?
This is a quote, which I find to be very poignant, in an on-line story in the Times from a 28 year old woman in Kabul (who was forced to leave her job when the Taliban took over, of course, leaving her with four children to feed but with no income.)
"Why would a man who is in his 80s and who has lived in Italy since 1973 want to come back to Afghanistan. His powers are bound to be fettered, and the prestige level doesn't seem to be terribly high. (let alone the survivability factor)."
Unity, continuity, and symbolism. Many Afghans now look upon 1973 as the Year After Which All Hell Broke Loose, and look upon Zahir Shah's reign with glowing nostalgia.
"is this a case of wanting to right wrongs?"
What wrongs did you have in mind?
Message # 15359
"What leads you to this observation? Has their behavior to date in Mazar and Kabul exceeded Pashtun expectations?"
Well, I am just hoping mightily at this stage. There have been killings of Arabs and Pakistanis -- which is okay -- but no ethnic-cleansing type reprisals, at least not so far.
it would be wonderful if he indeed has hopes of helping to bring real unity to his country.
Now, this country must stay engaged, and wait out what happens in Pakistan and keep that aid pipeline completely open into Afghanistan.
It has been, if all today's indications are correct, an astonishingly complete and swift rout of the Taliban.
leaving that aside, are you now dismissing or discounting heavily the prospects of continued Taliban war efforts in the south, or in terrorist attacks in Kabul etc.?
But what do I know?
I wonder about the Taliban who supposedly retreated to Kunduz. They must be shitting mighty bricks right now.
"....my personal recommendation is that those two young fellows from the Taliban embassy in Karachi [sic] be included in the post-Taliban government."
The young fellow interpreting for the ambassador is not an Afghan, but an Egyptian.
And no, those news conferences were given in Islamabad not Karachi.
identified Taliban ambassador Mullah Zaeef's interpreter as......
Where can these guys, Zaeef and his cohorts, run to? I doubt the mountains. They aren't mujahedeen or trained Arab Afghans. They'll most likely be hunted down and executed in the coming weeks, by NA symapthizers, anti-taliban Pashtuns, or perhaps by Special Ops guys from the West.
It was reported in the news (can't remember where) that the NA would meet fierce resistance in Kabul should they attempt to enter. I got the impression this speculation was based on the belief that the Taliban had stacked the city with those friendly to them since taking it over.
BTW - on NPR today they interviewed by sat-phone the first American reporter to enter Kabul. He reported that the Talis were so geeked on getting the hell out of Dodge yesterday, they apparently forgot to spread the word to a few dozen of their comrades. As soon as these poor bastards showed their faces in the streets, the Kabulis beat their heads in with sticks and left them piled in ditches.
"Pakistani intelligence sources near Chaman border in Balochistan and in Peshawar have received credible reports that scores of Arabs and Taliban militants had been entering Pakistan since Monday afternoon revealing to their Pakistani tribal hosts that they had been ordered by Mulla Omar to abandon major cities and to prepare themselves for guerrilla operations on the other side of the Afghan borders."
The question I asked in Message # 12091 becomes more apropos.
the irony, of course, is that Pakistan considered a Talibanized Afghanistan strategically useful as a hinterland in case of war with India. Now, the Taliban may (I consider these accounts highly preliminary) turn around and use Pakistan itself as a strategic hinterland!
"....intelligence reports poured in about a secret Taliban decision to use Pashtun dominated tribal areas of Pakistan as staging posts for a prolonged guerrilla battle in Afghanistan, senior Pakistani military and civilian officials said.
Pakistani intelligence sources near Chaman border in Balochistan and in Peshawar have received credible reports that scores of Arabs and Taliban militants had been entering Pakistan since Monday afternoon revealing to their Pakistani tribal hosts that they had been ordered by Mulla Omar to abandon major cities and to prepare themselves for guerrilla operations on the other side of the Afghan borders.
....
Pakistani officials maintained that string of Northern Alliance's victories inside Afghanistan on Tuesday were only possible because of Taliban's decision to change their tactics from "line defence to mobile defence".
"In guerrilla warfare there is no permanent holding of ground. The Soviet army always maintained a reasonable control over all big cities in Afghanistan, yet it could not win the war," according to a retired ISI official with about a decade of involvement in Afghan affairs. ISI's Afghan veterans believe that by allowing the enemy troops to rapidly capture major Afghan cities, the Taliban have broadly hinted about their strategy to launch hit and run operations against the fixed and mobile targets.
"There will be enough targets for Taliban guerrillas once the coalition launches logistical operation to maintain forces all over Afghanistan," a former ISI official hoped."
Come to think of it, everyone should now turn to the Sikhs! The last time such an action was successful it required dought Sardar's under Ranjit Singh. jexster perhaps should start posting inchoate paeans to that martial race, which has unaccountably slipped under his radar screen until now.
Marzipranks, your scenario of a pincer movement between the NA and the Pak army is hyper-fanciful.
What's the US going to do? What is the choice given to Musharraf? Will the NA be content to allow these forces to launch attacks across the border?
But I don't think it will come to that. Tribal posses within FATA will hunt them down if they really do show up within one of the tribal agencies.
"Hit and run" operations? They infiltrate, come together, hit, then disperse and run? Infiltrate through a hostile popululation, group together without detection, hit, then disperse and run while air forces pound hell out of them and air mobile troops land for blocking operations? Guerilla warfare by its nature is engagement by small units against small units; guerillas cannot engage large units for they tend to get mauled; and guerilla operations cannot be sustained without the support of the local populace (or, the local populace must be terrified into submission to the guerillas). Moreover, I don't see the US intending to occupy Afghanistan.
However, it was reported on the news tonight that the Taliban embassy in Pakistan has been evacuated. Video footage showed Talib representatives jumping into vehicles, not answering any questions, just fleeing.
If southern Afghanistan now sees the light of day and turns on the Taliban, as seems (or I should say, feels) likely, then I will recant my impression, solidified in the wake of the ambush of Abdul Haq, that every second Afghan is an ethnic zealot no better than Nazi-sympathizing Germans.
However, I do think that despite the obvious overwhelming efficacy of air power in the last three major conflicts the US has waged (during every single one of which the insufficiency of bombing has been harped on ad nauseam by each war's critics) it's too early to declare a glorious American victory. Even if we effectively castrate Qaeda, in order to win we must still help establish stability in Afghanistan. Everyone here knows how many cows have yet to be corralled to get that to happen. But what none of us knows is how all the cowboys are going to parcel out the herd at the end of the day. I.e., Afghanistan's meddlesome neighbors aren't going away, and they all have the same objectives they had last week.
It was an idiotic impression anyway.
Well, you helped create it.
Another indication on the map not elsewhere reported, as far as I know, is the supposed capture of Nemroz province by non-NA anti-Taliban Pashtun forces. Nemroz is a Pashtun-populated province in the southwest of the country.
The places to watch in the next 24 hours are Jalalabad and Konduz. Konduz is one of the several Pashtun enclaves in the north, a result of Amir Abdurrahman's forced settlements of rebellious Pashtun tribes in the late 19th century.
With the collapse of Taliban rule in northern Afghanistan, U.S. forces acquire critical land routes and airfields to resupply the rebels, deliver humanitarian aid and launch intensified air and ground attacks on the Taliban and Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network. Control of the north also might offer important intelligence leads in the search for bin Laden and other terrorist leaders.WPost
A legend in my own mind.....
The camera was apparently left to run, catching dead time until something happens and the guy can start broadcasting again.
All of a sudden: BOOM!!!! - a bomb falls on the next room, and the wall, control panel - everything is just coming at the guy in pieces as he flies off his seat and ducks out.
Was that the Al-Jazeera facility?
Also Tuesday, the last of six people to survive inhalation anthrax came home after 25 days in a suburban Washington hospital. Leroy Richmond, a postal worker at the city's contaminated central facility, said he was grateful to doctors who began treating him for anthrax even before it was confirmed. ``Timing was crucial,'' he said.
Four others have died from the disease, including two area postal workers remembered Tuesday at a Postal Service memorial.
No new cases of anthrax infection have been reported for more than two weeks, though traces of the bacteria have continued to turn up.
That's now 6 cases survived, 4 dead. Not bad for a disease previously estimated to have a 90% mortality rate.
Man, "Somewhere" has sure been a great source of information for me. I've read and heard so many factoids from so many places they all run together.
United States intelligence agencies reported
tonight that members of southern tribes
opposed to the Taliban were massing near
the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar. In the
strategic eastern city of Jalalabad, residents
reported that the Taliban had announced
they were pulling out and turning the city
over to its previous civilian administration
I heard on French television (Antenne Deux) that Nemroz province (southwest) was taken, which squares with what the Daily Telegraph says, but there is no indication of who or what took it. Was it anti-Taliban Pashtun rebels or was it Ismail Khan's NA forces? There is just no indication. The taking of Nemroz is not even confirmed.
Radio Pakistan is reporting heavy combat In the eastern provinces with massive US aerial bombardments of Taliban positions in Jalalabad and Khost. There is no talk of any defections, however. It looks like the Taliban are resisting the NA instead of running. Not a good sign.
BBC's Haroun Rashid, who was just in Kandahar before evacuating, say that although the Taliban have largely disappeared from the city, there is no sign of any activity at the Kandahar airport (contrary to reports that it was taken by rebels) nor any sign of insurrection.
I've noticed that many press outlets are reporting rumours and/or claims made by NA spokesmen. That's understandable since the situation is so confused and things are developing so rapidly.
Even Al-Jazeera has made no claims with respect to Jalalabad and Kandahar other than to report NA claims.
He didn't say where he got his info from, but if there's any truth to what he says, maybe the Talis have simply abandoned the airport?
What are you feeling about all this, though? Happy, worried, both?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24752-2001Nov13.html
"Taliban fighters stole out of Jalalabad without firing a shot today after receiving a warning from warlord Abdul Qadir to leave or face attacks by his anti-Taliban forces, journalists in the city reported.
Qadir's men were in control of the city by afternoon, the journalists added, though it was not clear whether they were Taliban deserters or the lightly armed fighters that he was gathering last week from his exile in the nearby Pakistani city of Peshawar."
(Abdul Qadir is an older brother of the late Abdul Haq. Shouldn't journalists mention things like that?)
If Kandahar falls, the US should declare victory in the war against the Taliban, focus on a political settlement, on clandestine operations in order to locate bin Laden and on helping out with the relief efforts. 
Satinder Bindra reports capture of Mullah Omar's hometown...and Mathew Chance (YUM!) is reporting that NA is setting up hdq in Taloqan 
The NA rep (Amin Haroun, is it?) was on Charlie Rose last night. Rose asked if and when the NA might progress to Kandahar. The rep said NA would take Kandahar within 6 to 12 hours. Rose nearly fell off his chair.
Anyway, this much is clear:
In the south and east of the country, the situation appeared chaotic as local Pashtun tribal leaders appeared to be challenging the Taliban in the ethnic Pashtun heartlands.
Followers of a local, independent powerbroker, Yunus Khalis, took control of the Afghan border station at Torkham, a major crossing point into Pakistan.
Afghan sources in Pakistan, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the airport in the Taliban's southern stronghold of Kandahar was held by about 200 fighters loyal to Arif Khan, a member of a southern Pashtun tribe.
A Taliban official along the Pakistani border at Chaman, Mullah Najibullah, said Taliban fighters were firing on the airport on Wednesday from hilltop positions.
The Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press reported that tribal elders took control on Wednesday of the town of Gardez, in Paktia province about 60 miles south of Kabul.
US warplanes kept up pressure on the Taliban with more air raids outside the capital on Wednesday. American aircraft bombed the airport and military installations around the city of Jalalabad at least six times overnight and early in the morning, the Pakistan-based Afghan Islamic Press reported.
Citing an unidentified Taliban official, the agency also said warplanes attacked a military base in Khost, six miles from the Pakistan border.
Mohammed Alam Ezdediar, who headed a Northern Alliance radio station before Kabul fell, assumed control of the newly renamed Radio Afghanistan and resumed airing music, which the Taliban had banned as frivolous.
He hired three women as news readers...
ISLAMABAD, Nov 14: An anti-Taliban revolt said to be gathering pace in southern Afghanistan today has boosted the prospects of the United States hunting down Osama bin Laden. "The chances of him being betrayed, sold out or whatever are extremely high," Afghanistan expert Ahmed Rashid told Reuters from Lahore. The U.S.-led alliance has put a $5 million price on the head of Osama bin Laden. (Reuters)
The Pathans (in Afghanistan and out) are opportunistic. They, like most other people, don't want to die for ideologues, they'd rather live and have some power, control and money. All of these three are being offered up right now, particularly the first two since there is a power vacuum. The Taliban has basically disappeared as a political force, now every commander with a few dozen men and some arms will want a share of the pie.
It will not necessarily be easy to get these guys all to agree to power-sharing, especially if the NA demands a large share. But for now, it's essentially land/power grab and of course the Pathans want their share (plus they hate the NA).
But all of this could sour in two days, if the NA (and now these anti-Taliban Pathans) revert to form and indulge themselves in the usual orgy of looting, rape and plunder, compounded with reprisal massacres. Then, the US will be blamed, esepecially since the Taliban, whatever its faults and excesses, did maintain to the end a kind of law and order in its territory.
All those fine and grandiose plans are tattered now, and the NA has swept up a mindboggling amount of territory in two days, and a good part of Afghanistan has deteriorated into, at best, a violent free-for-all. The enemy has retreated, and been shredded, but in its place is a series of large question marks, nothing better.
"CNN confirms evacuation of Jalabad. Talis crossing border into Pakistan raising exactly Marj's "fanciful" scenario..."
Jexster, what I called fanciful was the idea of a pincer movement between the Northern Alliance and the Pakistani army against the Taliban. I didn't say it was fanciful for the Taliban to cross into Pakistan. See Message # 15384.
I know you're insane from the terminal stages of syphilis, but you should try to keep things straight.
"I order you to completely obey your commanders," he said, adding that any fighter who deserts their duty "is like a slaughtered chicken which falls and dies".
"You should regroup yourselves, resist and fight."
"According to the written reports I have received, the Muslim people of the eastern zone in general, and also Ghazni and Farah, have been liberated."
He said "local people" were in control of the provinces following the fall of the capital, Kabul, to the opposition early today.
"In all these provinces there is no clash," Shaheen told Reuters television in an interview. "It was a strategic and tactical withdrawal from all these provinces. "About Kabul, we wanted to save the lives of the civilians of Kabul," he said, referring to the fall of the capital to the opposition Northern Alliance on Tuesday.
"For the protection of their lives we withdrew from Kabul," he said. "There is a new regrouping and, of course, there will be a new programme... worked out," he said.
Pseuder, I think this is the fellow I was referring to yesterday.
Our brave allies ----errr proxies---control 80% of country.
bwak...bwak...bwak...bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaK!
That happens to be completely false.
Get the U.N in with the new government. Keep our mobile force ability in the continued effort against bin Laden and Al Qaeda. Occupy -from the air.
"
(1) Burhanuddin Rabbani, the nominal head of the Northern Alliance and the actual head of its Tajik Jamiat faction, has announced he will be returning to Kabul.
(2) Jamiat forces are the ones exclusively controlling Kabul. They appear to be creating defensive positions all around the city.
Keegan
The statement of yours I quoted. Pashtun voices have been almost unanimously against the bombing, so your statement is factually false.
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain
To seek another's profit,
And work another's gain.
The Taliban was not only religiously oppressive. It also neglected to use the political forms to which Afghans are accustomed, particularly the village gathering, or jirga, a meeting of tribal elders at which village affairs are decided....
This is not to say that it won't happen, in fact NA spokesmen go on endlessly about their good intentions. But in practice, I wonder whether it is possible to force troops to retreat from positions they feel they've earned, without serious recompense or even severe threats.
These are just facts.
Obviously, if they could foresee that the bombing campaign would be so effective in causing the Taliban to disintegrate, then they might not have opposed the bombing.
The question is and that which remains, do they oppose the bombing? Present tense.
Pseudoerasmus is credible when reporting the opinions and news he's gleaned from others; when confined to his own speculations he's not credible.
Today the bombing is seemingly restricted to attacks on retreating Taliban formations. The US hasn't even bombed Kunduz yet, where several thousand Taliban (and foreigners) have holed up.
The fact is that every Afghan source, save the NA spokesmen, condemned the bombing when it seemed that it was doing nought to dislodge the Taliban and when the only picture that emerged was of increased civilian suffering. Even the anti-Taliban pashtuns like Haq, and the NA commanders interviewed by the likes of Satinder Bindra on CNN, spoke out against the bombing.
Well, bombing the Taliban is what allowed Pashtuns to revolt. Moreover, American special ops forces apparently had been in southern Afghanistan for weeks. I find it impossible to believe Pashtuns are unaware of the US contribution to the Taliban's flight. If your claims about their anti-American sentiment are true, then Pashtuns are singularly irrational, or as ethnically pychotic as Nazis.
"What was unexpected and surprising was the complete & sudden collapse of the Taliban. Which is of course what has brought the anti-Taliban Pashtun forces out. They didn't actively overthrow the Taliban."
The Taliban didn't just fold for the hell of it.
I agree with Banks that everyone's an opportunist and much remains to be seen. But I'm hoping (as I have hoped for about 1000 posts now) that the prospect of participating in the loya jirga in the United Arab Emirates this or next week, and ultimately, in representative governance, will keep all factions on their best behavior until that political process solidifies.
Your comments in 15469 are 100% accurate.
But why is my usage of the word "nought" awarded a (sic)? I object strenuously.
You talk as though you forecast this sudden collapse of the Taliban, with your fact-free but "credible" speculations. Those, including me, who criticised the bombing on the rationale that it alone could not largely defeat the Taliban (while only alienating internal popular opinion), were wrong, utterly wrong. But you didn't forsee it either.
That hasn't been the case for at least a week, more like two!
"Even the anti-Taliban pashtuns like Haq, and the NA commanders interviewed by the likes of Satinder Bindra on CNN, spoke out against the bombing."
Well, if perceptions at the time were that the US was supporting the NA against Pashtuns (rather than Taliban or Qaeda), then that's understandable. But things have changed. Moreover, we've had men on the ground working to undermine the Talibs, and the CIA has been staunchly behind Karzai, and everyone (does PE believe it's everyone BUT the Pashtuns?) seems quite aware of the fact that the US is not fully supportive of the NA's incursion into Kabul, which proves a bit of an embarrassment.
I think some of this purported Pashtun anti-Americanism is merely Taliban-influenced propaganda.
"Well, bombing the Taliban is what allowed Pashtuns to revolt....I find it impossible to believe Pashtuns are unaware of the US contribution to the Taliban's flight...The Taliban didn't just fold for the hell of it."
I am certain they are now quite unaware of the US contribution.
"If your claims about their anti-American sentiment are true, then Pashtuns are singularly irrational..."
To some extent, but not entirely. US strategy has essentially delievered Kabul to the NA, which is one of the things Pashtun groups in Pakistan feared. We don't know yet the end result of that occupation.
..."..or as ethnically pychotic as Nazis."
You just won't quit that silly analogy. I guess it's that "predisposition" I talked about earlier but you feverishly deny.
quite AWARE of the US contribution.
But Afghanistan today looks eerily like the status quo ante of 1994, when the Taliban emerged for the first time.
Eastern Provinces are controlled by Yunis Khalis group, whose members once made up the Jalalabad Shura that ruled the same provinces in 1994.
Jamiat rules Kabul, as in 1994.
Kandahar is thus far in chaos, as in 1994.
The western provinces are in the hands of Ismail Khan, as in 1994.
The northern seven provinces are in the hands of the Uzbek Junbish, as in 1994.
The centre of the country is held by the Hazara Hisb-i-Wahdat, as in 1994.
The Northeast remains in the hands of Jamiat, as it always has been.
I'm not saying that things will unfold as in 1994, but the picture does look like a déjà vu.
So I've said, and along with everyone else I'm thoroughly worried about it. Loya jirga in UAE must be the big carrot, the sooner it happens the better.
"You just won't quit that silly analogy."
It's worth the rise it gets out of you.
"I guess it's that "predisposition" I talked about earlier but you feverishly deny."
You mean your predisposition to believe a priori that all Jews consider Muslims subhuman, unless those Jews happen to be Chomskyesque Israel haters? Or your predisposition to believe all Pashtuns are so concerned for their ethnic brethren being bombed by Americans, and at the same time so illiterate, that they couldn't possibly ally with Americans against Pashtun oppressors, and that even now they have no idea what's happening?
Once again, you sell these people short.
(I recognize the general practice here that any misspelling moots the substance of a comment.)
"Or your predisposition to believe all Pashtuns are so concerned for their ethnic brethren being bombed by Americans, and at the same time so illiterate, that they couldn't possibly ally with Americans against Pashtun oppressors....Once again, you sell these people short."
You over-simplify my "predisposition".
Most of the bombing campaign took place in Pashtun areas. It was entirely reasonable for them to fear the bombing more than the Taliban. As I have said many times in explanation of my view, the Taliban treated the Pashtun population somewhat better than non-Pashtun populations. Life in Kandahar and Jalalabad was better than in Herat or Mazar, not just because of differences in Taliban rule, but because the drought is largely a northern phenomenon.
Therefore, that Pashtuns might rally around their ethnic brethren was the most likely & reasonably foreseeable outcome -- if the Taliban had not just collapsed from the US bombing campaign, had instead resisted the Northern Alliance and had not created a vacuum in the east and south which anti-Taliban Pashtun groups have now filled without much of a fight at all.
The present outcome is entirely and completely the result of the unexpected efficacy of the US bombing campaign -- virtually nothing to do with what little the Pashtun groups have done against the Taliban.
I don't sell them short at all. That you think so, only indicates your insular sense of unreality.
I originally thought it was, but now I agree with Loar that it is the work of a generation.
Also, it strikes me that whatever sort of peacekeeping force is ultimately assembled in Afghanistan, the process by which it is assembled might well be employed to put together a similar force for the Palestinian territories, to guarantee regional security at the de facto (or de jure) emergence of a Palestinan state. Which could be coming soon.
I'd venture the same sort of hope about a resolution over Kashmir, but I just don't know enough about that situation, except that the US itself may be better placed to unilaterally help keep a lid on Pak extremism than we are to keep a lid on Pal extremism.
Message # 15492
I have to say, I'm flabbergasted that you are being forced to explain this to apparently intelligent people.
There's a wide latitude of interpretation as perhaps 90% or more of the country was held by Taliban forces before the bombing began and the US to my knowledge wasn't bombing the 10% held by the Northern Alliance. But, what were the targets of the bombing? Military targets, and collateral damage (okay, death of civilians, noncombatants, by bombing) will probably prove small, very small. I had read -reported here perhaps - that as a consequence of the bombing in time the Taliban lost strict control over the movement of people and foodstuffs. But, again, how could the bombing of Taliban targets and the forward edge of the battle areas confronting the Northern Alliance cause the Pashtun to fear the bombing more than the Taliban?
What we were learning about the effects of the bombing came from refugees and the Pak press; we knew almost nothing about the effects within Afghanistan other than some films and reports showing some bomb damage and a few corpses.
Why is it harder to believe that Pastuns oppose the bombing of Taliban strongholds in Pashtun homelands, than it is that an American who does not support the Bush administration opposes the bombing of Washington DC? Or that an American anti-Zionist Jew opposes the bombing of Tel Aviv?
This excerpt from the article from the Post linked by Jex above sort of says it all in a mini way in terms of demonstrating the types of complexities that will be faced in trying to come up with a way of both stabilizing and governing Afghanistan into the future.
The key, at least to winning the hearts if not the minds of the general populace, has got to be providing them with stability (and all that hopefully then flows from that).
a) most Pashtun support the Taliban;
b) The bombing of Taliban strongholds necessarily involves civilian and non-combatant deaths to the degree the bombing is worse than life under the Taliban;
c)that Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban.
PantyWaist Powell's gotta move 
I was just posting the opposite to test myself. I wanted to see if I could post the opposite of what I really thought without blinking.
The frontlines in Mazar and Kabul were of course the main targets of the bombing campaign in the latter weeks, but towns like Jalalabad, Kandahar and Khost were regularly bombed also. Most of the al-Qaidah training camps were also in the Pashtun areas, particularly in the east.
I'm not sure why it makes any difference that civilian casualties were relatively light. The fact that there were accidental civilian casualties at all, and the fact that Taliban rule in Pashtun areas was lighter than in non-Pashtun areas (*) were enough to induce the resentment against the bombing campaign in Pashtun areas.
(*) Rural Pashtun areas saw very light Taliban administration, and was in fact left to the tribes.
"What we were learning about the effects of the bombing came from refugees and the Pak press; we knew almost nothing about the effects within Afghanistan other than some films and reports showing some bomb damage and a few corpses."
Nonsense. First of all, 250 000 fresh refugees in Pakistan are not nothing. Second, press reports went beyond the Pak press. You had Al Jazeera regularly reporting, as well as CNN's continued presence in Kandahar with a Muslim correspondent. And then you had reports of Abdul Haq's meetings with outraged village elders in Nangarhar.
"a) most Pashtun support the Taliban; b) The bombing of Taliban strongholds necessarily involves civilian and non-combatant deaths to the degree the bombing is worse than life under the Taliban; c)that Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban."
Most Pashtuns did not support the Taliban,
So now everything is OK? Look for Osama in the hills for a winter or two, get him in the end, objectives accomplished, go home?
Naaah. Way too easy.
Something is bound to happen. Isn't it?
"b) The bombing of Taliban strongholds necessarily involves civilian and non-combatant deaths to the degree the bombing is worse than life under the Taliban..."
Again, this ignores the fact that life in Pashtun areas under the Taliban were better than in non-Pashtun areas. For example, games and sport were not outlawed in Kandahar as they were in Herat and Kabul; and girls' education could not be banned in eastern Afghanistan, where the tribes simply refused such Taliban edicts.
"...c)that Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban."
Well, perhaps the correlation was difficult to make when bombs were falling near you. You keep talking about frontline Taliban targets but there were Taliban tagets in the middle of cities as well as al-Qaidah targets all over the Pashtun areas.
a) most Pashtun support the Taliban;
b) The bombing of Taliban strongholds necessarily involves civilian and non-combatant deaths to the degree the bombing is worse than life under the Taliban;
c)that Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban.
From what I have read them say for themselves, most Pashtun define the Taliban far more narrowly than do Westerners. The majority of Pashtuns seem to despise the Afghan Arabs and blame them for the Taliban's exesses. But the majority of the Taliban are Pashtuns. If they do want to overthrow the Taliban, Pashtuns, like other human beings, don't want their cities bombed and their kinsmen killed. Why is that hard to understand?
Of course bombing is worse than life under the Taliban. Why do you think increasing numbers of refugees are fleeing Taliban controlled areas that are being bombed? I'm sure the overthrow of the Taliban is welcomed. It would have been more so if the frantic efforts to form an Afghan government to replace them had taken place before the bombing rather than after.
That Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with the existence and presence of the Taliban!
As if Pashtuns can't correlate the bombing with misery they are experiencing. As if the victims are happy to have been bombed.
http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/
Click on English.
(2) But I have not been wrong about whether Pashtuns would rally around the Taliban. That prediction never got tested, because the US bombing campaign was so effective that the Taliban have disintegrated and there is now nothing to rally around. There is only a vacuum in the Pashtun areas which the Pashtun exile groups from Pakistan are now rushing to fill, apparently, since they fear losing influence in the post-Taliban political dispensation.
The current outcome depended entirely on #1, which nobody foresaw as far as I can tell.
It absolutely testifies to the efficacy of the US bombing campaign that the sudden collapse of the Taliban has simply made moot the risk of Pashtun backlash. I am properly chastasised for my quasi-slanderous doubts about the competence of the US military.
My Message # 15500 recounted the assumptions on which Sakonige could probably base her earlier remark, which assumptions I do not agree with. Message # 15500 is not a recitation of what I believe or understand.
Wombat, I don't need you or Pseudoerasmus to tell me by Message # 15514 the information was probably far removed from the facts. That popular impressions and reporting from Pakistan do not necessarily square with the facts of the bombings is my point.
"That popular impressions and reporting from Pakistan do not necessarily square with the facts of the bombings is my point."
But "popular impressions", at least inside Afghanistan, is the salient point here.
Also, it's not just "reporting from Pakistan". I've already named other sources from which one could gauge opinion inside Afghanistan.
"That popular impressions and reporting from Pakistan do not necessarily square with the facts of the bombings is my point."
But "popular impressions", at least inside Afghanistan, is the salient point here.
Also, it's not just "reporting from Pakistan". I've already named other sources from which one could gauge opinion inside Afghanistan.
pseudo - I think it is time for you to get a bit of sleep.
pleasant dreams, too.
Partly because many of us refused to make predictions about the efficacy of US bombing.
Is the bombing campaign the only factor in the sudden collapse of the Taliban? Why did bombing suddenly achieve such an unexpected threshold effect?
"In time we will discover the exact consequences of the bombing, how many non-combatants were killed, how many and what type of areas destroyed or damaged, and the results to the civilian population. Now, we just don't know, because as I have said again and again public opinion formed by a few and narrow reporters may prove to be very much at odds with the reality."
Of what relevance are these remarks? The exact toll of the bombing is not the point. The point was whether it alienated the Pashtun population, as per Andonly's broaching of the topic. Everything we have heard so far -- refugee reports, al Jazeera reports, reports from Kandahar by CNN's Kamal Hyder, and Abdul Haq's reports on the outrage expressed at village meetings in Nangarhar -- point to that alienation.
"250,000 refugees exited because of bombing? Or fear of bombing?"
I believe 250 000 is the number since before the bombing started but when it became clear the USA would commence a war.
I wonder if al Queda and the Taliban have split up.
Dutch? Like the ones that "secured" Srebrenica?
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/14/gen.war.against.terror/index.html
"The sources in Washington said there was street fighting in Kandahar and the Taliban still control some neighborhoods, but that Taliban fighters were fleeing in droves.
Sources contacted by CNN in Kandahar, however, reported the city and the airport appeared still to be in the hands of the Taliban. They said no gunfire could be heard in the city....
Backing for the Taliban apparently was still strong in the city. Al-Jazeera broadcast videophone pictures of black-turbaned Taliban supporters in the streets of Kandahar, vowing to fight to keep the city from falling.
Kandahar's mayor told Al-Jazeera that the Taliban troops are deployed around the city and in the surrounding mountains."
You point out that life under the Taliban was better in some areas than others. Are you saying that they enjoyed Taliban rule? Do you think the responsibility for setting up a viable government in Afganisstan should be borne my Afgans or others, and if so who?
What I did not want to see is thousands of Americans killed. It seems that objective will be met.
Of course, I had heard all this before; how wonderful it must be in the U.S.S.R and how wonderful life was in Cuba. Where do sane people get the idea that people enjoy having their necks under someone's heal?
"You point out that life under the Taliban was better in some areas than others. Are you saying that they enjoyed Taliban rule?"
No, and no one could reasonably infer that from what I said. I am saying that Pashtuns in Afghanistan weighed Taliban rule versus the bombing and probably thought the latter was the greater threat. This squares with the historical tendency of quarrelling Pashtun tribes to unite in the face of a foreign attack. I am just glad the Taliban collapsed before that became truly manifest, as it might have become a in longer campaign.
"Do you think the responsibility for setting up a viable government in Afganisstan should be borne my Afgans..."
By Afghans of course.
Message # 15532
"Several weeks ago we had dinner with one of our liberal friends, who assured us from what they were reading that bin Ladin was much loved in Afganistan."
Well, that is nonsense. I'm pretty sure that you can leave most of the hunting down of the Arabs to Afghan forces, though US & UK special forces would direct operations. I'm almost certain every single Arab who does not escape to Pakistan, will be killed in cold blood.
"Of course, I had heard all this before; how wonderful it must be in the U.S.S.R and how wonderful life was in Cuba. Where do sane people get the idea that people enjoy having their necks under someone's heal?"
I hope you're not implying I am such a person.
Do you think the threat of terrorist strikes on the US over the next two years has been significantly reduced by what is happening in Afghanistan? I think it's too early to tell.
You're right; I misread you, but it remains my opinion.
Absolutely not!
sakonige
Yes. Will there be further attacks? Probably. That will give us a chance to liberate another country.
When my liberal friends gave me their opinions I said when we make bin Ladin and his men crispy critters the Afgans will be waving American flags. Perhaps that is hyperbole, but not by much. Same thing would happen in Iraq, I do believe.
HAHAHAHAHA!
(But you've revealed yourself to have been blinking spastically all along.)
Where do you get the idea that just because these "liberals" quoted what they'd heard of some Afghans feelings about Bin Laden that they think these women "enjoy" being under a repressive regime? I've heard conservatives spout this "oh Bib Laden is worshiped by the women because of his dreamy eyes" bull but I certainly didn't leap to the conclusion that the conservations thus assumed the Afghans welcomed oppression.
"Pseudo:"The current outcome depended entirely on #1, which nobody foresaw as far as I can tell."
Partly because many of us refused to make predictions about the efficacy of US bombing."
Indeed. If I recall correctly, you counseled to wait and see, as did I; Pincher was rather more sanguine about a military success from the outset, and by at least last week, or as soon as he had abandoned speaking of his Panglossian Bureaucratic Solution, I believe Loar also had outlined the possibility of military manouvers knocking down the Taliban. It seemed to me that any substantial hit to the Taliban should have prompted significant Pashtun defections ahead of a loya jirga, since the one Afghan group that will not be welcomed in future governance, by any force but Pakistan, is the Taliban.
Robert Kaplan, whose interview from Afghanistan Pincher linked here, figured we'd be done with the Taliban fairly soon (although not this soon), that a show of brute force was necessary and yet politically very risky (Kaplan was an admirer of Haq), and that the long-term US entanglement and stabilizing project will not be in Afghanistan so much as in Pakistan.
And this speaks directly to the idea that people will bend to any thing they must...they will suffer through whatever they have to in order to survive. It's not that they like being oppressed; it's that they have to make the best of what they're dealt.
Pashtun....said like pash-ton or pash-tune?
Osama...noting it's sometimes spelled Usama...is that oh -sama? ooh-sama? or you-sama?
and pardoning my ignorance, people from afghanistan are afghans, though people from pakistan are pakistanis...is paki considered a derogatory term?
thanks.
The first name of the terrorist is closer to Usama than Osama. Osama is the preferred spelling/pronunciation in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India.
Afghan is the word for the nationality in Pashto but Afghani is the word in Dari (Afghan Persian). Afghani is also the name of the currency, as well as the traditional name given by Pashtuns to their language.
Paki is considered a racial slur in the UK, but nowhere else, including Pakistan.
In case there is any doubt, by approaching the end game in throwing the Taliban out of Afghanistan, not only is the US close to achieving one of its prime objectives in that country, but is also making good on any perceived obligation to correct US inattention to Afghanistan after helping the muhajideen throw the Soviets out in the '80's.
Fisk really goes too far in claiming that the NA:
...promised – didn't it? – not to enter the Afghan capital. It was supposed to capture, at most, Mazar-i-Sharif and perhaps Herat, to demonstrate the weakness of the Taliban, to show the West that its war aims – the destruction of the Taliban and thus of Osama bin Laden's al-Qa'ida movement – were inevitable.
Except for the partial validity of the first item he lists, Fisk is fabricating. The fact of the matter is that the Taliban deserted Kabul, leaving a power vacuum there, so the NA probably did the best thing in occupying that city, which is not to justify any other actions it may take there, to the mouth breathers here. For the rest of it, Fisk is letting his anti-US slip show. Well, he can go fuck himself. The US appears unlikely to sustain any significant casualties in Afghanistan, and anybody but a drooling Leftist or US hater will applaud that.
What on earth is going on? And what, for that matter, has happened to Mr bin Laden? Are we driving him into the mountains – always supposing he is not already there – or are we pushing him into the tribal areas of the North-West Frontier Province of Pakistan? For without a city, the Taliban themselves will melt back into their birthplace, the madrassa schools along the Pakistan border which created the puritan, obscurantist spirit which has inspired the rulers of Afghanistan these past five years.
This moron writes as if he expects the US to guarantee the Taliban an Afghanistan base of operations, a ridiculous and completely unworkable idea. Then he goes on to spout:
Why, I wonder, do we always have this ambiguous, dangerous relationship with our allies? For decades, we accepted the received wisdom that the "B" specials were a vital security arm of the Northern Ireland authorities on the grounds that they "knew the territory" – just as, I fear, we rely upon the Northern Alliance because it "knows the land".
It's strange that a Left Liberal like Fisk is tearing his hair out about this, because it's his side of the political aisle which is on record as cozying up to the Hitlers, Stalins, Maos and Pol Pots. Additionally, Fisk forgot to include his brilliantly superior alternate choice for alliance partner. The Pashtuns? Absolutely not. They're only starting to revolt now because of the well known Afghan propensity for ditching losers.
And, in any case, the US is giving the people in Afghanistan a rare opportunity to start over, to form a representative government which minimizes the unjustness and suffering which that country has suffered through the last 25 years. It's more the responsibility of the world community from here on out, including the UN and moderate surrounding countries to help guide Afghanistan to a stable nationhood than it is of the United States.
As a Pakistani newspaper, The News, put it in an editorial yesterday: "Thousands of armed, desperate fighters, who have always seen Pakistan as their ultimate destination, will have to be stopped and confronted ... Pakistan's security agencies, and even the army, will have to be prepared to fight the returning Taliban and this could turn into a messy situation if casualties mount."
By proving his sincerity to Western leaders this way, General Musharraf would incur appalling domestic risks. One reason Pakistan ended up sponsoring the Taliban was to keep its own fundamentalists busy on foreign soil, to minimise the trouble they cause at home. Now they are all streaming back. The extremists have never got a grip on the loyalties of the mass of Pakistanis, but many organs of the state, including the intelligence and nuclear establishments, have long been infested with their sympathisers.
If Afghanistan's war is heading towards a close, General Musharraf's woes are only just beginning.
I never argued for US ground troops, and cautioned against using so 12-13 September. Yes, I can understand this was overlooked as you and others jawed about stagings from China, etc.
Had Arafat and other Arab leaders ever brought up the plight of Afghanistan (before the current bombing campaign)? I have certainly never heard Arafat or Mubarak or the shortie Hashemite in Jordan ever say a thing about Afghanistan. This is despite the fact that Afghan refugee camps in Pakistan and Iran are infinitely more wretched than anything in Gaza and the West Bank, which are Versailles in comparison; and the condition of Afghans inside Afghanistan in the last 10 years worse than anything ever seen in Palestine.
I hope Usama bin Ladin and every other Arab in Afghanistan is torn limb from limb by a wild-eyed Afghan mob, and Afghans are very good at being wild-eyed.
What about your prediction that the US Postal Service is about to go out of business?
Muwahahaha!
Yet the biggest victims of this "Muslim brotherhood" fraud, and the primary believers in it among non-Arab Muslims, are the Pakistanis. But then Pakis have had to invent an identity and thus the amplification of the Muslim connexion was the obvious tool.
The Turks and the Iranians were the first to recognise the phoniness of "Muslim brotherhood". Iranians have always shown a studied dislike of the Arabs, whom they refer to as "lizard" (marmulak), a contempt which did not abate with the Islamic revolution.
In 1973, there were two Muslim countries which maintained diplomatic relations with Israel -- Iran and Turkey. Iran ended its relations with Israel only in 1980.
It is said that the Shah of Iran had convinced his buddy the Shah of Afghanistan (the one currently in the limelight, Zahir Shah to recognise the state of Israel, but he was overthrown in 1973 before he could do so. I don't know if this is true but I've read and heard this several times.
I think I've still got six or more weeks on that prediction. Want to bet there will be no further terrorist attacks on the US?
The look in its eyes told me I had been successful in my attempt.
Belated Vet's Day honors to you.
Not that everyday doesn't bestow such honors.
See you at WC, I hope.
Sakonige -
Of course, I expect there will be attempts at terrorist attacks on the US, just as there have been for decades. Business as usual, if you will. The vast majority of them, if not every last one will be aborted by US intelligence, perhaps slightly more successfully than before.
What I have been surprised by in the last week is the apparent ability of the 'ragtag' NA to take & 'hold' territory, even abetted by the targeted US air strikes, although it's a bit early to definitively say this. I was really thinking that US special forces and the British SAS would be seeing significant combat before this much progress was made.
1) What's the crane mosquito (who knows, I might have'm and don't know'em)and I take it he's an alien to these parts?
2) I don't go to World Crossings, sorry. I can't bring myself to go back there (just a teeny eccentricity of mine you could say).
Not that this is something you knew anything about before, say, 12 November. In fact, I am aware of only just one person who has used the "Afghans can be bought" and "Afghans will ditch the loser" argument in the last two months.
I was a bit dismayed a couple weeks back when I learned that a General Franks who (I read) was responsible for selecting bombing targets and was allowing less than a tenth of the number of strikes per diem that the US was making in Kosovo, never mind Iraq. Not only was he strategizing like an incrementalist (& we know how successful that was in Vietnam), he was attempting to 'send a message' to the Taliban (who didn't even know that a B52 is a bomber) by relying almost entirely on surgical strikes on fuel depots, etc (not that doing so doesn't have value). In another forum, I posted that I wished the US would step it up 'about five times', as I recall.
Well, lo and behold, right after that (I'm not suggesting causality, mind you), the US dramatically intensified the bombing of Taliban front lines, including the use of carpet bombing and 'daisy cutters' along with better coordination with the NA and utilization of ground based 'spotters'.
Also, the Taliban undoubtedly have an overblown reputation for ability to wage any but guerrilla type operations, didn't have really large numbers of troops, the enthusiastic backing of many Afghanis (from what I gather) or much in the way of committed reserve personnel and weren't being substantially aided by any but raw volunteers.
Well, no offense, but I remember you reacting to a a post of mine well before 11/12 about there being two types of Afghanis which dealt directly with this sort of characteristic.
Andonly (and any one else so inclined): Read Message # 193, especially Message # 200, glance at Message # 200 and Message # 210, but most especially read Message # 220. I wrote these on 12 September.
From the very start I wanted this entire discourse open to review so people could see their asses hanging out.
"Also, the Taliban undoubtedly have an overblown reputation for ability to wage any but guerrilla type operations..."
I do not know of any time when the Taliban have ever engaged in guerrilla operations. The entire military history of the Taliban has been of the conventional kind, albeit based on Toyota pickup trucks and SUVs.
Prayers work.
However, there are signs that the NA is taking far far more territory than ever planned or envisaged by the Western Allies, and it remains to be seen what it does in that territory over the next few days, and how strongly it will use it as a bargaining chip in whatever coming meeting is held to determine the future political leadership in Afghanistan.
We may get a sign of things to come fairly early, if Rabbani does or does not enter Kabul. The NA has categorically denied that there are US personnel in Kabul, it alone holds sway. As this article points out, how Rabbani behaves in the next couple of days could be a key to deducing the likely NA stance in coming weeks.
Bush just cannot stop making an ass of himself, can he? I saw him on television saying that he "looked Putin in the eye" and he'd only but the deal down on "a piece of paper" as a formality. Just how juvenile is this guy? Putin has got to be congratulating himself right now.
The Krugman stuff is just staggering, I sincerely hope everyone here has been reading his pieces.
With Bush at Crawford presently, I see a big media event coming....
Praise God!
Be careful on your way to Waco! And I'm happy for you, too.
Thanks for the correction. As you know, much of what I post regarding Afghanistan is rife with speculation.
I had my church pray for them (approx. 3,500) every Thursday and Sunday as a whole.
Great news! I really feared for their well being, particularly after hearing of all the acts of cruelty directed against other Afghanis the Taliban were responsible for.
Incidentally, some editorial I read presumed that the Taliban, along with confiscating weapons, maintained control, (in light of their relatively small numbers and largely foreign extraction) of (particularly non-Pashtun) Afghanis by effectively instituting a reign of terror.
Perhaps someone more qualified than I could comment on this.
Let's all stay tuned to the news channels...
I am planning on going to Waco when the girls return, too. No doubt they will have an incredible story and testimony to present to the world.
Seriously.
As David Bowie sings: "We can be heroes."
She and I are the same height and the same age. People always mistook us for sisters, even though she has auburn hair and I'm blonde. Anyway, I always felt privileged to know her, she always had such a tenderness about her and she was and is so caring for ALL people. When I was in school and broke, she and Tina would feed me. She is such an incredible person, and I am sure that the Afghan people she worked with knew what a gem they had.
I have met Heather before and know that she is a very sweet and bright girl, and she's very dedicated to serving God.
I am so pleased that they are free.
Cellar,
I had to keep those thoughts out of mind, but I did have them.
Thanks Bubba and Arky, I appreciate you thinking about them!
Is it time to party OR WHAT!!;-)
Ask and you shall receive. Prayers always help. Always.
Gary, Tina, Julia, Tim, Karen, and many others (all of whom you've seen on the various news programs) are just as devout as Dayna and Heather and are all called as missionaries, too.
Honestly, I have not represented Christ to the Mote, I have failed miserably. These people, and the people like them are the stars and are what it's about.
When you all hear Dayna and Heather speak in the near future, remember, they are the real deal. They are the believers who remember to speak the truth in love and who lead by example, Godly-lives.
This is how the Melbourne Age reports it.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/2001/11/14/FFXVGQKJYTC.html
It sounds as though a lot of them were very young imports from Pakistan.
If tales of McCaffrey are true, we did some of our own massacre-ing (sp?) in the Gulf War.
I know they do. They always help.
(Or, at the very least, as it goes in the old Jewish joke, they can't hurt.)
I'm very happy for you.
Wait a minute. Some of you were demanding that the US nuke Afghanistan a few weeks ago. You giggled and agreed every time one of the resident AceHoles suggested it. Obliterating Afghanistan would have killed the Christians along with everyone else. Isn't it hypocritical to be so overjoyed now that they didn't get bombed after all?
Hypocrite. You are right about what you've written here making Christians look bad, though.
...Moscow, one of the chief backers of the Northern alliance, yesterday forcefully restated its position that the Taliban must be excluded from a new Afghan government. Russian diplomats have suggested that Afghanistan must be de-Talibanised much as Germany was de-Nazified.
[Eh, what a bunch a' anti-Muslim Russian Zionists.]
One might think it had something to do with a putative Iranian aversion to an Afghan monarchy, or a monarchy under Zahir Shah. But what I've read says Shah is waffling anyway, and nearly dead of old age.
Or, one might chalk it up to Khatami finding sources of political power he hasn't previously had. It could be that Iran is playing things righteously for a change, with the welfare of Afghans considered a priority along with Iran's own interests. That, if true, could become a hopeful thing, and would undermine PE's observation that "Muslim brotherhood" is a crock.
If the invention of umma becomes real in an international sense, then perhaps it could signal that moderation born of compromise could prevail in Islamist circles. At least compromise would be given a shot of political credibility among Muslims in the Arab world, who I believe know perfectly well that there is at the moment no modern pan-Islamism. Possibly, an Afghan government partly midwifed by Iran could give the notion of Islam as a means of pursuing justice a shot of needed credibility in the West.
Mazel tov.
(I'm posting the following joke as a slightly dark example of your assertion of the Jewish position that prayer 'can't hurt'...) 
A journalist assigned to the Jerusalem bureau has an apartment overlooking the Western Wall. Every day when she looks out she sees an old bearded Jewish man praying vigorously. Certain he would be a good interview subject, the journalist goes down to the Wall, and introduces herself to the old man.
She asks, "You come every day to the Wall. Sir, how long have you done that and what are you praying for?"
The old man replies, "I have come here to pray every day for 25 years. In the morning I pray for world peace and for the brotherhood of man. I go home have a cup of tea, and I come back and pray for the eradication of illness and disease from the earth. And very, very important, I pray for peace and understanding between the Israelis and Palestinians."
The journalist is impressed. "How does it make you feel to come here every day for 25 years and pray for these wonderful things?" she asks.
The old man replies, calmly, "Like I'm talking to a wall."
I'm saving that one!;-)
Don't judge Christians by me, and I won't judge Indians by you.
So were they freed by special forces?
On another, related subject:
From the NYT's 'Portraits of Grief'.
Having never heard the man speak, I had no idea he wasn't a Murcan-born WASP.
The President said that it was a rescue operation conducted by Special Forces. I have seen other reports saying that the Red Cross was involved, and that the Taliban had released the workers because of imminent capture.
Wonderful news - Praise God indeed!
Really - who thought they'd be home for Christmas?
Or Thanksgiving, for that matter?
I can't wait to hear their stories.
Sad.
Someone mentioned talk of moderate Talibi playing a part in the new Afhan gov't.
Aren't the Taliban, by definition, charter, and deed anti-moderate?
Cool.
The president said he had been worried that the Taliban might put the aid workers in a house that might be bombed accidentally, and said the U.S. military had been working on plans for a secret rescue if needed.
Time did a nice bio on Grove a couple of years ago in a piece on the movers and shakers in the high-tech world. If I remember correctly, he was dirt poor as a child.
Jenerator
Sometimes you lose your cool, and that just proves the "old nature" which rears its ugly head. But I do believe you are a loving Christian, and mostly because sakonige hates you so much.
There's a picture of another buddy of mine Jabar on the cover of The Dallas Morning News. Everyone is rejoicing, and President Sloan of Baylor has issued a statement as well.
From your remarks about my posts about my liberal friends, I think you have misunderstood me. Perhaps you just think you have to get on my case because I am the most conservative poster and lover of my dear and wonderful President.
But I even enjoy a scolding from you, so it's O.K.
Today is a 10 in Kauai. We all went up, 6 of us, for lunch at Hanalei Bay Resort. A real da kine day.
Well the Russian line is that "moderate Taliban" is a contradiction in terms. But let's see what happens. Before all this is over, NA factions may be looking no less immoderate.
Some observers have argued that Khatami is a Pan-Iranist. Last year Khatami made a controversial statement that "Iranian identity is basically Zoroastrian". Such a statement, quite reminiscent of pre-revolutionary Iranian nationalist ideology, would support this pan-Iranist interpretation of Khatami.
Al D,
It doesn't really bother me to have discovered in the course of this war how cold-blooded, murderous and hypocitical Christians can be. It makes sense of impressions that didn't quite make sense in the past.
But the Northern Alliance is quite well known. In fact, most of the groups that make up the Northern Alliance are very well known, if only because each of them ruled portions of Afghanistan as autonomous entities in the 1992-96 period. Every single one of them is better than the Taliban in every single way that I can think of.
Actually, he fled right before Stalin showed up. Don't know about his dad. Went to CCNY and was Employee #1 at Intel.
I know I'll be sorry for having encouraged you - or maybe I'm just in the mood for a good yuk, Sak - but would you mind explaining what the hell you're babbling about?
The problem with the NA is that it is not fully representative of Afghanistan and there is no guarantee that in its cocky state it will relinquish power voluntarily to an interim unity administration.
No thanks.
Why haven't they interviewed you on any of the shows?
No need for a bra either.
What are you talking about? You're the one who said the disgusting things about the victims of 9-11, in the Inferno. You're the one who has said many times how it is difficult or impossible for you to feel any sympathy for the people affected by anthrax.
If anyone is cold in here, my dear, it is you.
I was interviewed by two agencies.
hey, we're all in a great mood! Except for psycho.
Exactly.
Phew.
Well, the Time piece says it was after. Although the Intel museum said he "fled" before the invasion, I'll figure Time is right.
Hailing a “decisive” victory over the Taleban, the Prime Minister said that up to 4,000 Royal Marines, paratroops, engineers and logistics and military personnel had been put on 48-hour standby.
He wants British troops to play a leading role in a “stabilising force” which is being prepared to keep the peace in Afghanistan.
The force could be used to protect humanitarian aid convoys, repair runways and provide security for foreign officials, including a team of British diplomats who will arrive in Kabul at the weekend to reopen the embassy and press the Northern Alliance
Blair puts 4,000 troops on standby 
Jenerator, be sure to ask your friend if she wanted the US to bomb Afghanistan when she heard about the WTC catastrophe.
How about you, what are your feelings about the aid workers being released? Also, Sakonige, you should brush up on your Old Testament. You'd gain a different perspective if your familiarized yourself with King David.
NBC News is reporting that Osama bin Laden has been captured by U.S.Special Forces. In a covert operation last night, 4,500 American crop duster airplanes sprayed the entire country of Afghanistan with Viagra, and the little prick popped right up.
The discovery of detailed bomb-making instructions in an abandoned safe house, along with studies into nuclear devices, confirms the West’s worst fears
Times of London
There is a very good long article by Bernard Lewis in this week's New Yorker, 'The Revolt of Islam'. In it, Lewis explores the roots of Islam's conflicts with the West, interestingly details some contemporary themes, and even speculates about where the current conflict could lead the world.
Anyway, I have been thinking about this take you have expressed (I've heard others express it) about Muslim brotherhood being a sham. I do not dispute many of the facts that you have cited here (and in Khaval's forum) but I do think that the argument you make, to contradict what I originally outlined, is not completely convincing.
Anyway, the Lewis article has bits in it relevant to the discussion, and some that is contradictory to your assertion. Muslim brotherhood may be a sham at its core (I don't buy that it is) but it is a sham which has been taken as simple fact both historically and in the present day. Lewis outlines, for instance, all kinds of historical details which point to a Muslim national consciousness that did not accept or acknowledge in even a basic way geographical origin or ethnicity.
But until the modern period, when European concepts and categories became dominant, Islamic commentators almost always referred to their opponents not in territorial or ethnic terms but simply as infidels (kafir). They never referred to their own side as Arabs or Turkish; they identified themselves as Muslims.
There is much else interesting in the article, some of it in this vein. Perhaps you can read it and we can pursue the discussion started a few days ago, in another thread of course.
Dayna on the left and Heather on the right.
I think it's a good thing. It demonstrates a sense of decency and a respect for human life in the Taliban. A lot of militias would have killed their prisoners under those wartime conditions. I am also pleased that the Taliban effectively extinguished the bombing campaign by suddenly abandoning the cities. Now humanitarian aid can be brought in and millions of Afghan people may be saved from starvation this winter.
Dr. Curry said he'll probably hug his daughter the first chance he gets when he sees her.
"I just want to hold her," he said.
And as for any more missionary work in the near future: "Well, we just want her home for a while first, but knowing my girl, it may be hard to keep her here long."
Do you think that the Taliban are decent people and that they have respect for human life? Do you not think that out of fear they released the aid workers?
They haven't shown too much decency or respect for human life up until now. What do you think brought about the change?
I wonder about the fate of the Afghan citizens also arrested with the missionaries. I bet they weren't released.
I've heard different reports. I heard initially that the Afghans vehemently denied any Christian particpation and so they were released, and I also heard that they were arrested and that no one knew of what happened to them.
...Possibly, an Afghan government partly midwifed by Iran could give the notion of Islam as a means of pursuing justice a shot of needed credibility in the West."
PE: "I have no idea why whatever Iran might be doing with respect to Afghanistan should undermine my views about the myth of Muslim brotherhood. After all, Iran and Afghanistan have ties which go well beyond a common religion."
Political objectives don't rule out religious objectives. Politics doesn't necessarily invalidate the striving for religious unity, but rather could provide a pretext for it. (Or vice versa, of course.)
Has Iran not been funding and arming Shiites in Afghanistan for years at the expense of Sunnis? Yes, I know the claim that Sunni and Shiite Islam are more analagous to conservative and orthodox Judaism than to protestant and orthodox Xtianity, but the depth of the factional split is one of those things that supports your contention that there is no true pan-Islamism. But an Iranian-Taliban rapprochement could be billed as the development of a degree of Islamic unity that didn't previously exist. And if people believed it, perception could make the basis of further action; the dream could be made (slightly more) real.
(cont.)
At first I considered this the usual grotesque yes-butting and manouevering designed purely to protect Iran against any expansion of US objectives that might jeopardize its own sponsorship of terrorists. But more recently I've gotten the impression there's something a bit sincere about it all, on some level anyway. I wonder whether there's public pressure or impetus building inside Iran to do right by Afghanistan in proper Islamic fashion, perhaps a result of an idealistic reponse to the refugee problem.
But I emphasize this is all impressionistic and will not be readily parsed binarily.
"Some observers have argued that Khatami is a Pan-Iranist. Last year Khatami made a controversial statement that "Iranian identity is basically Zoroastrian". Such a statement, quite reminiscent of pre-revolutionary Iranian nationalist ideology, would support this pan-Iranist interpretation of Khatami."
I'm not sure what your point is here. You're suggesting Khatami sees a nationalist connection between Afghanistan and Iran that transcends Islam?
Do you not think that out of fear they released the aid workers?
Fear of what? Being attacked by the US if they didn't?
Did anyone read this Michael Kelly piece? Very funny.
Banks is, of course, the European Analyst. PE is, naturally, Impartial Scholar. I can't figure if Pincher or Loar is Fabled Newscaster.
Well, I heard the man himself, on the radio today, describing life in Hungary under the Nazis, life in Hungary after the Soviet "liberation," and life in Hungary under the reign of Stalin. So I'll figure Andy Grove is right about whether Andy Grove was in Hungary under Stalin.
Ha! That's true.
Meant to mention that I think Ronski is the Perfectly Modulated Voice of Reason.
And so say all the anti-war brigade, who are left with the TV zappers dangling from their nerveless fingers. What happened to the fabled martial instinct of these bearded desperadoes? One minute we were told that they would lay down their lives for Allah, fight the infidel bombers to the last drop of blood - and then it's Operation Scarper. And it's not just the Taliban who are left stunned and devastated by the advance of the Northern Alliance. The entire corps of Fleet Street's armchair generals has been routed.
There is the distinguished Lawrence Freedman, professor of war studies at King's College, London. This very Monday he was prophesying to Independent readers, from the vantage point of his London study, a long, tough fight for Kabul. I will say nothing of the reversals experienced by men such as General Jenkins of The Times, whose consistent and trenchant opinion it has been that aerial bombardments just do not work. Across London there are scenes of panic and flight as the armchair generals throw aside their laptops, abandon their cosy studies and make for the pubs in a bid to come to terms with the destruction of their analysis. The brigade of wobblers, commanded by The Spectator's Matthew Parris, is in headlong retreat; the Daily Mirror's John Pilger has gone into hiding.
A dreadful realisation has descended on the hacks that Tony Blair has done it again
BTW - Nightline reports al-Qaeda rats are calling Washington, offering to turn over Ossama for a reward.
Al D,
It doesn't really bother me to have discovered in the course of this war how cold-blooded, murderous and hypocitical Christians can be. It makes sense of impressions that didn't quite make sense in the past.
You mean you just realized that Christians are human, not demi-angels, Sakonige?
Why is it that I get the distinct impression that Sakonige's idea of a 'good' Christian is one that is being fed to lions in a pagan colosseum?
Yer always good fer a couple yuks, Sak. Or a couple suks & yak, I fergit.
Sorta like a "moderate Nazi". Makes sense to me.
sakonige,
What are you talking about? You're the one who said the disgusting things about the victims of 9-11, in the Inferno. You're the one who has said many times how it is difficult or impossible for you to feel any sympathy for the people affected by anthrax.
Sakonige is projecting. She posts something really reprehensible and then pretends somebody she doesn't like did it.
Come to think of it, that's probably the case.
You're completely wrong (nothing new). The US is still bombing the fuck out of your decent, caring Taliban, you know, the ones who killed thousands of their fellow Afghanis in reprisals in retribution and as part of their terror campaign.
Sakonige - Nov 14, 2001 8:35 pm (#72 of 75)
I'm disgusted by Americans' slobbering over innocent Christians who might have become collateral damage in the bombing campaign they supported knowing it could kill millions of Afghans.
I would trade the Christians' lives for some of the innocent Afghan children that were killed without hesitation.
I must say before I begin that I don't have much sympathy one way or the other for the missionaries. Pious chicks with a hardon for Christ.
But this post drove me bugfuck.
Those girls were illicitly distributing Christian bibles in a Muslim country. I would be just as derogatory of their prostelitizing activities if they occurred in any other Muslim country, even absent the horribly oppresive activities of the Taliban.
They were cultural pushers, ignorant of the richness of the Islamic faith. Heck-bent on the rightenss of their faith. Ugly Americans, ugly christians.
Having been raised a Catholic, I feel like I have at least half an understanding of Jesus's teaching, and they sure as heck don't include pushing your beliefs on others. At least not in my book.
I am glad for their families that they are safe. But I hope like hell we don't make too big a deal of it, because it plays too much into the crusades analogy, and that way lies madness.
As my muslim friends would say, we are all people of the book. I think the born again movement could use a few lessons in that.
I should send it to Kumbaya Watch, or Idiot Watch.
Nothing like a little hyperbole now is there. MIllions indeed! What sakonige and a few others should be upset about is that all of these deaths were caused by bin Laden's attack on America, just as the death of Germans in WWII were caused by the Nazis. sakonige is consumed with hatred. It is a pity she cannot accept America. What she needs, Jenerator is your love and your prayers. One never should underestimate the power of prayer
Arguing that the war on Afghanistan constituted a greater terrorist act than the September 11 attacks on the United States, the renowned scholar, Prof. Noam Chomsky, today denounced state terrorism in all its forms.
Earlier, Prof. Chomsky, speaking at the Asian College of Journalism, made out a case for people's participation in the political process and described all States as terrorist States.
Asked if he thought that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of a unipolar world had increased American hegemony, he said the collapse of the Soviet Union was in effect a removal of a barrier to the emergence of socialism. However, the existence of two super powers left some manoeuvering room for the rest of the world and the non-aligned movement, as the victims of one super power, were supported by the other.
Chomsky finally comes out of the crypto-socialist-anarchist closet.
Girls don't get hard-ons. Also, you're using "pious" as a derogatory description, and you don't know them. It's an inaccurate observation.
Whoever that person is, they're supremely blind. Ask them about the Great Commission, assuming s/he knows what that is.
I agree completely.
I am indeed using pious as a derogatory description. I don't use it any other way.
My point was only that I am not clasping and wailing with glee, and while I would have though it sad if they'd been bombed, that's as far as it would go. But this post was moronic.
"only that I am not clasping my hands and weeping with glee and gratitude at their rescue,"
Looks like there's more going underneath those burkhas than I suspected.
Looks like there's more going on underneath those burkhas than I suspected.
I don't suspect you weep with glee over anything, unfortunately. Ask that person about the Great Commission.
Millions, old man. Up to 7 million Afghans dead of exhaustion, exposure and starvation by UN estimates. 5 million by conservative estimates less than a month ago. UNICEF expects 100,000 Afghan children to die within six weeks if the bombing continues.
Andonly: "Well, I heard the man himself, on the radio today, describing life in Hungary under the Nazis, life in Hungary after the Soviet "liberation," and life in Hungary under the reign of Stalin. So I'll figure Andy Grove is right about whether Andy Grove was in Hungary under Stalin."
CalGal: "Oh, I know he was there for the Nazis. As for life in Hungary after the Soviets came, either way he wasn't there very long--not to minimize it, of course. But he left about the same time the Soviets entered Budapest."
CalGal. You have confused the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 with the advent of Stalinism in Hungary.
Hungary was liberated from the Nazis by the Soviets in 1945. The Stalinist transformation of Hungary took place between 1949 and 1953, during which period the state was under the control of Moscow via a Hungarian puppet by the name of Rakosi.
In 1953, Stalin died. Russian tanks didn't come rolling into Budapest until the end of 1956. Grove left Hungary in 1956 or '57.
Because 1956 comes after 1953, Andrejs Grof did not leave before the advent of Stalinism in Hungary.
You bet. For many things.
Either that's bullshit, UNICEF is composed of idiots or both.
Hey, guess what? Now that the NA is controlling 80-90% of Afghanistan, the Taliban can't confiscate humanitarian aid and assault aid workers any more.
He came out of that closet back in 1960.
According to an International Committee of the Red Cross official in Islamabad, a local military commander in the Afghan province of Ghazni contacted a Red Cross official in Afghanistan on Tuesday night to say he had rescued the eight detained aid workers from the Taliban. The commander asked the Red Cross to facilitate the transfer of the aid workers to safety. A U.S. official told NBC News the CIA also had been working on the ground to help free the workers.
Sakonige,
You're free to move to a differnt country and I fail to see how innocent Christians are bargaining chips for Afghan children.
So are you, cowgirl.
(Scott Loar seems to think the entire war on terrorism is over, ridiculing the notion that the war on terrorism will even last a generation, even though the idea has been put forward by the nations's leaders.)
sakonige does want to move to another country. I want to live in Mexico for a while.
All of it, of course.
Untrue. Supply lines are open, assistance is flowing from all around, Taliban are no longer intercepting shipments or looting warehouses, ordinary Afghans are carting wagonfuls of grain and flour through Mazar, where it was prohibited by the Talibs to move large quantities of food before the NA takeover. Some of the aid agency estimates on which you apparently rely for your polemic were admitted to be over the top at least two weeks ago, and in any case the situation has radically changed since 48 hours ago. Forget last month.
From the FT:
Even if the territorial gains do not indicate the imminent achievement of the US objective to destroy Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network, they make the logistics of supplying and maintaining the military campaign far easier. They will also allow the entry of large-scale humanitarian assistance into the country, dealing with famine and reducing refugee problems in neighboring countries.
Things have improved considerably for starving Afghans, Sad Sack. Try not to sink into too deep a depression over it.
There is no evidence of any Iranian-Taliban rapprochement, other than some meeting reported in the Daily Telegraph. Any rapprochement could be explained by purely political considerations, anyway.
"Yes, I know the claim that Sunni and Shiite Islam are more analagous to conservative and orthodox Judaism than to protestant and orthodox Xtianity..."
I think the analogy is preposterous either way.
"Iran has been touting its grave concern for Muslim safety against US bombing since shortly after 9-11, has always insisted only the UN should go into Afghanistan, has in fact taken a seemingly principled, coherent stance on western intervention against Muslims."
So what? Many Muslim countries use pan-Islamist rhetoric without meaning it. Iran is especially keen on the rhetoric because as Shiites they are estranged from the rest of the Muslim world. But Iranian external policy usually follows a pro-Shiite line or national self-interest.
"You're suggesting Khatami sees a nationalist connection between Afghanistan and Iran that transcends Islam?"
I cannot believe after all this time you can't figure out what it is. What is the major commonality between Iran and Afghanistan other than religion? Afghanistan (plus Tajikistan, "Kurdistan" and western Pakistan) are what Iranologists call l'Iran extérieur. Iran and Afghanistan are respectively Shiite and Sunni manifestations of the same Iranic civilisation. To simplify grotesquely to make a point, Iran is to Afghanistan as Germany is to Austria or Switzerland.
So now that most of the cities have begun to fall, why is it that everyone starts quacking like it is the end of the war?
Here are some huge problems that remain.
1) Hunting down bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership We may never do it. It's possible he is already outside of the country even now. But until we know for sure he has left, we will have to continue searching for him. And that will take some time. That search can only really begin in earnest after...
2) ...the political situation in Afghanistan is stabilized. The U.S. cannot allow political chaos in Afghanistan to continue. It hampers our search for bin Laden and, in the future, it will allow terrorists to continue using the area as a base. But the diplomacy to push the different Afghan groups together seems to be a timely process.
I certainly hope we continue to get more good news, but without some luck the U.S. military will be in Afghanistan for some time.
Yes, you are quite right. I was thinking of the tanks rolling in. Sorry about that.
She's a sad, sick woman.
Well, excuse me. I feel fine.
No kidding. You have this odd habit of excising a portion of of one of my posts, reiterating things I've already alluded to or stated outright in the rest of the post as though I'd contested them in some way, or else throwing in bits of data everyone knows, as though they disproved whatever you think I've argued.
Hey, buck up, marg -
GWB is riding a 87% popularity rating with Texas-size smirk.
Yeeee-HAWWWWW!
And the fact that a liberal paper in Iran is calling openly for Taliban representatives in a future Afghan government. These things scarcely constitute "evidence" of the sort that tells your whether ex-Soviet satellites will allow US flyovers, or whether a US bombing campaign could possibly cause Pashtuns to abandon the Taliban. They're simply indicators of something uncertain, just as I qualified my speculations in the first place.
"Any rapprochement could be explained by purely political considerations, anyway."
No doubt. But explaining something purely in one set of terms or another doesn't necessarily produce the truth or help one anticipate changes underway.
I want the war on terrorism to target Iraq, but the U.S. is completely unprepared to go forward with a war in the Middle East. We have no allies there and we have practiced such a timid diplomacy in the wake of 9-11, that no one in the region is afraid of the U.S. In addition, huge problems remain in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan -- places that seem to be terrorist manufacturers.
And have we found the source of the Anthrax attacks? As I told Andonly, I thought this was just a dry run. Whoever sent the stuff is probably working on a new, more effective way to disperse it. And if he isn't, someone with ill intentions towards the U.S. is.
The whole point of the war on terrorists was not just to root out Al Qaeda or to win a war in Afghanistan. It was the recognition that the U.S. was now vulnerable to a different type of mass violence and that a mindset to use that mass violence has proliferated.
A couple of cities fall in Afghanistan and Pelle the conqueror is saying the U.S. should stop bombing and negotiate a political situation. Scott Loar declares Al Qaeda an anomaly and the war on terrorism a short-term project. Amazing.
GWB is riding a 87% popularity rating with Texas-size smirk.
Yeeee-HAWWWWW!
At least one poster here is reassuringly consistent.
No matter the temperature or the weather --rain, sleet or snow -- Concerned's nose will be found snugly buried up the ass of the most powerful Republican in the country.
Wrong. Iraq and Syria, to name two putative terrorism sponsoring states, may well have good reason to be concerned about which actions the US will take in the not too distant future.
Here's the bet, Moron: Saddam and Assad will still both be in power at the end of George's first-term. Do you want to take me up on that?
What crawled up your twat and died, you sap?
In case you weren't paying attention, The Arab states made a big show of saying they could grudgingly accept U.S. attacks on Afghanistan, but they would not allow an attack against a fellow Arab nation. Saudi, whose bases we would need should we attack Baghdad, was one of the noisiest proponents of this "no attacks on fellow Arabs" line.
Such a 'wager' is not germane to my point, you sniveling little clotpole ponce.
Now, go fuck yourself far away from here. I don't want to be bothered with your puling drivel and obvious inferiority complex.
Kick your ass every time, motherfucker.
Yes, those Arab fuckheads. Bomb Saudi Arabia.
When he is rightly ignored, he attacks me.
What a loser.
PM -
What crawled up your twat and died, you sap?
Your mindless partisanship.
Now answer the questions: Does the U.S. move against Iraq and Syria (who Tony Blair just visited to enlist Assad's support in the war against the Taliban)? And if the U.S. doesn't, will you finally move your nose out of George's ass just a hair? Or are you going to blame it all on the Democrats?
I was ribbing marg w/GWB's popularity rating. Would a 'true blue' Republican 'sycophant' refer to GWB's 'smirk'? Of course not.
Not that small minds could be expected to realize the significance of a detail such as that.
Hysteria is unnecessary; that is in fact what I thought you were getting at (although I wouldn't have known to include Western Pak). If Khatami does in fact holds such views, I understand your point.
But mine remains: Islam appears to be the ideological bridge Iran is using to seem to unite Afghanistan's interests with its own; on some level, maybe even the popular level, that effort may be sincere. And again, if it is read as sincere in the Arab world generally, then the notion of pan-Islamism may gain a bit of a new lease. Instead of pan-Islamic goals being represented by Osama bin Laden and oher extremists, the example of Iran (if in the end it actually sets this speculative constructive example!) will be looked to for solace against yet another humiliating western defeat. Muslims will say that while the US bombed Afghanistan, Iran set a Muslim example, was fair and just and compromised toward stabilizing fellow Muslims' homeland.
Now, go fuck yourself far away from here. I don't want to be bothered with your puling drivel and obvious inferiority complex.
Yes, Concerned, I obviously feel inferior to you. Don't we all.
Your whacked-out mentality -- like Sakonige's -- is so emblematic of the worst aspects of America. In your case, it manifests itself as an obsessive partisanship that enables you to downgrade T.R. as a U.S. president because ... gasp ... he ran against a Republican.
I use to defend people like you because I honestly felt you were no danger to the country, but when you can still snuffle on in the aftermath of a tragedy like 9-11 with your true-blue Republicanism -- blaming terrorism on Clinton -- you demonstrate the kind of mindset that should make every American uneasy. The kind of person who reads Republican platforms as if they had biblical significance.
Hahaha!
I was ribbing marg w/GWB's popularity rating. Would a 'true blue' Republican 'sycophant' refer to GWB's 'smirk'? Of course not.
Not that small minds could be expected to realize the significance of a detail such as that.
Yes, you're so subtle.
Btw, keep your vomitous 'political equivalence' dog's breakfast to yourself. You simply stink the joint up when you try to force it on others in this forum.
Yes, I saw that clip and thought of you. (A rather animated interviewee said "America bad..." and when asked why, shouted, "the kill!" or something indicating a slightly more complex thought.)
But was he just any Jalalabadi or was he a suddenly-former Talib?
Btw, keep your vomitous 'political equivalence' dog's breakfast to yourself. You simply stink the joint up when you try to force it on others in this forum.
Can't take it, buddy? Can't answer the simple questions that would pin you down in possibly marking down a Republican President in the near future?
You have stank up the joint most nights you've chosen to go on-line, dickhead. Answer the God Damn questions! What is it going to take for you to criticize George Bush?!
Didn't I already ask you to take your ignorant bullshit elsewhere?
You can't even defend your own assertions. And, as a polemicist, you are both effete and shallow.
I'm a political centrist, btw, so your political barometer is clearly worthless.
So, why don't you just go lick the WH Rapist's boots? He clearly needs the moral support.
For whatever it's worth, Clarence Paige, on the Newshour yesterday, said the FBI view is shaping up to be that the anthrax letters were sent by one person (perhaps not affiliated with Qaeda). I didn't hear the rest of his remarks, so I don't know if he expanded on that.
I'm still more worried about pathogens which are not anthrax, and nukes. I also don't think the terrorist threat is going away, even if al Qaeda does. We've been shown to be vulnerable.
It may have escaped notice, but Iraq lobbed a couple of mortars into Kuwait yesterday or the day before. Very little mention in the press.
Didn't I already ask you to take your ignorant bullshit elsewhere?
Your wants are of no consequence to me.
You can't even defend your own assertions. And, as a polemicist, you are both effete and shallow.
What assertions are you talking about? As usual, you are vague enough to defy contradiction.
I'm a political centrist, btw, so your political barometer is clearly worthless. So, why don't you just go lick the WH Rapist's boots? He clearly needs the moral support.
These two sentences sit uneasily together.
My conservative credentials are well-established. I voted Bush I, Dole, Bush II in the last three presidential elections. I dislike Clinton, but unlike you I can maintain some objectivity about the man. You, on other hand, are clearly jammed in way too tight to George's ass to see anything.
Up the ass without a kiss first.
I already have. I've criticized the slow start to the air assault in Afghanistan. I've criticized certain aspects of GWB's presidential campaign. On several occasions, I've mentioned certain policy decisions that I would have hoped that the Bush administration would make.
Bush has been in office only ten months, yet you, PM, are literally frothing because I haven't taken him to task as much as a certain impeached rapist who could have had bin Laden apprehended but couldn't be bothered even after the first WTC and US embassy attacks.
You're really quite the idiot, PM.
I saw it. Even the U.N. verified the event. There are some U.S. forces on the way to Kuwait now, but they are defensive.
"The Army will be deploying some elements of Third Corps out of Fort Hood to the Central Command area of operations," said Lt. Gen. B.B. Bell, commanding general of III Corps and Fort Hood. "I'm not at liberty right now to share the specificity of those orders, the timing of those orders, and the size or the designation of those units."
The United States Central Command, headquartered at MacDill Air Force Base, Fla., and commanded by Gen. Tommy Franks, is one of nine unified commands within the American military. The CENTCOM's area of operations that Bell spoke of includes Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and 22 other countries stretching from the Horn of Africa into Central Asia.
continued ...
Indications out of Fort Hood, including secure areas for long-term storage of private vehicles and soldiers arriving carrying their duffel bags into 1st Cav motor pools, suggest that the units will be from that division.
Additionally, in his speech at the Residential Communities Initiative dedication Monday, Rep. Chet Edwards, D-Waco, said, "Even as we speak, members of 1st Cav are preparing for deployment in further service to our country."
Edwards said that the 1st Cav, like all of III Corps, is always ready to do their duty and serve their country.
"We never take joy in seeing our soldiers leave their loved ones, but I know they will do their job professionally and we will be proud of them and we are certainly deeply grateful for their service to our country in this time of need," Edwards said.
Although Bell would not comment on when the troops would deploy, security at West Fort Hood, where Robert Gray Army Airfield is located, was tightened Monday morning. The heightened security came even as the Bush administration announced that President Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin would fly into Texas State Technical College's airfield in Waco rather than to Gray.
Also, Bell would not comment on why 1st Cav units might be deploying despite the 4th Infantry Division's having taken over the Army's Division Ready Brigade mission Nov. 1. The DRB is the Army's on-call heavy force for urgent deployments.
"We have a range of contingency plans that affect all of our units," Bell said. "I wouldn't comment on the representative's depiction of what units will or will not deploy out of Fort Hood at this time.
I already have. I've criticized the slow start to the air assault in Afghanistan. I've criticized certain aspects of GWB's presidential campaign. On several occasions, I've mentioned certain policy decisions that I would have hoped that the Bush administration would make.
Hahaha! Yes, I would like to see these criticisms of the Bush administration. Probably low-key suggestions quickly followed by a steamy mess of insults against how Clinton's policies are forcing Bush's hand.
Bush has been in office only ten months, yet you, PM, are literally frothing because I haven't taken him to task as much as a certain impeached rapist who could have had bin Laden apprehended but couldn't be bothered even after the first WTC and US embassy attacks.
Yes, I've heard it from you before, Concerned. Terrorism is Clinton's fault. Let's forgot Reagan's misadventure in Lebanon and his gift of a birthday cake to the Ayatollah. Clinton is the real precedent for soft-pedaling in the face of terrorism.
Yes, my apologies. I was going to write you a post and decided it would be more enjoyable to insult Concerned, instead.
PM, you moron--
I've clearly stated, on several occasions over the last few years, that I deliberately took on a polemical style emulating that which Liberals typically used in criticizing Conservatives. Because that style was 'speaking their language', and because it was entertaining to get their reactions.
But you are the first person I've ever run across describing himself as having conservative sympathies who has ever got his panties in a major wad over this.
So, you've already marked yourself as an insufferable, narrow minded, overbearing cretin. Interested in adding to that?
PM -
Don't expect me to take this post of yours seriously.
What crap.
I've clearly stated, on several occasions over the last few years, that I deliberately took on a polemical style emulating that which Liberals typically used in criticizing Conservatives. Because that style was 'speaking their language', and because it was entertaining to get their reactions.
So your lack of meaningful ideas over the last several years is just a stylistic tic?
But you are the first person I've ever run across describing himself as having conservative sympathies who has ever got his panties in a major wad over this.
I think most people just ignore you. I know I do. I don't remember ever engaging you in dialogue before.
Maybe I should lodge a complaint to Mote management against PM for harassment, particularly since he's violating his responsibilities as a thread host.
What crap.
That post was completely serious. Clinton's record against terrorism is every bit as good as Reagan's.
Care to take the bait?
Maybe I should lodge a complaint to Mote management against PM for harassment, particularly since he's violating his responsibilities as a thread host.
Not my thread.
And I've clearly defined my responsibilities over there in such a way as to allow for this kind of interaction anyway.
But lodge away. I'm sure you have a lot of pull here.
I've posted more original ideas in this forum, earlier than the great majority of Motiers (Fraysters).
I believe I *will* lodge a complaint against you because of your unwarranted harassment, repeated ad hominem attacks, smears and lies regarding me. That is not acceptable forum conduct, particularly for a thread host.
Thanks for the military update. I guess we're sending between 1,200 and 5,000 troops to Kuwait in order not to have to send more. I'd be as surprised as you if the US went into Iraq for purposes of tossing Saddam.
As for Syria... what a goddamned bind. We effectively can't do crap to Syria, and Syria has no incentive that I know of to curtail its sponsorship of terrorists.
On the up side, that will probably help compel the US to again attempt to mediate some sort of de-escalation at least between Israel and the Pals. Powell is expected to deliver the new US position on all that quite soon (Monday, I think, in Kentucky of all places). Sharon visits with Bush next week.
I've posted more original ideas in this forum, earlier than the great majority of Motiers (Fraysters).
Care to list a couple?
I believe I *will* lodge a complaint against you because of your unwarranted harassment, repeated ad hominem attacks, smears and lies regarding me. That is not acceptable forum conduct, particularly for a thread host.
Lodge away.
But prove I've lied about you while you also whine about my behavior. I have called you a dickhead, a mindless partisan, and someone who has his head buried up Bush's ass. All of which is demonstrably true to anyone who has ever read your posts.
Would you consider removing or deleting all of Pincher Martin's posts to me and my responses to these posts today? His have no value and mine suffer from being dragged partly down to his level.
Sorry for the mess.
As for Syria... what a goddamned bind. We effectively can't do crap to Syria, and Syria has no incentive that I know of to curtail its sponsorship of terrorists.
I agree. It will be interesting to see what happens, but I don't think there will any major changes. Look at the great effort it took diplomatically just to attack the Taliban.
On the up side, that will probably help compel the US to again attempt to mediate some sort of de-escalation at least between Israel and the Pals.
For myself, this is not an up-side. I don't see that the Pals are ready for peace, and the price they are asking for is too high. What has changed since before the war on terrorism anyway? There may be an interregnum of peace (as there was in the early nineties), but I think a lot more blood will probably be spilled before the Pals say they are willing to compromise on issues important to them.
retiring now I'm off to bed
to braid the knots out of my hair
and bomb my pillow with my head.
Off the top of my head:
I described a Multi Staged NMD system three/four years ago in the Fray.
Effective ways to improve national energy policy, etc.
Numerous technical posts on deep sub micron electronics, climatology, physics, biology, medical research, error correction algorithms (I have developed) and dozens of others.
Describing specific relationships between family structure and social dysfunction.
Discussion of many social policies with mostly original ideas.
Just recently, many relevant posts about Afghanistan, including the first accurate prediction of US actions.
Let me say that virtually all your assertions that I read 'Republican Platforms', 'had my head up anybody's or any Party's ass' are egregiously wrong and uninformed. You appear completely ignorant of my concerns about improving accuracy American media and the accountability of US government. You've grossly distorted and wrongly stated my posts regarding TR. You seem to have no capability whatsoever to catch nuances in my humor.
I shouldn't even be defending myself to such as you, but I still have a slight hope that you will think better of you abysmally boorish behavior.
Where was this?
You've grossly distorted and wrongly stated my posts regarding TR.
Nonsense, that was exactly how you put it. You referred only to T.R.'s actions after his presidency, specifically his founding of the Bull Moose Party. That was it. You may have referred to something abut T.R. at another time, but in that dialogue with me that was then only thing to which you referred.
By the way, what specific selfish actions in T.R.'s presidency did you mention at the time to downgrade his presidency?
You seem to have no capability whatsoever to catch nuances in my humor.
You seem to have no capability to project any nuance.
It was at the beginning of this thread and possibly before. IAC, I posted on 9/11 (actual) that I believed the US ought to require the Taliban to surrender bin Laden and step down, which is the closest early suggestion in this forum of what now appears to be transpiring.
Since I have posted about TR on several occasions and not to you, you'd best not pretend that my worldview on the subject was limited to whatever I posted to you about...that is, if you value your pretensions to honesty.
By the way, what specific selfish actions in T.R.'s presidency...
Don't recall that I discussed that, though I may well have, two or three years ago now......? I had some criticism to offer of the media drumbeating in the Spanish American War and TR's taking advantage of it. Furthermore, I said TR set Taft up and then screwed him over, and now you object because I also said, in effect, that Taft would have been preferable to Wilson in 1912. Just goofy.
Well, that makes you and Stostosto that don't appreciate my humor. That's Fine. Many people do. It seems over the top to attack me about it though, for Chrissakes. I'm not wishing anybody dead such as CD and other Lefties have done.
This is not an accurate prediction; it's just a statement of the obvious. I suppose next to Ace's prediction that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons, it stands out.
Since I have posted about TR on several occasions and not to you, you'd best not pretend that my worldview on the subject was limited to whatever I posted to you about...that is, if you value your pretensions to honesty.
The discussion was about the relative merits of the U.S. presidents when they were in office. You posted two short comments on T.R., one of which was a response to a question I asked. It was a direct question and you gave a direct answer that I have characterized accurately. I'm not responsible for keeping up with the various postings of a drunken moron.
I had some criticism to offer of the media drumbeating in the Spanish American War and TR's taking advantage of it.
The discussion was on conduct during the presidency. We were rating U.S. Presidents! We were not rating Assistant Secretaries of the Navy, moron. You do have a clear idea of when the Spanish-American took place and who was President at the time, don't you? It has as little to do with T.R.'s presidency as Bush's running of the Texas Rangers has to do with his.
continued ...
T.R. supported Taft as his successor. He then turned on him for somewhat spurious reasons, but of course that has nothing to do with the kind of President T.R. was since it all happened after T.R. left the White House.
Re. 15767 Thanks for agreeing. I haven't ever criticized TR's actions as 'selfish' during his presidency itself. As a matter of fact, I recall recounting his actions in this forum or the Fray after he was shot during a speech he made.
Guess, to some people, I actually have to dredge moldy oldies like this up to 'defend' myself. Why, me, God?
Fair's fair.
This is not an accurate prediction; it's just a statement of the obvious. I suppose next to Ace's prediction that the U.S. would use nuclear weapons, it stands out.
Well, actually, if you read back, it stands out as being the first statement of that level of accuracy in this forum, period. If you disagree, provide cites, or else retract.
'Look, it happened. Therefore, it was necessarily obvious as soon as al Qaeda was known to be involved'
Not at all. I was also, I believe, the first and perhaps only person here to provide links to an article from a Russian news source which mentioned that the Taliban had appointed bin Laden their military chief a scant week before 9/11.
Btw, I don't recall PM ever having done as much.
There goes PM's pretensions of 'balance'.
I love this. Who's got the goods? The person who incoherently splutters that it's virtually inconceivable to seriously think the US might consider overthrowing Iraq's government, or the person who comes back two hours later with a link which describes a plan to do precisely that?
Thanks for agreeing. I haven't ever criticized TR's actions as 'selfish' during his presidency itself. As a matter of fact, I recall recounting his actions in this forum or the Fray after he was shot during a speech he made.
Then why the hell would you downgrade his presidency for his actions before or after his presidency? Do you downgrade Bush for being an alcoholic until he was forty? Do you downgrade Reagan for being a bad father towards his children? No, but you downgrade T.R. for being selfish. And why? Because his selfish actions undermined William Taft, a sitting Republican president.
Guess, to some people, I actually have to dredge moldy oldies like this up to 'defend' myself. Why, me, God?
No particular reason, except that it happened to be the clearest example I could remember of partisanship affecting your thinking.
And you've now shown you were wrong. When have we ever graded the U.S. Presidents here, as far back as T.R., for what they did before or after their tenure? We've done that for modern ex-Presidents like Nixon and Clinton, but not in a general sense for all Presidents.
Provide a cite. I'm not going to look for one post of substance by you: thinking about it just exhausts me.
Not at all. I was also, I believe, the first and perhaps only person here to provide links to an article from a Russian news source which mentioned that the Taliban had appointed bin Laden their military chief a scant week before 9/11.
Btw, I don't recall PM ever having done as much.
Your recall is pretty good. One good reason for that would be I wasn't here sometime after 9-11.
And so far you seem to be the only one who notices your own prescience.
Your recall is pretty good. One good reason for that would be I wasn't here until sometime after 9-11.
You've provided many vague rebuttals and made some egregious lies. It's not enough to say, "Oh, yeah, I provided the first "such-and-such" way back in the front of the thread. Go ahead and look for it.
But, do people really want to read this rehash? I doubt it. That's the real reason I think PM should tone his little bulldog act back. Simple consideration for other Motiers.
You're all heart for your fellow Motiers. For many years now, you've posted post after post, tract after tract, link after link, of egregious partisan postings here well into the night, night after night. Many of us have had to wade through this crap the next morning.
Anybody who would say that Clowntoon was as effective as Reagan against terrorism is just being silly. Compared to only Beirut during Reagan's term in office, can we say WTC I, US embassy in Kenya, Dharan barracks bombing, US embassy in Tanzania, Waco? Well, most of us can. The ones who have functioning cortexes.
Here's an article from Salon, no less that says PM is full of shit regarding the effectiveness of Clowntoon's 'policy' against terrorism. Read it and weep, moron.
Notice that PM seems to be fine with anything jexster has to post. KM the 1st, whatever.
There goes PM's pretensions of 'balance'.
More of your subtle humor, Concerned? Jexter can't stand me. Ask Jexter how well we get along?
Indeed, rather than comparing you to Sakonige, it's probably more accurate to describe as a conservative Jexter.
Not at this time. I'll just let you be all the fool you can be, and then blow you out of the water.
But if it is true, then I'll take back my criticism of the Bush administration. My criticism of you, however, stands.
Well, I'll just say that I have proven you've made a number of assertions which are utter bullshit & if this 'debate' were a fight, I'd be holding your heart in my hand right now.
I think your credibility is about gone. I've got it now.
How do you square that with your swipes against me?
Good news is If you stick strictly to subject matter of the thread, & leave out your (repeated boring) ad hominems starting tomorrow, I'll respond accordingly, if I do at all.
Message # 15785
Btw, Clowntoon administration bungling (enforcement laxness interspersed with one or two cruise missile attacks) was largely responsible for the cessation of the Iraq UN arms inspections. Hardly a 'victory' in the 'war' against terrorism.
Since I never claimed Clinton achieved a "victory" against terrorism, your point is irrelevant. I claimed Clinton was no less aggressive against terrorism than was Reagan.
Anybody who would say that Clowntoon was as effective as Reagan against terrorism is just being silly. Compared to only Beirut during Reagan's term in office, can we say WTC I US embassy in Kenya, Dharan barracks bombing, US embassy in Tanzania, Waco? Well, most of us can. The ones who have functioning cortexes.
WTC-1 can no more be blamed on Clinton than WTC-2 can be blamed on Bush. It happened in February of 1993, Idiot, about a month and a half after Clinton began his first term. If you want to blame it on anyone than you have to blame it on the first Bush.
The embassy bombings in Africa triggered a stronger response from Clinton than the Lebanon bombing that killed more more than four hundred Marines triggered from Reagan.
And Clinton didn't give any terrorist supporter a birthday cake.
Waco is your standard right-wing shit --Janet Reno as bin Laden.
I like the big fonts, Concerned. Just like Jexter makes.
The only thing I'm surprised that Concerned leaves out of this litany is little Elian and Randy Weaver. That brute Janet Reno, constantly terrorizing good Americans
PM
I know Bill Gertz rather well, and he's partisan, true. But he's not clueless...far, far from it.
He is clueless about China. He also uses sources in an unresponsible way.
Have you read The China Threat?
I even agree with his main thesis, which is that China is a threat to the U.S.
Yes, I've read The China Threat.
BTW, I've just scanned the last 100 or so posts, and I completely agree with you. This isn't even close to being over, and I'm surprised that people think it is.
We're used to discounting the public statements of our policy-makers - and for good reason. But, for once, I believe, the US Govt. is telling the truth - they've stated from the beginning that this will be a long project, and it won't end in Afghanistan.
I'm surprised, but it doesn't seem to be business as usual. So far, anyway. We'll see how long the resolve lasts when public sentiment (evidenced here and elsewhere) turns heavily to "whew! that's done. Pass the donuts, Millie."
I'm off to bed.
Yes, I've read The China Threat.
Tell me what you thought of it.
I thought it was paranoid, and preaching to a choir of already convinced ex-Cold Warriors.
I also thought it was interesting, and not entirely wrong.
For anything more detailed, I'd have to take it to email, sorry.
I will carefully explain to PincherMartin who is easily amazed.
No, I don't believe the war on terrorism will even last a generation (25-30 years). That the notion was put forward by our nation's leaders obviously impresses you not as hyperbole but as fair assessment advanced by authority.
Scott Loar declares Al Qaeda an anomaly and the war on terrorism a short-term project. Amazing.
More aid coming to PincherMartin. I said in Message # 15485: I also think the possibility of a sustained guerrilla war by the Taliban fantastical. I also think this war against terrorism is not the beginning of WWIII, is not the labour of a generation, and that Al-Qaeda is a ruthless but limited instrument and an anomaly in its ability to project terror beyond its base, and that it will be destroyed.
Now, is my opinion of the war on terrorism the "short-term project" you ascribe to me? Well, certainly less than the 25-30 years you buy into, but tell me where I've said the war on terrorism is a short-term project? Are you even familiar with how I said the war on terrorism could be addressed? Have you even read my prescriptions on how to fight terrorism? No, just ridiculing what you think is my position based on a single post.
Anyway, the way he described the situation (he spoke very good English, btw), the Taliban were most definitely routed - "rolled over", in his words - by the NA. However, he claimed the NA (remember - he is now one of them) really did not need to do much in order to accomplish this, because the US bombing had so thoroughly demoralized the Talis - he openly praised the ferocity and wondered at the incredible precision of the strikes - "Everything that was metal, they targeted and hit - even a little can..."
In retrospect, it appears that allowing the NA to do all the ground work was exactly the right thing to do. Can anyone imagine the Taliban militia joining up with American/Brit forces? Or the people of Mazar, Kabul, etc. running out to give the US a hero's welcome as we rolled through? 
No, seriously -congratulations. Good job.
I am not about to root through the last 15,000+ posts, but I must modestly claim that from the beginning those posters whose insights most closely matched what has ended up happening were me, ScottLoar, JRoth and perhaps a few others. This while Concerned was discussing the benefits of a low-yield nuke (and comparing himself positively to Ace because of it) and the role that sexual repression plays in fostering Islamic fanaticism.
I am deeply impressed with PM's sheer energy. But I must say I am positively awed at concerned's infinite capability for delusional self-aggrandisement.
RD -
Would you consider removing or deleting all of Pincher Martin's posts to me and my responses to these posts today? His have no value and mine suffer from being dragged partly down to his level.
Sorry for the mess.
i'm not about to get into the 'value' of posts. but, i will say that i'd appreciate the he-said-he-said could move to another thread. Politics or Inferno could use some posts.
thanks in advance.
Did you see Dayna and Heather? What a blessing. Both girls are thinner than normal, but looked so happy.
I'm out the door!
Here's a major reason we had to attack the Taliban sooner rather than later.
(From today's Times -- of London):
OSAMA BIN LADEN’S al-Qaeda network held detailed plans for nuclear devices and other terrorist bombs in one of its Kabul headquarters.
The Times discovered the partly burnt documents in a hastily abandoned safe house in the Karta Parwan quarter of the city. Written in Arabic, German, Urdu and English, the notes give detailed designs for missiles, bombs and nuclear weapons. There are descriptions of how the detonation of TNT compresses plutonium into a critical mass, sparking a chain reaction, and ultimately a thermonuclear reaction.
Bin Laden's nuclear secrets found .
And Russia, although no longer a superpower, is still a major player.
"This may be a new world we're in, but Russia still matters more than any other country," said Michael Mandelbaum of the Council on Foreign Relations think tank. "In the 21st century, we may be concerned more with rogue-state mosquito-bite issues, but Russia's connected to all of them. They border on the most dangerous parts of the world. They are the world's largest repository of dangerous material. On the issues we care about, all roads lead to Moscow."
Clash of Civilizations - LAT
Let's have a cyber-reality check shall we?
JoeZ did NOTHING to defeat anyone
Sieg Heil! - LAT
The following, from one Randy Mott, was posted to the weepily left Blue Ear Forum on October 12, shortly after which I posted it here. Pelle launched one of his stupid tirades about its length, but his stated objection was just his usual cover against the fact that he didn't like the content. To forestall any further carping, let me reiterate that I know of no available link to Mott's remarks.
I re-post them now because they were and remain more prescient than many here claim to be.
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 03:51:26 -0700 (PDT)
From: Randy Mott
Subject: The Ground Campaign in Afghanistan
SIX REASONS WHY THE ALLIED CAMPAIGN WILL SUCEED IN
AFGHANISTAN: WHY WE ARE BETTER THAN THE SOVIET ARMY
OF THE 1980S
The Taliban "ambassador" to Pakistan promised
that a real fight would emerge once the Allies came
into Afghanistan with ground forces. His rag-tag
"army" of men with AK-47s and pick-up truck-mounted
machine guns will face the most modern, highly trained
and well-equipped forces in the history of war.
Only an irrational myth growing out of the Soviet
invasion offers any hope to the Taliban. All the
tangible evidence as well as the intangible factors
make his promise look like an empty vessel.
1. Limited Objective: The Soviet Army sought to
subdue the population and occupy the country. The
US-UK and their allies seek: first, to cripple the Al
Qaeda network, an objective that is also tied to
destroying their communications, financing, training
facilities, and cohesion; second, to topple the
Taliban, an unpopular regime that showed signs of its
demise prior to any Allied action. The announced US
objective is eliminating the terrorists and the
government that harbors them. Another shaky or even
despotic government may inevitably emerge, but it will
not be supporting terrorism against the West.
upon very limited means to isolate the enemy and to
identify enemy strong-points. The Mujahadeen were able
to use terrain and their "light" loads to fight a
guerilla war against an enemy ill-equipped to deal
with their tactics. Much like the United States in
Vietnam, the Soviets lost the will to keep fighting an
illusive enemy more than they lost any major
engagements. Today, the Allies have near real-time
satellite data, pilotless drones, ground surveillance
radar, and other devices (some of which have been
developed since the Gulf War) to locate enemy troops.
Tactically, the Taliban forces will have no element of
surprise and no ability to mount major operations
undetected.
JoeZ has defeated the Forces of Evil singlehandedly, and he was dressed as a cow when he did it, too. I have pictures.
operate at night. Most units had limited night vision
equipment, mainly antiquated infrared. Today, only the
personal bodyguard of Ben Laden (50-100 men) will
have modern night-vision devices. This means that the
Allies can operate 24 hours a day, including times
when the Taliban forces will be effectively blind.
Even during daylight, the use of smoke ammunitions can
blind the enemy, when US thermal devices allow for
excellent target acquisition.
From the Times, this quote from the head Taliban:
Mullah Omar said: "You, the BBC, and American public radios have created a sense of concern but the current situation of Afghanistan is related to a big cause - that is the destruction of America. The plan is going ahead and God willing it is being implemented, but it is a huge task that is beyond the comprehension of human beings. If God's help is with us this will happen within a short period of time - keep in mind this prediction."
The Taliban were going to have the girls (Dayna and Heather) write letters to home for money. The Taliban were going to ransom them for a price!!
They're off to Switzerland next and then will come home, hopefully by Thanksgiving!
trained to close to 500 meters or less after artillery
preparation. Their artillery was notoriously slow to
"adjust" to new target coordinates and while sometimes
"massed" was normally not effective due to poor
coordination with maneuver elements. US ground forces,
especially special operations troops, use laser
designators and tight coordination of support fires to
provide a "stand-off" capability that can
substantially destroy enemy cohesion before ever
getting close. Soviet heliopter gunships had to expose
themselves to ground fire while firing imprecise,
unguided rockets. US helicopters can "fire" defilade
with laser designators that direct precision guided
munitions. Most Taliban troops will never see what
hits them.
5. Mobility: The Soviet forces chiefly relied upon the
road system. Their Spetnatz units used very effective
air assault techniques later in the war, but were
limited to daylight operations and were hence
vulnerable to Stingers and antiquated ZPU-23mm
antiaircraft fire. All Allied forces in this campaign
will be air assault troops, and all of these will be
able to operate in complete darkness. Unlike Soviet
forces, where only strike elements were air mobile, US
forces can mount operations with substantial air
mobility in follow-on forces and combat support.
motivated and determined enemy. Casualties inflicted
on the Mujahadeen seemed to have little impact. Today,
after 20 years of civil war and divided factions, the
Taliban has been compelled to use forced conscription
(literally at gunpoint) and has also already
experienced significant desertions. The only Taliban
forces with similar morale to the earlier war will be
Ben Laden’s Arab unit, about 3,000 strong. Their
training and tactics, as well as equipment, will be
wholly inadequate to deal with a mobile, all-weather
force equipped with superior weapons and almost
unbelievable fire support.
The only issue will be finding Ben Laden himself. If
he elects to simply hide out in a cave, this may take
months. This option would by definition mean that the
government would change and he would be limited to
what is left of his own Al Qaeda infrastructure.
Eventually he would turn up by either an informant
the country is famous for purchased loyalties) or by
attempted movement or communication. If he elects to
not hide out and attempts any operations through any
communications or couriers, the chances of finding him
go up dramatically. In either event, Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan will be isolated, immobilized or
destroyed. At the same time, their foreign cells are
being located and apprehended piece by piece. Most of
the campaign will depend on intelligence and law
enforcement coordination, which is finally happening
after the mass murders.
of will power. The number of Islamic extremists truly
willing to die may, unfortunately, be tested. The
United States will not waver in this fight. Another
terrorist mass murder may occur; if it does, nothing
on the face of the earth will stop the United States
from hunting down and punishing those responsible. All
that America has lacked to date was the will to wage
the war, a fact that brutally changed on September
11th.
Randy Mott
Let's go git the bastards!
The terrorist network established by Osama bin Laden is regrouping in order to strike again, despite the recent setbacks for the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to Dieter Kaundinya, the head of the counter-terrorism section of the BND, the German international intelligence agency.
He said both the Taliban and al-Qaeda "have prepared themselves for this turn of events and are preparing for a guerrilla war in Afghanistan and elsewhere. I would warn against sentiments that we have won rapid successes in recent days," he said.
Mr Kaundinya said that al-Qaeda might resort to new terrorist strategies, including a "cyber-war". He said they might "interfere with international information systems" in the future, although he did not elaborate. Mr Rolince said the FBI believed it was "fair to assume" that Islamic terrorists "are trying to acquire chemical and biological weapons". He said there was no clear evidence that al-Qaeda was behind the recent anthrax attacks in the US, adding that the evidence "tends to indicate" that a lone, US-based criminal was behind the attacks.
Ever consider moving to the Catskills?
Yes, Glendajean, you're right, I could, but that would necessitate me first finding where the hell I had posted them; this site has no search by date function I'm aware of.
Moreover, on accessing such a link a reader would still have to wade through a string of Mote posts inserted into ongoing dialog, and then navigate back to today's discussion.
It hardly seems an improvement over just reposting the man's comments.
And I do pray to God that there is not a nuclear device "in play," as the Mullah's comments to the BBC suggest (or some other other mass destruction terror).
Taliban retake key Afghan province
(Updated at 1430 PST)
KABUL: Taliban fighters have retaken control of the central Afghan province of Uruzgan, native state of the supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, an Afghan tribal leader said on Thursday.
Pakistan moves troops, tanks to Afghan border
(Updated at 1600 PST)
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan Thursday moved its troops and tanks to Afghan border facing Kandahar, a news agency reports.
Some al-Qaeda, Taliban leaders killed in air strikes: Pentagon
(Updated at 1925 PST)
WASHINGTON: Some leaders of al-Qaeda and the Taliban -- but not Osama bin Laden or Mullah Mohmmad Omar -- were believed killed in US air strikes on two buildings, one in Kabul and the other in Kandahar, in the past two days, Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said Thursday.
UNHCR to reopen offices in Afghanistan
(Updated at 1500 PST)
QUETTA: The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said Thursday it would reopen its offices in Afghanistan and deploy extra emergency staff.
7791. stostosto - 10/1/01 8:00:46 PM (also #7793)
"I don't advocate, nor expect any 'clash of civilisations' -- and I expect the campaign to end when the US has Bin Laden, dead or alive. Furthermore, I expect terror from Al Quaeda to end when it's been effectively decapitated. "
"Mark my words. And don't believe all they hyperbole about 'the day that changed the world' and all such media babble.
6,000 people are dead, Manhattan lost a landmark, Bin Laden and the Taliban are toast.
Back to our regular scheduled programme."
At least the penultimate paragraph seems to be coming to pass.
We'll see about the rest.
Nov. 15th: 4,500
At that rate it will be down to zero in three months time.
Will you ever link an article by Fisk and just call it 'mediocre'? Or even 'downright shitty'?
Do believe it. Just don't believe the vaporous spin the media put on it.
It's true that my own worries over WWIII and Israel driving the Pals into Jordan were wrong, essentially too pat. But everything has changed. There will be enormous political, economic, and military repercussions from 9-11 forward. There already have been.
An interesting article which discusses secular Turkey's relationship with Islam and modernity. There really appears to be a schizoid element associated, at least within Turkey, with combining conventional Islamic religious observances and a modern lifestyle.
Yes, it was an amusing exchange.
I am deeply impressed with PM's sheer energy. But I must say I am positively awed at concerned's infinite capability for delusional self-aggrandisement.
Care to provide any examples related to the facts under discussion? Or are you just venting your spleen?
Remember, when it was still 8/11, nobody thought anything drastic was about to happen. Nobody thought 'it' was 'over', but only because nobody even knew 'it' was about to happen. Islamic terror is not over, Islamic fundamentalism is not over, and you can never tell when it's going to erupt or where. You could kill ObL, or (worse) capture him and try him and execute him, and then the shitfest will begin (with a fresh messianic martyr to fuel the flames).
I really doubt this is over at all. But who knows? Maybe everything will be nice and peaceful again.
Actually, that would be genius on ObL's part. To allow himself to be captured and tried.
If you do accept these examples, it would then seem clear that PM is the one who is remiss on the facts (that I provided) and that he is 'delusional', as you prefer to put it.
As for Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism, that will not be over, but it didn't start with bin Laden either.
The "war on terror" will surely be more intense and encompassing than before, but I don't think it will be overt war anymore. Iraq will not be attacked, for instance.
It will be a matter of dealing seriously with a security threat that everybody has been made painfully aware of. Not of bombing and invading.
of course I agree with PM that Clinton was as tough, or weak, as Reagan who withdrew from Lebanon after the Beirut bombing. What a message to send the terrorists.
Apart from that, the number of terror acts is completely unrelated to who holds the presidential office.
And Waco (one of your examples) really is the usual right-wing shit, as PM says.
Why didn't you include the Oklahoma bombing, btw? That surely must have been the single worst terror act during Clinton.
What was posed to me by PM was who was more 'effective' in combatting terrorism, and given that criterion, Reagan clearly wins, considering his effective actions against Moammar Ghaddafi who subsequently stopped sponsoring state terrorism. And, yes a ratio of five to one significant terrorist incidents during a president's adminsitration is admissable when compared to the fact that PM has offered nothing whatsoever to back up his blind assertion.
Regarding Waco, my bad. I meant to post 'OKC', but it was fucking 3AM and I was still trying to answer a blizzard of particularly inane questions from the particularly obtuse PM.
Including any hopes for martyrdom, I meant to add.
He'll be Abdullah Özalan'ed.
CHICAGO (Reuters) - United Airlines, a unit of UAL Corp., said on Thursday it will become the first major U.S. airline to put Taser weapons, or stun guns, in every cockpit in its fleet following the Sept. 11 attacks so pilots can fight off hijackers.
...
United, the No. 2 U.S. airline, said the installation should start shortly. It is buying the guns from Taser International, based on Scottsdale, Arizona.
...
``United and its pilots believe Tasers are an important addition to enhanced cockpit security,'' said Andrew Studdert, United's chief operating officer. ``Tasers will incapacitate an attacker without endangering the airplane.''
Air traffic has remained far below normal levels since Sept. 11 and caused huge financial losses for the airline industry. United alone lost a record $1.16 billion in the third quarter.
The installations are subject to approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites) for an appropriate fleet-wide test program, United said.
an interesting move, i think. but, i don't see it helping their business any.
All Cruise Missile Clowntoon accomplished by doing so was to impress his credulous sycophants with his 'toughness' while actually setting US efforts against terrorism back, as 9/11 demonstrated.
Fine with me. Make sure PM gets your message also. I was doing no more than responding to his demands for 'answers' in this thread.
Nukes to Gilgit?
Egyptian Show Trial Ends
You did notice that the Salon piece appeared to favour no military response at all to bin Laden rather than a tougher one?
And I forget: Did the Republicans rally to the President and urge him to go after bin Laden with all means at his disposal? Or were they busy with more important stuff at the time?
Also: Did Bush strongly focus on getting ObL before 9-11? It was recently reported that he had the chance to grab him in the spring, but decided not to.
1st: The 'toughness' of the response is not the issue. It is whether is was effective in meeting its purported goals. And, on that basis, the Clowntoon cruise missile assaults failed abysmally.
2nd: Analysts and politicos of all political stripes were skeptical of the administrations actions re bin Laden in 1998, and rightfully so.
3rd: If you recall, it was in the news that there was great concern in the early days of the Bush Administration, which is still in the process of appointing many mid level officials even as of 11/01, that the US military be restructured so as to be able to counteract the actions of rogue nations and terrorist groups.
To require Republican administration officials to develop prescient psychic powers seems a bit much, to me. That said, I admit there was a huge US intelligence failure regarding the terrorist planning for the WTC/Pentagon mass murder, which was being planned since at least 1995 when a certain rapist was president.
if comparable judicial systems (which this is in substance) were in place anywhere else - even if limited for use only for non-nationals accused of terrorism -they would be seen as evidence of being as anti-American in concept and protection of civil liberties against the force of government as is possible to be.
I understand, and fully accept, that the realities we now face force us to rethink our judicial rules and procedures as to be applied to alleged terrorists. We would not, for sure, want to have to compromise our intelligence methods by divulging same. We may very well want to introduce limited means of use of hearsay. But - do we really want to limit rights to counsel as severely as these new tribunals would? Do we really want to have all of the checks and balances in the hands of the executive branch? Are these measures necessary even under our current circumstances.
One would like to think that these measures really haven't been thought out.
At any rate, here's a good friend of the Administration's take on it all:
Safire Starts Out His Article With: "-- Misadvised by a frustrated and panic-stricken attorney general, a president of the United States has just assumed what amounts to dictatorial power to jail or execute aliens. Intimidated by terrorists and inflamed by a passion for rough justice, we are letting George W. Bush get away with the replacement of the American rule of law with military kangaroo courts."
(I sure have failed to return a lot of books in my day.)
I do find this very disturbing; and thanks for the Safire link.
IMHO, the Al Queda folks are off balance. They had hoped to turn Afghanistan into a Vietnam-like quagmire. It didn't happen for two reason:
They didn't have a superpower backing them.
They didn't have popular support locally.
Because of that the collapse took days instead of months or years.
The first part was obvious. A minority of zealots scattered across the mideast do not constitute a superpower, or a major power or even a significant power.
The worst mistake however was thinking that the locals would support them upon being attacked. The widespread celebrations throughout Kabul when the Taliban troops retreated was evidence enough of their error.
The prospects of a protracted guerrila campaign are not good. Fish need an ocean to swim in. The Taliban's ocean has shrunk to a small pond.
I think a meat hook would be historically appropriate.
I understand why he wants it. The trial would inevitably involve secret evidence. This evidence would reveal our sources. In turn, we would lose our current sources on intel (dead or in hiding) and demonstrate to future sources that we could not be trusted. A tribunal consisting entirely of people with high level security clearances solves the problem.
I understand it. But I oppose it. Better not to have a trial until we have enough "white world" evidence to do the job.
But what is the choice? I don't know.
If this is really why Bush instigated the tribunal, then I disagree with it. I am in favor of trying terrorists in military courts, however.
Watch for Sully to call them the Fifth Column.
(If CalGal doesn't beat him to the punch.)
Perhaps the evacuees were Taliban moderates, you know, people who -- as one cartoonist put it -- support flying planes into buildings only fifty stories tall.
Marj:
Pakistan's cooperation has led to a number of trade-offs. Anyway, it would be tacky to shoot down an ally's aircraft. Without leaders, it may be easier for Taliban forces in Kunduz to surrender.
read the article. The Taliban apparently want to surrender, but they also don't want the Arabs executed by the NA - as the NA have said they're going to do. Kunduz is going to the scene of some immense bloodletting, pity the civilians.
--
Pseuder,
Uh-oh. What's your source?
Fucking Rabbani has already entered Kabul. Right now things are not going the Allies way except for the ongoing military rout of the Taliban.
The news about the Hazara forces was reported by the BBC last night.
Thursday, 15 November, 2001, 08:11 GMT
Hazaras march on Kabul
The Hazara people have a strong sense of community
By the BBC's World Affairs correspondent David Loyn and William Reeve in Kabul
A thousand-strong force from the Hazara region in the centre of Afghanistan is heading towards the Northern Alliance-controlled capital, Kabul.
Ethnic Hazaras comprise 20% of Afghanistan's population
The Hazaras, who form about 20% of the population, say they want to protect the Hazara community of the city and will only enter Kabul in co-operation with the Northern Alliance.
But they are equipped with weapons such as rocket propelled grenades and heavy machine guns, which are far more than they need for a light security role.
The UN passed a resolution last night which can be used to put multinational troops on the ground to keep the peace. I hope the UK and US do so pronto.
This is indeed a true test for our diplomatic/political/military skills.
Life is good.
The story about Rabbani being in Kabul has also been denied by members of his group.
"Georg Taubmann, who headed the Kabul office of the German-based Shelter International Now, provided dramatic details of an escape he called "horrifying." While many details of the past two days remain murky, this is the story as he told it.
On Monday night, as the Taliban began fleeing Kabul, soldiers forced the eight detainees from their Kabul jail cells, loaded them in cars and joined the convoy of tanks, pick-ups and other vehicles streaming southward toward Kandahar.
When the convoy reached the neighboring province of Wardak, soldiers led the eight out of the car and locked them in a large steel container. "It was terribly cold," Taubmann said. "They wanted to lock the container and leave us in there until the morning. We had no blankets. We were freezing the whole night through."
The next morning they pushed on and were deposited in a prison in the southeastern city of Ghazni. Taubmann described it as the worst of the five prisons in which the group had been housed during the past 3½ months.
Shortly after arriving the walls rattled as U.S. aircraft dropped bombs nearby. The detainees then heard heaving gunfire and loud shouting outside the prison.
Some time later they heard the doors of the prison cells clanging open. When their cell door burst open, a soldier stood in the doorway gripping a gun. The detainees believed he was a Taliban soldier who might kill them. Instead the soldier stared at them wide-eyed, apparently stunned to find foreigners in the prison. He then shouted, "Azad! Azad!" Free! Free!
Meanwhile, in Ghazni, some local villagers expressed opposition to freeing the aid workers, believing they could be ransomed to their governments for large sums of money, rescuers apparently told the aid workers.
On Wednesday night, with the city under a curfew and with some villagers agitating to hold on to the detainees, the eight were led to a field where U.S. special forces helicopters were supposed to pick them up.
The aid workers said, however, that the helicopters could not locate them.
With the helicopters thumping the in distance, angry villagers who allegedly wanted to hold the workers for ransom running toward them, and fearful that hostile Taliban troops were still in the area, the increasingly desperate aid workers began building a fire, first burning the women's headscarves, then sweaters and jackets.
"We burned everything we had – clothes, everything – to make a big fire," said Taubmann.
Special forces teams led the eight into helicopters and flew them to Pakistan, according to diplomats here.
"It was a very emotional and joyous reunion this morning at the airport," said Chamberlin.
The two American women spent the day at the ambassador's residence with Mercer's parents and Curry's mother.
"They've been hugging their parents," said Chamberlin. "They've been taking a hot bath. They've been eating their favorite meals. They've been to a beauty parlor and had their hair done and they've been sharing a totally wonderful joyous day."
The aid workers were arrested, along with 16 Afghans, on Aug. 3 and charged by the Taliban's Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice with teaching Christianity to Afghans in Kabul – a particularly serious offense under the militia's strict Islamic rule.Taliban officials said they had found Christian books, tapes and videos in Pashto and Dari, two Afghan languages, in homes visited by the Shelter Now workers.
"We walked into the city and the people came out of the houses and they hugged us and they greeted us," said Taubmann. "They were all clapping. They didn't know there were foreigners in the prison."
"It was like a big celebration for all those people," he said.
I'm inclined to support all-out war against all Arabs. They have some kind of short-circuit in their brains, rendering them incapable of rational, critical thought. In this era of increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, we should not have to tolerate such a threat on the face of the planet.
Why didn't anyone here express any outrage against this post? Why are you people so comfortable with this kind of racist shit in your midst?
"The acts of the Hazaras, and God knows how many more, are inevitable - considering the history of Afghanistan..."
You have all these people who had hitherto never had any thought about the "history of Afghanistan" suddenly pontificating about it as though they know some history.
Afghanistan between 1901 and 1989 saw NO tribal or ethnic violence whatsoever. So the "history of Afghanistan" you should be considering is that of the 1990s.
hope you got some sleep.
I heard that the aid workers were wisked into a home of a local before being airlifted by Special Forces. I mentioned the money aspect this morning.
doesn't mitigate from the fact that they should never have been there to begin with.
and as for the power of prayer - well, not my bag so I won't comment on that drivel any further.
speaking for myself, I guess I didn't see that post as being too far removed from the black and white strident stuff you've (uncharacteristically) been posting here. And, I for one just didn't feel like getting into an Acean discussion with you about it.
Why use the word "drivel"? Why be derogatory when it's completely unnecessary? As to their call to help the Afghan people, it's only your opinion that they had no business there, obviously, many others feel differently.
it is absurd but entirely predictable that this whole episode will end up being portrayed as being evidence of God's goodness and, no doubt, that enduring what they did somehow was God's will for making them even more resolute to go forth and spread his Word.
They claim their faith led them to stay. They provided services. Given that our government basically begged them to leave, and they refushed, then I think the government did the right thing by ignoring publicly their presence.
They were on their own. They survived. Good news.
It's good news that they're out, but I wouldn't have been shedding any tears if it had turned out differently.
By the way, you can go from Turkmenistan to Baluchistan in Pakistan without encountering a single mountain.
As for unrest and lack of control, that's what a new government is there for.
After all, several US companies as well as an Argentinian one were negotiating in 1995 and 1996 with the Taliban and other warlords to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.
Why didn't anyone here express any outrage against this post? Why are you people so comfortable with this kind of racist shit in your midst?
LC is one of 'them', so it's 'cool', doncha know. I'm definitely not 'comfortable' with it, for one, but I read plenty of outrageous stuff here that I let pass.
I am a bit more tolerant of this religious activity than I would of somebody who on the basis of getting 70 virgins in paradise blows up buildings and kills lots of people.
They were acting out their faith, and evidently took the risk knowing they could get arrested. They survived. It's a good thing. There's nothing one could say or do to convince these women that should act differently.
It's a low-grade risk to others, this putting their lives on the line of something that they believed in strongly.
It was a CHRISTIAN organization. All were missionaries. Get it yet? Everyone there knew the risks and were willing to stay and provide aid and dialogue if and when possible.
That's an interesting statement, to me. Just how autonomous are these Talibs you mentioned?
The risks to your missionaries don't worry me at all. If they want to put their own lives in danger that's fine. What you fail to get is that they put other lives in danger. That doesn't matter I suppose. They're only Muslims after all.
Wow! They were rescued au naturel!
...but not if they're already converted. Right, Snowowl?
Because I don't take it seriously? Because it is so far out of line with your usual posts that it seemed it must be a failed attempt at humor?
If someone else had posted it, I would likely have ignored it as I would any attempt to flame.
And of course if the author of a line like that really believed what they wrote, nothing I could say would change their mind. So what would be the point in responding? To give them the platform to debate on?
The recipients could also turn over the Christian to the Taliban. Their choice. If they chose instead to listen in return for food, also their choice.
Of course, they could have not gone over there at all and then the Afghans would have been completely safe! The only thing endangering their lives were those silly Christian chicks.
I've been told they went over there having committed to refrain from proselytising and then broke that commitment. If true, that's the only immoral action I think they took.
They certainly aren't heroes; I generally agree with GJ's take.
No, but you shouldn't say you're going and planning to refrain from doing what you darned well know you're going to do anyhow. Is it noble to lie about it like that?
what bilge. especially the presumptiveness about it all.
They are admirable self-sacrificing people. However, they, like almost everybody else, probably had trouble really understanding how dangerous the Taliwhacks could be.
The UN is moving in the direction which I have advocated since the start of the US campaign in Afghanistan.
Good.
You're doing the preacher a favor.
Concerned,
I think that they knew, but they didn't expect any of this to happen. Dayna has lived in that region of the world before. Kind of like smokers who know they can get cancer, but don't think that they will.
Now that they have escaped they are missionary heroes. How utterly disgusting.
just lil'ol innocents.
Next thing you know, there'll be hundreds of them in Afghanistan.
Muwahahaha!
They whispered about their faith to someone who wanted to talk to them about it? They also handed out of food and/or other services.
What's so disgusting about that? Or at least utterly disgusting?
And in the context of the current war, how pale in comparison to what is truly utterly disgusting -- bio-chemical factories that were brought over to Afghanistan that were paid for by a Saudi charity. Attempts (perhaps successful?) to construct nuclear devices.
Afghanistan. All thanks to these brave humanitarian aid workers who are doing God's work.
You're a sad person. As are you SnowOwl and JanJon. Your contempt for anything Christian is nothing new, but that you criticize these young ladies for aiding the poor and working as missionaries in one of the most impoverished places in the world, is very disturbing.
But then again, I doubt that any of you would ever do anything to help out your fellow man that would require real work, real commitment and real faith.
I think they did a little more than just discuss the testament with folks...they were arrested with video tapes and teaching materials. So they were breaking the law in that country. You visit a foreign country and you don't get to pick and choose which laws you obey. If foreigners break the laws of the USA, they are arrested.
any more posts on this and they'll be moved, thanks
My previous post is ironic. I-R-O-N-I-C
Look it up. You might learn something, if you're lucky.
I am glad that these girls are free, and that getting them out appears not to have caused any deaths. To now call them heroes is indeed disgusting.
I am very glad they got out. I think they are admirable people. There is a shortage of people who are willing to risk their own well being for their beliefs and a surfeit of those willing to sacrifice others. As far as "deception" goes, Christianity's early history is one of hiding in shadows from governmental oppression. They were but following in an ancient Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. Nothing immoral about lying to a government that wants to destroy you merely for your beliefs.
Being "admirable" does not mean I'd want them knocking on my door to minister to me. There last time a pair of Jehova's Witness missionaries rang my doorbell and dragged me out of my shower they were terribly embarassed.
Well, I guess after last week I shouldn't complain Herr OberDuckenFuehrer!
I agree Iran must be concerend about pipeline possibilities, especially since the Saudis are unstable & have become tainted by association w/ObL, and a fresh dialog about oil and energy dependence has erupted in the US. (Which, frankly, thrills me, if only it won't deteriorate.) But it's going to be a while before Afghanistan stabilizes, agreements can be made, and pipelines can be built. Iran might as well intervene on its own behalf later as now, and anyway, the more it can be seen as a just and Islamically righteous force against the heartless US war machine, the better for it. And again, maybe playing the role will mean it behaves with some real moderation and probity.
The Russians are reacting in a dilatory way at best; really it sort of looks like they're not going to meet Saudi demands. Meanwhile Putin is having nachos at Bush's ranch and discussing weapons reduction--I can't help wondering whether the Shrubbery honeymoon just now with the Man With the Transparent Soul does portend oil development and purchase agreements designed to ease us out of dependence on the Sauds.
NA Won't KowTow to King Moron (L. Kaplan)
Check Religion.
Well I guess not...this IS, after all, the Kingdom of Bush! How many different arguments have been advanced in favor of tax cuts, of ANWR of massive subsidies to US extraction industries?
Could you imagine all of what you describe happening *this soon*, if at all, if the US had been saddled with the admininstration of flunky-loser?
Nobody sane thought the NA was a US puppet. We asked them (half heartedly) not to invest Kabul until a government could be formed. The main reason was fear of the chaos that brought the Talibananas to power to start with. The chaos didn't take place, so no harm no foul.
We succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.
GWB is riding an 87% popularity rating with a Texas-size smirk.
Yeeee-HAWWWWWW!
The corollary to this argument--that rapid Northern Alliance gains would prompt wide-scale ethnic conflict--boasts a curious history as well. For years Pakistani leaders have promoted real and imagined Pashtun grievances, seeking to wield Pashtun nationalism as a club against the Northern Alliance while at the same time deflecting it away from their own territory. But Powell's concern that the Northern Alliance not advance too far because Afghanistan's factions "are of different tribal loyalties"--echoing as it does his contention that the war in Bosnia had "deep ethnic and religious roots that go back a thousand years"--is misplaced. Afghanistan's divisions largely derive from political differences and, to a lesser extent, religious ones. As Afghanistan expert Barnett Rubin has observed, inter-Afghan conflict "is almost entirely about power and security. While the groups are ethnically distinct, none of them has an ethnic ideology, and inter-ethnic hostility remains quite low in Afghanistan." Indeed, the ethnic structure of Afghanistan's 20-year-long war has shifted as routinely as its battle lines. And, as the rejoicing in the streets of largely Pashtun Kabul suggests, it's already shifting once more.
Personally I'd settle for Texas...
Better start the evacuation of la familia from Tom Delay's hometown
YEEEEHAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWW
I'm sincerely hoping the NA, as well as Afghanis in general, are now deadly sick and tired of their generation's worth of military foreign interference and of their own internecine blood feuds and now want nothing more than to form an efficient representative govt. so they can get on with their lawful lives.
Concerned, I have two ways of viewing what-if questions. On the one hand, large events direct the outcome of other large events; it's possible that along with any competent US military action the NA would have routed the Taliban (I presume this is what you mean because I don't know what your phrase "all of what you describe" refers to.)
On the other hand, small things make big differences unexpectedly; there's simply no way to know what "would have" happened under a different US admin (or even what would have happened had our existing president taken his morning shit two hours later one day last week).
It may not even be possible to determine whether who is president is a big thing or a small thing.
I meant to refer to your speculation regarding the content of the GWB-Putin talks, perhaps more than the actions in Afghanistan.
I'll credit a Gore administration with a likely outcome there in which the US could ultimately publicly claim some sort of 'victory' over terrorism, if not the removal of the Taliban.
Aside to WIMC: See, I posted 'Gore', not 'Bore'. All better, now?
The standard reasoning goes that it doesn't matter who controls Arabian oil, they'll still sell it to us. I think this is pure large-event reasoning, which isn't at all bad in iself, but ignores small but real possibilities that could result in a completely different outcome (at least temporarily).
Assessing the likelihood of a small thing turning out to matter entails taking account not only of any single "small thing" one happens to notice, but also of similar or supporting "small things" that could snowball events in a particular direction.
And then we could all be wrong anyway.
I concur, with the proviso I get to take the princesses for my own harem.
"Here's another more pressing what-if question: What if the house of Saud crumbles and is replaced by an Islamic government?"
I had been under the impression that it already had an Islamist government.
Message # 15982
"I concur, with the proviso I get to take the princesses for my own harem."
Gulf Arab women are exceedingly ugly. On the other hand, Ghida Fakry of al Jazeera is simply delicious. I believe she is a Palestinian.
Osama Bin Laden said the same thing to Peter Bergen in Holy War, Inc.
However, there are some divides within that group, and there are apparently several quite senior members of that ruling oligarchy whose sympathies lie towards the bin Laden austerity/anti-West line.
In that part of the world, it is rarely popular uprisings that those in power fear - it is members of their won families, their cousins, rival families. It is not for nothing that each sheikh maintains a private army of Gurkhas or the like, carefully chosen to be non-Arab.
The truoble for the ibn-Sauds is that they're deeply unpopular in their Kingdom, including among a good section of the elite. They're highly vulnerable to a simple offing. That is, if a cousin or a grandson or even a member of another clan managed to kill the top two or three people in the current Saudi hierarchy, no one would blink an eye to see them go. The army, society, everyone would be quite happy to see the end of this current top tier of leadership, and would in fact welcome a change.
Can you say "Chaos Theory"? The assesment rapidly approaches impossibility as the amount of uncertainty increases.
I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion, or how you would arrive at a different one.
Is this all about proving your centrist credentials to PM? If it is, maybe you should take it up with him.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/ondemand/rams/tac01462572001.ram
Mullah Omar is the voice that sounds vaguely muffled and retarded.
Andonly -
I wasn't attempting to prove my 'centrist credentials' - just giving my personal estimate of what might have been likely to occur under a Gore administration.
For instance, I'd wager that a Gore administration would have taken up the Taliban on their first offer to 'negotiate' the handover of bin Laden in exchange for proof.
Hahahaha!
Saudi royal family is a westernised elite that happens to practise a rigid fundamentalism in its governance because it rules a fundamentalist population which can only be appeased through fundamentalist practise.
The BBc interview is with an intermediary (the latest one anway) who relayed the questions to Omar via walkie-talkie and conveyed the answers to London via satellite phone.
Kaplan of late has been a Pentagon shill. In the past few days, careful media watchers such as myself and my man, TD, have observed a slurry of leaks aimed squarely at the Panty Waist of Foggy Bottom. Though most are quite a bit subtler than Kaplan's the message is clear:
PantyWaist you may have thought you whupped up on Batman Rummy and Boy Wonder Wolfowitz but now youse gittin yours you wuss
To his credit, Lewis gives credence to one claim you often hear from even the most progessive Arabs. They feel that the US allows the rulers of the ME more latitude towards the suppression of their own people than it would countenace anywhere else - all in the interest of preserving the oil flow. In effect, Middle Eastern lives are worth nothing in comparison to the mineral reserves or the lives of people elsewhere.
Lewis outlines also an often-cited example - that of the Western allies behavior towards Iraq immediately after the Kuwait invasion was repelled. The West called for rebellion against Saddam and got it, buit then withdrew to watch the fairly broadbased popular revolt be brutally repressed. Why? Because it and its Arab allies could countenance a coup, where Saddam would be replaced with a more compliant dictator, but could not countenance a popular rebellion which could spill over and upset the applecart across the region. There is no interest in promoting, or even standing out of the way of, true popular rebellion. This is how the abandonment of Iraq is seen in the Muslim world.
Anybody? Why shouldn't we be able to just tell the Saudis to go to hell?
Fouad is ALWAYS right! Got it Marj!
Ajami is ALLAH!
This is an excellent reason for why Iraq should be next in line, the opinions of Arab governments be damned.
I do not agree with your condemnation of all Arabs upstream which I found bizarre, but I do agree with your prescription for Saudi Arabia (I think; I'm still struggling with this). 
I suppose I must submit to the wonders of carpal tunnel syndrome in order to recapitulate the existing circumstances for everyone who already knows them and spell out exactly how a new and imaginary government would differ, so as not to run afoul of your impressions.
The Saudi government is formally and nominally Islamic in that the Sauds are Muslims, but they are not exactly observant of Wahhabi strictures and they're thoroughly corrupt, a state of affairs that is kept balanced by parceling out power and money to religious institutions whose leaders would otherwise attempt insurrection or at least cause strife. The rulers of the country are not formally the clerics; their power depends on the royals' largesse, and the royals' stability depends in turn on placating them.
So when I ask, "What if the house of Saud crumbles and is replaced by an Islamic government?", what I mean is, "What if the house of Saud crumbles and is replaced by a bunch of clerics who could claim to have religious legitimacy and not the lesser right to rule by virtue of being Muslims as opposed to secular infidels."
Was my shorthand really not obvious enough?
Yes, I fear that is one of the reasons. And I don't think it is a good one.
It is a safe assumption that anyone who potentially could replace the Sauds would be less compliant than they have been with US demands/requirements. No one from that country is likely to bend over backwards (or forwards, if you get my drift) for the US as much as the Sauds have.
And yes, the uninterrupted flow of oil from Saudi Arabia has repeatedly been given the very highest priority in US foreign policy. I'd much rather a few billion be spent on weaning this country away from its insane energy policies, but look who has been elected as President and VP and be unsurprised.
Man, I indulged in that fervent desire for about four weeks before beginning to wonder whether I should be careful of what I ask for, in case I get it. But it's looking less like the Saudis are in any danger of falling these days--I'm not sure whether that's a realistic impression or one born of a lack of press about them recently.
On the other hand, Abdullah is probably better for the Saudi future than the far more corrupt Sudairi's are, since he actually has a plan for the Saudi economy.
This I've read as well.
"The Saudi government is formally and nominally Islamic in that the Sauds are Muslims, but they are not exactly observant of Wahhabi strictures and they're thoroughly corrupt, a state of affairs that is kept balanced by parceling out power and money to religious institutions whose leaders would otherwise attempt insurrection or at least cause strife. The rulers of the country are not formally the clerics; their power depends on the royals' largesse, and the royals' stability depends in turn on placating them."
If the al-Sauds are overthrown by clerics, then the country would not become more Islamist. It is already as Islamist as it can get. The major difference is that the government would be hostile to the west.
what would be the realistic outcome if our oil imports from Saudi Arabia were cut in half or stopped?
I see no problem with valuing our economic interests is SA's oil by having good relations with the Royal family.
Perhaps the Saudis have been more "pliant," but does anybody really think that another regime would refuse to sell us oil?
How can that NYT thing on Iran be taken seriously when it gets an extremely elementary fact wrong?
It says Mossadeq was an elected prime minister!
What nonsense. The man was APPOINTED by the Shah himself.
I only knew of the Arbusto/Harken Energy tie to the Bushes.
In general, I agree. But for all the restrictions that ex-pat women endure while living there, it could get a whole lot worse if clerics came into power. So yes, I think the country could still become more Islamist and less "tolerant" than it is now.
Unless ex-pat women have to wear burqas now? Things may have changed more than I know.
And would we not have to then do what Israel did to Iraq twenty years ago or so under similar circumstances?
Just asking.
in effect the US controls the price of oil thanks to the compliant ibn Sauds. Why do you think the US is going to any length to keep the ibn Sauds in power? Because it likes Fahd's family?
What if it's a jihadi? What is the price is quadrupled?
Think about the impact on our economy if the price of oil raised significantly or if imports were decreased significantly. We would go into a depression.
What makes you think that a bunch of Arabs would automatically turn to building the "Islamic Bomb"?
You don't think that Arabs are inherently nuts, do you?
Explain? I thought the demands and requirements the Saudis faced wrt oil were basically economic in nature, i.e., not American per se.
What are you talking about? Mossadegh was appointed PM by the Iranian parliament in 1951 in the same votes that nationalized the oil industry.
But we have that now in Russia. Haven't you been reading the news, the last few days? Russia is determined to take market share from OPEC, and it's driving OPEC bonkers.
What if it's a jihadi? What is (sic) the price is quadrupled?
To worry about this, you would have to assume that an extremist government would be immune to economic incentives.
Think about the impact on our economy if the price of oil raised significantly or if imports were decreased significantly. We would go into a depression.
Aw, then all you Texas rednecks would be forced to give up your SUVs. Unpatriotic inbreds....
No, if there were a revolution in Saudia, there would be a massive disruption of supplies, an enormous spike in prices, and a big recession in the west, but oil flows would return to normal within the year.
That's what happened in 1979, with the Iranian revolution.
No other state would do this, in many ways it goes against the interests of an oil producer. But S. Arabia does so, as part of its complex system of quid pro quos with the US. In return, the US says shit about the Saudi roots and links to the 9/11 attacks and makes sure that it repeatedly vocally thanks the Saudis for its cooperation, plus doubtless other goodies we don't get to see.
Based on what I have ready, lately, OPEC sees Russia as the wild card on cutting production, not the Saudis. If the Saudis were so adamantly compliant with U.S. demands, OPEC would cease to exist.
Russian oil ain't going anywhere for a good long time, neither is the Caspian stuff. It'll be at least 10 years before the Saudis, for example, become less essential to US energy interests, more so because the present administration will do its darndest to make sure that alternative sources of energy and conservation are not pursued in anything resembling a farsighted or reasonable manner.
"What are you talking about? Mossadegh was appointed PM by the Iranian parliament in 1951 in the same votes that nationalized the oil industry."
Please. Don't talk through your sphincter. Mossadeq was the head of the parliamentary plurality in the majlis (parliament). The majlis had NO power to appoint a prime minister. It could only "advise" the king to appoint its preference. That is what the Shah did in March 1951. In fact Mossadeq resigned once in 1952 and was reappointed by the Shah a few weeks later. So the man was appointed not once but twice.
The piece of shit Mossadeq, once prime minister, demanded that the he be invested with emergency powers and that the Majlis (parliament) be dissolved.
Those who look upon Mossadeq as a kind of champion of democratic nationalism are idiots. Mossadeq was just another populist demagogue, like Nasser.
I am loath to set you off on another lengthy (disgusting) apologia for CIA interference, a la your excoriation of Allende and defense of Pinochet.
I submit that the NYTimes feature I linked is worth reading, and that Middle Easterners often point to the interference of the CIA in that instance as indication of where US policy lies, despite its contradictory rhetoric.
That is it.
Well I haven't spoken of SA becoming "more Islamist" under clerics, but simply of its having a replacement Islamic government, which under clerics it surely would. But you raise an interesting question. Do you think if Osama bin Laden or his clone were to take over Saudi Arabia, the country would become no "more Islamist" than it is now? (I guess the question is how you personally define such a notion as "more" or "less" Islamist.)
But beyond the hairsplitting, yes, of course the relevant issue would be hostility to the west. But if anti-US clerics took over SA that hostility would be justified in the name of extreme Islam, which does not currently control Saudi policy to the extent that it could cut off western oil access (even if it wanted to).
I'll admit I have no idea as to the likelihood of a clerical government taking hold in SA, but it seems slightly more within the realm of plausible speculation than a takeover of Arabia by Saddam Hussein.
This meeting was to be followed by a series of additional ones, some between Roosevelt and the shah and some between Rashidian and the shah, in which relentless pressure was exerted in frustrating attempts to overcome an entrenched attitude of vacillation and indecision," the history states.
Dr. Mossadegh had by now figured out that there was a plot against him. He moved to consolidate power by calling for a national referendum to dissolve Parliament.
The results of the Aug. 4 referendum were clearly rigged in his favor; The New York Times reported the same day that the prime minister had won 99.9 percent of the vote. This only helped the plotters, providing "an issue on which Mossadegh could be relentlessly attacked" by the agency-backed opposition press.
Well, Iran 1953 is very unlike Chile 1973. In Chile, CIA intervention was basically incidental to the overthrow of Allende. It would have happened anyway without any external intervention. By contrast, the 1953 coup in Iran would not have happened if it were not for the CIA and Mi6.
One other important difference between Chile 1973 and Iran 1953 is this.
In Chile, a legally created government (whose behaviour in office was nonetheless thoroughly illegal and unconstitutional), was overthrown.
What happened in 1953 in Iran was not the usurpation of some constitutional government, but the restoration of the legitimate authority against a usurper with not even a shred of democratic or constitutional mandate.
That's certainly been my impression as well. The Saudis and OPEC are constrained as much by non-OPEC producers as the US. And lately, the Russians are not at all interested in dropping production.
I'm also off to make some semblance of dinner.
I mentioned ex-pats--they aren't Saudi society, obviously, but it is certainly possible to become more strict.
Women have options in both education and employment that could be even more severely curtailed.
Men, too, have rights that could be taken away. They have all sorts of rights in regards to their children--particularly their daughters and wives--that could be removed, and not by giving women more freedom. A woman can't drive without her father or husband's permission, but she can leave the country, work, and be educated. All options that could easily become as forbidden as driving, despite what Daddy or hubby says.
Anyway, yes for now Mexico Russia and Norway and Britain hold the cards and they're refusal to cut production has broken the oligopoly power of OPEC just as the North Slope did in the 1980's
This Powell v. Rummy-Wolfie-CondoGirl war is sure to continue until DethroneMent 04
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Northern Alliance opposition forces on Thursday apparently captured some senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan (news - web sites), a senior U.S. official said.
``We have heard that the Northern Alliance may have come into possession of some Taliban leadership earlier today,'' the official told Reuters, adding that the group did not include senior Taliban leader Mullah Omar or Saudi-born fugitive Osama bin Laden (news - web sites), head of the anti-Western al Qaeda network.
No, I don't believe the war on terrorism will even last a generation (25-30 years). That the notion was put forward by our nation's leaders obviously impresses you not as hyperbole but as fair assessment advanced by authority.
Really. Then how long do you think the war against terrorism will take? Keep in mind the list of twenty-five terrorist organizations the State department has listed as practicing international terrorism, which shows the battles will be primarily fought against Islamic fundamentalists.
Also keep in mind that Islamic fundamentalists exist from Algeria to the Philippines, from Turkey to Sudan, from Indonesia to Palestine, and that some of the highest centers of its growth exist in states that are our putative allies (Egypt and Saudi Arabia).
Do you expect Islamic fundamentalism that practices international terrorism to end in ...
a) less than a year?
b) less than five years?
c) less than ten years?
d) less than twenty years?
*******
You have announced yourself here unfit to judge the quality of the military strategy, since you say you are not aware of the exact nature of our military plans. You have also jumped on people for speculated about this or that, saying they don't have enough information. Yet, paradoxically, you now claim I am relying on the authority of government officials (the ones you say are practising hyperbole when they say that this could be a war of Cold War-like length) and confidently claim this war is the work of less than a generation. What sort of expertise do you bring to the subject of Islamic fundamentalism and terrorism that makes you so confident in your claim?
I also think the possibility of a sustained guerrilla war by the Taliban fantastical. I also think this war against terrorism is not the beginning of WWIII, is not the labour of a generation, and that Al-Qaeda is a ruthless but limited instrument and an anomaly in its ability to project terror beyond its base, and that it will be destroyed.
Loar's Addendum to the above post:
Now, is my opinion of the war on terrorism the "short-term project" you ascribe to me? Well, certainly less than the 25-30 years you buy into, but tell me where I've said the war on terrorism is a short-term project?
Yes. How long do you expect this series of battles against Islamic fundamentalism to take? When someone says this is not the work of a generation, I expect you didn't mean just one year short of a generation's span, but considerably shorter -- perhaps ten years. I think that anyone who thinks this battle against Islamic fundamentalism will take less than a generation is hopelessly naive and doesn't understand the battles ahead.
In one important sense we have already been at battle with Islamic fundamentalism since 1979. I expect it will still be a force in some areas (and international terrorism an integral part of its force) when I am as old as you. I think the continuing advances in many types of terror weapons will facilitate these groups who want to do to the U.S. what bin Laden did to it on 9-11: take out mass civilian casualties.
continued...
Yes, I saw your group of posts (you've linked to them before). It's easy to look good when you're arguing with Ace of Spades. You had a couple of prescient comments surrounded by a lot of obvious stuff. I mean how presicent is it to say that you think the U.S. will fight this war using economic, diplomatic, and military means?
Bin Laden, for reasons best known to him (the reasons cited are not highly persuasive, even to other jihadis) has taken the battle to the US, to US soil and to US civilians. It will probably be his downfall.
I have said this before - if he had not made this tactical error, the global jihadis would have been left to create massive problems in Afghanistan and beyond, countries like Pakistan would have burned, countries like India and Russia and Egypt would have been plagued, and the US would have stayed out of it until its own interests got affected down the road. Bin Laden, from the jihadi point of view, made a huge error in overplaying his hand at this point.
I'd say there is a very tiny possibility that the US will target Iraq, but that appears more unlikely every day, and I fully believe the reports that the US has promised not to do so to a variety of partners.
If there is more large-scale military activity, it will take place in Pakistan. But even then, it's more likely to be the kind of theatre that Afghanistan has been to this point, with the Pak army itself as proxy.
Bin Laden is not an anomaly. He was preceded on American soil by Ramzi Yousef and Sheikh Abdul Rahman, and his closest ssociate, Ayman al-Zawahiri, may ultimately be more important than bin Laden, from our perspective.
German intelligence claimed yesterday that tens of thousands of terrorists loosely organized around bin Laden have been trained to carry out al-Qaeda operations worldwide. These men are not in any sense anomalous.
Yes, disagreement very much rankles you.
I mean how presicent is it to say that you think the U.S. will fight this war using economic, diplomatic, and military means? is not a summary but a gross caricature of my remarks, again, your ridicule.
Al Qaeda is anomalous in its worldwide scope and its ability to project terror on a massive scale, which capabilites targeted arguably one of the loosest security structures in the world - the US public. And as a consequence of those attacks security has tightened, making future attacks by Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups more difficult.
According to it, not only do Russian producers see in the present uncertainties an opportunity to develop their markets, so does Putin find an opportunity to forge stronger US ties by ensuring the production of oil is not reduced per Saudi demands. (Moscow ultimately controls Russian pipeline flow and, I believe, pricing.) The Saudis have threatened a price war, but the Russians figure SA is ill-equipped to lose the revenue, oil being more or less the entire Saudi economy. Russia is not so hampered.
Wonder whether other non-OPEC countries will follow suit, or fall in line behind the Sauds.
VIENNA - OPEC oil exporters, angered by their non-OPEC rivals, on Wednesday faced a tough slog to shore up oil prices with more output cuts.
Mounting frustration in OPEC with a lack of cooperation from non-aligned producers, particularly Russia, raised late doubts about the group's intentions for a proposed reduction of up to 1.5 million barrels a day, six percent.
Kuwaiti Oil Minister Adel al-Subaih said any OPEC reduction should be conditional on a proportional cut by Russia.
"I would not support the cut," he said, shortly before ministers gathered for an 0900 GMT meeting. Delegates raised the possibility of postponing the implementation date for new lower limits pending more talks with Russia or even deferring any agreement.
"OPEC may well not cut, not even a barrel, if Russia does not cut a proportionate amount," a senior OPEC official told Reuters. Oil prices subsided, London Brent indicating a 40-cent drop for opening trade at about $20.40 a barrel.
Strenuous efforts aimed at drumming up support from big non-OPEC suppliers that also include Norway and Mexico have failed to make much headway with only Moscow so far promising a cut, a token 30,000 bpd.
Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi, before a scheduled gathering of ministers at 0900 GMT, said the focus now was on Russia.
"They have the biggest capability. They are the key to price stability," Naimi told reporters. Moscow's offer was "disappointing," he said. The world's second biggest exporter, Russia has lifted crude sales sharply in recent months to more than three million barrels a day.
My eyes glaze over only when you go into extended speculative flights of fancy about issues for which you obviously have no intuitive grasp of what's plausible and implausible, based on some flimsy trifles you picked up here and there.
The predictive capacity of my "intuitive grasp" is probably not much worse than the predictive capacity of your encyclopedic catalogs of facts.
On another note, things are looking more and more like 1994.
US-Iran relations warming.
Abu Nidal – split from PLO in 1974, has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980’s, primary targets are rival PLO members; numbers a few hundred
Abu Sayyaf – Muslim terrorist group in the Basilan and Sulu islands of the Philippines, they publicly aspire to political autonomy but practice kidnapping for ransom
Armed Islamic Group – intends to overthrow the secular Algerian government and replace it with an Islamic state
Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph) – responsible for the sarin gas attack 20 March 1995 in Tokyo, now required by law to regularly report its membership, residences, and other holdings. (Before 1994 this group released anthrax in the Tokyo subway system but the attacks failed in part because the form of bacteria was that used for vaccinations and so did not pose threat of disease.)
Basque Fatherland and Liberty – terrorism to gain Basque autonomy
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya – based in southern Egypt, attacks Egyptian government officials, Coptic Christians, and other opponents of Islamic extremism; has threatened but never attacked US citizens or facilities.
HAMAS – targets the state and citizens of Israel
Harakat ul-Mujahidin – Pakistani militant group which intent is to wrest Kashmir from India; they have killed 5 Western tourists
Hizballah – Responsible for the bombing of the US Marine barracks in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in September 1984; known terrorist activities outside Lebanon were the bombing of the 1994 Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires and the Iraeli embassy in Argentina in 1992.
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan – terrorist group opposed to secular government in Uzbekistan
Abu Nidal – split from PLO in 1974, has not attacked Western targets since the late 1980’s, primary targets are rival PLO members; numbers a few hundred
Abu Sayyaf – Muslim terrorist group in the Basilan and Sulu islands of the Philippines, they publicly aspire to political autonomy but practice kidnapping for ransom
Armed Islamic Group – intends to overthrow the secular Algerian government and replace it with an Islamic state
Aum Shinrikyo (now known as Aleph) – responsible for the sarin gas attack 20 March 1995 in Tokyo, now required by law to regularly report its membership, residences, and other holdings. (Before 1994 this group released anthrax in the Tokyo subway system but the attacks failed in part because the form of bacteria was that used for vaccinations and so did not pose threat of disease.)
Basque Fatherland and Liberty – terrorism to gain Basque autonomy
Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya – based in southern Egypt, attacks Egyptian government officials, Coptic Christians, and other opponents of Islamic extremism; has threatened but never attacked US citizens or facilities.
HAMAS – targets the state and citizens of Israel
Harakat ul-Mujahidin – Pakistani militant group which intent is to wrest Kashmir from India; they have killed 5 Western tourists
Hizballah – Responsible for the bombing of the US Marine barracks in October 1983 and the US Embassy annex in September 1984; known terrorist activities outside Lebanon were the bombing of the 1994 Israeli cultural center in Buenos Aires and the Iraeli embassy in Argentina in 1992.
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan – terrorist group opposed to secular government in Uzbekistan
Al-Jihad – Egyptian Islamic extremists has not attacked within Egypt since 1993 and never attacked foreigners. Attempt to attack the US Embassy in Albania was thwarted in 1998
Kach and Kahane Chai – Jewish extremists opposing a secular Jewish state
Kurdistan Workers’ Party – aspires to create a Kurdish autonomous area in Turkey
Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam – terrorism to support Tamil separatism in Sri Lanka
Mujuhedin-e Khalq Organization – Iranian dissident group, anti-Western and anti-Iranian government now based in Iraq (of course, where else?)
National Liberation Army – Marxist insurgents attempting the overthrow of the Colombian government, kidnaps foreign employees among hundreds of others, most based in rural Colombia
The Palestine Islamic Jihad – aims to create a Palestinian state and destroy Israel, the group has not attacked US citizens or interests
Palestine Liberation Front – killed Leon Klinghoffer on the Achille Lauro 1985, no activity since then
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – opposes negotiations with Israel, has conducted terrorist attacks against Israeli and Palestinan moderates
Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command – based in Lebanon, active in the 1970’s, 1980’s, opposes the PLO.
Al-Qaida – the extent of its activities make it unique, responsible for terrorist attacks against the US worldwide and not linked to any regional interest or conflict save ridding Muslim areas of non-Muslims.
Revolutionary Organization 17 November – an anti-Greek government, anti-US, anti-NATO, anti-Turkey organization intending Greece withdraw from NATO and the European Union, have assassinated US and Greek officials in Greece
Revolutionary People’s Liberation Party – Marxist terrorist group based in Turkey targeting US personnel and facilities in Turkey as well as Turkish government officials
Revolutionary People’s Struggle – extreme leftist group committed to the expulsion of all US military forces from Greece
Sendero Luminoso – Communist terrorist organization intending to destroy existing Peruvian institutions and replace them with a “communist peasant revolutionary regime”; based in rural Peru
Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement – intends to rid Peru of all capitalist influences and establish a Marxist regime; this group occupied the Japanese Ambassador’s residence in December, 1996, holding 72 hostages for more than four months.
Now, characterizing the bulk of these 29 as Islamic is true (12 are not), but the aims of all these groups save one are localized. The exception is Al-Qaeda, and the anomaly is Al-Qaeda is worldwide and has targeted the US independently of local concerns.
is interesting; I don't remember hearing about it previously.
"On relations with the United States, Khatami said the two countries might be at "the beginning of a new and positive process if the Bush administration follows with practical steps." He specifically urged the United States to rethink its opposition to letting a proposed Central Asia oil pipeline run through Iran.
Although he expressed pessimism about an imminent breakthrough, he said he hoped to see "practical change in the behavior of the United States toward Iran, so that this mistrust can go away."
In his U.N. address, Khatami--whose country is on the State Department's list of seven state sponsors of terrorism--said that since Sept. 11, nations around the world "walk hand in hand" with America.
On Monday, the Iranian leader added that there are "no barriers" now to cultural or economic ties with the United States.
"It's only the United States that is preventing these exchanges, especially economic ties," he said. Iran had signed a deal with Conoco to develop offshore oil and gas fields, but Washington forced them to scuttle the project.
Andonly should recall from an ealier exchange that western Pakistan is very much part of l'Iran extérieur.
I thought this map conveyed the ethnic complexity of Afghanistan tidily and without too much detail: ![](http://mmdia.tf1.fr/mmdia/100/101/98/94598-50.GIF")
Andonly should recall from an ealier exchange that western Pakistan is very much part of l'Iran extérieur.
I don't recall the exchange at all. Either it has slipped my mind, or Pseudoerasmus had that conversation with someone else.
Terror often is not aimed at achieving a larger aim but rather a small one, such as calling international attention to US support of a regime terrorists oppose. I'm not sure Pincher has argued there will be indefinitely continuing massive-scale attacks against Americans, but rather that terrorism against the US will be ongoing for a generation.
I agree with him. International terrorism is not a new phenomenon; attacks on US soil are not new phenomena; all that is new as of 9-11 is the scale of US attacks. Surely you recognize that this can diminish and terror can persist.
As for how ongoing attacks on the US might further terrorist aims, bear in mind that Black September's assassination of Israeli Olympians in Munich was unprecedented in its time, and has not yet led to the liberation of Palestine. But it surely accomplished interim objectives and acquired for the PLO a voice at the UN. There's no reason to believe other terrorist groups (but certainly not all of those you mention) could not find objectives that attacking the US would satisfy.
Doesn't the US support the current government in Peru? Is Plan Colombia not a thorn in someone's side? Is Egypt a bastion of US-loving freedom, and do we not support its repressive secular regime with a great deal of economic aid? (In fact, I thought I had heard Ayman Zawahiri was connected to Egypt's Ikhwan; perhaps it was another member of al Qaeda.)
Verbal confrontations turned violent starting Oct. 21, after Iran lost 3-1 to Bahrain. Riot police bundled protesters into vans, and security forces fired tear gas to repel youths hurling stones, home-made explosives, and stun grenades, ripping through downtown Tehran. The authorities set up special courts to try more than a thousand detainees arrested following the torching of dozens of banks, police cars, and bus stops.
Analysts trace a shift in Iran since Sept. 11, as Iranians urge their leaders to ride a groundswell of sympathy for the victims and re-establish relations with the United States after 22 years of pariahdom. In a counterpoint to anti-US demonstrations by Muslims elsewhere in Asia and the Arab world, the soccer revelers chanted "We love America."
"In crisis, equations change. Iran and America can bring their positions closer," said Ibrahim Bisalami, a member of parliament close to President Mohammad Khatami and spokesman of the special parliamentary commission to review Iran's post-Sept. 11 policy. Shiite Iran and the US share a loathing of the Taliban's Sunni fanaticism, and have both backed the Northern Alliance.
But hope has turned to frustration, as Ayatollah Khamenei publicly reprimanded Mr. Khatami and his fellow reformers earlier this month for countenancing any restructuring of the anti-American pillar of Iran's revolution.
...
Parliamentarians, including Mr. Bisalami, daring to broach the prospect of a US rapprochement faced censure by decree of the judiciary, the bastion of Khamenei's power.
...
"Iran has its own Taliban," says Mohammed Sadiq al Hussein, advisor to the arch-reformist former culture minister, Ataollah Mohajerani. "They think everything is forbidden. In Islam everything is allowed."
You have announced yourself here unfit to judge the quality of the military strategy, since you say you are not aware of the exact nature of our military plans
I thought/hoped/prayed that we had rid ourselves of such overweening arrogance by giving it its own thread.
If you asked an ordinary pro-reform young Iranian on the Tehran street whether he's more animated about the economic impact of having--what is it, 4 million?--Afghan refugees on Iranian soil, or about the simple plight of those refugees fleeing Taliban repression and Taliban-facilitated starvation, what would he say?
Pan-Iranianism is an esoteric ideology found primarily among the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia.
Between 150 and 200 troops landed in two transport aircraft. They are believed to include the 24-strong Pathfinder Platoon, a specialist reconnaissance unit; members of the Special Boat Service; troops from the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment; Royal Marines and Royal Engineer units. "
First British troops land outside Kabul
Now in Injia's sunny clime,
Where I used to spend my time
A-servin' of 'Er Majesty the Queen,
Yes, so one would have imagined. So what difference can it make whether Khatami endorses it? The man's power base is the people. They are Muslims. They apparently are violently opposed to Muslim extremism now, more than before. Everything Khatami and his representatives have done on the international scene since 9-11, while in no way unmotivated by politics and other affairs of state, has been couched in Islamic terms and has served in effect to model enlightened Islam for Iran and the rest of the world. I don't see this as entirely opportunistic--if nothing else, Khatami is behaving, as much as can be expected, as a representative of popular will--and I do see it as a good thing (despite my objections to what Iran wishes the US would do wrt Afghanistan).
I don't see how you can dismiss my speculations as fanciful while proposing that Iran's greater motivations are tied up in such arcana as pan-Iranism.
I want rock and roll
put another dime in my jukebox Ando????
Wasn't the guy who made that film, "Kandahar," an Iranian?
"I don't see how you can dismiss my speculations as fanciful while proposing that Iran's greater motivations are tied up in such arcana as pan-Iranism."
I have no idea what you were talking about.
(1) What I dismissed was your strange ideas about an Iran-Taliban rapprochement.
(2) I did not say that Iran's "greater motivations" are pan-Iranist. I merely noted that Khatami may be a pan-Iranist and this could plausibly influence his foreign policy to some extent.
Yes. So what?
Message # 16068: I don't think a military strategy the whole prescription. Look to my Message # 3217, Message # 3226, Message # 3227, and Message # 3232 then you tell me how many years, 1, 5, 10, 20, 29.5?
Is this a game?
You propose this war will not last a generation. You put forward the idea of an international protocol on terrorism. And now you expect me to guess how long it will take to enact your proposal?
Did you not understand my question to you? How long do you think this war on terror will last?
By the way, do you have any idea how long some international protocols can take to enact, especially when some states do not want them to be enacted?
As for my jumping on people and my confidence... admit it, you don't like my style just as others here (count me in) don't much like your style. What of it?
I like your style, Scott Loar. You're something right out of the early nineteenth century, a living fossil.
And I'm sure most people here would agree with me that you and I are far more alike in experience and manner than we are different. So I would just explain your dislike of my style as a form of self-loathing.
Scott: Yes, disagreement very much rankles you.
I love disagreement, Loar, especially when my opposing debater is obviously wrong.
I mean how prescient is it to say that you think the U.S. will fight this war using economic, diplomatic, and military means? is not a summary but a gross caricature of my remarks, again, your ridicule.
Not at all. I gave you credit for some prescient remarks, but most of your comments are just statements of the obvious in your attempt to counter Ace of Spades -- a person, I admit, who needs the obvious stated to him.
Al Qaeda is anomalous in its worldwide scope and its ability to project terror on a massive scale, which capabilites targeted arguably one of the loosest security structures in the world - the US public. And as a consequence of those attacks security has tightened, making future attacks by Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups more difficult.
Al Qaeda is merely the widest-ranging terrorist group. There are numerous terrorist groups which have international scope, with the proven ability to hit targets in more than one or two continents. There are also groups which have shown a desire and a nascent ability to make biological and chemical weapons. Aum Shinryko was a group with offices in Tokyo, New York and Moscow and with assets over a billion dollars when it was brought down. It had trained scientists and doctors among its fifty-thousand membership, amd actually sent a team of doctors to Africa to harvest the Ebola virus.
Message # 16080
And no, I had not linked to those posts before. Surely not to you.
If I see something posted in the Mote, I consider it mine, whether you give me the okay to look at it or not.
No comment, just enjoying the good news.
More difficult perhaps but it's doubtful they will ever be eliminated by increased security, either in the U.S. or against American institutions, private and public around the world.
No, terrorism will never be eliminated. But surely the type of terrorism isn't the loner with a gun or other small groups, but the kind of terrorists with funds and the will to make mass casualty attacks.
One of the most intelligent and deadliest terrorists ever, Ramzi Yousef, was asked after his capture why he never attacked Israel. Too hard to get away it, he said.
But surely the type of terrorism [we are most worried about] isn't the loner with a gun or small groups, but the kind of terrorists with funds and the will to make mass casualty attacks.
Now, characterizing the bulk of these 29 as Islamic is true (12 are not), but the aims of all these groups save one [Al Qaeda] are localized.
Localized? That is nearly a dishonest characterization, unless you consider "local" to be a 3000-square mile radius of the group's birthplace. Look at the first group on your list, the Abu Nidal:
Has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries....Has demonstrated ability to operate over wide area, including the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.
Yes, the group has financial problems now, but what of it? A change in fortunes, a more motivated leadership, and that could quickly disappear. The desire and the experience are already there.
And your point also omits that until 9-10, Al Qaeda was also a "local" terrorist group, hitting targets exclusively in the Middle East and East Africa.
The exception is Al-Qaeda, and the anomaly is Al-Qaeda is worldwide and has targeted the US independently of local concerns.
See my point above. Until 9-11, Al Qaeda was every bit the local organization as all the other groups you list.
Now, characterizing the bulk of these 29 as Islamic is true (12 are not), but the aims of all these groups save one [Al Qaeda] are localized.
Localized? That is nearly a dishonest characterization, unless you consider "local" to be a 3000-square mile radius of the group's birthplace. As an example, look at the first group on your list, the Abu Nidal:
Has carried out terrorist attacks in 20 countries, killing or injuring almost 900 persons. Targets include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Israel, moderate Palestinians, the PLO, and various Arab countries....Has demonstrated ability to operate over wide area, including the Middle East, Asia, and Europe.
Yes, the group has financial problems now, but what of it? A change in fortunes, a more motivated leadership, and that could quickly disappear. The desire and the experience are already there.
And your point also omits that until 9-10, Al Qaeda was also a "local" terrorist group, hitting targets exclusively in the Middle East and East Africa.
The exception is Al-Qaeda, and the anomaly is Al-Qaeda is worldwide and has targeted the US independently of local concerns.
See my point above. Until 9-11, Al Qaeda was every bit the local organization as all the other groups you list.
Yes, other terrorist groups could find objectives that attacking the US would satisfy, but did I not note that of all those groups only Al Qaeda exclusively targets the US? Al-Qaeda is unique in its scope of operations and that it targets the US - not kidnapping US personnel for ransom, not attacking US personnel and facilities in the country which preoccupies their concerns -but the US homeland and its assets wherever the opportunity presents itself, Tanzania, the docks at Yemen, US domestic flights.
Yes, those are "opinions". You don't like'm then we shall see what we shall see.
there's a link for it off of the main page.
PE, Iran this week publicly called for moderate Taliban representation in Afghan governance. What I've suggested is that the supposed Iranian meeting w/Taliban leaders, the support for Taliban representation in Afghanistan voiced by an Iranian liberal paper, and now official Iranian support for moderate Taliban representation, is so counter to Iran's pro-Shiite disposition, and so pragmatically in keeping with advancing the best interests of Afghanistan, that it suggests a rapprochement may be possible.
I did not say it had happened, or would occur in the next 15 minutes. What I said was, "...an Iranian-Taliban rapprochement could be billed as the development of a degree of Islamic unity that didn't previously exist. And if people believed it, perception could make the basis of further action; the dream could be made (slightly more) real. [ ] Whatever interests Iran shares with Afghnanistan, they probably can't be realized over the long haul without someone building an ideological bridge of some sort. It looks like it could be pan-Islamist."
And (Message # 15729): "Islam appears to be the ideological bridge Iran is using to seem to unite Afghanistan's interests with its own; on some level, maybe even the popular level, that effort may be sincere. And again, if it is read as sincere in the Arab world generally, then the notion of pan-Islamism may gain a bit of a new lease. Instead of pan-Islamic goals being represented by Osama bin Laden and other extremists, the example of Iran (if in the end it actually sets this speculative constructive example!) will be looked to for solace against yet another humiliating western defeat. Muslims will say that while the US bombed Afghanistan, Iran set a Muslim example, was fair and just and compromised toward stabilizing fellow Muslims' homeland."
Three things can happen in Iran: the mullahs can completely squelch Khatami and his popular support (temporarily); there could be a secular revolution (which I can't yet foresee); or there could be a sort of "soft" religious revolution that preserved Islamic governance in Iran but codified a more liberal version of it than exists now. The latter is surely what Khatami desires, and is attempting to appear scrupulously to enact vis-a-vis Afghnanistan, in te midst of his attending to the national interests.
Now, you can reiterate if you like that Iran's pan-Islamist political expressions have always been motivated by its isolation as Shia in a realm of Sunnis, and I couldn't disagree. But the objection remains irrelevant; Iran's attitude toward this war in Afghanistan suggests something new, some sort of response to domestic pressures as well as Iran's larger interests. The fact is, that response looks like the model of moderate Islamic rectitude, and can only be perceived in the anti-US Arab world as admirable.
Again, I really don't see why you consider any of this particularly fanciful or bizarre.
Again, that is not my position. In fact I have argued with PM over whether the anthrax attacks were a "dry run"; I believe not.
I do think the US should expect more terrorist attempts/attacks in the future. I have no idea what their scale might be.
No. My unadorned view is simply that, now it has been demonstrated to be possible and quite effective, terror against the US will persist. It's a fairly clear argument, Loar, and I have explicity not linked it intrinsically to Islamic aspirations.
"Also, that the only counter to these groups is war upon the states that sponsor them;"
Obviously war against state sponsors is not the only counter to terrorism. (Nor does Pincher Martin espouse this any more than I do.) Yet war remains an important counter to terrorism, particularly as a deterrent to state sponsorship. Surely this is not beyond your grasp.
"Iraq has been mentioned several times here as the next target, if not by you by PincherMartin, and you have wanted the US to declare war on several states because they are Islamic and guilty of sponsoring terrorism, have you not?"
No. You're regurgitating a version of PE's stupid calumny that I'm anti-Muslim.
I waffle on whether the US should finish off Saddam; however, I would advocate for breaking all promises to fairweather allies and obliterating the sonaofabitch, along with his entire clan, if he were to launch a significant attack of any sort on the US or our genuine allies.
What is it with you people who think that past performance is a guarantee of future results?
Things change. And in any case, al Qaeda does NOT exclusively target the US. (Unless Massoud was blown to smithereens while being "interviewed" by Qaeda suicide bombers not in Afghanistan but in Texas...) Several al Qaeda plots against European locales have been foiled, didn't you know?
This much we agree on.
No, Loar, it makes them plausible.
Paradise lost for you, Atef.
The guest list for the very very VIP reception thrown by the Carlyle Group at or around the inaugeration would be an eyeopener for anyone who doubts that there is an extraordinary big oil/big Saudi and other Middle East nexus at work just below (if Cheney is currently operating out of a hole as rumored) the surface at the most influential levels concerning this Administration.
In some ways it is the Calvin Coolidge years all over again, except General Motors has been replaced by Big Oil as the center of the attention and affection.
Because you believe what suits your own biases.
re: big oil. There's a story in the NY Times today about oil and the Houston economy. The energy industry is about to relive February 1986 when domestic oil hit $10 a barrel.
And Ken Lay, the head of Enron, and a HUGE Bush supporter, is losing his company. He gave an award this week to Greenspan, something he endowed at Rice University. This may be the last year it is called the ENRON award.
I haven't edited my views, and the bureaucratic aspect of your "prescription" was and remains laughable. Antiterrorism will be conducted covertly and by implementation of repressive laws in democratic countries. There will be no world-wide bureaucracy in which nations striving to obtain political advantage will dutifully participate to rid themselves of the scourge of terrorism. As ever, concessions to US interests will be the result of pressure, sanctions, incentives, temporary alliances, covert activity, and the threat of war.
Is Atef the one who was the doctor, that they always show in that video clip behind bars at a trial?
You'll have to explain to me how these motives are mutually exclusive.
But some other time, as I'm out of here.
Ayman Zawahiri is who you may have seen; he's the Egyptian doctor who may be ObL's organizational equal.
"...is so counter to Iran's pro-Shiite disposition, and so pragmatically in keeping with advancing the best interests of Afghanistan, that it suggests a rapprochement may be possible."
Iran has three slightly contradictory interests: keep playing the Shiite card for influence with the new Afghan government, protecting the Shiite minority within Afghanistan, and desiring a stable Afghanistan to which Iran's millions of Afghan refugees could be repatriated.
Iran also does not have a single foreign policy brain. The foreign ministry's foreign policy is distinct from that carried out by the mullah-controlled intelligence servics. The "foundations" that own much of Iran's economic assets, and the revolutionary guard, each of these can be said to conduct its own foreign policy separate from the government.
"...an Iranian-Taliban rapprochement could be billed as the development of a degree of Islamic unity that didn't previously exist."
And I think the claim is unremittingly ridiculous.
"And again, if it is read as sincere in the Arab world generally, then the notion of pan-Islamism may gain a bit of a new lease."
I said that the notion of "Muslim brotherhood" is a fraud; but many ordinary Muslims are hoodwinked by it and take it seriously. But one group who is aware of its fraudulent nature is the Iranians. I cannot think of a single Iranian foreign policy which subordinates narrow Iranian national and Shiite interest to, say, non-Iranian, non-Shiite Muslim interest.
"...the example of Iran...will be looked to for solace...."
Iran does seem to be evolving toward some kind of respectable and possibly democratic Islamism, but I have no idea what this has to do with pan-Islamism and "Muslim brotherhood".
Message # 16140: No problem with the first two paragraphs.
" Iran's attitude toward this war in Afghanistan suggests something new, some sort of response to domestic pressures as well as Iran's larger interests"
What I see that's new is the response to the sudden (re)introduction of the USA into the Afghan equation. And the only domestic pressure that in my opinion animates Iran's Afghan policy is the Iranian people's fatigued and fed-up impatience to see its millions of Afghan refugees go go go and go away. Any other "domestic pressure" in Iran regarding Afghanistan you may have suggested, appears to be a hyper-creative overreading divorced from reality.
"The fact is, that response looks like the model of moderate Islamic rectitude..."
Does it? I've no idea.
"...and can only be perceived in the anti-US Arab world as admirable."
I doubt the "Arab world" has even much noticed this alleged sea-change in Iranian foreign policy that you espy.
rather the only domestic popular pressure. There are other domestic pressures, from mullahs, the army, etc. But I assume you were talking about popular pressure.
Also, the Times (London) reports that "a number of civic officials in Konduz, a largely Pashtun city, are said to have been murdered by the Taleban after announcing that they wanted to surrender to the Alliance....There have been further reports of dozens of Afghan Taleban troops being mown down by their Chechen comrades while trying to surrender to Alliance forces."
Good man!
The Kunduz Taliban have refused to surrender (as a group) to the NA. Furthermore, the NA claims that in several cases non-Afghan Talibs have approached NA forces with their hands raised, only to kill themselves and NA troops with concealed explosives and grenades.
I'm getting the impression that the NA has been conducting itself, overall, with a fair amount of probity, considering everything.
"Another thing we've been hearing a lot of in the streets, and as soon as people know we are from an American organization, they've been coming up to us and saying, " We thank the United States because they have given us a chance at a new freedom." When I ask were they scared of the bombing, they say, "Well, not really." They say there were a few mis-hits and that they realized that throughout the many weeks of bombing -- it was all targeted at military targets. So they are expressing a lot of appreciation and they are hoping that this really does make a new beginning for them here in Afghanistan."
Currently, there are two distinct viewpoints on nation building - one held by Afghans in the West and the other by Afghans closer to home. The discourse on nation-building by the majority of expatriate Afghans in the West prefers restoring Afghanistan to what it once was by utilizing symbols from the past, as their vision remains embedded in the idea of what Afghanistan was at the time of their going abroad. The other point of view, found mostly among Afghans inside Afghanistan, envisions a future free from the baggage of the past and goes beyond politics and beyond a fascination for "ethnic representation."
The proposed Loya jirga is filled with good intentions but remains highly problematic. ...While jirgas are very effective and will continue to work in the local context to solve land or intra-family disputes, one must proceed cautiously at the national level, particularly at this politically sensitive moment in Afghan history.
What Afghans need is substance rather than symbolism in terms of governance. ...
Policy pundits tread on slippery ground on the question of ethnicity which disproportionately dominates visions of post-Taliban reality. This indicates that the perspectives of ordinary Afghans are not fully represented in policy considerations. Ethnicity was never a major issue among ordinary citizens ... For example, our own predominately Pashtun village in Logar has a Tajik as the tribal chief. Ethnic representation has importance but it is not the sole criterion to determine government structure. The current focus on ethnicity is primarily a post-Soviet phenomenon perpetuated by a small number of politicians and warlords in order to promote their interests in the absence of any other justifiable basis for decision-making.
The NYT also had a very good article about Afghanistan and ethnicity.
I'm curious whether you think the prescription offered in that Dawn piece is workable (as of today; your various other constant refrains of the last two months suggest your answer two weeks ago would have been a flat no). I'm not even sure I understand exactly what the authors propose, procedurally:
The short-term goal of any process should be a Council of Leaders consisting of representatives from the different regions of Afghanistan. The Council could be selected through a transparent mechanism with the active involvement of UN observers.
These observers should include a large number of individuals from Islamic countries, including Muslim scholars and clerics. They can, for example, receive a list of 200 names nominated by the local jirgas (councils) from eight regions of Afghanistan.
Ninety per cent of the names should be from different regions while the remaining 10 per cent can be from the region being surveyed in order to assess how Afghans would choose their national leaders. It may include certain number of tribal elders, credible former Mujahideen, educated Afghans, etc.
These lists should then be studied and the persons figuring in the majority of the lists would be considered to form the Council of Leaders.
This Council would provide transitional leadership for a specified number of years and determine how political development would proceed at the end of the Council's tenure. While this Council is in place, economic assistance from the international community, along with monitoring of allocations and utilization of these inflows must foster economic progress to ensure stability. A mechanism for airing complaints and grievances must also be part of this process.
...
In fact, I feel pretty happy that we are routing the terrorists. I am hopeful that this will be the last Ramadan for ObL.
But thanks for thinking of us.
I don't know why not. As far as I can understand, what the authors propose sounds just like a loya jirga, except they insist it's somehow different.
And now it turns out to be Abdul Karim Brahui... the warlord belonging to Afghanistan's smallest ethnic group...so small that most members of the group simply take their ethnonym as their last name...the Brahuis.
Dravidians finally have their day in Afghanistan!
Tee hee!
Perhaps more by force of circumstance than UN preference, it appears that the multinational force being sent to Afghanistan will be under UN auspices, the US will not send 'peacekeepers' and the Turks apparently will, all three of which I posted in the Mote as being what I felt were substantially more optimal choices once the Taliban was thrown out than most of the other possibilities being bruited about.
Of course, I also mentioned the idea of Paki peacekeepers - not such a good idea, I now freely admit, regardless of what Colin Powell says.
Actually, presuming the same level of success to date, I think the 'usual suspects' would have been even more stunned than the media pundits who were starting to quack about 'aquagmirestan' have been.
I guess I'm like you. I just don't get the point. What frosts my nuts is these are the same people who get on concerned's case if he mentions Clinton. "Let it go," they bellow. Hey, let it go, um, janjon.
In case you don't recall, just a couple of weeks ago, lefties were arguing that the United States was responsible for mass starvation in Afghanistan. The left-wing press in Europe devoted article after article to this theme, and like-minded journalists in this country adopted it as well. ("The current bombing campaign is killing innocent people, creating a relief crisis in a destitute country," argued a story in the Nation.) Several humanitarian organizations demanded that the United States halt its bombing campaign in order to facilitate distribution of food and supplies to civilians.
Chait:In case you don't recall
I do recall, and I had those worries myself at the time - much enforced by the Pseuder. I had no idea the bombing could be so effective militarily. Does this prove some kind of moral defect in me?
I didn't say you are feeling sad. I said it, the behavior, is sad. By this I meant that it calls forth in me a sense of pity.
I'm sure you think that means something.
Watch - if things continue the way they have been, when the Afghanistan campaign is over they'll be claiming it was precisely because of their constant, carping, whining, backseat driving that our military forces managed not only to minimize collateral damage, but to win the gratitude of most of the people of Afghanistan.
But now an army in retreat.
They're not in retreat - they're re-grouping.
Mark my words.
"I waffle on whether the US should finish off Saddam; however, I would advocate for breaking all promises to fairweather allies and obliterating the sonaofabitch, along with his entire clan, if he were to launch a significant attack of any sort on the US or our genuine allies."
True leadership, monumental leadership, leadership for the ages, will demand that Iraq is next on the list, BEFORE "a significant attack of any sort on the US or our genuine allies." As Afghanistan wraps up, we musts resist the premature desire to say "Phew! Glad that is over." It is not, and in many ways, tactically, the quick death of bin Laden has the negative quality of adding to dangerously early proclamations of victory to the point that State will again impose its natural skittishness.
The Taliban is the SS, bin Laden Himmler. Hussein is Hitler.
Speaking of Iraq, The Truly Bizarre Scott Ritter - A Case Study in Losing One's 15 Minutes and the Depths To Which One Will Sink to Regain Those Minutes
Is that where the army of rolling-pin wielding women chases him up and down the grassy hills?
Well if it does, I share your defect, at least in the sense that I never believed US bombing was capable of not being indiscriminate in a situation where the enemy was hidden among civilians.
From the start of this thing I believed the US must, and would, react to 9-11 with enormous force. But I'm amazed we haven't killed more civilians, and so surprised to feel this unaccustomed pride in the US military that I can't believe it will last.
I also thought the current administration would be more rabid and undisciplined in the way it prosecuted the war. (The alternative, I feared as much, would be some sort of military paralysis emanating from Colin Powell.) But it hasn't been rabid at all. I'm obviously no military expert, but this appears so far to have been the most prudently and effectively conducted campaign, from the coopting of Pakistani and Russian support to battlefield and covert tactics, that I've ever witnessed.
Under these circumstances, I don't find it at all surprising that the aid situation has improved in the wake of US bombing; in fact I expected it might, if a bombing campaign were swift and effective. But I doubted air power alone could defeat the Taliban, with or without NA ground support. I figured we'd eventually need ground troops--ours.
Either someone decided the Pashtuns weren't ever going to cohere, or someone decided Hamid Karzai and one or two other Pashtun leaders were sufficient, or else we simply had amassed enough special ops info to scale up the battle and figured the Pashtuns would have to meet the consequences of not having thrown in with us earlier. Someone informed Tommy Franks it was time to get "creative"; he began showering frontline Talibs with daisy cutters and surgically taking out pre-identified targets. The NA moved in.
So really, it wasn't all bombing; but bombing evidently was essential to the men on the ground.
We've done that, and we're in the process of doing it--but we've done it in the context of achieving what a number of people here thought we should do instead of war, which was politicking and alliance forming.
Now that we have, in concert with the NA, routed the Taliban, killed the man who may have planned the 9-11 attacks and probably planned the Khobar Towers bombing (Atef), and in addition to this rescued foreign proselytizers unharmed, we've achieved substantially the political obligation to retribution that we could not ignore--with very small losses among our own fighting forces, and relatively few civilian casualties so far.
Now we can focus on cleaning up al Qaeda, along with other preventive measures like killing Osama bin Laden, arresting or mounting small scale attacks against terrorists worldwide, and bullying or manipulating uncooperative states into cutting ties with their proxy warriors. All this in the context of increased security at home.
We've set our punitive example; that will help what remains to be done.
Like I said, I waffle on Iraq. But one thing I'm sure of is that, lacking an explosive event such as the atrocities of 9-11, the US would have insufficient political support for knocking out Saddam Hussein. It woud be a mistake to invent a pressing reason to sack Baghdad; it wouldn't be a mistake to respond to a genuine pressing reason.
We'll have to see what happens.
For the future of the "war on terrorism" to work, we will have to have broad international cooperation in addition to making our own nation more secure, so I think our combination approach has been very effective for the short term, and is the best chance for long-term success. I have no major complaints outside Ashcroft, who I do find a bit worrisome, as long as I don't focus on Bush talking. I actually enjoy watching him interact one-on-one, as he did with Putin.
I was listening to Anne Garrell's description of Putin on NPR -- I knew her at college and have always liked her -- and then suddenly there was Mr. Putin himself. Of course you couldn't tell which car he was in, that was the point. But the van with the doors open and the interior lights on, and machine guns hanging out everywhere was pretty impressive.
I found Putin's performance in the U.S., and the interaction between Bush and him, both somewhat reassuring.
For essentially the Taliban were bureacratized, too, in their capacity to detect dissent. They were efficient at discovering traitors, extracting information, and exacting compliance. In places where they held sway, the prospects for betrayal of Taliban interests may have been less promising and more daunting than under the Nazis, who after all had to maintain some illusion among Germans of being civilized. The Taliban apppear to have painted no such illusion for their fellow Pashtuns, let alone for Tajiks or Uzbeks or Hazaras...
But I would think this fact should have led PE to conclude that his preferred method for intervening in Afghanistan--obtaining anti-Talib Pash support before embarking on any serious military action--was unlikely to work. If I were an anti-Taliban Pashtun so convinced of Taliban invincibility that I hadn't already fled, revolted or joined the NA (which at least some Pashtuns did!), I sure as hell would want to see some evidence that a foreign force could beat the bastards before I promised to ally with it, or with other Pashtuns as beset, and therefore, untrustworthy, as myself.
Been wondering about that myself.
But in the mideast, I'm not sure Egypt isn't going to be problematic.
Iraq has biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons programs. They have used biological and chemical weapons in the past. They have remained hostile in and perilous to the region. And America has had a taste of anthrax and a window into smallpox. The populace is primed for more of a fight, and articulation of same ("Do we wait for them to hit us or do we hit first?") is simple, direct and eminently sensible.
If you cannot act preventatively now, by definition, you cannot act to prevent.
If Iraq is the financier, harborer, or worse, the deliverer, of a deadly biological, chemical, or nuclear attack in the near future, no success in Afghanistan and/or against Al Qaeda will salvage the gross negligence of this administration.
And even if Iraq does nothing, to have risked the calamity is inexcusable.
Do we bomb the RNC?
I forget his name, but we bomb that guy immediately after we bomb the RNC if the anthrax letters are proven local.
This guy started shooting war video when they were fighting the Russians, when he was 19. That was 12 years ago and he's still doing it.
Sounds like a plan!
I forget his name, but we bomb that guy immediately after we bomb the RNC if the anthrax letters are proven local.
No. We have Ann Coulter rape him with a strap-on.
Or, do you consider Abu Sayyaf an international terrorist threat able to project its power beyond the Philippine islands or the very fringe of Sabah, East Malaysia? I see no evidence for it, as Abu Sayyaf seem primarily engaged in kidnapping for ransom. Although the US, in response to the armed forces of the Philippines spokesman Brigadier General Edilberto Edan's comment, "All we need is the equipment. We have the warm bodies, but we aren't equipped. Mobility is the most important thing", is now sending teams to improve the equipment, logistics and training of the Philippines army, I don't see what more is immediately necessary or desirable.
Which ones?
Because it is most likely to provide another success.
During the 50 years that the US was an ally of the Philippines with a large military presence the US was never able to influence let alone control governance of the domestic Philippines.
That is irrelevant. We aren't interested in ruling any country. We are interested in destroying international terrorist movements.
Or, do you consider Abu Sayyaf an international terrorist threat able to project its power beyond the Philippine islands or the very fringe of Sabah, East Malaysia?
Again, irrelevant. Abu Sayyaf is an international terrorist.
I don't see what more is immediately necessary or desirable.
I wouldn't suggest a great deal more, either. However, the resources of a US carrier group, and some national technical means, could also be useful.
Iraq 2? Yes-- that's unfinished business. Then Hamas and Hezbollah.
The calamity could befall us regardless, and it might not originate in Iraq.
Politically, we need an ironclad pretext proving time is of the essence, which we surely had after the 9-11 bombings (and would have if Iraq attacked us now). But in itself Saddam's possession of WMD is no such pretext; he has possessed them for some time. Moreover, if he has immediate intent to use them on us, then if he has deployed terrorists already with, say, suitcase nukes and smallpox, hitting Iraq preemptively wouldn't prevent the onslaught. (Of course, if we could more or less prove such a deployment, we should certainly invade Iraq to preempt others.)
Saddam works international will and opinion in ways ObL does not. Perhaps he'd like nothing more than a pretext himself to "defend" Iraq against the hegemonic US.
As Ambassador Richard Butler, former head of the United Nations weapons-inspection effort for Iraq after the Gulf War, has said, "I don't believe that the terrorist groups --al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden--could themselves make anthrax" of this quality. Iraq could.
So could a lone nutcase working in the US, which is what the head of German intelligence now believes is likely. Richard Butler is so enduringly (and justifiably) pissed at having been prevented by the stupid UN from getting to Saddam's WMD, he'd say Saddam personally drove the truck that blew up the Khobar Towers if he thought it would help motivate a US admin to go to war against Iraq right now.
Since the defection of Hussein Kamal, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, in 1995, we have known that Iraq retains a large biological weapons program. We know it has stockpiled mass quantities of anthrax and has worked hard to make it as potent a weapon of terror as possible.
Iraq reportedly never got past the stage of making a wet slurry of anthrax. It's debatable that they ever produced refined dry anthrax. If they had, I have a feeing they wouldn't have bothered fucking around with a strain susceptible to about five cheap antibiotics.
But, who knows. I'm more worried about nukes and nerve gas, frankly.
Calamity could have befallen us from any other source, regardless of our actions against bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The possibility of calamity is really not the issue. The fact of allowing domestic and international political considerations (which I think you and arky overestimate) to take precedence over eliminating the single nation in the world with 1) an existing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program of some sort (programs that have been un-inspected since 1998 since the banishment of UNSCOM) and 2) a record of actually having used some of these weapons.
It is an issue of ignoring a particular, devastating calamity from a source known to be brewing the poison.
You display a naivete if you believe either that the post 9/11 playing field is not pretext enough for deposing Sadaam, or, that even if a different pretext is required, one cannot be easily manufactured. You also vastly overrate Saddam's ability to work international will and opinion. He is a butcher, and widely viewed as such, and his Muslim support is based almost solely on his "thorn in the side of America" posture. In fact, it is arguable that bin Laden probably has a greater ability into influence international opinion than Saddam.
Your pooh-poohing is Iraq's capabilities is borderline irresponsible. They make it; they use it; when defeated in war, they lied to those who inspected it; and, when the lies could not hold up, they ousted those who would inspect it (I wonder why?).
Yet, you safeguard by assigning estimation of Iraq to Richard Butler's ego and hopes that Iraq's production is still primitive.
It's like hearing of Kristallnacht, watching Treblinka being built, and assuring us all that it is "debatable" whether the Jews and Gypsies will be run through the mill.
In fact, you have as much stated that your equivocation can only be corrected by calamity.
To again harken back to World War II, it is akin to declaring war on fascism, deposing Mussolini, and stopping there.
OK, I'm naive. But you're politically tone deaf.
My apologies to this thread, the community, and scoiety as a whole.
As I said, if we cannot justify a war against a barbaric regime such as Iraq, only two months after World Trade, I'm afraid your predicate - that we can only war against Iraq after the calamity - is correct, however intolerable that predicate may be in practice.
He has done a rather good job of evading constraint, aided by Europe and the UN.
"He has done a rather good job of evading constraint, aided by Europe and the UN."
Please elucidate.
>
HERAT, Afghanistan, Nov.16 — Ismail Khan: thank you for your help, such as it was, but it is no longer needed.
Go Play With Your Chimichanga
Slate Diary
I also keep having this conversation where my interlocutor comes back again and again to a concern about what "you Americans" think of various aspects of Pakistani life. "You Americans think we are all terrorists!" "You Americans think we're going to nuke someone tomorrow!" "You Americans worry about the Islamic fundamentalists in Pakistan, but not the Hindu fundamentalists in India!" I've come up with a stock answer that usually stops things long enough for me to steer the conversation toward something more interesting: "Why do you care?"
I mean, really, why care about what some ignorant American journalist with a 6-week-old Pakistani beard-let alone some schlep watching CNN in Kansas City-thinks about this country's religion, or culture, or affinity for terrorism
hahahahahaa
The people you find common cause with...
Arky's concerns are not precisely like mine; I would go to war with less motivation and less internatonal support.
"...to take precedence over eliminating the single nation in the world with 1) an existing chemical, biological and nuclear weapons program of some sort (programs that have been un-inspected since 1998 since the banishment of UNSCOM) and 2) a record of actually having used some of these weapons."
I'm not sure Iraq is the only regime that meets those criteria.
I'm not pooh-poohing anything, I'm just disputing the likelihod that Iraq has used anthrax on us yet, and I'm saying anthrax is turning out to be less of a threat than we had thought--not least because of its relatively long incubation period, combined with increased US readiness. As I said, I'm still concerned about nerve gas and nukes. And smallpox (which I don't know if the Iraqis are actively working with).
"They make it; they use it; when defeated in war, they lied to those who inspected it; and, when the lies could not hold up, they ousted those who would inspect it (I wonder why?)."
Because they had help from the fucking UN in denying us access, that's why. Because half the world is convinced our sanctions are killing millions of Iraqi babies, and therefore will not back us up, that's why. Because France and Russia were eager to do business with Saddam, that's why.
As for Iraq's use of chem-bio weapons, they had the capability or intention of using them on Israel, and didn't. Saddam did use chemical weapons on his own insurgent citizens. But there's an inherent danger in employing NBC weapons overtly against the west: as soon as you do, you've invited the world's lone superpower or Israel to obliterate you, and you have shrugged off all your precious international support and complicity.
I still think the US would be better positioned to maintain stability in the mideast if NATO would occupy and secure the West Bank and Gaza preparatory to establishing a Pal state. This too could disarm Iraqi intentions; it's possible we could politick Saddam into a corner and just wait for the fucker to die.
Again, Francis, I'm simply not sure anthrax is the big issue. And I said nothing about Richard Butler's ego. I said he is wholly justified in his rage, but I suspect he's playing off public fears of anthrax in particular because he is convinced Iraq poses a danger. It does--but not perhaps a pressing danger.
But look, if you can show someone in the CIA evidence that Iraq is planning an NBC assault against anyone at all, go for it. I'd like nothing better than the US had a plausible excuse to immolate Saddam Hussein and his germ factories.
As you probably know, news of human exterminations had reached the Allies long before the camps were liberated. My understanding is that intelligence necessary to the wider war effort would have been imperiled had that information been admitted and dealt with directly. Such are the horrors of war.
I can certainly go along with this view.
I mean, the reason we were denied acess to Saddam's resources is that Butler's team had discovered their material whereabouts via espionage. The UN decided that as UN representatives they couldn't do that, it just wasn't righteous. Naturally, the Iraqis squirreled away the goods and it was all over after that.
We really need to lay down the law now, and we're probably in a better position to do that than we were two months ago.
There is not much in your remarks with which I take issue, given the fixed status of our earlier positions. I simply do not believe the pretext you require is necessary with regard to hostilities against Iraq. Then again, I may be of another time, when Noriega could be deposed for drug-running and Grenada could be overtaken for fear of threat to medical students. Government is often a disappointment in the field of ingenuity, but I'm confident that plausible pretext could be ginned up - even if necessary in these times - against so easy a target at Sadaam.
Moreover, nothing I have stated is in any way dependent upon linking the present spate of anthrax to Iraq. I don't know where it has come from, and I don't suspect first and foremost Iraq (as does The Weekly Standard and most conservative hawks who see 9/11 as a convenient time to internationally house clean).
I too am more concerned about nerve gas and nukes and smallpox, and I know of one nation most likely to employ one of the above against the United States or its allies. It is the same nation that plotted to assassinate a former United States president, and the same nation that loaded VX, anthrax, botulism toxin, and other chemical and biological agents into Al-Hussein missile warheads and deployed them during the Gulf War.
And you thought the trial lawyers in America were bad:
BRITISH families who watched their relatives die during live television coverage of the World Trade Centre atrocity are to be compensated for the trauma they suffered, The Telegraph has learned.
If you read the article, keep in mind that these folks did not actually see their loved ones die - they're being given money because they chose to watch the fucking towers collapse.
It's like pay-per-view in reverse, sort of.
MADRID, Spain --AP-- A Spanish magistrate filed formal charges on Sunday against eight suspected Islamic militants accused of playing a role in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, news reports said.
Investigative magistrate Baltasar Garzon ordered the eight men jailed Sunday morning after a 12-hour round of preliminary questioning that lasted until 2 a.m., Spanish National Radio reported. Three other detainees were released without charges.
The men were charged with document forgery, robbery and membership in a terrorist organization -- in this case al-Qaida, the network headed by Osama bin Laden. The men deny the charges.
Al-Qaeda's trail of terror.
...In two houses in Kabul last week, one belonging to the Taliban
Ministry of Defence, the New York Times turned up the most
compelling evidence yet of al-Qaeda's link to the 11 September
attacks.
Among the finds was a flight-simulator computer program, a list
of flying schools in the US and documents describing chemical,
biological and nuclear warfare. Other documents reveal
desperate efforts by the Pakistani government - even before the
11 September attacks - to warn the Taliban that its support for
terrorism was dangerous...
...Much of the 100-page book, written in Turkish, focuses on urban guerrilla tactics, particularly assassinations against targets in cars...
The houses were adorned with maps, including one listing the location of power plants in Europe, Africa and Asia...
Other papers appeared to be copies of a letter bin Laden sent to Mullah Omar, leader of the Taliban, asking not to be turned over to the Americans and a reply granting his request. Both men cited religious teachings to justify their position.
...Omar was told that unless he complied sanctions would be imposed on Afghanistan, which duly happened, but worse could also follow: 'This might entail missile attacks targeting the Taliban's military assets. Osama and even Omar himself could be targeted, and Russia and its allies given the go-ahead to embark on hot pursuit against terrorists.' This might also include Russian bombing 'of strategic targets' in Afghanistan.
In reply, Omar told the Pakistanis that 'he wanted to get rid of Osama but did not know how'. He also said he was 'ready to close terrorist training camps'.
Calling the campaign a "war of liberation", Sheikh Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa made it clear he would approve any request by the US to use Bahrain as a base from which to fly bombing raids.
In an unusually outspoken interview with Western journalists at his palace near Manama, Sheikh Hamad lavished praise on George Bush and Tony Blair. They were, he said, waging both a campaign against terrorism and a campaign to free a population oppressed by "lunatics who call themselves Muslims".
"I am so happy that America, Britain and the world are going into Afghanistan liberating it from evil," he said. "This can only be good for the families, the children and the women, for health and for education. Whoever is against such a thing is someone who has lost his mind. It is a gift of God that the developed world is going into Afghanistan to help. For this reason, we have supported it from day one.
"When the campaign is over people will applaud and thank the Allies for saving these poor people from evil. We all know the practice there is un-Islamic. The way they treat women is not Islamic."
Daily Telegraph
"The Taliban are trying to cheat the international community so that they will stop the aerial bombardments," Qanooni told AFP. "According to my information, bin Laden is still in Kandahar province in Maruf, some 130 km east of Kandahar city. He has training camps there and strong underground bunkers".
Sadaam Can Also Be Forced Out - Daily Telegraph
Hey the "Ripe Right"!
I have him.
And then the Next Round will happen, some time down the line.
Truth is -
I have no idea what's going to happen.
They could declare the objectives fulfilled but take a few more steps to limit Saddam, without actually moving in on him.
Does anyone know what's going to happen?
I'd really like to know.
But I'm not telling. I've been sworn to secrecy by the highest levels of authority.
I don't think Iraq is a big concern to the government right now, but when we get further down the road I wouldn't be surprised if the US does something significant. Rice is talking about it right now on CNN.
I love to try to guess what will happen.
I think the US will attack some other country in a limited engagement before attacking Iraq, since extending the war on terrorism to Iraq is such a politically volatile move. A country no one cares much about will first be made an example of to build support for extending the war to Iraq.
If Osama bin Laden escapes, the country targeted will of course be the one he is suspected of having relocated to. Otherwise, Africans somewhere can probably expect to get bombed next.
Sorry RP, you and JoeZ got dressed up in those cow costumes, and deep infiltrated for nothing.
But wait..isn't there a 25 million buck reward...that's a shit load o shekels...you troubles R OVER!
Are there any?
I have never seen a politician of either persuasion admit to being irrelevent an unneeded.
What is needed is to turn up the heat on the FBI and CIA to start sharing information with the FAA and state and local law enforcement. The government has all the tools they need to fight terrorism. As usual it only wants to focus on getting more tools and not their incompetent use they've made of existing resources since the fall of the USSR.
What they deserve, of course, is more of what they're getting in the way of Allied bombs and missiles and Northern Alliance artillery, until the NA forces are able to breach their front lines, enter the city, and slaughter every last one of them.
But we can't allow that.
We're the USA, and we're better than that.
So here's joezan's Konduz Peace proposal...
We accept their offer, with one caveat:
Since we have no guarantee that once released they will not simply join up with their buddies in some other God-forsaken place from which to attack the Great Satan, we need certain assurances, something in return for our mercy. We're easy, but we're not stupid.
And, in the spirit of Democracy, we should give them a choice in what it is they will be required to give in return for their freedom - in fact, we should give them three choices:
a) One hand
b) One foot
c) One eye.
And, as a souvenier of their supreme, historic stupidity...a prominent, identifying brand. Say, a big American Eagle, burned square in the middle of their foreheads.
Hmmm, you are getting awfuly liberal. I'm gonna tell Arky.
God: Adam, I will make for you a Woman. She shall be all that you dream of: beautiful, good, clever and compassionate, a true partner for life. She shall perform fellatio upon you at your pleasure and then go make coffee. She shall bear your children and cook your food.
Adam: Coolness!
God: In return, I shall have to ask you to pay me one eye, one arm, and three toes from each foot.
(silence)
Adam: Eeeeh, what'll a rib get me?
Amid all this, in clops the poor old UN donkey, dragged into the pit to undertake the most impossible task ever faced by statesmen in the history of the modern world: to sort out Afghanistan. Would the Alliance please be kind enough to allow the Pashtuns to have a proportionate share in the government? Could we have a few moderate Taliban – perhaps with shorter beards – in a broad-based administration? I can just see the Afghan delegates to these talks when they hear the phrase broad-based. Broad-based?
The only broad-based phenomenon the Afghans know about are ceasefires. And even then, only for Afghans. The most sinister element of the Kunduz ceasefire offer is that it only applies to Pashtuns – not to foreign (ie Arab) fighters – trapped in the area. They, presumably, are to be massacred or – in the chilling words of a BBC reporter with the Alliance yesterday – "given no quarter".
My own experience of armies that give no quarter is that they intend to commit war crimes – as has already happened in Mazar – and that this will only stiffen the resolve of those men who escape the bloodbath.
Fisk.
I'm not sure what the best way forward is either, and I tend to sympathize with the NA who wants all the Arab Afghans dead, but the way it is unfolding is terribly messy.
But some people in Sarobi are uneasy. A middle-aged man in the town's depleted bazaar told us: "I'm sorry the Taliban are gone. At least they kept some order. At least they stopped robberies.'' Sarobi, like the rest of the country, has been violently stripped of the flimsy, moth-eaten cloak of civil order the Taliban provided.
I asked, what are you doing about protection? "No one is protecting us,'' I was told. "We are looking after ourselves.'' Jalalabad, by contrast, was gripped by something approaching a carnival mood. The streets thronged with bicycles, rickshaws and cars and hundreds of men and boys (and, very occasionally, small girls) just out walking and talking, padding about the town, enjoying the beautiful autumn weather – and tasting with slow relish the luxury of not having to be frightened about anything: not of the Taliban and their religious police and not of the American bombs either.
It is difficult to commit a greater crime than the Arab Afghans have committed. If anyone deserves the death penalty, these fascists do. Other than killing them, what can be done?
The only real change will be a permanent US military presence in Central Asia, both in Uzbekistan and in northern Afghanistan. The war was fought, then, not just to get Bin Laden, or not just to undo the rule of the Taliban, but, crucially, to establish a military presence in this region and to undermine the process of Iranian-Chinese-Russian unity fostered due to their joint action against the Taliban. Indeed, after 9/11, why did the US government not allow these three states and the Central Asian republics to run the anti-Taliban campaign? In Bishkek (capital of Kyrghyzstan), there is a counter-terrorism unit that was set up in July 2001 to undermine the Taliban.
Why did the US not allow that office to conduct a regional campaign against the Taliban? There can be at least two explanations for this: first, that the US government's arrogance did not allow it to see the importance of a regional solution in the long run, and second, that the US government deliberately undercut the regional process that created the Bishkek office in the first place.
Never before in the last 52 years has Pakistan been left wringing its hands in anguish over a foreign policy debacle as it's doing now. With the Northern Alliance (NA) riding on US shoulders to occupy Kabul, and the Taliban on the run, it seems Islamabad's Afghan cards have been snatched away overnight. Pakistan now faces the grim prospect of isolation abroad and violent convulsions at home.
Indeed, the fast unfolding events in Afghanistan illustrate vividly the perils of leaving foreign policy issues in the hands of those who graduate from military academy. Witness Musharraf's confusing, changing rhetoric on Afghanistan—he first justified Islamabad's support to the Taliban because they represented the Pashtoons who also inhabit the Pakistan border areas. Close ethnic ties between the people of border areas and those in Afghanistan were cited as compelling reasons for Islamabad's policy.
Musharraf, outmanouevered and beleaguered.
What are the alternatives?
I think a ceasefire for a day, a delegation of Pathan leaders to negotiate surrender, or at least the release of all non-combatants - these things could work. I'll say one thing, the moment this crisis is over, you'll have media crawling all over Konduz broadcasting the news of hundreds and hundreds of civilian deaths, and the Pashtun "nation" will henceforth "remember" Konduz just like you fellows remember the Alamo.
What about that credible report that claimed that two Pak planes were allowed to fly in and out of Konduz during a US bombing hiatus. What was that about?
And what about the following?
The American air force is again bombing targets around the town of Gardez, about two hours' drive south-east of the Afghan capital, Kabul.
The area fell to anti-Taleban tribal forces last week, soon after the Taleban withdrew from Kabul.
Even so, US airplanes kept up the bombing of targets to the east of the town, killing seven people and injuring three others.
The victims were a family of refugees sheltering near buildings belonging to a United Nations mine clearance agency which were destroyed overnight. It was the second bombing in 24 hours.
The area was devastated. Pieces of wood and metal and great chunks of corrugated iron were blown over a huge area.
In the market place hundreds of men and boys asked why the Americans were still bombing their town, a week after it fell to anti-Taleban forces.
http://members.sigecom.net/theclan/Taliban.html
First post of yours that I don't disagree with.
Sure, just as long as they're women.
The Alliance has given the Taliban a deadline. It's pretty clear what will happen if the Taliban ignore that deadline. They are going to be killed in cold blood. I hope this is not true. I fear it is. But are we going to shrug our shoulders when the knives come out? Are we going to admit we helped the Alliance to gain the upper hand but then eschew all interest in the results? Isn't there even a faint, horrible parallel with Osama bin Laden? If he merely inspired murderers to commit the crimes against humanity of 11 September, surely he was guilty of the death of 5,000 people. But if we facilitate Alliance murderers, it seems we are innocent of the crime.
For Fisk it is a crime to kill soldiers who will not surrender in a war, and this crime is comparable to the blowing up of office towers filled with civilians.
What a fucking idiot.
Given this, it looks to me that at worst, an eventual NA takeover will be seen as exchanging one group of bastards for another (and it sounds like the NA would really have to run amok to pull this off - much more than they have done in other parts of Afghanistan). At best, they will be liberators who saved the locals from foreign bastards who turned on native Afghans in order to save their own necks.
It is possible that you are right about the best-case scenario. I wonder about the still-simmering Pashtun identification with the Taliban, though.
Whether this decision has to do with NA reluctance, or with the stated assessement by UK troops on the ground, it is again a bit worrisome. It would help in any muber of ways if the world saw UK troops "keeping the peace" in Kabul and overseeing the disbursement of all kinds of aid. I sincerely hope that the delay will not last long. QUETTA, Pakistan (AP) -- Taliban fighters have peacefully withdrawn from an Afghan province near the border with Iran, but they retain control of their southern stronghold of Kandahar, an Afghan tribal representative said Monday.
A group of ethnic Pashtun tribal elders who opposed the Islamic militia persuaded the Taliban to pull out of western Farah province over the weekend, said spokesman Mohammed Yusuf Pashtun.
The report could not be independently confirmed. If true, it would signal progress for Pashtun leaders who have been trying to remove the Taliban from the remaining areas of Afghanistan under their control.
Just read the Ajami piece. He really pounds Al Jazeera. I've slowly been coming to the same conclusion (second-hand, of course) but I haven't seen anybody else come out so strongly.
Has anybody seen any other news articles that analyze in detail Al Jazeera's coverage?
While a move against Iraq has always been an obvious, if unappetizing, possibility, Safire interprets Rice's recent remarks on Meet The Press as the opening shot on Saddam.
Yeah, months ago. A scene on an al Jazeera talk show (possibly Opinion and the Other Opinion that Ajami mentions) was described by someone, I can't recall who (MEMRI?). The account sounded remarkably like the recent exchange he cites in which a representative of a moderate view of the US was shouted down by his hostess. In the case I read about, the moderate view was something along the lines that yes, Israel is the enemy, but not the only relevant evil in the universe, and that Palestinians needed to take their own leadership's failings into account. The poor guy held up gamely, interjecting about three remarks before everyone on the program, including the hostess, started yelling at him dogmatically.
(If I managed to bookmark this account, I'll post a link for you later.)
The thing is, propagandistic as al Jazeera is, it seems to be the voice of people politicians and the rest of us need to be aware of. Ajami is right that Americans can't easily change the sort of public opinion it represents and promotes. But al Jazeera itself can change, and will when its viewers want to see something else. I think Ajami is right that the US should seek to get its own message heard in other venues. Competition is the name of the game, in the mideast as everywhere. It's not like al Jazeera is a monopoly.
By setting its military sights so clearly on a government, rather than on a physical territory or a geographic boundary, the United States may finally have undone the damage done by President Bush’s father when he failed to pursue the Gulf War to its logical conclusion by overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
To say this is not to suggest that Iraq should be the anti-terrorist coalition’s next target. On the contrary, given the absence of clear evidence to link Iraq with September 11, Saddam should be given the chance to learn from the object lesson in Kabul. Saddam’s strong survival instinct may well now inspire him to distance himself from overtly anti-American terror and perhaps even betray some of his al-Qaeda friends.
Anatole Kaletsky
Is it possible you read it in the New Yorker? That's where I first heard of Al Jazeera, in a piece on Qatar last year.
If you happen to find that link, thanks.
Although a couple of Ajami's criticisms seem a bit strong, I'm inclined to take his report at face value. He's a knowledgeable (and reputable) analyst.
But al Jazeera itself can change, and will when its viewers want to see something else.
True but unlikely. Sizable segments of the Arab populations seem to be the Palestinians writ large -- they just don't wan't to hear it. To be sure, they have their share of grievances against the West but seem unwilling to entertain any positive image whatsoever.
And even if they hear it, they just won't believe it.
However, it is also rather patently sensationalist and over-the-top, frankly I have lost a certain amount of respect for Ajami's voice after reading it.
In any case, I watched al-Jazeera for a couple of hours over this weekend with some friends who get it as a part of their "Arabic package" on Dishnet (they're not Arabs or even Muslim) while we discussed the NYTimes article. The bits I saw were quite a lot on the lines that Ajami reports, but what he doesn't point out nearly as completely is that the tone and blinkered, loud-volume, stridency is exactly like that on similar US-based "news" cable channels like Fox and MSNBC. There was an Arab who sounded exactly like Chris Matthews, except he was (apparently) more eloquent.
What are they, selecting Special Ops guys purely on looks now?
Geez...
Not every Arab population is the same. From what I read, Egypt is among the worst. But elsewhere there are voices of reason...
In a satiric article published in the London daily Al-Hayat, Egyptian playwright Ali Salem mocked the Arab media's incitement to extremism. Salem sarcastically suggested opening a kindergarten to teach terrorist values. Following are excerpts from the article which was titled "A new curriculum of extremism for children."
"I am looking for sponsors for the establishment of a modern kindergarten for extremism, for children under four (because after age five, you cannot teach a person anything new). Thus, I would guarantee that when they reach high school and university, these children will remain extremists; no creature nor any scientific curriculum could undermine their extremism, or tame them. We will make the clever ones our journalists and intellectuals, our editors-in-chief, our radio broadcasters, and our officials in all areas of life."
"Give me your children, and I promise you that they will become bona fide extremists. I swear to you that any of them who show genius in his extremism will join the Supreme Academy of Terrorism, even if his terrorism ranking does not qualify him; it is enough that he is sincere in his desire, has a gift for terrorism, or is a terrorist by nature."
"I will say to them: 'Kids, don't believe that others worship the same god as we; they are infidels who worship other deities. You must always think of ways to force them to worship whom we worship – the others are foreigners, and foreigners are infidels. The task for which I am preparing you is to purge the world of them.'"
"This is your holy message: 'Don't believe the story that they stick to about freedom, democracy, human rights, progress, and civilization; they are liars and deceivers. They hate us because we are better, greater, and stronger than they.'"
(cont.)
"Any wise observer can discern how [the infidels] each day, each hour, even each moment, invent ways to turn human life into Paradise on Earth. If they truly believed in Allah or in his prophets, they would make sure that their people lived like the Afghan people, and they would rule their countries as does the great Mullah, Muhammad Omar [head of the Taliban]. In every generation, children, there appear two great men named [Omar]. In our generation, they are Mullah Muhammad Omar and [Sheikh] Omar Abd Al-Rahman [blind Egyptian sheikh convicted after WTC bombing in 1993]; the only time an Omar appeared within the infidels' [ranks], it was Omar Sherif [the actor]!"
"Do you really believe that they are fighting the Taliban in revenge for what befell them? To avenge their casualties? Of course not. They want to take over the oil of Caspian Sea. They have already taken over the Arabs' oil and had to put on this show in order to obtain the oil of the Caspian Sea. Repeat after me: 'Death to America, death to the West! Death to us, and may life be the lot of the abject cowards.'"
(cont.)
"Dear children: 'Hate the beaches. Hate the flowers and the roses. Hate the wheat fields. Hate the trees. Hate music. Hate all manner of artistic, literary, or scientific endeavor. Hate tenderness. Hate reason and intellect. Hate your families and your countrymen. Hate others – all others. Hate yourselves. Hate your teachers. Hate me. Hate this school. Hate life and everything in it.'"
"Go on, get to class."
Agreed on all points. But there seems to be an anti-Western, anti-modern streak running through the Arab world that is unmatched elsewhere. The reasons for this are numerous and much-debated but I think the mood is clearly there.
I wouldn't have such a problem with Arab criticism of the West if we occasionally got credit for positive efforts (humanitarian aid, Kosovo and the like).
The liberal Lebanese intellectual Hazem Saghiya, who resides in London, wrote a column in the Al-Hayat daily placing some responsibility for the attacks in the US on the Arab world, and calling for the extradition of the terrorists
"The US's responsibility for the state we have reached is unquestionable. Our responsibility is also clear. Many Americans are talking about their own responsibility. Let us also talk about ours: We did not create the distinction between politics and the right to live. This is what has united the nations of the world against us. We wondered why Israeli public opinion did not renounce the Israeli government. We interpreted this phenomenon wrongly. We now wonder about what happened and what will happen in the US."
"We are responsible because in [our writing,] we placed terror in quotation marks. We praised suicide operations, and described them as martyrdom operations. We talked of crusader campaigns. We expanded politics to include culture, normalization, and translation [referring to the polemic in the Arab media about translating Arab works into Hebrew]. We shifted the conflict into each and every area. We said that we would revive the war against Western civilization, which had brought the USSR to its knees. We refused to allow any voice of opposition to be heard from our ranks. This means that we are one; this means that they will be one against us. We drew the playing field, and they came to play in it."
(cont.)
"Now, we must unite the efforts of our societies and extradite the wanted men who combined politics with the right to live."
"Let us extradite them without feeling sorry for them. Then, our political claims will be strengthened. Otherwise, they [the wanted men] will be taken by force, and we, the innocent, will be taken for their crimes as well. In the US, there are some whose appetite to do this knows no bounds."
"The Arabs have part of America, as do the other nations; they have participated and will continue to participate in shaping the American spirit together with the English, the Irish, the Greeks, the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Jews, the Chinese, the Indians, the Persians, and others too numerous to mention – all of whom came to a new country to begin a new life. All these [peoples] took what they liked from America, while preserving the heritage of their mother countries."
"The destruction of America is the destruction of the human dream across the world; the destruction of America is the cultural suffocation of man, freezing him in his place and in his heritage. America must seek a cultural path. It must [do this] to meet its society's needs for spiritual renewal, so as to add a human aspect to its material and technological progress. What America does not need is for the world to send people to hijack its planes and cast them, as human bombs, on buildings in which people are working."
"This [terrorist attack] is a crossroads. Our America is [more than the] idiotic [foreign] policy that sparks opposition from one people or another. America is the dream of the peoples; it is the paradigm to which the peoples lift up their eyes, and it is towards its light that the countries advance…"
"I say to Farahat that I felt ashamed while reading most, if not all, of the commentary [on the terrorist attacks], primarily in the Egyptian press. But your article somewhat alleviated this feeling… All that was lacking [in the Arab world following the attacks] were parades in the Arab towns and cities [whose marchers] call out the infamous and base motto, 'Our soul and our blood we will give to thee, Oh bin Laden.'"
"Most, if not all, of what I read proves that the poison of the undemocratic, military Arab regimes… has also entered the bloodstream of the [intellectual] 'elite'… These [people] no longer see the killing of innocents and destruction for its own sake as disgraceful."
"What murky future awaits this region of the world? When and how will it be possible to restore belief in freedom, respect for the individual, and respect for human life, as it was in the first half of the twentieth century? The phrase you wrote, Mr. Farahat – 'the destruction of America is the destruction of the human dream across the world' – is monumental. How right you are!"
Undeniable. My point is simply that things change, and in time al-Jazeera could represent more reasonable views as well. Alternatively, it could come to be regarded the way network TV is regarded in the US: as second rate.
Having said that, I must give them credit for being one of the few relatively independent news organizations in the region.
Moronic Despot & The Raghead Potentates: Chimp-in-Charge Chows Down
Taliban abandon surrender
plan after 'prophetic
dream'
Recent reports suggested that Mullah Omar, facing almost
certain defeat, had agreed to surrender Kandahar. But
yesterday Ahmad Karzai, whose brother Hamid has been
negotiating with the Taliban for the surrender of the city, said
Mullah Omar had changed his mind because he had had a
prophetic dream in which he remained in power. "I have had a
dream in which I am in charge for as long as I live," Mr Karzai
quoted Mullah Omar as saying.
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
BTW - what was the purpose of #16367?
Way down upon de Swanee Ribber,
Far, far away,
Dere's wha my heart is turning ebber,
Dere's wha de old folks stay.
All up and down de whole creation
Sadly I roam,
Still longing for de old plantation,
And for de old folks at home.
Chorus
All de world am sad and dreary,
Eb-rywhere I roam;
Oh, darkeys, *how my heart grows weary,
Far from de old folks at home!
KANDAHAR, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A close associate of Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar is now officially siding with ethnic Pashtun tribesmen in Kandahar, a source in the city has told CNN.
The move is a sign that tribal loyalties are overshadowing allegiance to the Taliban in the regime's southern stronghold.
Haji Bashar -- a respected member of the Norzai tribe, the largest Pashtun tribe in the country -- was appointed administrator of the city by his tribesmen over the weekend.
The source told CNN Monday that within the next day, Bashar is planning to confront Omar -- currently in hiding -- to tell him he must leave Kandahar.
It was unclear under what circumstances Omar could lose power.
In the past, tribal leaders have said, they would provide him safe passage to the hills outside Kandahar, but there is now ongoing discussion among various Pashtun tribal leaders about whether to put Omar on trial for crimes against Afghanistan.
US scorns deal to free al-Qaeda's trapped mercenaries.
No way out alive for trapped Mullah Omar.
“The idea of their getting out of the country and going off to make their mischief somewhere else is not a happy prospect. So my hope is that they will either be killed or taken prisoner (by the Northern Alliance).” Mr Rumsfeld would not say if US forces would pursue al-Qaeda over borders, but said “We might have an early, intensive consultation with the neighbours.”
Not as biting now that the Ace of Spades has moved to the frenly freeper confines but still good.
Powell is a pussy who builds coalitions. Wolfowitz and Condo Rice are real men who kill...kill...kill
That's been the basic bureaucratic situation WRT the Royal foreign policy ever since the Supremes crowned our Warlord-in-Chief King of All the States
Erl 'n gas bidniss bein the third dimension
THE NINE DUMBEST THINGS SAID SINCE SEPTEMBER 11, 2001
NUMBER 9
OLIVER STONE
"Six men [the heads of Viacom, Fox News Corp., Disney, Vivendi, Sony, and Time Warner-AOL] are deciding what you're seeing in film, and they own all the small companies.... Now, within reason, they let [filmmakers] do certain things, and that is far better obviously than, say, the Arabs where they don't let you do anything, and I agree it's relative. But we are in a dilemma. We have too much order.... And I think the revolt on September 11 was about order. It was about fuck you, fuck your order... And is it time perhaps to reconsider the world order? Is it time to wonder why the banks have joined the movie companies and all the corporations, and where this is all going?"
GORE VIDAL
"How we dare even prate about democracy is beyond me. Our form of democracy is bribery, on the highest scale. It's far worse than anything that occurred in the Roman empire, until the praetorian guard started to sell the principate. We're not a democracy, and we have absolutely nothing to give the world in the way of political ideas or political arrangements."
"Civilization is Genocide" --banner carried by protesters in Berlin on October 8, as seen in an AP photo by Markus Schreiber
RICHARD GERE
"In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. [But we must also think about] the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see [the terrorists] as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better."
TED RAIL (cartoonist)
5. "It may have seemed meaningless at the time, but now we know why 7,000 people sacrificed their lives: So that we'd all forget how Bush stole a presidential election."
REP. JOHN COOKSEY
"If I see someone come in that's got a diaper on his head and a fan belt [wrapped] around [it], that guy needs to be pulled over and checked."
PROFESSOR SUNERA THOBANI
"There will be no emancipation for women anywhere on this planet until the Western domination of this planet is ended."
ALICE WALKER
"In a war on Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden will either be left alive, while thousands of impoverished, frightened people are bombed into oblivion around him, or he will be killed in a bombing attack for which he seems quite prepared. But what would happen to his cool armor if he could be reminded of all the good, nonviolent things he has done? Further, what would happen to him if he could be brought to understand the preciousness of the lives he has destroyed? I firmly believe the only punishment that works is love."
MICHAEL MOORE
"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"
Now that you've said it ain't gonna happen, I've reconsidered my view that it ain't gonna happen. (Not really. I actually started reconsidering yesterday evening after taking stock of the recent increase in hawk talk from our admin and press.)
It's possible the US could manufacture a pretext, as Francis, suggests, to overthrow Saddam. However, it would have to be on the order of a provocation (on our part) rather than the wholesale invention of a pressing reason to act.
(Aside: One wonders why Iraq lobbed mortars into Kuwait a few weeks ago. What would Saddam have gained?)
Maybe we could achieve our ends through the UN, by demanding new, more comprehensive inspections, and imposing tighter sanctions now that bin Laden and Saddam have been revealed to have clear connections. Perhaps Euro cooperation on that front could be extracted via guarantees that we won't toss Saddam unless he refuses to submit to inspections and the destruction of his labs and stockpiles.
Which he would. And then we'd be free to act.
Just a thought.
Why is #4 stupid?
It just occurred to me that Iran supported Armenia against the Turkish-backed Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh war. Iran also cautiously supported Russia in the Chechen war. In fact it was during the Chechen war that the Russians and the Iranians became so close.
And a view from India: Trying to Patch Up Afghanistan Is a Futile Diversion
Adopt-A-Sailor program runs out of seamen
Nov. 20, 2001 | NORTH CHICAGO, Ill. (AP) --
So many families were hungry to play host to Navy recruits for Thanksgiving dinner that the Adopt-a-Sailor program ran out of seamen and had to close two days early.
"It was like Ticketmaster at playoff time," said Lt. Cmdr. John Wallach, spokesman for the Great Lakes Naval Training Center, about 35 miles north of Chicago.
Even though the Navy stopped taking applications last Wednesday, volunteers continued calling and sending e-mails.
The response is unparalleled in the more than 50 years of the program, said Lt. Brian Nowak of the Recruit Training Command.
"We think recent events have prompted people to make the requests," he said.
The 4,142 eligible recruits will have Thanksgiving dinner with families or in large groups at VFWs, American Legion posts and businesses.
And a view from India: Trying to Patch Up Afghanistan Is a Futile Diversion
They blame it all on the Pashtuns and recommend that they be ethnically cleansed. Surprise.
Yum
Nobody's buyin his "broad based" government bullshit...looks like our allies are taking a big shit on our Big Shit Warriour King!
And all the while poor PantyWaist Powell is blathering about nation-building...
Since when did he start reading anything other than the Moonie Times?
Since when did he start reading?
No, it was the TNR article he was quoting from. Falwell and Robertson's comments weren't voted into the Hall of Fame. Not even by TNR. Go figure.
In 1998, a group of 40 conservatives wrote an open letter to President Clinton calling for the United States to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Today many of the signers of that letter hold important government posts, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his chief deputy Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle, chairman of the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board. Together with right-wing activists in the private sector, they see the post-September 11 military campaign as the perfect opportunity to achieve their goal of toppling the Iraqi leader. "Saddam Hussein engages in acts of terrorism, he hates the United States and we know he has weapons of mass destruction," says Perle. "To ignore all that is too big a risk."
Wolfowitz and Perle, the two names most closely associated with the Get Saddam crowd, both have hard-line Cold War pedigrees and are close to Israeli right-wing political leaders -- including Ariel Sharon -- who are as anxious to get rid of Hussein as they are. They remain angry that the United States didn't finish off Saddam after driving his troops from Kuwait. "It grates on them that Saddam is still in power," says one retired military officer who is well plugged into conservative circles. "One reason they want to get him so badly is so they can set their own records straight."
The Road to Baghdad
"PantyWaist Powell" redux..
If our goal is to preserve the coalition then we should stop bombing Afghanistan," he says. "Iraq is a fundamental threat to our national security, and that's more important than keeping the coalition together." Perle takes the same sanguine view, saying that the coalition is a means, not an end. "If it becomes an impediment to winning the war than what good is it?" he asks. "The confusion about this is pathetic."
Pathetic PantyWaist Powell
Howard Kurtz..
War time leaks???? Heavens. I thought the Warriour King had a royal hissy fit about that just a few back!
BTW does anyone REALLY believe that the US is at war?
ON TO IRAQ!
BTW JoeZ are U so dumb as to think we are at war or RU just a moron?
Taliban and Northern Alliance soldiers embrace. Plan to join JoeZ in snow man building this winter after loya jirga.
I got your sarcastic intention regarding Powell, I was simply unfamiliar with the term 'pantywaist'. I just looked it up.
I think Powell's doing a good job. I hope he'll be your next President.
sto: What odds are agreeable to you for Saddam still being head honcho in Iraq one year from today?
2 to 1.
25 to 1 against it.
Toll From WTC Attack Falls Below 3,900
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The official count of the dead and missing from the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center has fallen sharply in the last few weeks to below 3,900, nearly 3,000 less than initially feared, The New York Times reported in its online edition on Wednesday.
Citing city officials, the Times said the number of dead and missing could fall to 3,000, as officials discover more duplications and errors.
...
Police officials said they believed the current number of dead and missing to be 3,702, but the mayor's office put the number at 3,899, the paper said.
In the Pentagon, 189 people were killed or are missing, including 64 people who were onboard the plane. Forty-four people were killed in the Pennsylvania crash.
``Using the figure released yesterday, the death toll for all three attacks could not be higher than 4,142, and could fall to 3,245 as the city's revisions continue,'' the Times said.
The newspaper said unofficial compilations of the World Trade Center toll by news organizations have reached no higher than 2,950.
We're now watching the hijacking of the completely justified, limited, defensive and military aims of our intervention by a set of unjustified, extravagant, aggressively moralistic "human rights" aims.
This can only be due to
1) the extraordinary emphasis our societies place upon media images and "media management," as BCing U puts it; and
2) our misguided and confused comingling of traditional strategy (defend yourselves and protect your interests) with sweeping, overblown Wilsonian idealism (make the muslim world safe for feminism, pluralism, free markets, homosexual rights etc etc etc)
We have every right to destroy a threat to our national security that emanates from another country, be it Afghanistan, Iraq or Cuba.
We have no right to insist that other nations adopt our forms of government, social organization or social and political values.
The former approach is clear and easily understood. By preventing other nations from making grave miscalculations that would provoke us into massive retaliation, this traditional and clear approach to defending our interests promotes international stability.
The second approach invites charges of hypocrisy, disbelief, and most dangerously, uncertainty about our commitments and intentions. Allies cannot trust us; foes are tempted to attack others because they do not believe we will defend our interests.
In sum, this media management-driven, feel-good, Wilsonian approach to our role in the world will cause us grave damage in this century and help to make the world more unstable, ie, more violent, ie more damaging to the very innocents our tender sentiments seek to protect, than it already is.
It was always a meagre existence, but then the Taliban reduced him to complete destitution. "They would not let us plant and in this land it is the only way to make money,'' said Mr Khatib. "We have nothing here. Last night I did not even have oil for my family to cook.''
But now there is hope, for the Taliban have gone and Mr Khatib and the farmers of Surkhrud are free to grow the crop that provides them with the closest thing to a reasonable existence – the opium poppy.
Yesterday morning, like hundreds of farmers all over the eastern province of Nangarhar, he stood in his fields preparing the ground for the tiny yellow seeds that will grow into poppies. Next spring, the petals will fall away, exposing a seed head, and when the time is right Mr Khatib's helpers will make narrow vertical razor cuts in them. Out of these will leak a sap that dries to a sticky residue, opium, the raw material of heroin.
Mr Khatib said: "We were so shocked when the Taliban announced their ban on growing poppies, but now we hope for a good harvest ... God willing, our troubles will be solved."
Allies Waking Up to the Moron Factor - NyT
Don't worry EU, help is on the way!
"I think thus far that is not quite what we have seen," he said. "We have seen a tremendous pulse of staunchness, but we have not seen the more intellectual side of war leadership,"
"Interlecktule?!?!?!?!"
Don't make me laugh
And don't hold your breath
How do you think this is going to come about?
BTW does anyone REALLY believe that the US is at war?
Yes, I do. It's not a conventional war by past standards but I believe it fits a loose definition:
- significant movement and use of troops against a foreign entity
- a galvanized civilian population and upheaval on the home front
- substantial casualties
-significant expenditure of national resources.
There have even been declarations of war -- formal from the other side, unofficial from us.
What would it require for you to believe it's a war?
WRT Powell, I must confess to be impressed.
and quite wrong...I had read him from what I knew from the Poppy Years as a go along, get along, Pentagon bureaucrat (the very worst kind)..no balls...
Yet I have to admit...drum roll...lights....buggles...
I was dead wrong. He has no allies to speak of outside of State. Cheney would have ripped his balls off months ago were he not near death. Condom Rice is shamelessly obvious in her lust for his power, and all of the Pentagon 'crats are gunnin for him and yet he has almost single handedly reversed Bush yahooism 180 degrees...which happens also to me the measure of my error.
Aahhh confession...good for the soul
I don't know how you normally express odds, I am no gambler. Are you supposed to take the view point of the bookmaker, i.e. offer odds, rather than taking them? If so, I'd offer you, oh, 15:1 on Saddam being ousted. 3:2, say, on his staying in power...
And therein lies the exception that swallows your argument...
This is more like a war on crime or war on drugs than it is a war...yet the powers our King has arrogated to himself are outstripping all historical precedent, using historical precedents of REAL wars to do so..
There aren't 3 million Nazis storming across the Russian plain...massive war fleets aren't threatening all of the Southeast and East Asia...millions aren't dying...
This is NOT a war...that is just spin...
The US will not launch anything like a ground offensive or serious hostilities against Iraq. It will not get allies in the region to back such hostilities. Hussein may die in the next year of natural causes, but will face no other serious threat to his hold on Iraq.
For there we will be destroying tanks...killing big time...dying big time..all those things that go into war post-French revolution...guerre a l'outrance..total war....the stuff that Victory Gardens are made of
That was the last war we lost. The last war before the current one was in Kuwait and Iraq. We won that one just like we will win this one. There just aren't enough people like Jexter to stop us.
REAL WAR???
don't make me laugh
Mark it down: Saddam will be out by this date next year.
Did six million Jews die in the Holocaust? That's THE number but was it 4, 5, 8???
Did 20 million Russians die in the Great Patriotic War or only 15? Maybe 28!
Of course we all know that 6,000 died on 9/11
or do we..
The official count of the dead and missing has fallen below 3,900 — nearly 3,000 fewer than the number officials originally feared had perished
Well, there's always a spread between the price asked and the price offered. That's how we bookies make a living, mate!
You asked if anybody believed that it's a war, not a conventional war by past standards.
By the latter definition, Vietnam doesn't qualify either. It was very definitely not a conventional war.
I believe that the current situation is serious enough to qualify as a war.
Ooops there I go again with numbers....
opposition rebels in control of nearly three-quarters of Afghanistan, Pentagon officials say the war is entering a distinctly new phase that may last longer and prove far more difficult for U.S. forces than the surprisingly swift advances of the first six weeks.
Despite all the talk at the Pentagon of an unconventional war, much of the action has resembled a very conventional conflict, with Northern Alliance fighters carrying out set-piece advances aided by U.S. airstrikes. But the fighting in the south promises to resemble classic guerrilla war, experts said.
As described by military planners and experts outside the government, the next phase will be murkier, lacking definable front lines, with U.S. forces pursuing small groups of Taliban leaders and members of Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda. Progress sometimes will be difficult to detect. There almost certainly will be less U.S. bombing, and the campaign will be characterized by stretches of apparent inaction punctuated by lightning raids by covert troops. It could involve U.S. casualties from sniping, land-mine explosions and perhaps even terrorist attacks.
Most of all, it may be far more difficult to tell when -- or if -- the United States has won.
Incidentally, we lost about 4,500 in the Revolution.
So we're currently losing people faster than in Vietnam.
Numbers.
Andonly, I agree that the scale of attacks can diminish but terrorism persist up to a time. I understand you and PincherMartin both hold the belief that 9-11 was but the prelude to large-scale terrorist attacks within the US (PincherMartin thinks the anthrax mailings "a dry run", and that advanced terrorist weapons - I think that was his phrasing - allows ever greater massive casualties), that the threat and the scale will not diminish with Al-Qaeda but that ever more terrorist groups premised on Islamic fundamentalism -irregardless of their immediate aims, irregardless of their local concerns -will look upon the US as fair target to advance their interests.
I can't speak for Andonly, but I do hold these views.
Also, that the only counter to these groups is war upon the states that sponsor them;
I have not said it was the only counter to them, just that it appears the Bush administration will under-utilize it in the coming war. My main argument is that I think Bush will not overthrow Saddam Hussein, even though it clearly needs to be done.
continued ...
Vietnam was a war, just not a conventional war. Are you arguing that Vietnam was a conventional war?
I have said Iraq should be the next state targeted by the U.S. military. It has sponsored terrorism in the past against the United States, it appears to have a slim but noticeable connection to the 9-11 attacks, and it is currently sponsoring terrorist camps whose purpose, according to defectors, is to support future attacks against the U.S. It also has in its hand the largest supply of chemical and biological weapons in the Third World.
Do you disagree with any of this?
Yes, other terrorist groups could find objectives that attacking the US would satisfy, but did I not note that of all those groups only Al Qaeda exclusively targets the US?
Yes, you noted it. Your assumption stems from two fallacies: one, a belief -- surprising in the wake of 9-11 -- that attacking the U.S. homeland and attacking U.S. interests abroad represents a huge leap of imagination or difficulty for these anti-Western groups (as to make Al Qaeda an anomaly). You believe in this line despite the fact that bin Laden's group itself did not cross it until 9-11. Yet, you still attempt to draw a firm distinction between the actions of his group, Al Qaeda, and the potential actions of other anti-Western terrorist groups.
continued ...
Al-Qaeda is unique in its scope of operations and that it targets the US - not kidnapping US personnel for ransom, not attacking US personnel and facilities in the country which preoccupies their concerns - but the US homeland and its assets wherever the opportunity presents itself, Tanzania, the docks at Yemen, US domestic flights.
continued ...
February 26, 1993:
World Trade Centre in New York, USA, badly damaged by a massive bomb planted by Islamic terrorists. The car bomb was planted in an underground garage and left six people dead and more than one thousand people injured.
April 14, 1993
Iraqi intelligence service attempt to assassinate former US President, George Bush, during a visit to Kuwait. Two months later the US launches a cruise missile attack on the Iraqi capital Baghdad in retaliation.
November 13, 1995
Seven foreigners, including a number of US servicemen, are killed in bomb attack on National Guard training centre at Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. SUSPECTED BIN LADEN LINK
June 25, 1996
Islamic radical terrorists opposed to the western military presence in the Gulf region, explode a truck bomb next to a USAF housing area at Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemen and 385 injuring more. SUSPECTED BIN LADEN LINK
August 7, 1998
US Embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar-es-Salem, Tanzania, heavily damaged by massive bomb attacks. In the Nairobi attack 247 people were killed, including 12 Americans, and 4,000 injured. Ten people were killed and 74 injured in Tanzania incident. US intelligence blames Islamic groups linked to Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden.
December 28
Yemini militants kidnap a group of western tourists, including 12 Britons, 2 Americans, and 2 Australians on the main road to Aden. Four victims were killed during a rescue attempt the next day.
I think you can safely flush all that Tom Brokaw "Greatest Generation II" crap
The only way I think Saddam isn't taken out is if some unforeseen factor enters the equation. Based on the cards showing, he's going.
And what cards are those? Perleman and Wolfowitz? Rice's ambigious comments?
6NT, making 7
I think this administration had every reason to want Saddam out before 911. Events since then give every indication to me at least that he will be soon on the agenda (maybe not immediately, but very soon).
Initially, there were many reasons why we'd be hamstrung in Afghanistan. No way Pakistan was going to go along with us without a revolution. With this win under our belt, even the Saudis are trying to talk down the Mullahs.
If we don't take out Saddam, it will be a big, big mistake and squander most of the advantage we've obtained from Afghanistan. Psychologically, I'm sure Bush is tired of hearing for eight years how his dad didn't finish the job.
He has the domestic clout to do it. He wants to do it. Internationally (despite sto's "no way") people have at least moved from "the US can't do that," to "the US ought not to do that."
Plus, there's always the chance he'll die or somebody will just overthrow him. We might assassinate him.
Add all that up, and it's not certainty, but I like the odds.
Since you believe that this is not a war, what's your working definition of war?
Greetings.
While I think Iraq is, arguably, the next logical step, I think that's a long, long way from being the next achievable step.
Few things would give me greater pleasure than a move against Saddam but, absent a serious provocation from him, the obstacles still seem insurmountable.
[The current situation is] More akin to the "war" against the Columbian drug cartel than to Vietnam...Korea...The Big One...The One to End All Ones...the 30 Years One..The Hundred Years One..The Peleponesian Ones...etc...
Perhaps, but the very diversity of your list argues for a rather broad definition. Those wars exhibited almost as many differences as similarities.
Again, what's your working definition of war?
This is what leadership is about--not just looking at what you can obviously do at this moment, but taking the country to a position where it can do what it needs to do.
What do you see as the biggest obstacle?
You have to talk it up before you can do it. Even with the WTC in rubble, we didn't just fire off a bunch of cruise missiles the next day (that would have been Clinton-style foreign policy).
Not all talk is the same. What I'm reading is that members of the administration are debating other members about the wisdom of using military force on Iraq. There was no such debate going on in the administration prior to Afghanistan. The only debate was about what level of force would be most effective in getting the job done.
I think this administration had every reason to want Saddam out before 911. Events since then give every indication to me at least that he will be soon on the agenda (maybe not immediately, but very soon).
Really, what events are those? The U.S. State Department's religious belief in coalitions? The fact that the U.S. President has not mentioned a word about attacking Iraq, despite the fact that it will be he, and not Wolfowitz or Perleman (two of the most conservative members of the administration), who has to make the decision? The fact that none of our allies has shown the slightest bit of support for a policy of toppling Saddam by military force? The fact that probably only Kuwait, among all of the many Arab countries, could have its arm twisted into supporting an attack?
continued ...
All true, but Pakistan pledged its support almost immediately after 9-11 as did India, Russia and Britain. Others soon followed. Who has pledged their support for a war on Iraq? And the U.S. wasn't debating itself over what it wanted to do in Afghanistan, a point you seem to missing about a possible attack on Iraq.
If we don't take out Saddam, it will be a big, big mistake and squander most of the advantage we've obtained from Afghanistan. Psychologically, I'm sure Bush is tired of hearing for eight years how his dad didn't finish the job.
I have no idea what he thinks. He may think that his dad got it just right and that its the critics of the aftermath that don't get it.
He has the domestic clout to do it. He wants to do it. Internationally (despite sto's "no way") people have at least moved from "the US can't do that," to "the US ought not to do that."
Domestically, I agree. Give some proof of this new international sentiment.
Plus, there's always the chance he'll die or somebody will just overthrow him. We might assassinate him.
Saddam? No chance. We have no way of getting close to him.
Add all that up, and it's not certainty, but I like the odds.
A betting man? I'll give you three to one on a hundred dollar bet that Saddam is still in power a year from now.
PincherMartin, I know that Aum Shinrikyo supposedly had adherents in the US and some other countries outside Japan, but do you think it probable the US should credibly expect (or should have credibly expected) an attack by that group?
No, that wasn't the point of the comparison. The point was to show large terrorist groups capable of inflicting mass civilian casualties have existed, that Al Qaeda is not an anomaly.
Like Al Qaeda, Aum Shinrikyo was a wealthy, international group devoted to terrorism. Like Al Qaeda, no one took its intentions seriously enough until after a massive attack.
U.S. intelligence had never even heard of the predominately Japanese group until after it attacked the subway, and yet here is a group that had a membership of 50,000, a billion dollars in wealth, and had made serious moves to acquire the worst biological and chemical weapons available. It also existed in a country of which the U.S. knows a good deal more than most other countries you are likely to find terrorists.
The State department list is a nice way of defining what the U.S. means when it says "international terrorism." And as one would expect from State, it is meant to build up support among allies by including groups like ETA, Aum, and the IRA. But it is not comprehensive of the kinds of threats, especially from the Islamic fundamentalists, that exist against the U.S.
continued ...
Aum is finished. The only reason they were included on the list I'm sure is that the U.S. State department wanted to build up support from allies by showing it was concerned about terrorism that they were either facing or had faced in the past.
$300 should be useful in preparing for next year's Christmas shopping.
I'd say the biggest obstacle is something that doesn't concern me a great deal -- world (and national) opinion, broadly defined.
At present, I see any sort of conventional move into Iraq (say, 500,000+ troops) as generating a storm of international protest, the loss of most members of the coalition, the loss of popular support in the US and the beginning of an even more virulent (and active) anti-American movement throughout the Middle East.
Even with all that, it might be worth it if it truly brought about the end of terrorism but, of course, this is a battle that will never end.
However, a serious provocation from Saddam or even conclusive proof of an active WMD program in Iraq could overcome most of the above obstacles.
I just can't see any US President turing over such a large rock at present. Things may change.
That sounds like a fair bet. As things are, Saddam seems unlikely to go but the situation is fluid and great potential changes loom.
I said "the aims of all these groups save one are localized". What makes you, PincherMartin, lump these 17 terrorist groups together by the shared characteristic of Islamic fundamentalism and pronounce all are a threat to the US?
I said Islamic fundamentalism was the threat to the U.S., because it feeds the sentiments that leads many in the Islamic world to groups such as Al Qaeda. I didn't say that every Islamic group on that list was a threat to the U.S.
All of the terrorist attacks against the U.S. in the last decade, perhaps the last two decades come from two sources exclusively: Domestic nutters and terrorists from Muslim states. U.S. terrorist cells in the U.S. have already launched attacks against the U.S. without the benefit of Al Qaeda (Ramsi Yousef and his gang), they have cells in the U.S. (several terrorists groups, including three on the list), and they have attacked U.S. targets outside the U.S. (numerous groups). This is not some fanciful speculation on my part. This is what we know.
And yet you remain blind to the threat. I admit I was blind to the potential threat of such a large-scale attack against the U.S. before 9-11, but it takes a special kind of disability to remain not only blind to it now, but deaf as well.
continued ...
Al Qaeda is not the exception. It is simply the largest, best-known, and best-equipped to hit the U.S.
And having other aims, such as overthrowing the local government, doesn't mean the groups wouldn't be more than happy to do what they can to hurt the U.S.
Why don't we send the money to CalGal for safe keeping. On November 21st, 2002, one of us can gloat.
As far as downside in public opinion, that's even more reason to do it now. The sanctions and continued bombing are like pulling and pulling on a band-aid without removing it. The long-term bad PR can't be worse than a quick, finishing strike. (Compare how little the world bellyaches today about how Israel bombed Saddam's nuke plant.) Not to mention that the wound just keeps festering underneath that band-aid while we keep tugging on it.
If nothing else turns up, we can always buy more cooperation from our "allies."
Or the real cynic in me says to tell them, "Hey, you want a quick jolt to oil prices to prop up your collapsing GDPs? Just think if Iraq were taken off grid for a while!"
I trust you for it, and you'd be out more than I if you have to pay off.
If you insist, though, we can put in escrow with the Francis Urquhart law firm.
Until 9-11 Al-Qaeda was not a local organization. It had already an extensive network of international cell and its concern was not destruction of the state of Israel nor the liberation of Palestine nor a schismatic group formed by a split over religious or political interpretations, but "to overthrow regimes it deems 'non-Islamic' and expelling Westerners and non-Muslims from Muslim countries."
All of Al Qaeda's concerns were local -- at least in the sense of how you are using the word -- until 9-11: the overthrow of the Saudi government, the removal of the U.S. from the Middle East, the destruction of Israel, as well as support for Islamic militants all over the Middle East. That is every bit as local as Iranian terrorist groups hitting U.S. and Israeli targets in Lebanon and attacking the Grand Mosque in Mecca.
You keep confusing 'scale' with global concerns. Muslim kids from the Middle East go to school in the West. Some of those kids are exposed to a virulent from of Islam that twists their mind. Bin Laden, through his wealth and connections, was able to use these kids for his own purposes. He is not the only one to do so, but given the scale of his operation, he did so to greatest effect.
I trust you for it, and you'd be out more than I if you have to pay off.
Thanks, but I don't trust myself. I've popped in and out of here over the last few years, including my most recent absence of more than a year.
If you insist, though, we can put in escrow with the Francis Urquhart law firm.
Francis is good with me.
Agree about the 'hook'. If conclusive proof is obtained, that could indeed be the link that demolishes many of my stated obstacles.
As for public opinion now, we have to keep 'reasons' and 'inclinations' separate. I agree that knocking Saddam out is a worthy goal. But, even with 88% approval, I just can't see any US President moving on Iraq directly with a conventional military force without a compelling provocation. The howls of protest (US and international) and loss of support would be overwhelming.
It sounds like we have different reads on the public mood. I think it is and will continue to be very solid against clear and defined threats but would erode rapidly against unproven ones.
Nevertheless, covert action (read: cheap) against Iraq would be supported. To date, it's been resoundingly unsuccessful but one never knows.
Now to answer PincherMartin's insistence. Al-Qaeda will cease to exist as credible threat within 5 years. Massive terrorist attacks on foreign soil based abroad such as 9-11 will prove to be an anomaly. This incidence of terrorism in the US will slightly rise but a means and institutions come into play the incidence will dip. America's greatest threat will come from domestic terrorists.
I agree with all of this. But it leaves out the important caveat that for a large-scale international terrorist incident never to happen again in the U.S., Americans must take it seriously enough to believe it could. If the U.S. is vigilant and proactive, then the U.S. will be safe. If not, then not. So the question is, how long will the U.S. be under threat from groups in the Middle East atacking its soil, in the same way it has been for the last ten years. The answer: until Islamic fundamentalism is no longer the most powerful ideological force in the Middle East. That will take longer than a generation.
And in reply to PincherMartin's question, "Is this a game?", he accused me of forming my opinions from conversations at hotel watering-holes so PincherMartin should best answer that question.
That remark was sparked by your comment that you would bet your entire experience in Asia on Chen Shuibian's election fomenting war across the strait, one of the silliest comments I've ever read from someone with experience in this region.
Mail me with the details at PincherMartin@yahoo.com
I had heard the Australian government was warned by US sources to expect a mainland Chinese blockade of Taiwan during September-October of 2000. Have you, PincherMartin, or anyone else heard or read anything to substantiate this?
No, bin Laden's tenuous connection to Ramzi Yousef is thought to have occurred after the bombing. Yousef was an independent operator who used and disposed of like-minded Muslim individuals as he could. He may also have been an Iraqi agent, although the evidence for this seems thin.
The attacks in Saudi have been linked to Al Qaeda, but I've also seen them linked to Iranian terrorists.
Japanese intelligence had not even heard of Aum before the subway strike, despite at serious attempts before then to effect mass casualties with anthrax.
I have no idea what Japanese intelligence knew. I didn't even know there was Japanese intelligence. What is it called? Does it monitor domestic matters or is it limited to international affairs?
I do know that Japanese authorities (Judges, police) knew all about Aum and that their activities to control it set off the attacks by the cult.
Yes, so I believed myself, and as I often argued on this forum. But groups and individuals learn. The current Anthrax attacks have killed four (with a fifth likely to die soon); that is one-third of the total Aum killed. And it is apparently being done by a single individual of who we have know absolutely nothing about except that the attacks aren't likely to stop.
When you suggested that because Al Qaeda is an anomaly in its attacks on U.S. soil, once that organization is gone (in five years), the threat should cease to exist.
It is the Anti-Subversive Activities Law by which Aum was outlawed.
POPE AIR FORCE BASE, N.C. (AP) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) would like to move low-flying, deadly AC-130 gunships closer to Northern Afghanistan (news - web sites) to support anti-Taliban forces in their battle for control of Kunduz, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Wednesday.
They said that under international law America could be held responsible for genocide if Taliban troops were massacred despite offering to surrender. Under the Geneva Convention, it is illegal to give no quarter to the enemy.
Richard Gordon QC, an international human rights barrister, said: "The US does bear some responsibility for ensuring [the Taliban troops] are treated humanely because [the US] are effectively in control."
INdependent UK
They brooked no dissent or deceit: suspecting that the 15-year- old son of one member in Sudan was an informant, they murdered the boy.
These were the hard-hearted, often itinerant men of Al Qaeda at work, according to thousands of pages of documents produced for a 1999 trial of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the terror group whose members became foot soldiers for Osama bin Laden."
Sounds more and more like the "war" on the Mafia or Pablo Escobar doesn't it!
Osama and Mister John Gotti
i don't think they should be allowed to do that and become a problem later on. they have 2 options: surrender unconditionally or die. i think that's pretty fair, considering.
Connecticut Woman Dies of Inhalation Anthrax
HARTFORD, Conn. (Reuters) - A 94-year-old Connecticut widow died from inhalation anthrax on Wednesday, becoming the fifth U.S. fatality from the potential germ warfare agent, hospital officials said.
Ottilie Lundgren, who lived alone in the rural town of Oxford, died at 10:32 a.m. EST five days after she was admitted to Griffin Hospital in nearby Derby, Connecticut, Patrick Charmel, the hospital's president, said.
Terror, "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience". You, PincherMartin, were the one who remarked about people "quacking" (your word) that once al-Qaeda was over in Afghanistan the terrorist threat to the US would end. Again, I never said that, and I had earlier challenged you for proof of that "quacking".
Shall we return to the discussion of whether or not this is a war?
Aum was well-known before 1995 by many people in Japan. It also attacked an attorney in 1994 who was representing Aum victims. In 1994, it also attempted to kill three judges who were hearing a case against the cult. There were numerous other incidents before 1995's attack, most of which involved attacking those in legal circles or journalists who were investigating the cult. Again, I have no idea what Japanese intelligence knew about Aum, but Japanese authorities had heard about Aum and its potential to kill before 1995. That stands in stark contrast to what U.S. intelligence agencies knew about it.
And in a quick look at a database, I see that Aum did target U.S. military sites in Japan.
You simply reiterate your own stupidity even as you busily cover your own tracks to make your opinions seem more reasonable than they are.
If Al Qaeda is an anomaly, then its stands to reason that when it is beaten, which it shall be very shortly, that the war on international terrorism is over from the U.S.'s standpoint. You suggested this by saying that the war would be over in a generation (now five years), and by constantly referring to Al Qaeada as an anomaly.
Terror, "premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience". You, PincherMartin, were the one who remarked about people "quacking" (your word) that once al-Qaeda was over in Afghanistan the terrorist threat to the US would end. Again, I never said that, and I had earlier challenged you for proof of that "quacking".
I never said this. I said that the recent incidents in Afganistan were not the end of the war there as some here seem to have suggested. I also argued that the demise of the Al Qaeda was not the end of the war on terrorism as you had suggested, and continue to suggest, even as you claim you are not really suggesting it.
That woman was half dead anyways and you know it.
Then, PincherMartin, if I'm stupid and connive to cover my mistakes then why do you insist on commenting to me?
I didn't call you stupid; I said you reiterate your own stupidity, in this case: a belief that Al Qaeda is an anomaly. As to your second question, you're a worthwhile commentator most of the time.
PincherMartin's descriptions of me: "Old coot", "stupid", "dipshit", "silly", "a living fossil". Yet I still reply to this guy.
You're a saint, Scott Loar.
I don't remember calling you "stupid" or an "old coot." "The living fossil" comment was obviously tongue-in-cheek as I said it in a paragraph where I said that I liked you. I don't remember calling you a "dipshit," but it's possible. But the vast majority of my comments to you have been on topic and on argument. As usual, you have an exaggerated sense of self-dignity that causes you to wonder how you put up with outrages that aren't outrages at all.
Oh please, woman, go back to the Inferno and show me how to conduct an elevated discourse with CalGal.
No, she was a mean old woman and she deserved to die this way.
Evidently I should have resisted making a remark, but I didn't imagine you'd be so sensitive and defensive about it.
Now, will you or will you not answer my question about Taiwan? It it was true then my comment about Taiwan was not "silly".
hopefully she was a packrat and kept her mail for a while, etc.
I have an investment idea for you.
You know what you can get away with, you charming rat!
Much more difficult, presumably, to track her whereabouts as opposed to the 94 year old's.
That's a thought. A lot of elderly, reclusive people are like that.
I instinctively like her.
At least that's where I conduct mine.
So give yourself a gold star and an A-plus for effort for keeping to your own philosophy of how one should act on-line.
I can't remember a single time that you've been here at The Mote of you contributing a single substantial back-and-forth argument. I mean, I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but could you point it out to me -- the last time you actually contributed something here in the line of debate beyond the odd comment or two on elevating the discourse?
Evidently I should have resisted making a remark, but I didn't imagine you'd be so sensitive and defensive about it.
I find smuggish schoolmarms unbearable.
Reclusive, my ass. The vibrator collection in that woman's closet would make Madonna blush. Gimme a break, will ya?
talk about being smuggish, incidentally.
Too many people have left and I have much less time than I used to, so I mostly lurk and read any more. Engaging in lengthy discussions is something that takes more time and effort than I can spare right now.
I find smuggish schoolmarms unbearable.
I find rude assholes who think their smartass remarks disguise their stupidity unbearable. You just aren't that incisive or intelligent, though you are knowledgeable. I've been reading you a number of years, and you have knowledge and experience, but a narrowness of perception and an immaturity of view (your "woman" remark is not atypical, for instance) that I find less than intellectually stimulating.
I mean, I can see a lot of people around here being grating and/or insubstantial presences, but...not arky.
Please help me out, Arky. Show me a discussion where you're contributed at length. Maybe I wasn't here when it happened. Maybe you are the shining light of good sense and good arguments that is going to bring the Mote back to life by your constant nagging. Where in the archives can I look, Arky?
pincher. nah. do your own homework. at least that way you will stop digging your own (baffling) hole.
Is it homework? Gee, I would have thought that it would have been easy to look for examples of brilliance for our own Mote monitor.
Which reminds me, I need to ask this in N&Q, but I've kicked myself for not saving The Sound and the Fury discussion, and wonder if anyone has it.
"Constant nagging...." You certainly like hyperbole. It adds to my suspicions of your misogyny as well.
You're being silly. First of all, why not spend your time discussing issues? Secondly, you obviously have not been closely reading a lot of this site and its predecessor. Go look in the Education threads in the archives, if you need some "proof" of this rather infantile kind.
Yes, no doubt to add to your suspicions of racism, as when you popped in here to announce to people discussing the issue of immigration that had become entangled with PE's status in the states, "that it was very white of us to allow him to stay."
I inadvertantly started it with a smartass remark. I expected something in kind, but really didn't expect him to take it so...intensely.
I will move on now, and I apologize for disrupting the thread.
Ciao amigos.
You're being silly. First of all, why not spend your time discussing issues?
I do and I was. She's the one that interrupts to tell us how it should be conducted, despite the fact that I've made it clear --politely before -- I neither expect nor give the same kind of treatment.
Secondly, you obviously have not been closely reading a lot of this site and its predecessor. Go look in the Education threads in the archives, if you need some "proof" of this rather infantile kind.
Well, I admitted it was possible, but most of Arky's comments that I've seen seem to be moralizing in the guise of serious chat about something. But at least she and you have given a couple examples so I'll give it a rest.
Your comprehension and attention to content is much less than I had imagined. Since you said you were giving it a rest, I'll assume this is your last obnoxious remark directed at me.
I rarely noticed you before, Arky. When I did, you usually were saying something along the lines of what I quoted in Message # 16561.
Interesting Thomas op-ed piece about two documents written at the onset of the cold war.
Jimmy Doolittle wrote a report suggesting that we needed aggressive, dirty tactics--fair play would get us nowhere. This led to the CIA assasination attempts, the FBI's wiretapping, etc. Leaving aside the more troubling aspects, Thomas points out that they weren't particularly effective--we never caught any spies that way, and Castro is still alive.
The second document was written by Paul Nitze, who pointed out that we are a very rich country, and that we could afford to defend ourselves. Our defense budget tripled, but we won the Cold War by outspending the Soviets.
Thomas points out that we have the same two choices today, and we might want to remember which method was more successful.
The United States needs to start spending billions to confront this threat -- and soon. Not just more money for aircraft carriers and cruise missiles (though the military needs more resources) but billions on biotech research and on strengthening the nation's infrastructure.
We need to hard-wire our exceedingly fragile Internet and provide vaccines and antidotes against germ warfare. We need to build satellites and sensors that can detect nukes and biochem weapons. (And more: Imagine what a mad scientist with evil intent could do in the field of genetic engineering.)
True, billions will be wasted on pork barrel and pie-in-the-sky technology. But billions were wasted during the Cold War, too. Our survival was worth it. The good news is that America has brilliant minds, a deeply inventive streak and vast wealth. We should play to our strengths in fighting terror by doing what we do best, investing in science and technology, not pretending to be the KGB.
if you wish to debate the past postings of another poster, take it to another thread. further posts on this will be moved to the Inferno.
I've read a lot of your posts over the years and have a lot of respect for your opinions, even when I disagree with you.
But I must say, I'm taken aback that you would pursue this line with arky. Arky isn't always terminally serious, that's my problem, so maybe you've mistaken light-hearted posting for lack of content. But you are sadly mistaken.
Please drop it.
Arky - I found the Sound and Fury discussion. Do you want it?
if you wish to debate the past postings of another poster, take it to another thread. further posts on this will be moved to the Inferno.
Okay, but if you are serious then I expect you'll move Dusty's and Arky's recent comments to the Inferno. If not, then I'll continue to post here on this subject as needed.
I'll wait to see what you do before responding.
My apologies for contributing to an off-topic discussion.
I urge you to move this post, and all other off-topic posts to the Inferno.
Out of respect for your call in Message # 16573, I took my preliminary remarks to the Inferno, but I want an answer to my posts.
Saudi Arabia's former intelligence chief said today that his government had seen no evidence that the Iraqi government had provided support to Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda network. He said Saudi Arabia would not support making Iraq a military target of the war on terrorism.
The official, Prince Turki bin Faisal, said that his country regarded the Iraqi leader, Saddam Hussein, as one of the world's most active terrorists. But he said the best way to topple him would be a coup carried out inside Iraq, and that the United States and its allies should avoid further military strikes in the region.
The warning by Prince Turki was the most explicit yet in what appears to be a growing effort by Arab governments to head off what many in the region suspect may be the next phase in the American-led war: making a target of Iraq as a supporter of terrorism, particularly if it can be linked to the Al Qaeda network.
Searching For Jihad, Pakistanis Found Jail
'Taint fayr!
From the early hours of the morning it was clear that the Afghan conflict had entered a more tense phase, with the victorious Northern Alliance unhappy about the arrival of the first party of foreign troops who, it fears, are likely to start dictating terms.
Only a few days ago you could get into Bagram air base with a smile and a handshake, the only requirement a guide to show you through the minefields.
The commanding officer, Gen Baba Jan, would sip tea and chat in the control tower, a windowless ruin. But yesterday the helpful soldiers in the ill-fitting uniforms were replaced by smart men with walkie-talkies. They had the "strictest orders" to let no one in.
Tension rises as Special Boat Service moves in
BANGI, Afghanistan (AP) - The Taliban agreed Thursday to surrender their last northern stronghold, Kunduz, and hand over thousands of Arabs and other foreign fighters loyal to Osama bin Laden, northern alliance commanders said. The fate of the foreigners remained to be settled.
Fighting erupted along the front line near Kunduz just as the agreement to surrender the city - possibly on Saturday -was announced. Alliance leaders blamed the fighting on communications problems and insisted the surrender deal had not fallen through.
Anti-Taliban tanks rolled across the front line and Taliban shells crashed near refugees fleeing the besieged city, where the Taliban held out after abandoned the capital Kabul and most of the country this month following punishing U.S. airstrikes.
A senior alliance commander, Atta Mohammed, said by satellite telephone that the surrender agreement came late Thursday afternoon in a meeting with top Taliban commanders, including Deputy Defense Minister Mullah Fazil.
Listen. These miserable pieces of shit came into Afghanistan to turn it into their own little playground...a place where they were uninhibited by the strictures of civilization from carrying out their sick little caveman games against the poor Afghanis.
Then, more of these sick bastards willingly crossed borders in order to fight the jihad against the Great Satan, or "be given a martyr's death".
So - what's a few hours, or days, or even weeks of unbearable agony, compared to an eternity in paradise with 27 virgins.
You wanna dance, you gotta pay the piper.
Shot?
I fervently hope that they will all wish they had been shot by the time the NA are done with them.
smirkingchimp.com thinks Ashcroft is giving his "buddies" a free pass in the anthrax investigation.
Somebody call Spudboy.
I actually have some hope for the girl.
You know the saying - A liberal is a conservative who hasn't been mugged.
Sadaam Loves Your SUV
Has been for years.
In fact he's written a few things about it for "Salon" and more is on the way.
Spudboy + Salon = absolutely nothing to worry about for the Repubs.
I mean, who reads that crap?
Lafayette and Carrier Charles de Gaulle off Paki..
While I miss spudboy, and like him as a person, his article is nothing more than a poke at Ashcroft. There is no there there. Sure, he may be right, but he has not one fact to back up his assertions. I has communicated my thoughts to him, and we just agree to disagree. The extreme leftwing nuts, not spudboy, but certainly cellar and most of the articles he links would blame Ashcroft for original sin, if they knew what it was.
But clearly people ... in the militia movement who called for an armed march to arrest and hang the "traitors" in Washington -- this is back in the mid-'90s, when the militia movement was getting started -- there's an example of somebody who might have been arrested [but wasn't.]
Geez. I mean, then why isn't this idiot going after Janet Reno? Is Ashcroft supposed to send troops to go kidnap Elian from Cuba, too?
And by the author's standards, shouldn't cellardoor at least be questioned, what with all his calls to KILL, KILL, KILL!!!! various Republicans?
What an ass.
Why's that?
Well, mostly because of their use of 'Come Together' in their commercials. Then, today, I saw another self-righteous charity spot with the Backstreet Boys or some such band speaking for the Red Cross. Before the spot was over, and as the last Backstreet Boy was talking, there were like five seconds of a black screen with big white letters: 'brought to you by Nortel Networks'.
Really, this is the most disgusting self-righteous muck out there. You're a big multinational company - try to be fair to your workers and give good service and prices. Don't give me this shit about your CEO going 'here come old blacktop...'.
See what I'm saying? It reeks real bad.
I mean, everybody knows it's "Here come old FLAT-top..."
Out of respect for your call in Message # 16573, I took my preliminary remarks to the Inferno, but I want an answer to my posts.
i appreciate your doing that. you're right in that had i been logged on as i expected to be, the posts should have been moved -- and would have been, too. as it turned out, i had other rl things take my attention and haven't logged on until now. i see no reason to move posts from 2 days ago now, especially since the conversation has moved elsewhere.
as a general rule, i detest moving posts, and will usually allow a 'final word' before i move posts in an effort to let posters the adult ability to police themselves. i mean, i'm not Francis Urquhart for pete's (not to mention christ's) sake!
Don't you know the difference between satirical excess and straight-faced sincerity?
Maybe you think Ashcroft's a satirist too.
Of course you've never had the Secret Service come knocking at your door, so what the hell do you know?
You've been doing it for years, all over the Web. Sure, you can claim it was satire. Heck, you can claim your whole life is satire. But to claim you haven't called for the death of people you don't like is silly.
And you made me post in italics!
But if whoever owns the rights to the song (Ono? McCartney?) was willing to prostitute it thus -maybe it deserves to be mutilated by the likes of me.
I know from my days in the ad business that using Beatles songs in commercials is a very costly thing.
Rustler,
I am pretty sure Michael Jackson owns the rights to the Beatles' catalogue. Before he bought the rights, that Beatles' tunes were not used in commercials.
So here's a simple test to check your moral worthiness and see if you can escape God's -- sorry, Bush's -- all-devouring wrath. Have you ever gone out for a beer and bought a Stella Artois instead of a Bud? Then you, my friend, have engaged in a conspiracy to cause "adverse effects" to the economy of the United States. And that makes you one of the evildoers.
STELLA ARTOIS -YUM!!!
Spaten, Pilsner Urquell, Stella Artois...guess I am doomed.
[Another immortal with knowledge!]
Mass Slaughter of the Taliban's Foreign Jihadists
t.jones is right - Jacko owns Come Together, as well as most (but not all) of the rest of the Beatles catalogue.
Only paid like $40,000,000 for it (the catalogue), I think.
I read somewhere that whenever a Beatles song pops up in a commercial, you know he's low on cash. He has reportedly taken a huge hit on his Neverland - the private theme park he built for "disadvantaged kids" (which turned out to be just a really expensive means for him to get a date).
I would say that settles it.
Time to Visit Father Baba Jex in the R&P thread confessional
The U.S. military's Central Command said the 15,000-pound BLU-82 bomb, called a ``Daisy Cutter,'' was dropped near Kandahar on Wednesday. It was only the third time the weapon -- which produces a blast like that of a small nuclear bomb and devastates an area 600 yards wide --had been used in Afghanistan.
``A great portion of that bomb's effectiveness is its psychological impact on troops,'' said Maj. Brad Lowell, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command. ``Its intentions are to damage where it hits, and for the troops that can actually see it hit, it has a great psychological impact.''
Dead or Alive!
The Taliban evaluated George Bush’s head in the sum of $50 million. This was said by one of the supervisors of the special services of the movement, Mohammad Sayd Hakkani. He also said that despite the poverty of the Afghani people, they offered the sum, which doubled the figure, given by the Americans for prime suspect, Osama bin Laden’s head. Hakkani stressed that those $25 million did not attract the true Muslims at all. He said, they all were totally devoted to their faith and there is basically nothing that can tempt them. Pravda
...what do Tony Blair and Dan Quayle have in common?
The King from Enron, the Prince Regent from Haliburton, and the Kings of the Desert..
WASHINGTON -- After missteps and recriminations following the Sept. 11 terror attacks, the United States and Saudi Arabia appear to have repaired their alliance and are cooperating well in the war on terrorism, officials in both governments say.
But over the long run, senior Bush administration officials say, the two countries' relationship is probably headed for more changes--including a possible decrease in U.S. troop presence in Saudi Arabia.
LAT
Before I read the article, lemme guess...
Each have 50 IQ points or better on the Moron
In case you missed it, Bush has dumbed down world leadership so much that spelling errors would be welcome!
And you best stay away from Communist publications like the Guardian.
Night of Fear and Terror as US Soldiers Strike
The Guardian has never unerstood the need to punish Foreigners; Robert Fisk of the Independent has needed a bullet in the head for a good decade now.
The Guardian has never understood the need to punish Foreigners; Robert Fisk of the Independent has needed a bullet in the head for a good decade now.
THE war on terrorism is to be extended to three new countries as soon as the campaign in Afghanistan is over.
Targets linked to Osama Bin Laden in Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will be at the top of the hit list, according to senior sources in London and Washington.
Tony Blair and President George W Bush have agreed that the momentum created by the anti-terror coalition's successes must be maintained with swift action elsewhere.
"We have the wind at our backs and we don't want to lose it," said a senior Washington source.
Preparations are under way in all three countries.
This affront to Arab pride will eventually be bound to provoke a response from Saddam. Which is what everybody really wants.
I mean, we started with the A's, but we're jumping to the S's, and from there the Y's.
I don't have it figured yet, but intuitively, I'd say Iraq is 6th or 7th.
Then, I'm all screwed up.
I think it'll spell ASSYRIA in the end.
--
Here is the excellent strip from 'Boondocks' linked in by Cellar on another thread. This young cartoonist is doing some very fine work these days.
I, naturally, am all for the whole package. Let the US don again the white hat and seriously come to grips with the problems that assail Africa - it will be one more thing to be truly grateful to Powell and Bush for.
By the way, what are the current odds of Powell being Bush's successor if Dubya wins another term?
But if I remember correctly, we can count on your vote, right?
Plus, I do stand by my statement that if Bush comes through even a lot less than 100% on his high-minded rhetoric about global terrorism, I will be on his side and grateful for the rest of my life.
I do wish though, that he and his cabal weren't quite so nakedly corrupt in domestic politics and these economic "stimulus" packages of the last few weeks. I mean, just reading Krugman's columns in the NYTimes makes my hair stand on end.
Fucking Taliban prisoners have staged an uprising at their prison outside Mazar - 800 of them.
They raided the armory.
One American AF dead.
Excerpt:
So what's the real state of the nation? On TV this looks like World War II. But though our cause is just, for 99.9 percent of Americans this war, waged by a small cadre of highly trained professionals, is a spectator event. And the home front looks not like wartime but like a postwar aftermath, in which the normal instincts of a nation at war — to rally round the flag and place trust in our leaders — are all too easily exploited.
Indeed, current events bear an almost eerie resemblance to the period just after World War I. John Ashcroft is re-enacting the Palmer raids, which swept up thousands of immigrants suspected of radicalism; the vast majority turned out to be innocent of any wrongdoing, and some turned out to be U.S. citizens. Executives at Enron seem to have been channeling the spirit of Charles Ponzi. And the push to open public lands to private exploitation sounds like Teapot Dome, which also involved oil drilling on public land. Presumably this time there have been no outright bribes, but the giveaways to corporations are actually much larger.
What this country needs is a return to normalcy. And I don't mean the selective normalcy the Bush administration wants, in which everyone goes shopping but the media continue to report only inspiring stories and war news. It's time to give the American people the whole picture.
(emphasis mine)
The US has made no bones about its displeasure that these fellows were allowed to surrender (and live) in the first place. One can only wonder at the discomfiture felt about the tens of thousands of Afghan Taliban who were allowed across the lines, and not only not sanctioned but allowed to keep their weapons.
There were reporters sending live footage of the riot, you idiot.
Ever hear of the Geneva Convention, Zan? Can you spell charges of genocide at the World Court in the Hague?
The Nazis, even the Nazis, were allowed to surrender and face trial. But I forgot, the Taliban fellows have been "worse than the Nazis" for a couple of months now.
But these episodes are not helping one whit.
These pesky Talibanis who conspire to riot, thereby making us look bad?
Do you seriously suppose the allies will come out looking any the worse for this?
Yes, it never hurts to look better than the enemy.
When the new McCarthy does not appear, or Arabs are not interned as the Japanese were, the disappointment of a Krugman is such that the villains must be created.
Hence, Ashcroft's actions become the Palmer raids. Standard fare, pork-barrelling is a new conspiracy by a cadre of swindlers and bamboozlers. Dick Armey and the ever-lovable Tom Delay ride herd on a new Teapot Dome.
Reading a eunuch such as Krugman is one thing, marj. But admitting that his writings impact upon you strikes me as a revelation best kept to yourself.
You might as well start a post with "I saw Bill O'Reilly last night, and boy, am I alarmed!"
Wanting to speak is a natural inclination, so I understand and excuse your error, hopeful that your excitability will give way to futured measure as a result of this lesson.
Bunch of animal lunatics.
BTW, Francis, if you're still around, Pincher and I have engaged in a bet and would like you to hold the funds. I'll contact you via email if it's amenable to you.
But admitting that his writings impact upon you strikes me as a revelation best kept to yourself.
I was reading that statement as an accusation of guilt of excess by association, but I was also reading quickly on the way to something else. I agree Krugman's comparisons are somewhat excessive if carried out to suggest similar outcomes, but I think you overstate them for effect.
Again, I suggest you read the column. It is Krugman, not I, who makes comparisons to Teapot Dome. It is Krugman, not I, who makes comparisons to the Palmer raids. While I paraphrase Krugman ("pork-barrelling is a new conspiracy by a cadre of swindlers and bamboozlers"), my paraphrasing is a great deal more measured than his own strident observations, which paint a covert assault on good economic policy, masked by the rattle of the saber and the colors of the flag. Your earlier judgment of Krugman as hyperbolic and hysterical was dead on, even after your quick read. Your more later, reserved judgment of "excessive" is unfortunate. I shall charitably ascribe it to your continued haste.
wonkers
My experience has taught me that any defense of a man that begins with his resume is, in the end, no defense at all. Your post comports with my experience. That said, your beef is with arky, who unwittingly labeled Krugman both hyperbolic and hysterical.
I find Krugman merely desperate and am shocked that so many put such trust in his judgment. As critics of the administration go, he is a thin notch above Frank Rich, Molly Ivins and Maureen Dowd, hardly a position of envy.
Good evening.
They were interviewing Taliban prisoners when the Taliban suddenly just pounched on them. They beat the British guy quite badly, but he was rescued and taken out of the fort. But that's when the Taliban grabbed guns off the Northen Alliance, overpowered them, killed at least twenty and the Northern Alliance lost control of the fort and had to withdraw from the fort.
Additionally, at least one American soldier was killed inside the fort.
So it appears that we and the Northern Alliance are more than justified in killing these 800 rioting prisoners.
Staunch that bleeding heart, Banks.
The unstated implication, as I interpreted it, was that he committed suicide and might have had something to do with the recent anthrax attacks. I may be reading too much into this item. Anybody else heard anything on it?
I don't see why everyone would be interested. Myself, I mention it because I used to defend him from the charges that he'd become a hysterical partisan, but no more. I quite often agree with him on budget issues, but his screeds on the motives of all concerned make them largely useless--and they certainly aren't entertaining reading any more.
Do keep in mind that the column Banks quoted had little to do with economics.
Hadn't read about the suicide guy; I'll keep an eye out for it.
Grey--I'm not sure it was an American soldier, but it was an American. Apparently what set off the fight was a journalist.
CNN is running it along the bottom of the screen. Seems his rental car was found empty on the bridge, (a bridge?) crossing the Mississipi.
Family says suicide is not a possibility.
The Time reporter said:
The reason they're here is that earlier when the Taliban grabbed some guns and started fighting, there were two American soldiers inside the fort: one of whom was disarmed and killed -- he was called Mike -- and another one was also in trouble; he was out of ammunition, had managed to sort of hold off the Taliban with his pistol but he was out of ammunition when the main body of American and British people arrived. There's no word on his fate yet. But the Americans were mounting a rescue operation.
Of course, he could be wrong about the guy being a soldier.
"Family says suicide is not a possibility."
Doesn't the family always say that ?
No, Krugman is clear-eyed. And this makes his current pieces in the Times that much more shocking. I do believe, entirely, that this crisis is being used shamelessly by the Dubya gang, and it is criminal that they are using a susceptible and vulnerable public environment to this shabby purpose.
The story of what happened in Kunduz will be pieced together by some independent journalist or UN-type person months from now, but there are maddening and confounding bits and pieces to the puzzle already, including the consistent report that the US has allowed Pakistan to ferry people out of the city even now.
From the Independent:
As Northern Alliance troops prepared yesterday to enter Kunduz, fears that the city's fall might result in a massacre of foreign-born Taliban fighters may have been averted by a secret deal hatched between Pakistan and Northern Alliance commanders, with Washington's compliance.
Fighters round the city have reported spotting Pakistan air force planes arriving and departing Kunduz over the past few nights, allegedly transporting Pakistani fighters from the encircled Taliban enclave to safety. At least three Pakistani aircraft were seen landing in Kunduz in the middle of last week, and two more were sighted subsequently.
The Pentagon, which is monitoring the situation round Kunduz in detail, has been evasive on the subject and has said it has no information about the landings. Pakistani officials have also declined to comment.
Excerpt:
The lack of leadership in the Pashtun belt creates major problems for the UN. Dozens of commanders will claim to be candidates for the Berlin meeting, but only a few will be accommodated. UN officials hope that by December 7 the Berlin meeting will choose a small leadership council which will then call for a larger meeting in Kabul of all the factions and local leaders. The larger meeting could endorse a new transitional government and interim head of state and cabinet.
The international community is depending on the UN coming up with a solution, including the newly appointed U.S. and British envoys who have expressed support for the UN process. But domestic participation must also account for a growing regional power play. Iran, Russia and Turkey, who support the United Front, are rushing to open embassies in Kabul and consulates in Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat.
Pakistan, which wants a majority Pashtun government in Kabul, appears to have no visible proxies in the south but is desperately trying to create some. The United Front has a deep hatred for Pakistan, which Islamabad has reciprocated. Now, for the first time in 20 years, Pakistan faces problems in the south. While the Taliban considered Pakistan's policy reversal to support the U.S. after September 11 as an unforgivable betrayal, Pakistan's constant interference in Afghan affairs has also angered the majority of moderate Pashtuns who want to avoid being seen as Islamabad's proxies.
What an astonishing mess. The US will need mettle and a shitload of money if it intends on following up on its rhetoric wrt Afghanistan's future. I am fairly optimistic that it will supply both - it is not in a good position to back out any time soon.
The allies own the sky over Kandahar (as well as the rest of the country) so it's not as if these flights are exactly covert.
Maybe the Pakis have been in contact with al-Qaeda people in Kandahar who are willing to trade info (ObL's whereabouts?) for free passage.
And yes - I meant it twice.
It is possible to see militant Islam as merely the latest in a series of "next big things" in the Arab world, each of which has its moment and then, when it fails, dies, to be replaced by something new. Nasser's Arab socialist nationalism once looked unstoppable; but once it became clear it was a failure, it vanished, to be replaced a generation later by militant Islam. For the past 20 years, this latest Arab extremism has been given a clear run, with the US offering only a perfunctory response to its initial forays into terror. Through her inaction, America has been the greatest recruiting agent for Mr bin Laden's al-Qa'ida and other extremist movements. The more daring the terror, and the more unimpressive the response, the greater the lure of a movement that appeared to be winning against the Great Satan.
The biggest brake on the attractions of militant Islam will be what is happening now in Afghanistan and over the next few months and years elsewhere – clear evidence that America will no more lie back and take it. The lesson will be learnt that terrorism is not winning and that, far from breaking the morale of the American people, it has only stirred them to action.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to conduct a DoD news briefing today at noon at the Pentagon
Further speculation: the way the campaign is going seems to have the North of the country (and Kabul) controlled by the NA, which appears to be more or less firmly in hand with the US. US personnel are reported to be everywhere behind the scenes alongside the NA, including right now in Kunduz.
But the South is not nearly as clearcut a picture. The Pathans taking territory from their co-tribals in the Taliban are not hand-in-glove with the US, and quite possibly are not co-operating with US search-and-seizure demands. This might also explain the US troops, they're meant to both beef up the Pathan warlords and influence some control over their activities as they overrun the South.
There is a possibility, I think, that this move will greatly improve the view among non-Taliban Pathans of the US. The Americans will be seen, finally, to be adding overwhelming muscle to "their side." To this point, the US has been seen to be firmly behind the NA, now it will also be seen to be beside the Pathan warlords trying to oust the Taliban from their southern stronghold.
It's just like Clinton's "100,000 extra cops." Translation: 36,000
Since the FBI suspects that the anthrax is the work of someone here in the U.S. and all of the recipients to date have been Dems, who wants to bet that when they find the perp, it's a right wing whackaloon like POJ?
I know. America post 9/11 hits all their sweet spots--darkskinned enemy, illegal aliens necessitating a crackdown, return to patriotism, and so on.
On the letters, Leahy and Daschle suggest right-wing; the New York Post, however, suggests left-wing; the letter sent to NBC suggests David Westin; and the letter sent to the Florida tabloid suggests Liz Taylor.
FBI profilers believe the suspect is a probably a male loner who might work in a laboratory.
The Federation of American Scientists told a 144-nation conference on banning germ warfare that the U.S. anthrax attacks were "almost certainly" derived from a U.S. government laboratory.
Tommy Thompson has stated that the anthrax-tainted letters sent to a Senate office and to the media are probably the work of a domestic terrorist.
Yet, anthrax letters are popping up all over the world.
I still think it is Liz Taylor.
Your genius is infinitely more apparent when you do crossover work.
Keep it up.
A T X H R A N T X R A H A N T A N T A H X T R X
It is about Chomsky, and it is rather critical.
As my devotees know, I once studied Chomskian linguistics and even engaged him in a short question and answer session.
In that case, I'll read it. I enjoy having my prejudices reinforced.
Pak-American pipeline...[But] in a dazzling coup, Russian President Vladimir Putin stole a march on the Bush administration, which was so busy trying to tear apart Afghanistan to find bin Laden it failed to notice the Russians were taking over half the country. To the fury of Washington and Islamabad, [Viktor] Kvashnin rushed the Northern Alliance into Kabul, in direct contravention of Bush's dictates...So long as the Alliance holds power, the U.S. is equally denied access to the much coveted Caspian Basin.. Russia has regained control of the best potential pipeline routes. The 'new Silk Road' will become a Russian energy superhighway…the U.S. handed a stunning geopolitical victory to the Russians and severely damaged its own great power ambitions. "
Putin Porks Moron = Toronto Sun Foreign Editor
" "Behind the tribal clashes that have scarred Afghanistan lies one of the great prizes of the 21st century, the fabulous energy reserves of Central Asia…Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan…are known to possess vast oil and gas reserves...But there is an immense problem. [They] are all land-locked and there is no way to get the oil and gas out. So a race has begun to find a route...This pipeline, initially for gas, would begin in the Dauletabad field in central Turkmenistan, traverse Afghanistan along the Herat-Kandahar corridor, territory controlled by the Taliban, and exit into Pakistan...Unocal, the Californian oil company, in alliance with Delta Oil, the Saudi Arabian company, has been in negotiation with the Taliban, as well as rival warlords, for much of this year over terms for the Turkmenistan-Pakistan pipeline...Pakistan is keen to have a source of oil that bypasses Iran and Russia."
Daily Telegraph
But hey am I being to hard on our Moron King here? After all, he only just found out who the president of Pakistan is!
Why looky here, the US must be guilty o' war crimes just like at Sabra and Shatila!
It's just that sometimes there doesn't seem to be much choice but to massacre people. Dresden and Hiroshima come to mind.
A lot depends on who you're fighting and what they've done to you, and what the alternatives are.
It seems to me the Mazar-i-Sharif massacre was more justified than Sabra and Shatila insofar as it was militant fanatics - Pakistani jihadi volunteers - that were slaughtered. (AFAIK).
Whether they were actually armed or not, they can be said to have had it coming. Sabra and Shatila, on the other hand; 1,000 largely unarmed civilians. (AFAIK). It's hard to see any justification there. As, indeed, it is in the case of Dresden.
Possibly, Hiroshima (and Nagasaki) was different since it probably shortened the war, thus had a military purpose.
It doesn't seem to me, btw, that if Sharon really was responsible for the massacre of 1,000 unarmed civilians that his resignation as minister of defence was "a very high price".
You might of course argue that people like Saddam and Assad have done far worse without paying any political price, and that Israel's official inquiry and making Sharon responsible was laudable by comparison. But why choose such miserable comparisons?
Gallup
Yet despite the fact that Hitler's monsters were responsible for at least 50 million deaths – 10,000 times greater than the victims of 11 September – the Nazi murderers were given a trial at Nuremberg because US President Truman made a remarkable decision. "Undiscriminating executions or punishments," he said, "without definite findings of guilt fairly arrived at, would not fit easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride."
No one should be surprised that Mr Bush – a small-time Texas Governor-Executioner – should fail to understand the morality of a statesman in the Whitehouse. What is so shocking is that the Blairs, Schröders, Chiracs and all the television boys should have remained so gutlessly silent in the face of the Afghan executions and East European-style legislation sanctified since 11 September.
There are ghostly shadows around to remind us of the consequences of state murder. In France, a general goes on trial after admitting to torture and murder in the 1954-62 Algerian war, because he referred to his deeds as "justifiable acts of duty performed without pleasure or remorse". And in Brussels, a judge will decide if the Israeli Prime Minister, Arial Sharon, can be prosecuted for his "personal responsibility" for the 1982 massacre in Sabra and Chatila.
Yes, I know the Taliban were a cruel bunch of bastards. They committed most of their massacres outside Mazar-i-Sharif in the late 1990s. They executed women in the Kabul football stadium. And yes, lets remember that 11 September was a crime against humanity.
But I have a problem with all this. George Bush says that "you are either for us or against us" in the war for civilisation against evil. Well, I'm sure not for bin Laden. But I'm not for Bush.
The Nazis conquered the power levers of one of the most developed and powerful nations in the world and took full use of a well-established and well-functioning state apparatus in order to pursue its horrendous "evil-doing".
But the crimes the Nazis committed were concealed as much as possible from scrutiny. Indeed, true Nazis still deny that the Holocaust took place. Hence, the trials made sense, not only as a way of judging those responsible, but as a way of publicising and documenting their crimes. This after their powerbase of the German state apparatus had been completely crushed. And ordinary Germans were genuinely ashamed at what transpired.
The Taliban and al-Qaeda have neither a fully developed state apparatus, nor very powerful military means at their disposal. What they have is a potential for radicalising the masses in Muslim countries in the hope, perhaps, that they can build sufficiently destructive force by sheer fanaticism multiplied by numbers. For this purpose they need to draw as much attention as possible to the crimes they commit, and will use any action of their opponents as evidence that they're fighting a Holy War. Hence, a trial will work to their advantage because it will give them a platform of propaganda.
Their destructive potential can in no sense be said to have been crushed, and the war pronounced won with any measure of confidence just because some of their number might be caught and can be brought to trial.
I think it makes good sense to kill them as part of an ongoing war effort.
(Shit, I am not used to being this cynical).
Bush Set to Provide Welfare to Insurance Companies
Un-fucking-believable.
However, there are these inconvenient things like the Geneva Convention, and the world court in the Hague, and Amnesty International. Such institutions cannot be applied one-sidedly if they are meant to retain the slightest meaning. There will now be enquiries (as I predicted many days ago) into what happened in Mazar, and also what has happened in Kunduz, and there may well be legal proceedings as a result of these inquiries.
Simply fact.
Here is Amnesty's statement concerning Mazar -
Following reports that Amnesty International has been invited, by the United Front, to investigate the killings of hundreds of prisoners and others within Qala-i-Jhangi, a fort on the outskirts of Mazar-i-Sharif, the organization has said that it is ready to consider sending an observer to monitor an inquiry and to suggest forensic and other experts for it.
However, Amnesty International reiterated that the primary responsibility for such an inquiry and for ensuring that it is fair, thorough and in line with international standards, lies with those who had custody of the prisoners and were directly involved in this incident -- the United Front, the United States and the United Kingdom. The organization also called for the results of an inquiry to be made public.
Amnesty International urges that immediate measures are taken to preserve evidence. Also, the fate of any surviving prisoners must be clarified and their safety protected, including prisoners detained in other locations.
Amnesty International reiterates its call for international human rights monitors to be deployed throughout Afghanistan as soon as possible.
However, this: "You might of course argue that people like Saddam and Assad have done far worse without paying any political price, and that Israel's official inquiry and making Sharon responsible was laudable by comparison. But why choose such miserable comparisons?"
Because they, and not the elected representatives of western democracies, are whom the Israelis are up against. I submit that had the massacre at Sabra and Shatila resulted in the end of the Lebanese civil war, somone would be arguing now that it saved lives and thus had military value, like the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
No!
There's ALWAYS a choice.
It's too bad there isn't a U.S.publication with enough guts to translate Jean Genet's coverage of Sabra and Shatilla.
Rank sophistry from the rankest of sophists.
If he is simply killed, the last images of him will be those we've seen on our TV screens - defiant, cool, calm, standing proud. I think it far better, for all purposes including propaganda, if we see him cowed, shaven, in humiliating prison fatigues, looking scared and unhappy and defeated, listening as his long series of crimes is read out to him. I'd like the world to see the look of recognition on his face as his loose ends are tied, as his network is identified and shown to be destroyed, as his compatriots denounce him.
Broadly speaking, the Bush team consists of two camps: The first wants to disarm Saddam; the second wants to destroy him. The Pentagon's civilian leadership, led by Wolfowitz and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, has been pressing for a broad and robust military campaign, launched in conjunction with the Iraqi opposition, and aimed at ousting the Iraqi dictator. So have some National Security Council staffers and Dick Cheney aides. The State Department, meanwhile, favors limiting any campaign to the destruction or degradation of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. And if this latter faction has been losing the fight over whether to take military action against Saddam, it appears to be winning the fight over the scope of the action. Which means good news for Saddam Hussein and bad news for the rest of us.
TNR
But I suspect the Turks have their ways of ensuring that such is in fact the image that a prisoner projects. Ways that may not be open to an American prison guard...
It's happened endlessly in the past - think of the images of a toothless Guzman ranting though the bars of his cage. Or indeed, the "banality" of Eichmann sitting in the dock.
Bin Laden, contrary to reports, is not Superman. He must be shown to be such.
"I think it makes good sense to kill them as part of an ongoing war effort."
This is not cynical, it is logical. Killing and war are synonymous, and in the case of the "massacre" at Mazar, the killing came about as a result of prisoners-of-war reinstigating hostilities. Fiske states "But I have a problem with all this". In the comfort of his armchair, he can afford to.
The Northern Alliance will engage in executions. These are the wages of third world allies, and those wages are not particularly stiff when those allies are taking the brunt of the casualties on the ground.
The United States lost a CIA operative. The Northern Alliance lost many, many more.
Moreover, in modern warfare, I would hope that the penalty of execution has a rich tradition for those who would feign prisoner-of-war status only to get in closer proximity to the enemy in an effort to reinitiate hostilities.
Wombat, I have had that exact image myself.
If what is known of his fate remains publicly murky, perhaps he mioght then wind up playing a role similar to that of the Flying Dutchman. Bin Laden sighted in Iraq - take out their terrorist infrastructure. He's 'seen' in Somalia, Sudan, Syria, etc. - must clean up their terrorist dens/governments.
You get the picture.
concerned:
Your mention of the Flying Dutchman brought to mind a punishment: make him listen to that opera for days on end and he will be happy to turn himself in....
That is the capital city of the Klingon Empire, no?
Others have also said that bin Laden may prove yet another manifestation of the Elvis syndrome.
But I think we will have a pretty clear idea of whether he is dead or alive a year or so from now, even if we have no DNA proof of it.
Presently, my nom de plume in this burg is 'concerned'. I tend to consider those who corrupt it as probably compensating for deficiencies in their command of facts.
easily on the American conscience or be remembered by our children with pride."
Apples and oranges.
This situation is unique, because it is not the leaders and soldiers of any particular country that are to be tried - but adherents to a "cause" with no borders.
When Nazis were tried at Nuremberg, the German gov't had been toppled and replaced with one agreeable to the interests of the Allies. What Nazi sympathizers were still around by the time of the trials weren't making any noise about it, and they sure the fuck didn't have the means to retaliate. Revelations concerning info used to indict suspects, methods used to track them down, etc, may have enabled some to escape capture - but that is the extent of the damage: They could not use such info to plan or execute further attacks.
It's elementary, and everyone knows it.
It will be unfair to some people, but that's just too fucking bad.
We agree 100%. See my Message # 16772.
And I didn't even read Fisk.
You know what this means - you and I being in 100% agreement - don't you?
It means the logic is flawless, and further argument is futile and counterproductive.
Look, I remember how horrified I was by Sabra and Shatila when I read about it in Ha'aretz. I even remember where I was: in the central bus station in Jerusalem. I was a soldier.
No, wait. That can't be. I wasn't a soldier yet. I began my service on February 7th, 1983. Oh well.
It was a crime. Sharon was on his way up, on the path to becoming PM. He was booted out of that path. Should he have paid a higher price? What if it is argued that when fighting beasts like our neighbors, who actually teach their children, in their schools, that blowing themselves up among civilians is a saintly thing, nothing short of occasional unbridled savagery can serve as a deterrent?
It's not the same thing, but look at the way the campaign in Afghanistan only started moving forward when the US bombings became totally ferocious, and killed hundreds of civilians in the process. If you guys gave a shit about how many civilians were being killed, you would not have dropped those Daisy Cutters. But the military saw that public opinion did not care that civilians were dying, and they started letting 'er rip. That's when you started winning the war.
Read Andrew Sullivan (butterbar link in Am. Politics) today to link to Krauthammer on the use of force. You will like it.
I for one didn't know the daisy cutters (two have been dropped) were used on civilians. Making a dead zone of 600 yards diameter I thought that ordnance was used for tactical and psychological effect against Taliban frontline troops. Now you say if we Americans gave a shit about civilians being killed we wouldn't have used the two daisy cutters. I'm just not following your reasoning - again.
What made US actions effective was increasing the intensity of air strikes on Taliban front line positions. This, combined with earlier strikes against Taliban command, control, and infrastructure, demoralized those Afghans concripted into Taliban (and some of its foreigners as well), and made it impossible for Taliban to shift troops and supplies where needed.
What seems most striking about this campaign so far is how few civilians apparently have been killed in these attacks.
I would also point out that Arabs have been brutalized periodically over the centuries, and yet they still keep popping up and making nuisances of themselves.
Where is that common? In the West Bank and Gaza? Military installations like police stations, you mean perhaps?
I sure didn't know that larding military installations among a civilian populace was peculiar to Arabs/Muslims, but I am fairly sure I haven't an ice cube's chance in Hell of dissuading you from your opinions.
"I don't think anything short of massacre can deter the Arabs"
If we can break the grip of their organized religious masters long enough to get them in front of TV receivers, we should be able to deprogram them with reruns of I Love Lucy, etc.
I thought perhaps the Israeli government figured targeted assassinations of known terrorists were a deterrence as well as an elimination of these terrorists. I sort of perceived the logic being that punishing a certain kind of behaviour sent a signal to others that this particular behaviour carried a high and deadly risk. And simultaneously that not engaging in such behaviour would then be less risky.
But you don't agree, it seems. Are you saying terrorists put a high value on civilian lives?
Are you saying that experiencing unarmed civilians, maybe of your own family, being slaughtered wouldn't work as a fantastic motivator for future vengeful armed attacks?
I don't really understand it.
Living within walking distance of a SAC base as I grew up and living there still, as I right now am listening to military airplanes rev their engines, I can attest that Arabs/Muslims are not the only ones who have military installations amongst civilian populations.
The threat that settlers live under has caused large numbers of them to leave the settlements. The pressure we are under is doubtless causing some people to think about leaving Katzir (only there's nowhere safer to go to, really). Terror causes fear and panic and flight. If the Pals encircled us with tanks and started shelling Katzir, you can bank on there being nobody left in Katzir by nightfall. I don't know if that answers your patronizing, know-it-all, Nordic question.
And nobody answered my hypothetical re: Macnamara.
Of course it doesn't, you patronising know-it-all defensive Hebbie.
Civilians flee from war and terror. But does it prevent terrorists from arising from within their midst now or at some future point? I don't think experience bears that out. But then, of course, if you're massacred, you can't hit back...
I've never heard of the "infamous 'Kafr Kana Massacre'". But your invasion in Lebanon wasn't seen as a just war by anyone I know of, and I think it was even highly controversial in Israel, whereas the war on the Taliban has universal legitimacy in the Western world.
The other thing I hope we're past is the reluctance to treat the financiers of terrorism as anything but "off the table." Ironically, given the debate above about civilian casualties, I think a necessity of striking at a terrorist network is hitting the financial structure underneath (i.e., civilians). Not indiscriminate bombing, of course, but rather than just "freezing assets," I think it's time to make these people pay personally as well.
You will never persuade a suicide bomber by a physical threat, but I expect a physical threat can persuade the financier from buying him a bomb.
I dunno. If the interviews with returning Pakistani Jihadis are anything to go by, their actual experience is going to make them reluctant to take further calls to martyrdom very enthusiastically.
In any case, force has had an effect in dampening some Islamofascists' spirits.
I have done some more research and it appears the General actually said: 'I yam what I yam'. This was later misspelt as 'where is my smelly pillow?', and the rest is history.
Ah, so you do understand what I am saying. Yes - it's not exclusively an Arab tactic. It's a tactic used by non-democratic assholes the world over, and it's especially effective against democracies with scruples about how cruel they are allowed to be and whether they may or may not kill civilians.
sto:
I've never heard of the "infamous 'Kafr Kana Massacre'". But your invasion in Lebanon wasn't seen as a just war by anyone I know of, and I think it was even highly controversial in Israel, whereas the war on the Taliban has universal legitimacy in the Western world.
Kafr Kana is a village where a Red Cross installation with refugees was hit by a tank shell by mistake, in the 'Grapes of Wrath' Operation of 1996 (a Peres production). Around 100 civilians died. The Hizbullah website has pictures of beheaded babies and stuff, if you're into that.
(clears throat).
Let's say that for some reason you and the entire sto family - opa, oma, five brothers, four sisters and innumerable blond offspring - are banished from your wonderful little town in Støbörg and have nowhere to move to but some really crappy neighborhood in downtown LA.
Now, you find that you are surrounded by some really mean neighbors. These are people who deal in heroin and crack, who have sexual practices that involve unwilling participants, who kill each other routinely and who do not like you and your blondies one fucking bit. They would like a piece of your sisters' asses, they would like a piece of your daughters' asses, they would like a piece of your ass, and they say so, too.
Of all the sto family, the only one who seems able to fend these fuckers off is your rather bestial younger brother, Tub-o-lard Sto. He is a brute, very strong physically, and does not think twice about inflicting horrible physical pain on anyone who even looks at any of the family's girls the wrong way.
>>>
Now, you may feel uncomfortable with some of Tub-o-Lard's deeds over the years. But he gives you security. He fights for you. He is feared by the neighbors - even the worst ones, the ones that fear virtually nothing - and his very presence has a deterring effect on would-be evildoers.
When it seems he has gone too far, and when you feel your standing in the neighborhood has become more secure (thanks largely to Tub-o-Lard), you put Tubs aside and demand that he keep a low profile. But then something happens - a fresh spate of harrassment and physical attacks on your blondies - and suddenly your family is again trembling in fear. Who do you call?
You call Tub-o-Lard.
It's just more Nordic stophistry, really.
Under the specifics of the law (I'm too lazy to link - sue me), it seems any stand-up comedian worth his/her salt will be out of work. As their example, they use some guy who says The Welsh are really annoying.
Upon reading this, I realized two things simultaneously:
1) I've never heard a European stand-up comedian.
2) I don't want to hear any European stand-up comedians.
America ruled out the deployment of an international peace-keeping force in Afghan-istan yesterday - at least until it finishes its military campaign on the ground.
US military commanders, backed by the White House, fear that a large multinational force would be a hindrance to their operations against Osama bin Laden and the Taliban.
The blunt American rebuff to any speedy international deployment leaves America's allies, principally Tony Blair, in
an embarrassing limbo with troops on stand-by without anywhere to go. It also undermines the negotiating position of the United Nations in Bonn, where it is is trying to persuade the Northern Alliance to cede military power in Kabul to a multinational force.
It is the right move, but typically done in a hamfisted diplomatic-tone-deaf manner.
--
Now, contrary to the chirping from the usual suspects here, I have not yet linked in one article by Edward Said. I've read them, sure, I think he's a pretty good, partisan, thinker, but no piece on anything about 9/11 and after has really impressed me.
This one does. We all know what Said's pet peeves are, and his bias is not at all hidden. But the case he makes, and his analysis of the current sate of affairs in the US, is persuasive overall. It has struck me as such, anyway, after a quick reading.
Decide for yourself. I think Sto should read it, by the way, it seems to touch on a number of issues that he has brought up these past weeks.
On the other hand, and I shall conclude with this now, leaving the subject for my next article to develop in detail, we must not as Palestinians or Arabs fall into an easy rhetorical anti-Americanism. It is not acceptable to sit in Beirut or Cairo meeting halls and denounce American imperialism (or Zionist colonialism for that matter) without a whit of understanding that these are complex societies not always truly represented by their governments' stupid or cruel policies. We have never addressed the currents in Israel and America which it is possible, and indeed vital, for us to address, and in the end to come to an agreement with. In this respect, we need to make our resistance respected and understood, not hated and feared as it is now by virtue of suicidal ignorance and indiscriminate belligerence.
One more thing. It is also far too easy for a small group of unexceptional expatriate Arab academics in America to keep appearing on the media here in order to denounce Islam and the Arabs, without having the courage or the decency to say these things in Arabic to the Arab societies and peoples they so easily rail against in Washington and New York. Nor is it acceptable for Arab and Muslim governments to pretend to be defending their people's interests at the UN and in the West generally, while doing very little for their people at home. Most Arab countries now wallow in corruption, the terror of undemocratic rule, and a fatally flawed educational system that still has not faced up to the realities of a secular world.
You take this paranoid, lunatic idiot seriously, marj?
I think Said is just plain nuts, in the long run.
So do marj's quotes represent what Edward Said or do Joe's?
Also - we have nowhere to go. They can all pack up and go 25 km. east to their brothers in Jordan.
And eventually - they will. If they don't kill me in Hebron in January, and if The Mote doesn't fold by then, you'll be getting a live, blow-by-blow account of the second phase of the conquest of the Land of Israel as it happens, on this thread.
NY Times
A top State Department official said today that the United States was on "a roll" in its campaign against the Taliban in Afghanistan and that President Bush intended to use the momentum to force Iraq to open its borders to United Nations inspectors looking for weapons of mass destruction.
Questions:
My guess he has said both these things, and somewhat like Arafat, can tailor his remarks to his audience at the time.
His "symbolic" throwing of stones a while back became a fairly big story in NYC, with many wondering openly why Columbia University would tolerate such behavior by a member of their faculty, but they appear to have done so.
2) Not too much for a while. More flyovers and more bombings of military outposts away from civilian centers. But plans will be laid by the US for the future.
3) I don't know, but I suggest Bush is sensitive to the charge that sanctions have harmed civilians and especially children.
4) I don't know how Turkey views its Kurdish situation, but it has been proposed (I forget by whom) that a formal, independent Kurdistan be carved out of northern Iraq. Seems unlikely, though.
I'm a lawyer, and I really don't understand your perception of the profession. The law is but a code for human relations and business. It has some fundamental precepts rooted in documents of the Founding Fathers (none of which guaranteed, for example, complete, unfettered confidentiality between lawyers and their clients), but under your view, its practitioners are imbued with an almost mystical adherance to supporting the outer reaches of the law's protections, no matter the circumstances. While this may be true of Bobby Donnell and his proteges on television, in real life, such is not the case.
For example, a lawyer was appointed to represent a terrorist suspect in Alexandria, Virginia federal court recently. When the lawyer appeared before Magistrate Judge Buchanan, he explained that he could not represent the detainee, as he had relations killed in the events of September 11th. The judge granted a continuance for the suspect to get other counsel.
Did this lawyer shirk his "professional obligation to the law"? Should his license be revoked?
Or should all lawyers who support the death penalty (in contradiction to the American Bar Association) -- perhaps the greatest limit one's liberties imposed by our legal system -- be summarily disbarred as well?
I am curious as to your view. While I disagree, it is pleasing to be deemed some sort of shaman.
Maybe you should get into something more important.
Nicely put.
So...would inspections be any more effective than the last time? Why shouldn't Iraq--if they think the US is going to get serious (Afghanistan-style) on them--yield to inspections, then just return to the game they played for about seven years? Or at least offer to?
Would this call the US bluff? Is it a bluff?
As far as #4, I'm hoping someone more knowledgable than I on this situation can comment, but I've been reading that Turkey is going back and forth on the Iraq question, which indicates to me they're driving a bargain with the US. It would be in their interest for a change in the status quo re Iraq because they are hurt by the current sanctions as Iraq was a major trading partner of theirs before the Gulf War.
The biggest concern for Turkey, though, is their own Kurdish population. I'm wondering if the US offered Turkey a deal like, "You cooperate when we take out Saddam, and we'll let you have his chunk of the Kurds. Then you can set up a Turkish protectorate over a unified 'Kurdistan.'"
I know very little about that whole situation and am curious if this is at all viable. Would the Kurds be placated in such a situation, or would they give more trouble to the Turks than they do currently?
I think Turkish control of a Kurdistan is a possibility, but the US would insist that Turkish treatment of the Kurds be above reproach.
In any case, I believe them when they say they have no intention of dealing with Iraq until Afghanistan is pacified, the Taliban destroyed, and al Qaeda clearly minimized as a threat.
Then Iraq, or as Andrew Sullivan suggests, Islamic African states, and then Iraq. And then Syria and Lebanon, if needed. Increased aid to the Phillipines, as well.
I'd probably support all of this. And then I'd like us to start getting our military out of the Persian Gulf. And telling Egypt we are defunding them as long as their press foments hatred against us. And telling Israel to agree to something for God's sake. And maybe helping Pakistan create a secular school system (though I wonder if that is even possible.)
Eventually, I would like us to have a much lower profile in the region than we do now.
JoeZan,
JoeZan,
Joe ZAAAAAAN,
please don't hurt me just because you can.
Without this proof, the US would have little international support and, therefore, will not launch a conventional military operation. Indeed, it would be almost unable to. US activity will be limited to various agitations and provocations, mostly covert.
With this proof, the US would have, on a case-by-case basis, the concurrence and/or active support of allies and coalition members and would then proceed to dismantle the Saddam regime.
The breathtakingly swift implosion of Enron leaves many losers in its wake, not least among them those employees who held big chunks of ENE shares in their company retirement accounts. That stock has completely cratered, from a 52-week high of about $84 to less than $1 at the end of trading yesterday. Maybe you saw some of these unfortunates on news broadcasts last night, looking shattered as they explained the vaporization of their retirement dreams. Listening to these awful tales, it's hard to remember that such a short time ago the conventional wisdom held that employee ownership was a great thing. But then, Enron's troubles were already playing a key role in building a fresh backlash against that wisdom even before yesterday
Holy Adam Smith Ronsk!
Enron Employees Get the Back of the Invisible Hand!
And the President from Enron wants to give his buddies and benefactors a few million in tax welfare!
That's Erl 'n Gas hard at work in the councils of the US govt Pelle.
The Case for Leaving Sadaam Alone
My point is that it would be a serious fallacy to transfer the experience of Afghanistan to the case of Iraq. In A., the US dealt with a regime that had only a tenuous grip on power and was opposed by an armed and experienced opposition.
In Iraq, the regime has tightened its grip for decades and there is no viable opposition. The Kurds in the north are happy with their quasi-autonomus status and will not move against Baghdad. The Shia in the south are nothing. Further, the regime has had 10 years to prepare its defences against an American attack.
I'm not saying it cannot be done but to "succeed" it will require a couple of hundred thousand troops on the ground and with the Arab states opposed to it how can it be done?
para 1 and 2 -- Agreed. I wasn't suggesting that the cases are at all similar.
para 3 -- Agree that a major effort would be required, far in excess of Afghanistan. However, I'm inclined to think that if the US uncovers definitive proof of WMD development or 9/11 involvement, the situation would quickly return to an approximation of Desert Storm. This would include substantial support from traditional allies and limited support or acquiescence from nominal allies (Saudis, Egypt, etc.).
I agree that, without this proof, a US attack is unlikely and probably unwinnable.
Incidentally, I'd define success as the displacement of the Saddam regime. If they want to fight a guerilla war from the hills, they're cordially invited to knock themselves out. We've still achieved our goal, imo.
Why do it?
How to do it?
What will we have accomplished IF we do it?
Why?
Sadaam is fun to beat up.
Outside of that all the other arguments in favor are lame in the extreme. Weapons of mass destruction? Had 'em for over a decade. Threat to neighbors? The neighbors don't think so. Threat to US? Get real.
9-1-1 involvement - whole cloth creation.
How?
This is the question most vexing for the bird brain trust. With Saudi Arabia sure to balk at basing for an attack and Turkey being a geographically undesireable route, we will need a Star Ship transporter. I am not sure that hundreds of thousands would be needed. Sadaam is weaker than he was in '90. OTOH, bad logistics, City fighting, forces probably dispersed, no wonder the "hawks" are reduced to cackling "we beat Sadaam, we beat Slobo, we beat Mullah Omar"..if you listen to Wolfowitz, Woolsey et al that is the sum and the substance of their answer to "how"
As for cost...obvious..an enraged Arab world, strained EuroLations, major enhancement of Russia/China position in region, nation building committment, not to mention serious death and destruction...
For what?
I agree that conclusive proof will mean an entirely different ballgame.
I have to log out now. Thanks for an interesting discussion here and in the other thread.
An arctic goodnight to you too, jexster.
Don't you think we would hear from the priests and the Pope if Ashcroft announced he was going to bug confessionals, or from psychiatrists if he demanded their patients' records in the name of national security? Well, where are the lawyers when Ashcroft announces he's going to tap conversations with their clients? And when he proposes tribunals which ignore long hallowed basic protections for the accused?
It's not clear to me what religious, philosophical or legal concept justifies one standard of justice for Americans and another for aliens suspected of terrorism. I would think America and its lawyers would stand up for basic legal rights for the accused regardless of nationality. As I recall the U.S. subscribes to the United Nations' declaration on human rights for the accused which Ashcroft's tribunals clearly violate. And as long as we are appealing to the authority of a Roosevelt and naming buildings after Bobby Kennedy, this one was passed with the support of Eleanor.
Wanna hear about the Gore Exception?
It certainly doesn't look like a cowboy caper against Iraq is in the cards ...
THE Bush Administration made tough demands on the Israelis and Palestinians yesterday as it sought to bolster Arab support for its war on terrorism by pledging to engage fully in the Middle East peace effort.
PantyWaist Powell to 'push and prod' Middle East - Times of London/a>
That is what the whole debate is about. If Saddam is smuggling weapons of mass destruction to Islamic terrorists to be used against Western cities then he most certainly is a threat to the U.S.
We just don't know if he is or isn't, yet.
If you do, I've a hot stock tip for ya...
Enron 24 cents a share
The issue is how best to deal with him and from the looks of things we are doing about as good as we can do at an acceptable cost.
From Poppy on, US policy has been to contain Hussien.
What has happened since 9-1-1 that makes it suddenly so damned urgent to do what Poppy should have done when he had the chance in 1990?
No one has said we have the evidence, yet.
I've given this a little thought. Yes, I'm a lawyer too. First, the attorneys who want to challenge this need to find a few petitioners. This could be difficult..."I Amhad Omer am illegally in the US and these laws could violate my rights." ? I think not. But to challenge regulations you do have to have plaintiffs who would possibility be injured by the regulations. The issue of identity of the plaintiffs might be a problem, though one could "John Doe" them. The other issue might be where to file the suit. Which federal district court might be the most inclined to grant a preliminary injunction pending hearing of the case, etc.
It may take a while, but you'll hear from the attorneys. I bet some of the public law firms are working this weekend to bring the actions.
Does Mohammed Atta having met with a high-ranking Iraqi in Golden Prague and later having crawled with cohorts over crop duster planes in Florida when the world knows the Iraqis have used weapons of mass destruction on their own people people mean nothing, as jexster implies?
Is jexster right to assume that Saddam has no intention of using such weapons ever, ever again, and am I utterly paranoid to harbor some doubts about same?
Just asking.
Strawman!
Does Mohammed Atta having met with a high-ranking Iraqi in Golden Prague and later having crawled with cohorts over crop duster planes in Florida when the world knows the Iraqis have used weapons of mass destruction on their own people people mean nothing, as jexster implies?
Strawman
II
Is jexster right to assume that Saddam has no intention of using such weapons ever, ever again, and am I utterly paranoid to harbor some doubts about same?
Strawman III
If you can't answer an argument make one up!
Q:Does Mohammed Atta having met with a high-ranking Iraqi in Golden Prague and later having crawled with cohorts over crop duster planes in Florida when the world knows the Iraqis have used weapons of mass destruction on their own people people mean nothing,
A:No one has said we have the evidence, yet.
Been talkin to yourself alot these days have you?
The inference is compelling - there is no evidence and Woolsey is being sent on a fool's errand for the CIA knows what it knows and doesn't need Woolsey to tell em UNLESS the real agenda is to silence that idiot and all other fellow travelling idiots
I smell a set up and shrewd move by the Bushies at CIA
From a ruined 19th century fortress, TIME correspondent Alex Perry records the crushing of a Taliban revolt.
INSIDE THE BATTLE AT QALA-I-JANGI
That's an excellent report.
This capability, first seen in its infancy during the Persian Gulf War a decade ago, has now matured to such a degree that some argue it has become the key element around which the U.S. military should be reshaped as it faces terrorism and other threats of the 21st century.
"We may have reached critical mass," said John F. Guilmartin Jr., an Ohio State University expert on the history of air power.
Such a shift in U.S. military posture would have immense implications for what investments are made in troops and weaponry, how war is waged, and when the United States chooses to go to war.
Bullseye
Including the Father (or is it Mother?) of our country.
Dismayed by its status as the Taliban's favorite automaker, Toyota today rolled out a new line of S.U.V.'s and pickup trucks for 2002. Named "Northern Alliance" after the Afghan
rebels, the new vehicles are specifically designed, according to a Toyota spokesman, "for today's all-terrain freedom fighter.
I have just finished Robin Lane Fox's Alexander the Great. I will read the new Alexander trilogy by that Italian fellow in the near future.
Utterly ridiculous.
The part has Jude Law written all over it.
The Wall Street Journal reported in September that the former president...worked for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group.
[He] met with the bin Laden family at least twice...Reports have questioned whether members of his Saudi family have truly cut off Osama bin Laden. Osama's sister-in-law, in a recent interview with ABC News, said that she believed that members of her family still supported bin Laden...And documents recently uncovered through Judicial Watch's FOIA to the Department of Defense show that the Carlyle Group has high-level access to the U.S. government."
Mmm...maybe Ronski has a point after all - BOMB POPPY NOW!
Are you sure you are in the right thread?
I believe he thinks I have ignored a question from wonkers. That is perhaps wonkers' business and not jexster's, but when I get the time I'll look for it and respond.
I just read somewhere, in a blurb from a Dawn article condemming the prison outbreak slaughters as crimes against humanity, that the Geneva Convention does not in fact apply to foreign volunteers.
See http://www.dawn.com/2001/12/01/ed.htm#1
Whether the prisoners actually revolted or whether the revolt was engineered is an important but secondary question. [!!!Secondary?!!!] The real issue [God help us, there's always a "real issue" in this sort of argument] is the use of excessive force by the US-led allies, including the use of air power by the Americans. ["Excessive force"--hear that echo? Who else is guilty of "excessive force"?] Maybe, the revolt was not engineered; maybe, the PoWs had smuggled their arms in and revolted. But putting down a revolt in a mud fort, which was, in any case, surrounded on all sides by the Northern soldiers and British commandos, should not have been such a difficult task.
They could have been tired out and made to surrender. [It is well known that tiring out revolting Talibs and Arab Afghans without killing them is exactly like persuading young children to go to bed without spanking them]. But to call in American gunships and fire into men holding rifles and Kalashnikovs [I mean, is it a crime to hold a Kalashnikov?] gives a clear impression that the aim of the allied high command was the wholesale slaughter of the PoWs. [Unmitigated child abuse!]As remarked by Robert Fisk, the celebrated British war correspondent, the hands of the "British troops are now stained with war crimes." That goes for the Americans, too. My Lai seems to have been repeated in Afghanistan.
Hitting your opponent hard enough to keep him down is the first objective of war, boxing, and any other fight I've ever seen or heard about.
What the fuck is wrong with people who do not understand this?
But PW Powell has got Wolfowitz. Asymmetry of bureaucratic power perhaps?
Since Sept. 11, the pressure to formulate a plan of action against Iraq has increased from members of Congress and other influential experts. R. James Woolsey, the former director of central intelligence, was enlisted by the Pentagon and Justice Department to fly to London to interview witnesses about possible Iraqi connections to the terror attacks on New York and Washington.
"If anyone, Jim Woolsey or anyone else, can find the evidence of an Al Qaeda connection with Saddam Hussein, no one in this administration would be disappointed at all," Mr. Armitage said.
"those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle" Sun Tsu
If it's 1982 and you are Hafiz al-Assad, you are effectively permitted to slaughter 20,000 people in a village harboring the Muslim Brotherhood which has been attempting to assassinate you for a year. Then you get to occupy Lebanon by "invitation", and in 2001 your country gets a seat on the UN security Council. But if it's 1982 and you are Ariel Sharon, and you allow a Phalangist psychotic to slaughter 3,000 Palestinians and Lebanese harboring Pal terrorists who want to erase your country, in 2001 you get to face the unending rage of the world and the threat of getting hauled up before the Hague.
When diplomacy can prevent further bloodshed of innocents it should be employed--in conjunction with the threat of devastating force. But some things really aren't worth negotiating. Whoever thinks it is a "war crime" to assassinate or aerially bomb the people planning to murder your civilians, or to punish their supporters with death and destruction, is desperately in need of an enema. And anyone who thinks such actions can be legitimate only if they are carried out with god-like accuracy ought to be made to wander about the Arab lands wearing a placard labeled "Please Suicide Bomb My Children the Next Time They Go to the Mall."
WRT attacking Iraq...
1. Sadaam has had CBW for 15 years. Sadaam has been contained since 1990. There is no evidence to support involvement in 9-1-1 attack.
So why invade/overthrow now when we didn't do so in 1990 when we had troops in Iraq?
Why invade/overthrow now assuming (not a minor assumption to be sure) that we can force him to agree to and not interfere with UN inspections?
2. How to do it?
Assuming that Saudi Arabia/Gulf States will not allow use of bases for offensive operations (safe assumption), how do we overcome the logistical difficulties of an invasion through Turkey?
Do you believe that the Kurdish minority opposition in the North are sufficient to accomplish the task without major US ground forces relying only on Special Forces and Air Power?
What do you think the Turkish reaction to a Kurd rebellion against Sadaam is likely to be?
Assuming there is no evidence of a 9-1-1 attack and therefore we have to establish a causus belli based on UN sanctions, do you think that UN support for enforcement by force of arms will be forthcoming?
Same question for Europeans.
3. What will we have accomplished IF we do it?
What do you see as the likely post-war outcomes - for Iraq, for US policy objectives in the Middle East?
"It's possible the US could manufacture a pretext, as Francis, suggests, to overthrow Saddam. However, it would have to be on the order of a provocation (on our part) rather than the wholesale invention of a pressing reason to act. ... Maybe we could achieve our ends through the UN, by demanding new, more comprehensive inspections, and imposing tighter sanctions now that bin Laden and Saddam have been revealed to have clear connections. Perhaps Euro cooperation on that front could be extracted via guarantees that we won't toss Saddam unless he refuses to submit to inspections and the destruction of his labs and stockpiles.
Which he would. And then we'd be free to act."
From the Observer, 12/2:
America intends to depose Saddam Hussein by giving armed support to Iraqi opposition forces across the country, The Observer has learnt. President George W. Bush has ordered the CIA and his senior military commanders to draw up detailed plans for a military operation that could begin within months.
...
It envisages a combined operation with US bombers targeting key military installations while US forces assist opposition groups in the North and South of the country in a stage-managed uprising. One version of the plan would have US forces fighting on the ground.
Despite US suspicions of Iraqi involvement in the 11 September attacks, the trigger for any attack, sources say, would be the anticipated refusal of Iraq to resubmit to inspections for weapons of mass destruction under the United Nations sanctions imposed after the Gulf war.
1) We are not invading now. We will only invade if we determine that he is indeed (a) exporting mass destruction weapons or (b) growing his supplies of such weapons in order to export them. You might recall that I have not advocated invading Iraq, now.
2) Logistics are indeed a problem, but I suspect it can be done; Turkey's attitude towards a Kurdish state was discussed yesterday -- no one here knows what they will think, but there is a possibility they would welcome an autonomous Kurdistan carved out of Irag --and perhaps they wouldn't; the Kurds could not do this alone; I suspect the UN will not back a U.S. invasion without hard evidence of Iraqi involvement with the current spate of world terrorism and as I have said repeatedly, we do not have that evidence, but we have ample reason to be suspicious and a strong motive to keep looking for it.
Btw, could you get through your head that I am not a Bush apologist and never have been? I ask in that in the kindest way of course.
As for jex's questions:
1) IMO almost everyone believed in 1991 that Saddam would fall after his defeat without our going to Baghdad. Also, Iran was (at least perceived to be) more radical then than today, so that weakening Iraq too much was thought a bad idea. Finally, it's likely we made a mistake by not finishing him. That doesn't mean we're doomed to keep repeating the mistake.
2) That's why a couple of weeks ago I said we would start building the case and was doubtful we could do it right away. The request to bring inspectors back in and presumption that Iraq will refuse is one step toward this. (Hence my wonder yesterday what would happen if Iraq said okay to inspectors.)
Regardless, in each of our last three military conflicts there have beforehand a litany of objections as to why we just couldn't accomplish what we needed to accomplish. Iraq 1991 had a top five global military (supposedly). Yugoslavia could not be defeated by air power alone. (I distinctly remember the vaunted Serbian air defenses that would be so much more effective than Iraq's but which eventually shot down one American plane.) Afghanistan had logistical problems, the NA were worthless, and the Taliban and Al Qa'adeh were 20-year veterans who just lived to fight.
None of that means much in terms of Iraq this go round, but I think it's time to quit under-selling the American military.
Your criteria "growing his supplies of such weapons in order to export them" is of a piece with your "Atta in Prague" thinking to wit...he is growing his supplies..he has been doing so since 1990 right under the noses of UN inspectors and has probably been growing more.
Now far be it from me to put words in your mouth or letters on your monitor, but don't you infer intent to export from the evidence of production or do I assume too much?
Still we have no force on the ground in Iraq that is comparable to the NA as far as I have read anyway..and that force is largely Kurdish...bad news to Turks, Iraqis, Iranians etc.
We are far more likely to have to do some city fighting, have to put infantry and armored units into Iraq, and will have serious logistical noit to mention regional political problems doing that..
I am not saying nor have I ever said that we can't remove Sadaam..but it took 300,000 troops plus air and naval assets to get him out of Kuwait and they aren't there anymore and the emirs don't want to see them back either
Is it worth it?
If he is as weak as the Wooley Woolsey heads say he is when they try to convince us what a cake walk the military option would be, doesn't it follow that he can be contained even more effectively with less effort than ever?
I think that's what Powell and Armitage are arguing now...I think that they set Wolfowitz et al up with the Woolsey caper.
To shut them up..and end the debate
I'd like to think that I am the exception that proves your rule Indy cause I never thought that.
But alas I think you've conflated Poppy's spin with fact. The reason we didn't go after him, according to George I and John Major both recently interviewed and giving the same rationale...
The coaliton wouldn't have supported it...it would have meant street fighting in a large city..the action would have exceeded the UN authority under which we were operating...
The line "we-think-he'll collapse" was spin..spun sugar coating
I'd like to think that I am the exception that proves your rule Indy cause I never thought that.
Too bad we didn't have someone with your foresight and wisdom advising us at the time.
Although there are several reasons for why we didn't finish Saddam 1991, I listed what I thought were the direct American reasons--not those stemming indirectly from our allies. When making that decision, I think it likely that allied misgivings and the limits of the UN mandate were given weight, of course, but you don't sell a policy decision just based on "best not tick off Syria." You sell it by saying, "Do we want to leave Iran as dominant power in the Gulf?", "Do we want to create a Kurdish problem?" and "Saddam is finished anyway."
Bush's take was from the start cautious. Supposedly he said at the initial cabinet meeting "What if we do nothing?"
Now, as for which is spin and which isn't, I find it indeed strange that you say the belief that Saddam was going to fall was spin by "Poppy," and then refute it with statements allegedly made by Bush himself years later. I think it likely that as time goes by a man who makes a bad decision will transfer that decision to the blame of others: "the coalition wouldn't let me." The reasons he gives at the time are more likely accurate. In any case, I can't fathom the logical contradiction in saying Bush spun it and then "quoting" him saying something else. Guess he's not very effective at spin.
Saddam has a real problem on his hands trying to deal with this situation in the south and the situation in the north and, certainly, there must be some unrest in Baghdad as these soldiers start to return from the mother of all defeats. In due course, Saddam should realize that one of the best courses of action would be to see if somebody else wishes his job.
At least one of the big proponents of stopping before Baghdad thought at the time Saddam's days were numbered.
Yes. You assume too much. I will say this though. When Bush 43 campaigned to lower taxes I thought, and said here, that it was to restore the Bush family legacy on the subject of taxation, and to correct his father's mistake by breaking that famous read my lips pledge.
I likewise suspect that Bush 43 has in mind correcting what was perceived as another mistake of this father's, letting Saddam stay in power. But for me to support removing Saddam, I would have to see a stronger case. Moreover, I think we should concentrate on al Qaeda itself after Afghanistan, which should keep us plenty busy, doing what we need to with regard to their cells in Africa, the Phillipines, etc.
I think Iraq can, and should, wait. But I think someday we may have a strong enough case against Saddam to attack. We certainly have strong reasons to be suspicious.
(Israel will deal with any al-Qaeda linked cells in Palestine and perhaps Lebanon when they go after Hamas, etc., which I'm pretty sure they will do now. Any American statements of misgivings about what Israel is doing will have all the sincerity of the Egyptian and Saudi expressions of concern over 9/11.)
Nah. My prediction was Loarishly obvious.
***********
If the US invaded Iraq and Saddam used chemical weapons on our troops, incidentally killing hundreds of his own people, I wonder how long it would take before some third-rate moralist announced that the massacre was the US's moral responsibility because we should have known that Saddam would use such weapons to defend himself.
The opposite happened. Hussein's Revolutionary Guard (which had mostly survived the Gulf hostilities) moved in on the resistance movements, and crucially, the Allies stood by doing nothing when Iraq mobilized its armed helicopters (Hussein was allowed to keep these) against the opposition to devastating and complete effect.
Bernard Lewis and others have convincingly argued that this failure of the Allies to keep their implied promises further radicalized the Arab mindset against the US and the West.
Interesting article although a bit churlish.
Another possible explanation is that people actually think he's doing a good job on foreign policy.
And how can people gauge what kind of job he's doing when all relevant information is kept under lock and key?
And bringing the lack of necessary information to light is, in and of itself, criticism.
According to my sources, we can look for JoeZ in a black turban on or before the end of Ramadan.
Allahu Akbar!
Taliban soldier reportedly from Marin
Mother says 'sweet, shy kid' was brainwashed
Marin County, probably a Shirley McClain new age crystal thing...but come to think of it, I think I saw him last time I was at the Psychic Institute in San Rafael, just down the road from Fairfax
Bush-Ashcroft Einsatzgruppen in Aktion Outside of Barstow
The traitor moved to California when his mother got divorced.
Another reason to keep the family 2gether.
Bored White folk
We've been given yet another Terrorist Alert...so what are we to do?
Nothing...go about your bidniss, shop til you drop, hit those Malls, take your kids to Santa etc..but "just be on guard"
Now I would like to be a real patriot, "live free or die and all that shit but what does it mean in the individual and concrete case to "be on guard"
What do other MoteHeads do?
Your Guardian piece is the typical kind of journalism that seems to attract you like shit attracts a fly. Didn't you say you were once a journalist?
Roy Greenslade begins by noting that coverage on both sides of the Atlantic is devoted to the war. He then neatly segues to an opinion given by a Guatamalan immigrant driving a car rental shuttle bus at the Los Angeles airport to show the U.S. West Coast and the East Coast are equally obsessed with news of the war, even though only the East Coast was attacked. (Why wouldn't they be? Is Greenslade so stupid as to think that people on the two coasts don't really think of themselves as belonging to the same country if it is attacked?)
After the immigrant compliments Blair's eloquent leadership on the war, favorably comparing it to Bush, Greenslade then writes this paragraph: There are probably many journalists here who share that view, but they wouldn't dare say so in print. As Leslie Bennetts noted in a Vanity Fair essay about the "furious retaliation" faced by writers who have dissented from the White House line, the result has been self-censorship.
Stupid Greenslade uses a conversation at the airport to express a belief about what he thinks U.S. journalists are capable of? Apparently, Greenslade believes American journalists are so worried about Bush retaliating (furiously!) if they print that Blair is more eloquent than Bush that it has become a state secret.
And his proof of this? An American journalist who accuses Bush of pushing this self-censorship through the threat of furious retaliation.
The piece by Greenslade is filled with this shit, including a self-serving description of an interview with a managing editor of the LA Times. What is it exactly, Cellar, that attracts you to know-nothing articles like this?
Mama's a Buddhist, Papa's a Catholic. I'm a terrorist asshole.
Dec. 3 — It was “The Autobiography of Malcolm
X” that changed John Walker’s life. After reading the book in 1997 for a high school assignment, Walker, then 16, told he parents that he planned to convert to Islam. The news at first came as a surprise, but in time, both his father, a strict Irish-Catholic and his mother, a Buddhist, came to support their son’s new faith. “He was a spiritual kid,” father Frank Lindh told NEWSWEEK. “He was exceptionally devoted to his studies.
I'm not biting.
You are such a wuss, it's amazing that you prance around here faking being a tough guy.
--//
Pseuder,
The Yank can face charges of treason, since he has actively fought for forces opposed by the United States. There will be rehabilitation for this guy, I predict, and he'll be at law school in a few years, or something.
The Brits have had to confront this issue/problem earlier, here is a relevant article from the similar UK viewpoint.
You're high.
He's the first notch in Ashcroft's belt.
How is it that we can detain, with the intention of subjecting them to secret trials, people suspected of conspiring to commit evil acts against us in this undeclared war, but not those who actually shoot at us?
Why in hell did they send him, all alone, to Pakistan almost two years ago. But, you may be right, Ashcroft will no doubt try to send him to a tribunal and execute him. A real guy, that Aschroft.
You have got to be fucking kidding me.
PE,
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.
The witness requirement is probably going to prevent his conviction. But the act is certainly treasonous, by this definition.
You might check with Jenerator about any transcript. Also, CNN would probably have one, although I haven't checked their site.
Wouldn't look too good, would it, if we let po' li'l 'Abdul Hamid' off with a mere reprimand when we intend to fully prosecute the law against foreign born Al Qaeda terrorists and others who war against the US?
Screwy?
How's that, Abs?
Because his mom and dad don't practice the same religion?
How intolerant of you.
Also, American citizens can apparently serve in Israel's armed forces without losing their citizenship. I guess that's why lawyers exist.
Serving in the armed forces of another country is considered the "ultimate" change of allegiance. It has led to some tricky situations for dual nationals who have been arrested and imprisoned for avoiding compulsory military service in Italy, although if they had in fact served, they would have lost US citizenship.
What about the Liberty Brigade in the Spanish Civil War?
As for Walker, he looks clueless. Yet those who we ask to put their lives on the line in defense of America are of similar age. (I saw an interview with a commander of an aircraft carrier in action, and he said the average age of his crew was 19--astonishing.)
It's not too cool to make a distinction between him and the other warriors for terrorism. In some ways he's worse because he grew up with far more chances than many of them did, especially regarding education, and his was a more open choice. That's why they call it treason.
We are, however, asking many, many American "lads" to risk their young lives and futures on a battlefield thousands of miles from their home defending something. Why is it perfectly okay for them to die to make America safe but not okay for those like Walker, who would attack that same thing, to die or be imprisoned to make America safe? Your own post in Religion said: "The lives of thousands of soldiers are sacrificed in wars, justified by the ends of the wars, etc, etc."
Moreover, we are killing Afghans, Paks, and Arabs. A widespread perception among the rest of the world is we value American lives more than we do those of other nationalities. Personally, I would rather demonstrate this is not the case with someone like Walker, than by some other alternative (like bloody ground combat). Do you see it as okay to kill Taliban who wage war against America but not Americans who do so? Was it not okay to execute Tim McVeigh?
Incidentally, I'm not yet ready to say Walker ought to die. He does deserve a hearing. But my predisposition is not to say he should be given a new change of clothes and re-"Americanized" either.
I'll agree with that...
(1) Walker was not shooting at US armed forces.
(2) The USA was not officially at war.
(3) Walker was not fighting in the armed forces of any country (since the Taliban were not recognised as such).
So did he join with the Taliban before the the guy they supported bombed America? Rather than telling the reporter he agreed with the actions of September 11, I'd have more compassion for him had he said he'd tried to leave their service after that event. But he stayed and fought side by side with our enemy.
At the very least, he should be stripped of his citizenship, something he doesn't seem to value much, anyhow.
I think that the capture and the subsequent interviews, will also bring about a small sea change in the way the American public has been regarding this recent campaign to preferably kill the "hard-core" Taliban.
I mean, this is what the "hard-core" Taliban has proven to be in Mazar, after the "uprising" after the slaughter and US strafing, after being stuck in a hole with rockets fired in and flooding, after all of that the fearsome "hard-core" Taliban emerges and it's this silly-looking boy, and he's a "foreign" fighter to boot.
This boy strips a bit of the veneer off the pat code phrases that are being tossed around so promiscuously.
2) Legally a valid argument, but I don't think one that will carry much weight. We haven't bothered to declare war in a long time.
3) But he did take up arms against the armed forces of the US in a foreign land.
I think all are mitigating factors and valid arguments. I'm not sure how they play out given the temper of the times and the desire to slash through the usual qualms. Walker's chances are obviously a lot better if he avoids the military tribunal and gets a real trial, but if that happens the US will appear to be using a double standard, one for Americans and one for everyone else.
Have we procured him from the Afghans yet? The easiest solution would be to let them keep him and deal with him as they will. I sure wouldn't exert any diplomatic muscle to get him out.
Calling this man a boy also indicates you don't have very useful definitions of the words man and boy.
Unless, of course, you are merely trying to be manipulative. Nah.
Hey, judith, look at this: we agreed on something!
It can happen!
US Code Title 18, Chapter CHAPTER 115 - TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2381. Treason
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them
aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be
imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of
holding any office under the United States.
The American boy, I really don't care about.
All foreign fighters for the Taliban must be killed summarily.
The American boy, I really don't care about one way or another.
It appears to be doing a service for the gene pool to execute him. I think he should be treated the same as any other Taliban soldier.
You mean, released into the general Afghan population. That is what is happening to the Taliban.
imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000..."
I love the extremes of this penalties under the law. Death or $10 000!
Look at that photograph, I submit that thousands of mothers are sighing at it all across these United States, and lining up to fork apple pie into his mouth and deliver him care packages.
In ten years, he'll be a schoolteacher somewhere. Mark my words.
I think that the capture and the subsequent interviews, will also bring about a small sea change in the way the American public has been regarding this recent campaign to preferably kill the "hard-core" Taliban.
You mean, like yourself, right? The guy who was longing to fill the deserts and mountains of Afghanistan with rivers of blood. Now you has seen the real face of the Taliban right on CNN, sweet and innocent as a young boy's, and there is mercy in your heart (or at least a stirring in your loins).
Or is your fine ear for discerning world public attitudes -- the same ear you used to listen for cracks in the coalitions and the latest rumblings from the polling data out of Chad like a dog being trained to listen for earthquakes -- now turned so perceptively towards American attitudes of the war?
This boy strips a bit of the veneer off the pat code phrases that are being tossed around so promiscuously.
I think he rather confirms them. I think of the Taliban as a bunch of religious nuts. Now along comes an idiot kid who reconfirms that impression. What makes you think that a society like the U.S., which regularly gives kids in their early teen years long sentences, will show greater mercy to someone several years their senior? Because you got a hard-on for the boy after you saw his "hapless" face on a news report?
Had you met the kid in Afghanistan armed with a Kalashnikov, you would not have thought him "hapless," "sympathetic," or a "boy." The "boy" certainly felt grown up enough to make some big, life-changing decisions all by himself. This seems a wonderful time to show him that he was responsible for them.
Why is it that the News of the Day has such a life-changing effect on you? You read the news as if each day you come across that key article that changes your mind about the war.
All will naturally cite this boy.
How many boys do you know who can grow a beard like the one this man sports?
I feel that the noticeably aroused person here is you, I am gravely suspicious of the reason. Let me just start off by saying - I don't go that way dude.
What makes you think that a society like the U.S., which regularly gives kids in their early teen years long sentences, will show greater mercy to someone several years their senior?
Because a good lawyer will show that young Walker did not actually commit any crimes, because the American psyche works that way.
Thus far, there have been four "regular" Americans who have all rec'd 80 times the warranted coverage because they have been associated with this Afghan theatre of operations. Two are those foolish fundies from Waco, who have been on Larry Ling already. One is that CIA spook killed in Mazar who got a hero's posthumous reception, and whose parents will soon be on Larry King if they haven't already been.
Then you have this kid, whose parents will also be on Larry King if they haven't already been. Where did American go wrong? How this kid was nefariously brainwashed by the Taliban - these will be the headlines in his local paper. Signature petitions will be drawn up, his old grade school will send festooned cards to the Prseident, and one day, John Walker will take his rightful place in American society. rehabilitated, getting laid, drinking Budweiser, making his requisite appearnce on the Larry King show.
Now, that's a beard.
The Akalis and the Nihangs, both Sikh sects, were and are legendary warriors, fierce and indomitable to the point that all opponents feared them more than heavy weaponry, or earlier, elephants. These are the fellows who eventually ran roughshod over Pseuder's Pathan lot and eventually all the way to Kabul!
There's your topicality for you.
I feel that the noticeably aroused person here is you, I am gravely suspicious of the reason. Let me just start off by saying - I don't go that way dude.
Well, with the defensive and tender way you spoke of that "hapless kid," I thought for sure your wife's heart was soon to be broken and your children shamed.
Because a good lawyer will show that young Walker did not actually commit any crimes, because the American psyche works that way.
Good lawyers can show anything, including that the "kid" committed treason even though the U.S. wasn't technically at war.
And what do you mean the American psyche doesn't work that way? Aren't you one of those who has argued against the death penalty being used against the mentally retarded in the U.S.? I would think someone who had would have a better idea of what the American psyche is capable of. This case, by comparison, is rather easy: some sort of punishment will be made depending on the details of the case.
Thus far, there have been four "regular" Americans who have all rec'd 80 times the warranted coverage because they have been associated with this Afghan theatre of operations. Two are those foolish fundies from Waco, who have been on Larry Ling already. One is that CIA spook killed in Mazar who got a hero's posthumous reception, and whose parents will soon be on Larry King if they haven't already been.
You watch too much TV.
You're strangely confusing coverage with sympathy. Yes, if the media gets their hands on him, there will probably be all kinds of reports about what went wrong in Marin county that sent an American boy into the enemy camps, programs on what parents can do to prevent their children from becoming a member of the Taliban, etc. The kid might even get off relatively light if it comes out that he had little idea of what the hell he was doing there.
Yes, but only after Ahmed Shah Durrani had sacked Lahore and laid waste to Amritsar and covered the Golden Temple in cow's blood....So there!
....and eventually all the way to Kabul!"
Actually the Sikhs never made it to Kabul. They were defeated at Jamrud 15 miles west of Peshawar. There's still a Sikh fortress there.
Yes, but only after Ahmed Shah Durrani had sacked Lahore and laid waste to Amritsar and covered the Golden Temple in cow's blood....So there!
....and eventually all the way to Kabul!"
Actually the Sikhs never made it to Kabul. They were defeated at Jamrud 15 miles west of Peshawar. There's still a Sikh fortress there.
Seeing the footage ended seven months of frantic worry for the parents, but raised disturbing new concerns about how the United States will handle the situation, whether Walker will be treated as a prisoner of war, guilty of treason or merely a misguided youth.
"He is in the control of U.S. military forces," Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, the deputy director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said yesterday in Washington.
It is not yet known whether Walker will face trial in a military tribunal. "In terms of his disposition, that has not yet been defined," Stufflebeem said.
"(The media) called him American Taliban," Jones said. "To us, he's a victim of the Taliban."
Jones said it had been Walker's plan to return to the United States to attend medical school so he could help improve the lives of Muslims in the Middle East. Somehow, he turned up in Taliban ranks.
"Here is this young person who's been isolated and had this stuff driven into their head," Jones said. "That's brainwashing to me."
Also,
When he emerged, images of a bearded man, his face blackened, his dark eyes weak after days without medical care for reported gunshot wounds to his foot and leg, flashed across televisions last night. The shots painted a starkly different portrait of the young man Marin neighbors and friends recalled as quiet and scholarly.
"He was soft-spoken, quiet, and very dedicated to Islam. He was a humble person," said Walker's friend, Abdullah Nana, a 23-year-old Muslim he met at the Islamic Center of Mill Valley in 1997.
"He's a really good boy," Walker's father, Frank Lindh of San Rafael, told Newsweek. Walker's mother, Marilyn Walker of Fairfax, described her son as "a sweet, shy kid."
close italics!
"These are the fellows who eventually ran roughshod over Pseuder's Pathan lot...."
Yes, but only after Ahmed Shah Durrani had sacked Lahore and laid waste to Amritsar and covered the Golden Temple in cow's blood....So there!
....and eventually all the way to Kabul!"
Actually the Sikhs never made it to Kabul. They were defeated at Jamrud 15 miles west of Peshawar. There's still a Sikh fortress there.
Fearsome.
The Pathans destroyed the Golden Temple more than once, three times if I remember correctly. Each time, they charmingly sullied it by filling the bathing pools with human and cow carcasses and the like. Finally, under Ranjit Singh, the Sardars got their own back, it's quite a stirring story.
"Lindh and Marilyn Walker, who are separated, had not heard from their son since May, when he told them he was going to the mountains of Pakistan to escape the summer heat, Lindh said in an interview with Larry King of CNN last night. They first learned of his connection to the Taliban when they saw him on a Saturday night news report."
Hahahahaha!
According to this, Ranjit Singh won a decisive battle on the banks of the Kabul River, in a place called Naushera. Is this close to Jamrud? It's a good article, by the way.
--
Judith,
why not argue that some of the Taliban "youth" suffered the same fate?"
I think this will be argued, and Walker's case will be used as example. As I said, give it two or three days.
Fuck, these yips are contagious.
Judith,
why not argue that some of the Taliban "youth" suffered the same fate?
I think this will be argued, and Walker's case will be used as example. As I said, give it two or three days.
"The [Maharaja Ranjit Singh's] main forces, both horse and foot, he deployed against the tribes whose standards waved on Pir Sabak hill and on the Tarakai hillocks behind it.... The battle opened with a furious hand-to-hand struggle between the tribal Gazis and the Sikh Akalis. The wild leader of the Amritsar fanatics, Phula Singh, was slain, and the Sikh horse could make no impression on tribal footmen, advantageously posted among the rocks of the hillocks that here strew the plain. The battle began to go against the Sikhs. Clouds of Yusufzai and Khattak warriors fell with the utmost fury upon the drilled Sikh infantry and broke it up. An exultant tribal advance was then stayed on one flank by a single Gurkha battalion of the Maharaja's army, which took square and fired steadily at the advancing hordes.
The tribal levies retired among the rocky hillocks, and three attempts were made by the rallying Sikhs to carry the key-position at Pir Sabak. All were repulsed. At the fourth effort the hill was carried, only through the presence and personal exhortations of Ranjit Singh himself at head of the survivors of teh Gurkhas and his bodyguard of horse. Later, Ranjit admitted to Colonel Wade, the British agent at his court, that of his disciplined roops it was the Gurkhas alone who had stood firm under the assaults of the tribesmen."
So much for the Akalis!
The Sikh must thank the Gurkhas, who most recently caused Argentine cadets to shit in their underwear on the Falklands.
What a murderous mess those battles must have been with the Pathans, Sikhs and Gurkhas all mixing it up.
By the way, prominent among the "British" troops who are designated for service in Afghanistan are the Gurkhas.
General Balbhadra of Gurkha Infantry fought the ferocious Afghans with equaling ruthlessness, holding each attack of Jihadis and responding back with equal ferocity. General Balbhadra was surrounded by several Jihadis and thus after massacring many Afghans he paid the ultimate price. Suddenly in one swift action, his body was torn apart by the shower of bullets from the muskets of Afghani Jihadis. A furious battle raged. The Sikh guns rained death on the enemy lines and soon the warriors took to hand-to-hand fighting.
Meanwhile, seeing their comrades getting killed all Afghanis came together in a desperate effort to hold the attack by Darbar's army. Darbar's forces surrounded them from all sides. Both Hari Singh Nalwa and Akali Phula Singh from one end lead the cavalry charge while Gurkhas who were leaderless after martyrdom of General Balbhadra and Purbias under General Ventura and Punjabi soldiers under General Dewan Misr Chand holding their positions. Hari Singh Nalwa pressed on his cavalry deploying Guerilla tactics of attack and retreat of one wave while other attacked and retreated. Raising war cries of Bole So Nihal Sat Sri Akal from time to time, Hari Singh Nalwa and his disciplined soldiers emptied their muskets on Jihadis. A wave of about 50 soldiers on their horses would charge at Jihadis, firing their muskets and then sending more to meet their creator through their bayonets as they gallop across the battlefield.
While Hari Singh was leading his Sher-Dil-Rajman attacking Jihadis from one end, from other side Akali Phula Singh and his Cavalry of Nihangs, or the "Crocodile Sikhs who fight till death" were performing similar feat. Jihadis were surrounded by Gurkha Infantry at one end, General Ventura soldiers at other end, while waves of Cavalry charges were attacking from the one side. Jihadis changed their tactics and decided to go for the leaders in order to demoralize the Khalsa forces. General Bhalbhadra was shot, General Ventura was injured and Akali Phula Singh's horse was shot. This angered Akali Phula Singh and he made a grave mistake by getting on an elephant. Now Akali Phula Singh's towering torso was seen from all over the battlefield. Ghazi Jihadis saw the Khalsa General on top of an elephant and immediately trained their muskets on him. Akali Phula Singh's body was riddled with bullets, he collapsed in his howdah exhorting the Nihang Sikhs to not to give way. Akali Phula Singh through his dashing feats had inspired other Sikh commanders his martyrdom renewed the vigor to fight. Mohammed Azim Khan watched the massacre from the other side of the stream without being able to help his tribesmen brother. He did not had the will to fight till death. By the day's end, Four thousand tribesmen were left dead on the field. Probably two times that number were injured and left dying at the battlefield. It was a crushing defeat for Afghanis.
There was also a famous American in Ranjit Singh's courts. A Doctor Harlan, who ruled Gujerat in the Punjabi's name.
Patty Hearst was kidnapped; more importantly, she was domestic and our own problem. We'd best at least try him for treason.
I wouldn't put it past the majority of American people to bleat in concern for him. I just hope they are ignored.
Both parents, who have been separated for three years and who have two other children, spent today working with elected officials and the F.B.I. to try to find a way to get to their son. Friends said the parents were devastated at his condition and his affiliation, which they likened to the kidnapped Patty Hearst's joining her captors and becoming a bank robber.
"I would gladly have him for my own son," said Bill Jones, a family friend whom Mr. Lindh lived with in San Rafael for two years after his separation from Ms. Walker.
Mr. Jones met the young Islamic student two years ago and was impressed at how mature, smart and directed he was for an 18-year-old.
"He wore the long robes and pillbox hat and had a beard," Mr. Jones said. "His parents weren't the kind who said you had to change into Levi's while you're here. They were proud of him, as I would be if I were them."
Stephanie Hendrix, a friend of Marilyn Walker, who was not talking to reporters camped outside her apartment complex in Fairfax, Calif., said Ms. Walker had been trying to find her son for months.
"The metaphor that came to me about this is your son becomes a Presbyterian and ends up with the Ku Klux Klan," Ms. Hendrix said. She said Ms. Walker had received death threats as news spread of her son's involvement with the Taliban.
But it's the kind of thing that will bite him with the right wing of the Republican Party IMO if he does.
Speaking of more important issues, Blair refuses to rule out attack on Saddam.
Excerpts:
The problem is not the inability of the public to understand the bigger picture, as former US secretary of state Madeleine Albright likes to suggest. It is the opposite. The bigger picture, the hidden agenda, is well understood by ordinary people. We should not forget Henry Kissinger's brutally frank admission that "oil is much too important a commodity to be left in the hands of the Arabs".
How much longer can democratically elected governments hope to get away with justifying policies that punish the Iraqi people for something they did not do, through economic sanctions that target them in the hope that those who survive will overthrow the regime? Is international law only applicable to the losers? Does the UN security council only serve the powerful?
The UK and the US, as permanent members of the council, are fully aware that the UN embargo operates in breach of the UN covenants on human rights, the Geneva and Hague conventions and other international laws. It is neither anti-UK nor anti-US to point out that Washington and London, more than anywhere else, have in the past decade helped to write the Iraq chapter in the history of avoidable tragedies.
The most recent report of the UN secretary-general, in October 2001, says that the US and UK governments' blocking of $4bn of humanitarian supplies is by far the greatest constraint on the implementation of the oil-for-food program The report says that, in contrast, the Iraqi government's distribution of humanitarian supplies is fully satisfactory (as it was when we headed this program). The death of some 5-6,000 children a month is mostly due to contaminated water, lack of medicines and malnutrition. The US and UK governments' delayed clearance of equipment and materials is responsible for this tragedy, not Baghdad.
The expectation of a US attack on Iraq does not create conditions in the UN security council suited to discussions on the future of economic sanctions. This year's UK-sponsored proposal for "smart sanctions" will not be retabled. Too many people realize that what looked superficially like an improvement for civilians is really an attempt to maintain the bridgeheads of the existing sanctions policy: no foreign investments and no rights for the Iraqis to manage their own oil revenues.
The proposal suggested sealing Iraq's borders, strangling the Iraqi people. In the present political climate, a technical extension of the current terms is considered the most expedient step by Washington. That this condemns more Iraqis to death and destitution is shrugged off as unavoidable.
What we describe is not conjecture. These are undeniable facts known to us as two former insiders. We are outraged that the Iraqi people continue to be made to pay the price for the lucrative arms trade and power politics. We are reminded of Martin Luther King's words: "A time has come when silence is betrayal. That time is now."
Professing inspiration from reading "The Autobiography of Malcolm X," the boy was soon studying the Koran at the Mill Valley mosque -- and by the time he graduated in 1997, he was listing his name as Suleyman Al-Lindh
Shock in Marin over transformation
"He's in a good deal of trouble," said Bob Goldman, an international law expert at American University's Washington College of Law. "He's in need of a lawyer."
Deep Doo
Four years later, his quest for purity in his adopted faith had swept him from his middle-class Marin County home to the bowels of an Afghan fortress, where he was captured alongside Taliban fighters this past weekend and taken into custody by U.S. Special Forces.
Marin IJ
I linked in that Marin IJ article upthread.
There is no constitutional requirement that treason be committed for money. It would be a mistake were we to set that as a requirement.
I think he should be treated as having renounced or forfeited his U.S. citizenship, although I'm not sure if there is a legal procedure for doing this.
My view is based on my understanding (which may be incorrect) that any combat he engaged in was against Northern Alliance soldiers and not United States soldiers.
I could probably go along with that, but what happened to the guys who went to fight in Spain back in the 30s?
For that matter, suppose he had gone to fight in Afghanistan back in the 1980s, wearing a Soviet uniform. Would we just renounce his citizenship?
I just saw they got placed on the OFAC list today, so all their U.S. assets are technically frozen.
Practically speaking, they're updating the OFAC list so often right now (sometimes daily) that there's a lag before the changes get into computer systems. So for the first few days implementation can consist of a bunch of people eye-balling a printout, which is not exactly a fool-proof system.
Bankers, however, are individually liable for violating OFAC, through the entire chain of the transmission of the money, right down to the first teller who unthinkingly passed the wire request on to her processors. So it is taken pretty seriously.
The guys who fought in Spain didn't fight against America. Isn't that the crucial difference? And I guess there were Americans fighting with Castro back when he was revolutionary romantic fighting the evil Batista dictatorship. For some reason Errol Flynn comes to mind, but I guess he never actually fought.
Although a person's enlistment in the armed forces of a foreign country may not constitute a violation of U.S. law, it could subject him or her to Section 349(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act [8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(3)] which provides for loss of U.S. nationality if an American voluntarily and with the intention of relinquishing U.S. citizenship enters or serves in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or serves in the armed forces of any foreign country as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer.
. . . . . . . . .
Military service in foreign countries usually does not cause loss of citizenship since an intention to relinquish citizenship normally is lacking. Service as a high-ranking officer, particularly in a policy-making position, could be viewed as indicative of an intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship.
Errol Flynn fought the good fight from the bar of the Hotel Regina, in Santa Cruz del Norte, my home town.
Plain old "bastard" will do me fine at least provisionally. I'll need some convincing that he's "poor" anything.
It took nearly 4,000 American deaths, the destruction of the World Trade Center and a war in Afghanistan to make it happen, but key members of Congress now want to share more of America's wealth with other nations.
A bipartisan Senate resolution introduced last month calls for tripling the amount of money the United States sends overseas over the next 5 years. In the House, Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., and Doug Bereuter, R-Neb., have collected more than 40 signatures and expect many more on a letter that urges President Bush to increase foreign aid in next year's budget. They call it the best way to win friends and influence people around the globe.
It's an idea that would have been dead on arrival before Sept. 11. America's foreign aid budget supports a wide range of programs, from vaccinations in Third World countries and drug interdiction in South America to military and economic subsidies for Israel and Egypt. But few generate much domestic support: Polls regularly show that Americans say the government is sending too much of their money overseas.
You're really only liable if you fight against the US itself or fight for a group the US finds seriously anti-US. Spanish Civil War vets weren't prosecuted, so far as I know, but many were blacklisted after WW-2.
Yes, but Ohio points out: My view is based on my understanding (which may be incorrect) that any combat he engaged in was against Northern Alliance soldiers and not United States soldiers.
Which makes it analogous.
For some reason Errol Flynn comes to mind, but I guess he never actually fought.
Not only did he never "actually" fight; I'm not sure why he would come to mind in the first place. I don't remember him being particularly sympathetic to any cause, political or rebellious.
Pelle: I mentioned the Liberty Brigade upthread (think that's what they were called), not because they were treasonous but because of the implication that someone could lose his citizenship by serving in a foreign military and that Israel was the only exception. I think what's exceptional about Israel is that you can gain Israeli citizenship as a Jew just by returning to the country and thus would become eligible to serve in their armed forces without taking an oath of citizenship and consequently having to lose your American citizenship.
Maria's posts clarifies this.
In addition, if you contribute to helping someone with a problem they should ideally be solving themselves, they can have two responses: they can appreciate whatever help you have given, or they can despise you for not giving enough to solve the problem entirely.
I can hear it now- "The U.S. gives us a pittance, just enough to keep us helpless and dependent and in their control, we still have hunger and disease and they want it that way, they are arrogant and think they can buy us for nothing..."
Still, the vaccines will probably be useful.
I believe that it is a substantially larger amount, is it not?
Besides, I wonder if that includes our business investments.
Let's see, it's only the second quarter but:
Atef -- Out of the game with a sucking chest wound
Zawahari -- Placed on Injured Reserve
Bin Laden -- Benched and pacing nervously on the sideline.
It refers only to foreign aid. American charitable giving dwarfs the US government's foreign aid.
Pseuder will have the stats on hand, the OECD is a good place to find them, but the US lags well behind most other developed countries in allocating foreign aid.
Plus, the numbers for this can be skewed by US military assistance, which is often massive. There is also the large-scale subsidization for Israel, Egypt and Colombia often for "police" work.
The US doesn't even pay its UN bills, or didn't until Bush was pretty much forced to pony up.
Actually, the US government behavior is an anomaly, and will soon be (very justifiably) altered.
Indy--Oh, okay. That makes sense. And even that doesn't count business investment.
Did someone link in the Newsweek piece and I missed it?
When asked if he supported the September 11 attacks, he hesitated. “That requires a pretty long and complicated explanation. I haven’t eaten for two or three days, and my mind is not really in shape to give you a coherent answer.” When pressed, he said, “Yes, I supported it.”
Sure looks like something approaching treason to me. He also clearly wasn't brainwashed, and by the time of the Cole attacks last year thought that the bombing was a reasonable response.
It's just that I remember seeing a photo (at the time) of Errol Flynn and Castro. Maybe it has been purged from the records by now.
The Americans who fought in Spain were retrospectively seen as heroes weren't they? I think of "For whom the bells toll". I don't think the book, nor the film, was seen as politically very controversial.
Yes. And my impression is maybe not just "retrospectively."
Didn't say it did, and I do know that we don't give as much when looked at as a percentage.
Ask Pakistan if they'd rather forgo the US's aid or, say, Denmark's.
Besides, there is a real question as to whether foreign aid is effective or not.
Until I saw Maria's post I'd forgotten that Flynn spent a hell of a lot of time sailing.
The Americans who fought in Spain were retrospectively seen as heroes weren't they?
That was my point, that we wouldn't have renounced their citizenship for fighting in the war.
So we're not consistent in how we view this. But I do think there is a difference between the war in Spain and the Taliban. For one thing, the US didnt' even officially recognize them as the leaders of the country.
There is no such question when it comes to most humanitarian aid, or aid channeled through worthy agencies like the WFP, UNICEF or UNFPA. The US has consistently politicized its aid efforts, and in the case of UNFPA cut off a good part due to right-wing domestic pressure on abortion.
lly, we are pretty consistent. We frown upon citizens who fight for regimes of which we disapprove and we tolerate those who fight against such regimes.
But in any event, I think the comparison of percentages is faulty. If smaller developed countries have to spend a larger percentage of GDP to be a player on the world stage, that's their problem. It doesn't make them more benevolent, just less wealthy.
If Denmark cut their foreign aid in half, it is unlikely the world would notice. If the US did the same thing, the world would probably reel with shock and deprivation. That's the comparison that matters.
Thanks for the clarification. Abraham Lincoln Brigade members did not renounce citizenship and were not fighting the US. In spite of their combat experience, very few if any of them were allowed to serve in US combat units. The term "premature antifascist" was coined for them by the Army.
Barring actual evidence of him in combat against the US, or implicating in the the death of the CIA, our captive seems destined for a life of obscurity. Let's hope that he keeps it that way.
Aytch,
Ah. There is that.
He was in the compound at the time. He has made no mention of having attempted to contact the Americans. He went to the "religious" (read military) training schools to fight the infidels. He supported the 9/11 attacks.
If he'd known about the attacks before they occurred, would that count as treason?
You can make a donation here.
It seems that no matter which country you say you are a resident of, the form defaults to American dollars. Wonder why?
It's an absurd comparison, and you are displaying utter ignorance (once again).
The US gives a paltry 14 billion or so per annum in foreign aid to the world. Of this, some 40% goes to Israel and Egypt. Of the $14 billion, in addition, at least half is in military transfer of technology. These numbers are off the top of my head but roughly accurate.
There is not a single country I can think of (other than perhaps Israel and Egypt) which would be affected by US withdrawl of aid to anything like the dramatic extent that you're hallucinating.
Wombat: Abraham Lincoln Brigade! Of course. I knew Liberty Brigade didn't sound quite right.
I did say it was my perception and that I'd love to hear if I was wrong. So you are saying that the world would be far more affected if Denmark cut its aid in half? The world would reel in shock and deprivation?
What are the chances of a terrorist group setting off a nuclear weapon anywhere in the US within the next 5 years? This includes a dirty conventional bomb (radioactive waste around a car bomb or similar).
Japan? Japan that is in a recession for ten years--that Japan? What the hell are they doing giving all their money away, then? They can spend it fixing their damn banks.
end curmudgeon
There was a stink in New Hampshire last Veterans Day, when it was proposed to add several names of Lincoln Brigade members to the state war memorial.
This one worries me. I feel that the likelihood of an attempt, at least, is 20-30%.
-at a time when Washington spent only about 1.25 dollars per U.S. citizen on development and humanitarian aid and peacekeeping abroad, it exported weapons worth more than two dollars per citizen to foreign countries, often the same nations to which it provides the bulk of its aid.
-The total U.S. foreign aid bill for 1997 came to about 13.6 billion dollars, the lowest amount in real terms since the onset of the Cold War in the late 1940s and less than half of US aid levels just 15 years ago. America ranks last among all developed western nations in the amount of aid it provides foreign nations expressed as a percentage of its gross domestic product (GDP) about 0.08 percent, according to a recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).
-Of the total amount of aid provided in 1997, roughly 27 percent, or about 3.7 billion dollars, was devoted to straight military assistance and training, and another 22 percent, or just over three billion dollars, went to a more ambiguous category called ''security aid.''
-Finally, about one third of US aid, or about 4.6 billion dollars, went to development aid, including contributions to the World Bank's International Development Association (IDA), and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and Children's Fund (UNICEF).
-Of the total aid bill, about one-quarter went to high-income nations, led by Israel which currently has a per capita GDP of 18,100 dollars, the 19th ranked country in the world. Indeed, the average Israeli citizen received the equivalent of more than 500 dollars in U.S. aid in 1997.
-By contrast, the average citizen of sub-Saharan Africa, the world's poorest continent, received the equivalent of about three dollars American aid in 1997. The report notes that even this aid is increasingly at risk.
It worries me too. I'd put the chances up around 50-50.
Actually, that isn't relevant data to my comment. Not that it was a big deal, but my comment was about actual amount and whether cutting our budget in half would be less noticed than if a smaller, "more generous" country did.
From what I have read, it is more than a nit to acquire fissionable material. If this is wrong, and they can acquire it fairly easily, then I up the odds considerably.
If other western nations take a higher percentage of their citizens wealth, it stands to reason they would have to assume a larger share of the nation's total charitable giving. How does the U.S. compare when you factor in private and corporate charity?
But it's just silly to talk exclusively about foreign aid (government-to-government transfers) and ignore the approximately 18 times as much charitable giving by the private sector (not all of which goes overseas, of course--probably not even most of it, but still more than the $10 billion the government provides). Whether or not worldwide philanthropy would hurt if the American government discontinued foreign aid, if the American people stopped contributing I think the world would feel the pinch.
We're not socialist and our government as a whole controls less of our GDP than does that of other countries. If we're going to compare government spending percentages "equally," we ought to look at percentages of government spending, rather than size of the entire economy.
As I understand it, it is currently difficult. But the terrorist stakes have gone up. Some enterprising terrorist group will eventually connect with the wrong terrorist-sponsoring state and gain access. Given enough time, the offense will always overcome the defense.
Indy, are we as high as the top five as a percentage? That sounds off.
Aytch,
Which is why I wish we were doing a hell of a lot more to focus on who is here legally and what they are doing.
ODA giving, gross and percentages
Frankly, I don't see this as a function of the US government.
I, too, hope for a speedy descent into obscurity for the young man in question. I'd hate to see him turned into an object lesson when there's no need for it.
Clearly Japan is an anomaly--I wonder if this is because they have no military? Other than that, we give more than twice what anyone else gives, with the exception of Germany, who just squeaks in over the 50% line.
He also impressed me with his strident urging to the audience to resist the rhetoric of a civilizational clash, and to remember that tolerance, specifically for Muslims, is an American value above all others. In this regard, he greeted "women of cover" , women wearing the hijab, which is a phrase I've never heard before.
I am curious. What happens to an American-born person who has his citizenship revoked? He is therefore stateless, so is he then exiled?
It's political. Arab Americans and Muslims are a big deal in the Republican party; they play much the same role as Asian Americans did with Clinton back in 96. There is a major Republican honcho who pushes "tolerance" for Muslims, Bush was speaking out against racial profiling for Arabs before the elections.
He was also quite reasonable on a question about Israel.
The mother is clearly in denial; the dad doesn't appear to be.
I ask again, though: what constitutes treason, if not what he did? Would we forgive him if he were 40, and if so, why do we consider 18 old enough to enlist in our military? Is treason only punishable if it's done for money?
Don't see why it would make right wingers wince. As I said, Arab Americans are eagerly sought by Republicans. And the hate groups clearly are siding with the Arabs.
Yup. And he looked quite smug when saying it. I've never heard it before.
You know, a lot of politicians are best seen when in the company of people they like and who like them and who they feel they can relax in front of.
I once complained about Hillary Clinton's speaking style to a reporter on the NYTimes and was told that her behaviour and demeanour in front of a black audience is totally different and much, much, more appealing.
Her husband, of course, was great with any audience.
The point is, you have to see Dubya doing his part-stern, part-aw-shucks routine in front of a wildly receptive crowd as he has right now in O. County. He is actually quite relaxed and good.
Why can't a Republican invent an euphemism? Somebody had to be first to say people of color, you know.
Let's not forget "nations of concern."
Because there is a current in the right wing here who vastly dislikes the tolerance message, especially the idea that Muslims and Arabs should be embraced by their fellow American citizens.
From the scumbag media minnows like Ann Coulter who espoused invasion and mass conversion, to the infantile burblings and epithets generated by our own Zan, the President's strong dismissal of their rhetoric can only be construed as a slap.
What precisely, Jones, is meant by "nations of concern."
But that's what I am trying to tell you--you are incorrect about the current. Don't confuse the right wing pundits with reality. Arab Americans have a lot of political power in the Republican party, and what you are nodding approvingly towards is nothing more than the President's asskissing to make the constituency happy. Given that political Arab Americans are strongly Islamist, I find the notion unnerving. But in any event, it is not something that makes the right wing wince. As for the far right, anti-semitism easily trumps anti-Muslim sentiments.
So your assumption that Bush is braving the pique of the right wing is unfounded.
"Women of cover" is bizarre, but it's apparently intentional.
As an interesting aside, the court, in US vs. Rosenberg, held that 'in a prosecution under the Espionage Act for giving aid to a country, not an enemy, an offense distinct from treason, neither the two-witness rule nor the requirement as to the overt act is applicable.' (From FindLaw.)
Treason is damned difficult to prosecute.
I think Calgal is as usual hallucating.
I'm sure it does but I'm waiting for him to refer to American women as women of clothing.
I do want to know who this mysterious powerful Islamist Arab Republican lobby is, frankly.
In the last few years, Norquist has pursued a Republican-Muslim alliance with a two-track approach. With conservatives, he has emphasized that Muslims are a good demographic fit for the GOP: well-off and socially conservative. "American Muslims look like members of the Christian Coalition," he wrote in The American Spectator this summer. To Muslims, he has promised a sympathetic hearing for their causes. He has pushed Republican leaders to support a prohibition on the government's use of "secret evidence" in the deportation of suspected terrorists--an issue that jibes with Norquist's own anti-government agenda. And he has intimated that Muslim support for Republicans could change U.S. policy toward the Middle East.
...
During the 2000 campaign, Norquist urged Karl Rove to focus on the Muslim vote--pointing to, among other things, the thousands of Muslims in the key state of Michigan. By all appearances, the Bush campaign heeded Norquist's advice. In an admirable departure from the usual Republican script, Bush frequently integrated mosques into his platitudes about churches and synagogues. In the second presidential debate, Bush vowed to repeal the use of secret evidence, just as Norquist had promised. Bush even named Saffuri as the campaign's National Advisor on Arab and Muslim Affairs.
..
Norquist quickly set about turning that supposed electoral influence into legislative influence. One day after Bush's inauguration, he and Saffuri arranged for Muslim leaders to meet Newt Gingrich and Congressman Tom Davis, head of the National Republican Congressional Committee. Soon Saffuri began regularly appearing at the White House, accompanying imams and heads of Islamic organizations to discuss the faith-based initiative and concerns about law enforcement persecution of Muslims.
I said nothing of a Republican Arab American lobby, although certainly the majority of the Arab American lobbies do appear to be Islamist. I said that it is a part of conservative Republican strategy to court Arab Americans, that Bush's comments--before and after 9/11--are part of the courting process, not some newfound tolerance.
Considering Hizbullah and Hamas "freedom fighters" and not terrorists, is an entirely mainstream belief amongst Arabs and Muslims in general. In fact, believing that Israelis were responsible for 9/11 is also a mainstream Arab and Muslim belief.
You don't have to be a radical Islamist to believe either of those things. I wager 90% of the Muslim world holds both beliefs.
I'd say the political value of Bush's statements, despite that interesting article on Norquist, lies in the greater American audience, not just the very narrow target you imply. I think the message of tolerance sells well in the heartland, especially at this time of year, and in the liberal cities, and I do think that Bush actually means it.
In effect, the argument made - that it is simple pressure-group politicking - is highly unpersuasive.
But the second premise is ridiculous. A sizeable minority maybe.
In effect, the argument made - that it is simple pressure-group politicking - is highly unpersuasive.
It most certainly is politicking. Normally I wouldn't think there was anything wrong with that, except it seems to have the Republicans chummy with more Islamists than they might like.
But when a Republican candidate for president speaks out against racial profiling of Arabs, it means that he wants their votes and money. If he wanted to show he was tolerant and pick up swing votes, he'd speak out against racial profiling of African Americans.
Ha. I was just pointing this out a few weeks ago in another thread. That said, in this country, the association of the Republican party with people who hold such views would be considered emininently undesirable, anti-Western and close enough to Islamist as makes no difference.
Completely secular, atheistic Muslim alcoholics who work as designers of "erotic" websites and whose wives lay on topless beaches, would also believe generally that Hamas and Hizbullah are freedom fighters and that 9/11 was the work of Jews.
Just when you thought things couldn't get any more unsettling, some of America's biggest bigots sound like they're bucking for a column in The Nation. It's not just that radical racists admire Al Qaeda's grit--though National Alliance official Billy Roper did recently lament, "I wish our members had half as much testicular fortitude." Nor is their praise merely a by-product of their overwhelming hatred of the Jews. White supremacists and Islamicists like Osama bin Laden just plain agree on a lot of things--in particular, that globalism and multiculturalism are the uber-enemies, and that separatism and cultural purity are the answer. As Pierce has said of Muslims overseas, "Because we are separate and both of us would like to stay that way, we need have no conflict." In fact, for neo-Nazis, the real conflict is with their fellow Americans who want to go over to the Muslim world and make them more like us.
I linked in one of the websites over in the WWTD thread.
As for the Mossad percentages, how is it possible for the same Muslims to think that Mossad did this while holding Bin Laden up as a hero because he strikes at America? I'm not doubting that they do, but this self-contradiction has puzzled me from the beginning.
Anyway, I am well aware of the electoral map, and even more acutely aware of the seasonal swings in the public mood. This season, tolerance is embraced. Bush today, in a Republican county in Florida, got a warm ovation for urging a seventh-grader to be vigilant about tolerance.
It was for the mass market here, and I for one am rather surprised at the cynicism displayed - I happen to think that Dubya means it.
You are confused. (1) The vast majority of Muslims believe bin Ladin is completely innocent; and (2) they also believe that the USA has provided no evidence of his guilt.
Most of them, however, have no sympathy for bin Ladin's ultra-fundamentalist aims.
Well, by "Islamist" I thought you meant being a fanatical proponent of a fundamentalist strain of Islam.
I did. However, I just read my original post and I said Given that political Arab Americans are strongly Islamist.... and I really don't know if that's true. I should have said Arab American political lobbies are strongly Islamist.
At that point, we're still back to quibbling about Islamism definitions, though.
So I will leave it simply at this: by American standards, the majority of Arab American political and identity organizations support views that are radical and associated with Islamism. Thus the push that Norquist and others are taking in seeking a Muslim constituency is probably an unwise move for the Republican party.
But back to my original point: Bush's comments about religious tolerance are without question aimed at courting and placating the Arab American vote.
Kissing ass. Yes. And that is why Norquist pursued Arab American Muslims (note that there are no African American Muslims in this picture, even though they are the majority of Muslims). They are conservative, identify heavily with religion, and are, he feels, a natural fit for the Republican party--and also a natural counterweight to the largely Dem Jewish Americans who are, for the most part, secular. Or at least support secularization in large numbers.
Is this word the same as Islamist? I mean, does it mean the same thing?
This is an incredibly foolish statement. It is more respectable to be intolerant right now than at any point in the past 30 years.
I don't see why it's quibbling over definitions. How can you call a secular sympathiser with Hamas a radical Islamist?
Arab-Americans who sympathise with Hamas and Hizbullah are, essentially, rather like the Boston Fenian supporters and financiers of anti-British IRA terrorism.
The IRA are radical socialists. That doesn't make the Fenians at those Boston pubs watching hockey games, radical socialists.
It is the contradiction within their beliefs that is confusing.
(1) The vast majority of Muslims believe bin Ladin is completely innocent; and (2) they also believe that the USA has provided no evidence of his guilt.
I do not dispute this.
Most of them, however, have no sympathy for bin Ladin's ultra-fundamentalist aims.
His "ultra-fundamentalist aims" have nothing to do with anything I posted.
Are you speaking here of an individual or an organization?
And separate from that question, I would say that to any American, the fact that 80-90% of Muslims believe that Jews were behind the WTC and that there is no proof that Osama is guilty is so completely alien that they might as well be Islamists.
It seems entirely possible that such people would support an Islamist over the US, even if they disagreed with the Islamist's political aims.
Thus the distinction you are making, while legitimate, is not relevant when speaking of the danger of such an association.
I do agree that not all Arabs are Islamists and have said so before. But they are a very significant minority, and when you toss in the large percentage that agrees with at least some of their aims, it makes Islamism very powerful in Arab and Muslim countries.
However, I am speaking only of Arab American lobbies and their political beliefs. This has been fairly well documented so I'll try to dig something up that you can then pick at.
I said that 80-90% of the Muslim world believes that Usama bin Ladin is not guilty, no evidence for his guilt has been adduced, and that Jews/Israelis/Mossad perpetrated 9/11.
I seriously doubt that the majority of American Muslims believe that.
Not in the sense that you mean "tolerance", it isn't. In the sense that we are the most tolerant country on earth, certainly. But you are completely wrong about the mood right now, and you have no idea what you are talking about vis a vis Bush's push for "tolerance" of Muslims, which is entirely political.
Tolerance means the government doesn't discriminate against groups or take action against groups. Embracing means the government actively encourages diversity, etc., such as through affirmative action. Tolerance is usually the Republican position, whereas embracing is more the Democratic position.
A tolerant President says "I may be a Christian, but we must respect the beliefs of others." An embracing President goes to a mosque service. Perhaps Bush is sincere, but he is also the candidate criticized for saying one could only enter heaven through Jesus and that Jesus was his number one political philosopher.
I'm not totally cynical about it, because I do think Bush is sincere on racial issues and the direction he wants to move the Republican Party in that area.
1) There has been zero persuasive evidence given for the notion that Dubya's clarion call for tolerance has anything to do with domestic politics.
2) It is risible to suggest that this call is tailored to a handful of Arab American lobbyists, considering that the majority of American Arabs aren't even Muslim.
3) It is also risible, even downright idiotic, to suggest that America is "the most tolerant country on earth."
We agree for the first time in ages. I too think that Bush is sincere. He is not a complicated, or a many-layered man, and you do get the strong feeling that he actually believes his lines on this matter.
Most Muslims (in the Muslim world, not in the USA) likely root for bin Ladin because they look at it like a David v Goliath struggle, and because they harbour anti-American sentiments.
Message # 17171
"And separate from that question, I would say that to any American, the fact that 80-90% of Muslims believe that Jews were behind the WTC and that there is no proof that Osama is guilty is so completely alien that they might as well be Islamists."
That seems to strain the definition of "Islamist".
By the way, I find it even more alien, the belief held by 80-90% of Americans that the terrorists attacked the WTC and the Pentagon because "they hate America's freedom [or "what we stand for"].
"It seems entirely possible that such people would support an Islamist over the US, even if they disagreed with the Islamist's political aims. Thus the distinction you are making, while legitimate, is not relevant when speaking of the danger of such an association....However, I am speaking only of Arab American lobbies and their political beliefs."
Do any of them do anything other than work to reduce American support for Israel? Your TNR article basically talked about their rhetorical support for Hamas and Hizbullah, which is consistent with that view. How is that different from Irish-Americans supporting the IRA? Or Cuban-Americans working to influence US policy toward Cuba?
Hell, Daddy Bush even pardoned a Cuban terrorist who has actually bombed targets on US soil.
Agreed. (But then, wouldn't you say that most Islamists celebrate the idea that they did this to the US, not the Jews?)
Let's review my assertions for you to pick at, shall we?
1) The Republican party is courting Arab and Muslim Americans, which is behind Bush's "tolerance for Islam" nods.
2) The majority (but not all) of Arab American lobbies are at least radical, and in many cases sympathetic to Islamism.
3) Republicans will possibly regret their courting of Arab and Muslim Americans, because the political lobbies that they use as a go-between support views that most Americans find reprehensible.
As I understand it, you don't care much about 1 and 3 and would disagree or want more documentation on 2. I will find documentation on this for you to check out.
Then you were finding fault with the TNR article's definition of Islamism as including support of Hamas and suspicion of the Jews as being behind WTC. I agree that these views are not Islamist but instead very common within the Arab and Muslim countries. I think they are held by many, if not a majority, of first generation Arab and Muslim immigrants in this country, but that's just a guess.
This is untrue. But then you're probably the sort who wants proof about bin Laden, too.
2) It is risible to suggest that this call is tailored to a handful of Arab American lobbyists, considering that the majority of American Arabs aren't even Muslim.
I made no such claim.
3) It is also risible, even downright idiotic, to suggest that America is "the most tolerant country on earth."
Oh, really. Please name the contenders.
"But then, wouldn't you say that most Islamists celebrate the idea that they did this to the US, not the Jews?"
Probably, but what does that have to do with American Muslims?
"2) The majority (but not all) of Arab American lobbies are at least radical, and in many cases sympathetic to Islamism."
I do not believe that the majority of Arab-American lobbies are Islamist/fundamentalist in the religious sense. Most of them wouldn't be in the USA if they were fundamentalists.
Pick a matter which defines tolerance, whether legislated protections for homosexuals to equal rights for women - the US record is decent, no better.
I agree. I am not claiming they are Islamists. I've read that Islamists are about 20-30% of the Arab and Muslim population, depending on the country.
If an Arab country got to vote tomorrow on a leader and one of them was an Islamist and the other was a secularist who supported freedom of speech and religion, equal rights for women, and tolerance for all, who do you think would win? That is a genuine question.
By the way, I find it even more alien, the belief held by 80-90% of Americans that the terrorists attacked the WTC and the Pentagon because "they hate America's freedom [or "what we stand for"].
I don't know that 80-90% hold this view, although it's a convenient platitude for politicians.
I have read that Islamists don't have to support fundamentalism, although I agree that is the general use of the word in this country.
But let me find some documentation for you to pick at and see what I've misunderstood.
...after all of that the fearsome "hard-core" Taliban emerges and it's this silly-looking boy, and he's a "foreign" fighter to boot.
This boy strips a bit of the veneer off the pat code phrases that are being tossed around so promiscuously.
You apparently missed the prison revolt report filed by the Time reporter, as well as the numerous stories of Talibs turning on their captors, blowing everyone up with grenades, etc.
I admit that as a force the Taliban have turned out to be a paper tiger (in fact, I predicted it would take 5 weeks to rout them), but that is because we're talking here about an of fewer than 50,000 by most accounts.
But in close-in fighting, they have proven themselves to be quite savage.
As for Mr. Walker, he is doomed.
Why?
Imagine the precedent going light on him will set, when we will no doubt be looking to prosecute - and no doubt execute - many Arab Americans for taking a much, much less active role than he did,
He is a walking dead man, I have no doubt about that.
Consenus: "The US has much more important things to worry about than some freaked out kid"
Least that's how we did it at Angola
Zan,
Your certainty assures me that in fact the opposite will happen. Walker will not be executed by the US, he'll be on Larry King before long.
Imagine the precedent going light on him will set, when we will no doubt be looking to prosecute - and no doubt execute - many Arab Americans for taking a much, much less active role than he did
This is more a prurient wet dream of yours than anything remotely realistic. Which Arab Americans, Zan? There isn't a single one charged with a single 9/11 related crime yet.
A point I made oh about 9/14....
Cmndr. Baba Jex - First in War, First in Peace ...Where in the name of The Prophet is ThomasD???
I pick religious liberty as the matter, and body count as the metric.
I pick legislative record, and liberty as the metric.
I pick tolerating people making their own choices on what they spend their money on, and pick percentage of GDP in government outlays as the metric.
I pick direct experience of tolerance by minority group members, and choose the claims of immigrants as the metric.
That boney Stokes, a.k.a. marjoribanks, would think otherwise should come as no surprise.
I won't dispute that a number of western nations would have better records at tolerance than the US. But, how many of them even approach the US for ethnic/cultural/language diversity?
As for India, you have got to be kidding.
Your certainty assures me that in fact the opposite will happen. Walker will not be executed by the US, he'll be on Larry King before long.
Again, you're high.
Mark my words - there will be Arab Americans at least imprisoned as a result of the 9-11 attacks who have played much less direct a role than has Mr. Walker. In fact, at least one is in custody now for helping the terrorists obtain false ID.
I realize this is hard for you, but try and think like an agitprop spewing pinko for a minute:
A young, White, middle-class man joins a madrassah in Pakistan, crosses willingly into Afghanistan, and fights for the Taliban against the US. After being captured (with an AK-47 on him) he declares, on video, that he joined the Taliban (wasn't kidnapped), and fully supports the 9-11 attacks. Further, his stupidass dad admits to Larry King, God, and everyone else that his son also felt the bombing of the Cole was completely justified.
Meantime, halfway around the world, Uncle Sam is holding several hundred Arab Americans without formal charges (besides overstaying their visas in many cases) and molesting thousands more Arab-Americans solely because of their ethnicity. All indications are that such will be these folks' lot for at least the next few years.
Now if a provincial such as yours truly can figure out that under these circumstances anything less than a lengthy prison term for Mr. Walker would send your (hypothetical) agitprop spewing pinko brethren into spasms of righteous indignation, believe me, even a (purported) mouth breather like John Ashcroft can figure it out.
Walker is example #1.
I'd like to think there won't even be support for letting the little monster off, but that might be too optimistic.
I don't know that he'll actually be convicted of treason; the standards for conviction may be too high. But at least he should be stripped of his citizenship and put in jail for a long time.
My prediction (courtesy of Mrs. AtLaw) is that Mr. Walker will be found to be a young man in the grips of schizophrenia, with paranoia and religious delusions. This would not necessarily be bad PR for the US, and would give the government a good deal of cover for avoiding any hard decisions. Besides, the proceedings would be largely secret, a plus in Ashcroft's book everytime.
Are you saying they'll invent this story? Because Newsweek's piece alone suggests that's bullshit.
I take it Mrs. AtLaw has returned. How did she enjoy her stint in NYC? If you are around, maybe this should go to the cafe.
We can strip Americans of their citizenship. It's certainly an option; whether he qualifies or not is a different question.
U.S. Pro-Taliban Fighter's Fate Unclear - Rumsfeld
Bush said the government was trying to learn the facts about ``this poor fellow'' who appeared to have been misled into supporting a repressive regime.
``Obviously he has ... been misled,'' Bush told ABC's ``20/20'' in an interview to be aired on Wednesday. ``It appears to me ... he thought he was going to fight for a great cause, and, in fact, he was going to support a government that was one of the most repressive governments in the history of mankind,'' he said.
I hope Bush is planning to oppose military draft or even enlistment of 18 year olds. After all, they are probably being misled.
Hmmm, doesn't that apply to all the other "poor fellows" who have also been misled into supporting a repressive regime? The ones that the US is bombing the shit out of at the moment?
I've seen the Newsweek article, but as far as I know, no one has really talked to this kid. Seems like he's being kept underwraps.
I agree with Jones et ux. If the kid was found to be mentally ill, that would be a good solution for all. Mental commitment hearings are closed, and the kid would no doubt be commited for a number of years.
Bush and Ashcroft could say: "See what happens when one of our young innocent kids falls prey to those EVIL extremists. We now will make sure he gets the care he needs and "fix" his mind.
Hmmm, a bit Orwellian, yes?
Jones said, and you agreed, that stripping native born citizens of their citizenship is not an option. This is incorrect. You are now down to quibbling as to whether or not being a soldier in the Taliban constitutes war against the US. Not nearly as dramatic.
If the kid was found to be mentally ill, that would be a good solution for all.
Sure. He can room with Andrea Yates, another monster that some folks are inexcusably willing to whore their values for.
Cal, Jones said he hadn't looked it up. I hadn't either, but, remembered one could lose one's citizenship if one decided to become a citizen of another country and renounced his citizenship. So, I went looking and found the military thing. No quibbling, but who knows if they can determine if that happened. I don't think the Taliban did enlistment ala the French Foreign Legion, or Britian, et al.
He might well be a schizophrenic or suffer from some other severe mental illness. On the other hand he might just be a 20 yr old seduced by the "glamour" of it all.
Cal, I haven't been in a mental institution, but I don't think they have coed rooming.
You may well be right. And we can only see what Bush will do.
It's time for me to go to bed...I'm determined to shovel out the hovel tomorrow. I'm going to be ruthless. Everything goes that I don't use regularly or haven't worn for a year or more. This will be hard. I am a packrat.
The administration will have their feet held to the fire by the conservatives in their party--at least I hope so. It will be interesting to see what the Dems do--it would be a perfect opportunity to outflank the Republicans on the toughness issue.
But I must say I am unconvinced that this is the angle that they will take. This asinine sort of reasoning is so typical of the hack left. It seems more likely that Bush had just seen a clip of the weeping mom and let loose some of his cheap and easy sympathy.
I suspect the idiotic reasoning behind the "schizophrenia" ploy is that he's 20 and this is the age it kicks in. But that won't explain his conversion to Islam when he was 16, his cheerful family updates all last year when he also said that the Cole attack was "deserved", and asked his dad for $1200 to go to Pakistan.
An American With the Taliban
WALTERS What about American citizens… John Walker Lindh, who is a 20-year-old American.
PRESIDENT BUSH Yeah…
WALTERS He's fought for the Taliban. He is being held by U.S. forces. What do you do with him? Is he a traitor?
PRESIDENT BUSH Well, we didn't find out the circumstances…
WALTERS And then… (Inaudible)
PRESIDENT BUSH …Well, we think — we're not sure — we're just trying to learn the facts about this poor fellow.
Obviously he has been misled. It appears to me he thought he was going to fight for a great cause; and in fact, he was going to support a government that was one of the most repressive governments in the history of mankind. Surely he was raised better than to know that a government that suppresses women and women's rights, that doesn't educate young girls, is not the kind of government worth dying for.
WALTERS What do we do with him?
PRESIDENT BUSH I don't know. We're trying to figure that out. I can't make any news right now because we're in the process of determining what to do with John.
What Bush should have said is that while he has a lot of sympathy for the family, this is a very grave matter and a full investigation would determine what action would be taken. His remarks were just plain silly.
Yep. At a minimum, the U.S. government would have to show that Walker used a weapon to prosecute him, analysts said.
This somewhat contradicts some suggestions made here that any prosecution (for treason or anything else) could only be made if Walker had fought against U.S. personnel.
``The possibilities extend from nothing to prosecution for treason. And where in that spectrum the actual outcome is depends on the facts,'' said Steven Aftergood, senior research analyst at the Federation of American Scientists.
``Was he an active combatant, did he commit violent acts against U.S. forces and allies, did he provide any kind of intelligence information that might have been used against U.S. interests?'' Aftergood said.
Marj's comment that the U.S. "politicizes its aid efforts" is somewhat true, but not all that unusual if you include commercial interests in that definition. Japan, for example, uses its ODA to help Japanese business to make inroads in markets abroad.
For that reason, Japan's aid programs have been heavily criticized (by those outside Japan) as too focused on countries where Japanese corporations are likely to do business and not focused enough in areas that really need it. More than two-thirds of Japanese aid went to Asian countries like China, Thailand, etc. and hardly any at all went to African or South Asian countries. Japan has made some changes to its aid programs since these criticisms began, but they have been mostly cosmetic, I believe.
Phase Two of the terrorism war will focus on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen or any other weak state where Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network might try "to regenerate itself," says an official with knowledge of White House thinking. "First we have to resolve the problem of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and then resolve the problem of al Qaeda elsewhere."
This has to make Indy nervous.
This analysis will confound both hawks and doves who have rushed into a premature debate over striking Iraq hard -- and next -- in the war on terrorism. Each camp for its own reasons wants to tie the hands of a president who has insisted on keeping options open at each step.
This does not mean Bush is ruling out extending the war on terrorism into Iraq at some point. But he is not ready to make that decision now. "There has been no serious discussion of it" by the president's principal advisers, I was told.
*******
By the way, someone -- I believe it was Indy -- linked to a Washington Post poll showing a vast majority of Americans (80+%) support a war against Iraq.
continued ...
But despite this strong domestic support -- which incidently has consistently been stronger than public support for attacking Iraq before the beginning of the Gulf War in 1991 -- the U.S. has yet to put forward a serious proposal for overthrowing Iraq over the last decade.
Obviously, U.S. domestic support isn't the critical factor in understanding whether the U.S. will attack Iraq and overthrow Saddam.
A rather revealing post.
But the last paragraph in Hoagland's column is:
I suspect the administration currently underestimates the terrorist log-rolling that has gone on between Baghdad and al Qaeda and its ilk. But it is clear to me that Bush still has Saddam Hussein on his screen. The question at this time is not if but when -- and rightly so.
The rhetoric has been stepped up in the US media to quite an interesting pitch - and while most of it criticizes the clerics, there is also a strong undercurrent of criticism of the Saudis. I think the US would like to start to engineer the takeover of a new generation of leaders all over the Middle East, the current batch has proven to be unsuitable. Lightning rods for anti-US feeling on the one hand, and fomentors of extremism on the other.
There is a lot to be said and discussed on this matter, perhaps I shall wait till more evidence appears.
I read that as well, but it seemed so vague ("I suspect..."; "on the screen") that I didn't think it important enough to mention. It's also clear to me that Bush has Saddam "on the screen," but will he try to knock him out of power? I don't think so. And according to Hoagland, there has been no serious discussion about it.
The impression I got was that they are knocking off low hanging fruit. Hoagland did close with that statement, so he must have wanted it to make an impression.
we'll see Saudi Arabia's current regime fall apart or be forced to install democratic reforms a la Kuwait.
Do you have any evidence that the Saudis would elect a secular regime?
Although I suspect if there were elections, they'd just be choosing between various Saud princes.
The impression I got was that they are knocking off low hanging fruit.
Why? This is war, not fruit gathering.
But I already know the answer to this one -- as do you. Bush is not going for low hanging fruit, he's going after Al Qaeda, no matter where they are located, for the obvious reason that they are the group responsible for the attack on the U.S.
Hoagland did close with that statement, so he must have wanted it to make an impression.
Sure, and I somewhat support the intent: give American readers the hope that Bush is going to take out Iraq, eventually. I don't believe this will happen, but I hope he's right.
But the essay's purpose (as opposed to its closing flourish) was to warn readers not to expect an attack on Iraq anytime soon.
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites.htm
UN aid agencies are continuing their work, however, with the World Food Programme (WFP) reporting that today, a record amount of aid on WFP food trucks was sent from Peshawar, Pakistan, to Afghanistan’s central highlands, with 73 trucks carrying more than 2,300 tons of wheat to the snow-affected area.
As the snows increase, WFP is about halfway to meeting its target of bringing in 16,000 tons of food before the end of this year. Also today, a three-person WFP Avalanche Control Unit received snow equipment, survival gear, skis and snowmobiles, which they hope to bring to Faizabad this weekend.
also:
UN finds security in Mazar-i-Sharif 'fragile but improving
The Bamiyan Buddhas are just big and specimens of antique Disney.
King Moron I Threatens Veto!
Dec. 6 — Mullah Mohammed Omar has agreed to
surrender Kandahar to tribal leaders starting
Friday, the former Taliban ambassador to
Pakistan announced Thursday. The news came
after negotiations between the Taliban and
Afghanistan’s newly appointed interim leader,
who offered Taliban fighters, but not leaders, a
general amnesty if they would surrender.
Helmand Restaurant - North Beach - Hamid Karzai's Brother, Prop.
Pretty surroundings showcase great Afghani fare, especially the leek stuffed ravioli with mint-yogurt. Exceptional lamb dishes. -Michael Bauer
430 Broadway (between Montgomery/Kearney)
San Francisco 94133
(415) 362-0641
why this pilot's wife thinks that she's above the rules and why some family members of the 9/11 victims think they should be excused from two years of taxes.
Though Perle draws no government salary, he holds a Pentagon appointment and he has an office in the Pentagon's E-Ring, a short hop from that of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. He has access to all manner of classified information; he's in the loop on war planning. Rumsfeld recently told CNN's Bob Novak that Perle is "not a government official." But by most commonsense definitions, Perle isn't a former member of the Reagan administration; he's a member of the current administration.
Inside Job
The article doesn't refer to Woolsey but Powell and Armitage have set the both of them up by sending Woolsey on the fool's errand to dig up the 9-1-1 goods on Sadaam as I have said b4.
Stuffed ravioli with mint yogurt..yum!
Book your loya jirga fest now!
well, two things i don't understand that haven't really been discussed in this thread as of yet (or i missed them if they were).
Now they're being stiffed....ravioli stuffed with mint yogurt and see ya later
John Walker was interviewed by US Special Forces inside fortress just prior to uprising.
There's your two witnesses, too.
I don't understand why MSNBC says that the two CIA people knew he was a Westerner.
"His dad said that he wants to give him a hug.
But he said, 'I also want to give him, maybe, a little kick in the butt for not telling me what he was up to, young man.'
Okay, you commit treason and join a terrorist network, you are so grounded."
hit New York's World Trade Center: 'I used to fly myself, and I said, 'Well, there's one terrible pilot.'
Inspirational isn't he?
Bush Inexperience Showing (Toronto Sun)
ITS JESUS!
Videotape, Dave, and the Afghan voice has a body, I imagine.
And no, it's not a real problem because they've got tape. You really think the SC is going to say that a videotape doesn't address the requirement for two witnessees?
You apparently haven't read the definition.
And where do you see brainwashing?
...it proves he, at that time, did not speak to them.
Contradict yourself, why don'cha? You don't think his interview could have helped the US? You don't think that refusing to talk is not aiding and comforting the enemy?
At issue is whether or not what he did would be treason, I agree. My point was that in order to establish a case, the US would need two witnesses. We've now got that much.
Nothing to do with "relaxed rules of evidence". There is a reason that the "two witness" requirement exists for treason, and it has a great deal to do with the fact that there wasn't independent verification back in those days. It is not a slam dunk that the SC would allow it, but neither can you confidently assert they would not.
I don't see how the tape of him NOT speaking is that great a witness, though.
I think you want this kid's blood and will twist things to hope it happens. "Those days?" The rules that affect the trials of treason were last updated in 2000.
Now, we don't "got that much."
I don't think his refusing to talk is necessarily treason, or aiding and comforting the enemy. In fact, it might make a case for him. He was so scared or crazy he couldn't talk...or, he was totally confused. Here are these two guys who have been undercover AS Taliban, who now roughly drag him out and threaten him? He's no doubt seen other Taliban do that and then shoot the people they have interrorgated.
As I have said before, I have no idea what the outcome will be. No attorney can ever guarantee a result. And if he goes in front of a tribunal who knows what evidence, if any, would even be presented.
Now, I think it's clear we each have our own views and they won't change, so it's moot now.
No Cal...a video tape is not a witness...go read the rules of Federal Criminal Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
So you are saying that a videotape legitimately made can not be entered into evidence as proof? Do tell.
I don't think his refusing to talk is necessarily treason, or aiding and comforting the enemy.
Please, don't substitute the word "think" when you mean "feel, believe, or otherwise hope".
The issue is whether or not refusing to help America by interviewing with its representatives in a military matter while having been captured with enemy soldiers is tantamount to giving aid and comfort. Unless you're called for jury duty, it doesn't really matter whether you yourself think it qualifies. What matters is whether or not you are sufficiently coherent to realize that it's a legitimate argument or have something more relevant than your own personal feelings (which does not substitute for thought) to rebut. Try that one on for size and get back to me.
since he spoke to them and admitted he was siding with the enemy, so to speak.
There are definitely two witnesses in that case, and I agree that this could be used. But willful refusal to talk to the US military is an overt act, whereas his support for the attack was, presumably, mere belief. If he knew of it before hand, that's a different story.
"Abs, given how often you keel and pule about my meeeanness, you're in a poor position to kick off the nastiness. Rest assured I'll remind you the next time you whine."
We had that exchange in the Inferno. That's it. Now, let's calm down, No need for you to get so worked up. As I said, it's moot since we don't agree.
I will type as I wish. I told you before, I will not allow you to write my script or tell me what to do. Especially when I based my decision on established rules of procedure and case law.
There was no nastiness in my posts. I am not sure what got you so upset.
What causes people to refer to Walker as a boy or blame his actions on brainwashing?
For the same reason that they bleed over Andrea Yates.
I am not inclined to defend the guy and don't have much sympathy for him. I'm merely wondering if he's actually guilty of treason. I've heard Rumsfeld and Chertoff duck answering the question of whether he would be charged with treason or what, if anything he would be charged with. They said they are waiting on getting all the facts. It may not be a simple open and shut case.
Holy shit, I can't believe you said that.
1. Thousands and thousands of people from all over the region have attended madrassahs from the time they were tykes, and most never felt compelled to go to a foreign country to engage in the most frankensteinian social experiment in modern times as a willing member of a hideously brutal and oppressive regime. But this fucking clown finds Allah in California, joins a Pakistani madrassah for a few months, and signs up as a martyr against the Great Satan - all in the space of 3 1/2 years.
2. What mullah in San Francisco???? The idiot read The Autobiography of Malcolm X and decided Islam was for him, according to his dad.
My guess is the Black kids just wouldn't let him hang.
Um. No. He is just another Taliban soldier in Afghanistan.
By god, joezan, I think you've got it!
I'm telling you, Al - White boys just can't wear bowties with highwater slacks and white socks.
Salem's Lot
When the Justice Department got involved, Salem took over the defense of the Holy Land Foundation. (Another lawyer from Salem's firm, Mark McDougall, had handled the preliminary work.)
Salem is a longtime GOP activist. His bio--posted on the website of his law firm, DC power firm Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld--notes that he served in "key roles in the Reagan-Bush '84, Bush-Quayle 88 and Bush-Cheney 2000 campaigns." He has given generously to Republican causes; some estimates say his contributions total nearly $50,000.
In press accounts following the September 11 attacks, Salem has boasted of his work in encouraging the administration to reach out to Muslims. According to a report in the American Lawyer, Salem "made some of the first and most powerful approaches to the White House on Sept. 11." Salem told American Lawyer's Tony Mauro that he immediately sent emails to two "senior officials" at the White House.
Fifty-nine percent of Americans had a favorable view of U.S. Muslims in November, compared to 45 percent in March, according a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
Conservative Republicans showed the most dramatic change, with 64 percent feeling favorably toward the group, compared to 35 percent in March.
It strikes me as just strange that extremist Muslims could be behind the 9-11 attacks, the U.S. would get little support from Muslim countries in the war on terrorism, and the country would still be under the threat of attack from other radical Muslims, and yet the image of Muslims literally skyrockets from a few months earlier.
If he had formally renounced his citizenship, he could of course not commit "treason". So we should execute him for not completing his paperwork?
"I often hear people ask how our society could have gone down so low since the time of our grandmothers and grandfathers. Immorality existed then as now, but not on such a wide scale.
"It is time for rational human beings to make an all-out war on immorality. It is time for all people of all righteous faiths--Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and others--to rise up, join together and expose and shun this travesty on humanity." (Dr.Dre)
Guess who said the above? Pat Robertson? Gerry Falwell? John Ashcroft? JC Watts?
None of the above. It was Imam Abdullah El-Amin, Chairman of the Muslim Center in Detroit. CAMP RHINO, Afghanistan (Reuters) - U.S. Marines killed seven ``enemy forces'' overnight in their first ground attack since they seized a base in southern Afghanistan nearly two weeks ago, officers said on Friday.
``We successfully engaged enemy forces along road networks near Kandahar, killing seven and destroying three vehicles,'' Marine spokesman Captain David T. Romley told reporters at this desert airstrip, known as Camp Rhino, in the Kandahar region.
Romley said Marine ``hunter-killer'' patrols in heavily armed all-terrain Humvees had opened fire after a vehicle sped toward them.
Coalition fixed-wing aircraft, probably belonging to the United States, bombed two other vehicles after they were called in to provide support for the ground forces, he said.
The seven dead, who were either Taliban or their allies in Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network, were killed inside and outside the vehicles in an attack that occurred around 4 a.m.
Jones, Could well be. In the few words he spoke on TV after his capture, his speech and accent sounded unnatural, not like either California or Maryland.
He has an awfully conveniently timed schizophrenia.
Fifty-nine percent of Americans had a favorable view of U.S. Muslims in November, compared to 45% in March, according a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.
LAT
Conservative Republicans have a lot in common with fundamentalist Muslims
Is Dr. Dre. a Muslim fundamentalist of the bin Laden stripe? Or do you have a concept of the difference? Dr. Dre seems to be against immorality. You object to that? You object to your niece having the free choice of where to go to school? Please tell us just exactly how people should dress and act in your utopia.
You can make all the excuses you wish for Walker. That is probably your normal reaction to anyone who displays anti-American actions. But in the real world people should have to live with the choices they make. That's a hard concept for liberals.
The good imam may consider your indulgence in wine immoral, or the fact that your wife goes out by herself with her face uncovered, or that your beard--if you have one--is not long enough, to be immoral.
Most Americans object very stongly to having others' morality forced upon them, be it the campus PC stuff that exercises the right or fundamentalist Christianity (or Islam).
Or, she's close.
I agree 100% with the above. But force and exhortation are two differnt things. I want no anti-smoking laws, not even in restaurants, but I will speak out against smoking. I will enjoy my Escalade, and you and other liberals can scold me.
You seem to want to take away others rights to speak out against behavior they feel is detrimental or sinful. Hell, Falwell can exhort againt wine all he wants. It don't make me no never mind.
That must be why so many are rallying behind those who are questioning Ashcroft...
Sorry, Al, I don't support anti-American actions, Walker's, Falwell's, Ashcrofts or anyone else's. I was merely speculating about what led him to do what he did and whether his actions constituted treason. So far as my niece is concerned, of course she has the right to study where ever she wants, as did Walker. Both were exercising their freedom of religion as Americans.
The Detroit Imam is obviously no bin Laden. But he's uncannily close in his preoccupation with sexual morality to Robertson, Falwell and the Taliban.
You ignore the connection between exhortation and coercion when it suits your politics, just as you accuse "liberals" of doing. Exhortation to allow Christian prayer at football games, or in class, gets translated into action. As a someone who is not a Christian, I would begin to find this coercive.
If I was offensive, I'm sorry, not that your very measured response indicates so. I think we are more in agreement than it would seem.
I have just finished listening to Bush's speach in commemoration of Dec. 7, 1941. How well I remember that day, and the years that followed. In some ways, Japan had more reason for that attack than those of 9/11. Admiral Yamamoto when asked after the war what was Japan's thought about how America would respond. He said that is was felt that America would not respond since there was such anti-war talk in the U.S.A.
How ironic life is. Does anyone doubt that Japan and Germany are far better off now than in 1941? Does anyone doubt that Afganistan will be better off in the near future? For those on the Mote who felt we should not act with force, do you take a different view today? If not, I sure would like to know where you are comming from.
They is no question Ashcroft will be a liability for Bush. The left has him in their gun sights and will not let up no matter what he does. The fact that he has no where near the power to do all the evil deeds that are attributed to him will not matter. By the way, I don't have any strong opinion about Ashcroft and may or may not be prepared to discuss those evils you seem to perceive.
Were these Afgans or Arabs? To me this sounds like pure propaganda. When the Americans come, they will die, if not killed by the majahudin.
Well that answers my question. Was Tonto riding with him on his faithful mount, Scout?
...What jumps out is a sorry sketch of the real world colliding with American culture at its most neurotically all-validating no-fault New Age nadir of nattering nonsense. No where in the nation could this particular picture have more naturally taken shape than in that Mecca of moral muddling, Marin County--a place salted with rich aging radicals of the 1960s, long on dollars but still short on sense. Recite the publicly known details of John Walker's life, and you have a narrative in
which every authority figure in sight was so busy validating John and his alternative ways that no one stepped in soon enough to save him, or stop him...
...And here we all are, in the midst of a real war with American lives on the line. And there are Mr. Lindh and Ms. Walker, who say they were horrified by Sept. 11, pleading for mercy for their son who joined the enemy. And they still don't get it. Mr. Lindh, who tells the world, "I'm proud of John," insists "there's no indication he's done anything wrong." In the world they inhabit, could John ever do anything wrong? When he was only 17 they deemed him mature enough to don turban and robes and take a voyage to Yemen. Now that he's 20 and has arrived at the Taliban terminus of his personal journey, suddenly he's too young to know his own mind. But through it all, says his father, "he found this other spiritual path, and I have always supported that."
Puhleeeze.
I would guess that Walker is a schizophrenic. He is at the age where a large number of those who become schizophrenic have symptoms first become florid. The religious conversion, the isolation from his previous life and the general wacky course of his life in the recent past would be consistent with him developing mental illness.
HAH!
I was just reading somewhere that some lawyer would no doubt squeeze this particular nugget for all it's worth.
The parents of a young American man captured fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan (news - web sites) pleaded on Friday for permission to visit him, saying the government had given them no information on his condition or whereabouts....
``Thus far, John's parents have received no official word as to John's physical health, mental state or even his whereabouts,'' Brosnahan said. ``All they know about John's condition is what they have seen on television or read in the newspapers.''...
He has said he received combat training in northern Afghanistan from forces supporting al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden (news - web sites). Walker's father had pleaded for mercy following reports that his son said he supported the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States, in which about 3,900 people were killed.
Fleischer said it was important to ascertain the facts and ''if the facts indicate that he knowingly and deliberately was involved in the Taliban, I think that would be a very serious situation.''
He added that when President Bush (news -web sites) referred to Walker as a ''poor fellow'' in an ABC television interview this week, he meant that for ``anybody of that age, that youth, to be caught up in something like that is terrible.''
He didn't answer any of their questions. Afterwards, I wonder if he tattled to his buddies that there were American CIA agents asking him questions.
Who's the "we" he keeps referring to, anyway?
I'm so relieved. There were so many bleeders here referring to the poor schizophrenic dear that I thought it might be a national trend. Granted, this is only the Republicans heard from. But still, it is bizarre to hear people bend themselves in pretzels to excuse someone like this.
Boy, I hope he doesn't "accidently" get away, being in "Taliban-friendly" territory and all.
If the rest of the article is as mistaken as the above, who knows what to believe. Franks was asked if Omar had vanished; his response was that while he didn't know where he was, he wouldn't use that word.
I don't find the increase in tolerance strange at all.
There's no proof in the article for a general increase in tolerance. Given that U.S. citizens appear to accept the government's need for cutting back significantly on many liberties (such as detaining innocent people not charged with any crime, but who are guilty by association), it could be argued that in many areas they are now less tolerant than they were previously.
What the article points to is a huge leap in the favorable image of Muslims, one that is completely unwarranted.
Before the attacks I think most Americans, including conservative ones, knew nothing at all about Islam.
I think there is a better explanation than U.S. citizens are better informed, which I don't believe at all. In fact, I believe the opposite: that if they were better informed, you would see a plummeting of Muslims' favorability ratings.
Instead, I think the phenonmenon is the result of Bush's steady rhetoric hitting away on the issue of tolerance from Day 1. This explains the remarkable leap in conservatives' image of Muslims. They have seen Bush reading the Koran, meeting with U.S. Muslim leaders, asking that they write a Muslim penpal, saying that Islam is a peaceful religion, etc. The effect has been to clearly separate the extremists from the majority of Muslims in most Americans minds.
continued ...
Conservatives' favorable image of Muslims was ten percentage points lower than the general population's just a few months ago; now it is six points higher. Having held down the average, they are now boosting it up. If conservatives are to be thought of as at least thirty percent of the general population (the article doesn't say), one could argue that other non-conservative people in the country have hardly changed their opinion of Muslims in the last few months. Having had their attention focused on the religion since 9/11, they rightly conclude that most Moslems are decent people, despite the radicalization and Islamofacism to be found among some of the Moslem faithful.
They conclude wrongly. Just because a large majority of Muslims wouldn't be a suicide bomber themselves, doesn't make the majority of Muslims far too sympathetic to these and other kooky ideas than warrants a favorable image for their group.
I'm telling ya, it's the Republican strategy. They are wooing the Muslims, and it could really come back to haunt them. It's not a party used to claiming identity politics in the first place, and the Muslim version of it dwarfs the comparatively penny ante game that African Americans and women play.
The polling popularity demonstrates that the strategy thus far has been successful.
I'm so relieved. There were so many bleeders here referring to the poor schizophrenic dear that I thought it might be a national trend. Granted, this is only the Republicans heard from. But still, it is bizarre to hear people bend themselves in pretzels to excuse someone like this.
I felt the same way. But then again, Marjori "I can't get anything right" Banks was leading the charge, so maybe we should have known how far off the mark the bleeders would be.
Well, quite often the first American cultural quirk immigrants -especially those from dirt poor 3rd-world countries - latch onto, is the tendency to root for the underdog.
Marj can't help himself.
By MATT KEMPNER
Atlanta Journal-Constitution Staff Writer
CNN is axing the legal talk show "Burden of Proof" and putting another 30 employees out of work, including on-air talents Joie Chen and Roger Cossack.
The people losing their jobs all worked on shows that are being cut. CNN executives told most of the affected workers on Friday.
The program casualties include "NewsSite," an afternoon show anchored by Chen that was launched only last summer and then shelved after the Sept. 11 attacks. Other cuts include a pair of half-hour weekend shows, "Showbiz This Week" and "Travel Now."
What do you suppose something like that cost?
Bring us his head.
Arlington takes the pilot
Looks like the pilot gets his Arlington grave after all. At least the secretary had the grace to say that he changed his mind due to overwhelming pressure, instead of making up a bullshit reason.
Andrew "I'm A Meanie Queenie" Sullivan on Why Ronski is Fucked Up
British reporter Fisk badly beaten in Pakistan
LONDON (Reuters) - British journalist Robert Fisk was
attacked and badly beaten on Saturday by a mob in
Pakistan.
Fisk, 55, a veteran foreign correspondent for the London
based Independent newspaper, was set upon by a group of
around 100 Afghan refugees after his car broke down on the
road between the Pakistani border towns of Quetta and
Chaman.
..."He said that the sight of two westerners pushing a broken down car attracted a crowd. They were friendly at first but then a child threw a stone which hit him on the head and then the others joined in."
Oh man, I think I peed my pants...
Hey, at least he's consistent.
Who made this new rule that refugees are allowed to act like animals?
But I'm Robert Fisk, scourge of the West, friend to Islam, beloved of Marjoribanks!
I must say - these guys seem to be able to spot Western media hypocrisy instinctively. Remember the taliban POW riot started when a Guardian reporter started asking them questions.
What a pity Fisk wasn't actually killed by the refugees. Joezan could have thrown a party.
There's something quite sick about people who dislike another's political views rejoicing when they're harmed. Puts me in mind of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9-11.
There's something quite sick about a person not recognizing the difference between wry humor over someone getting a few rocks tossed at him and dancing in the street with joy over the death of nearly 4,000 civilian deaths.
Fisk is reportedly fine and, according to the Guardian, will be back at work Monday. The same cannot be said for those killed in 9-11.
Your inability to recognize the enormous moral difference between these two situations is telling. It is in line, I believe, with your inability to recognize the moral differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
It is in line, I believe, with your inability to recognize the moral differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
You have no idea what differences I do or do not recognise between Israelis and Palestinians. I recognise that wanton killing is always wrong, no matter who does it.
Get your head out of your arse for a bit and get into the real world. I didn't say that Fisk getting a few rocks thrown at him was morally equivalent to the destruction of the WTC and the horrific loss of life sustained there. I said that laughing when others are hurt is repugnant to me.
No, except for Joe Zan's overwrought response, wry humor is the more accurate description. CalGal, Maria Gleason, and even Rustler Pike (for a change) made light of the whole thing. Nothing they said deserved your egregious overreaction, comparing their responses to Palestinians dancing in the street after the World Trade Center and four thousand people went down in smoke and ruin.
You have no idea what differences I do or do not recognise between Israelis and Palestinians. I recognise that wanton killing is always wrong, no matter who does it.
I've seen you remark on the Middle East. You have the standard Euro/Antipodean/U.S. Left/Noble White Man view of the situation: they are both equally to blame...little Palestinian children are worth just as much as little Jewish children...wanton killing is bad...Sharon and Arafat are equally to blame, etc., ad nauseum.
Get your head out of your arse for a bit and get into the real world. I didn't say that Fisk getting a few rocks thrown at him was morally equivalent to the destruction of the WTC and the horrific loss of life sustained there. I said that laughing when others are hurt is repugnant to me.
No, here's what you said: There's something quite sick about people who dislike another's political views rejoicing when they're harmed. Puts me in mind of the Palestinians dancing in the streets after 9-11.
Several people here laugh because a Western journalist, known for his pro-Arab/pro-Muslim viewpoint, is set upon by a few hostile Muslim stone-throwers, and is left none the worse for wear, and it make you quite sick, reminding you of Palestinians dancing in the street because of the deaths of four thousand people?
Obviously, it's you who needs to disengage your head from your posterior and get into the real world if you can be capable of this kind of moral obtuseness.
'I deserved it. I would have beaten me too if I were them. On the other hand, if they were me... well, then they'd deserve to be beaten by me too. I guess'.
It's been a while, but I recognized this immediately as my old Fray PTSD, a condition which has gradually receded over the past couple of years - ever since Elliott803 left.
You aren't Elliott803, are you Snowy?
Your breathing exercises didn't work. You were still way too overwrought with joy over Fisk's beating when you posted.
The Taleban leader was near the city in the custody of a warlord sympathetic to the fundamentalist regime, Khaled Pashtoon, a spokesman for Gul Agha Sherzai, a Kandahar commander, said.
Mr Pashtoon said that Mullah Omar was being held in a “(Taleban)-friendly environment”, but his group would demand that the Taleban Supreme Leader be handed over, probably to the new Afghan government, at a tribal meeting this morning.
Times of London
It is telling that I had to read this three times to figure out if it was a parody or the real thing.
We here at the Global Eye take stern exception to such cynical tommyrot. No one who has made a clear and dispassionate assessment of the situation in the region could possibly say the new Afghan war is "just about oil."
It's also about drugs.
For although we must now hail the warlords of the Northern Alliance as noble defenders of civilization, the fact is that for some time they have also functioned as one of the world's biggest drug-dealing operations
Chris Floyd's Global Eye -- Gainspotting
From the tenor of your posts, I wonder if you've had a good meal since last I saw you.
1. Fisk is from the West.
2. The villagers hate the West.
3. The villagers beat up the only Westerner available locally.
4. Fisk says, "I deserved it".
Someone please 'splain this to me. By what value system does Item Number 4 lock into place?
The Wayans Brothers probably explained it best:
YT Guilt.
I know you're only half-serious but that can be applied to practically anything. It excuses the WTC attack. Can Fisk really believe this?
Hey, if it works for you, fine, but you might be missing out on some interesting people that way.
Greetings.
And conservatives occasionally engage in the opposite reaction: it's never the system's fault.
But I'm looking for a "human" explanation, not a political one. Was Fisk likely just traumatized when he said that? Or can he actually believe it's quite reasonable to strike out at innocent, total strangers to vent one's anger and frustration?
No. But it simplifies to label. Just because I label a liberal a liberal does not mean I miss out on any interesting people. My beautiful daughter is far left and we have a wonderful time discussing issues.
AytchMan
Do you really think one can make sense out of Fisk's attitude leaving out his political bent? His acceptance of reasonable to strike out at innocent, total strangers to vent one's anger and frustration would, IMO, depend on the political or philosopical view of the stricker. I imagine that if a Jew beat up an Arab who had nothing to do with terrorists attacks, he would be able to wax eloquent about the injustice of such an act. If an African American, frustrated at the treatment of Blacks in America, beat up the first passerby, I imagine he could find reason to excuse. But I think you and I would agree that the attacker in each case was wrong.
Last things first: yes, I unquestionably agree that all of those attacks would be wrong.
Now, I infer that you think Fisk actually believes he deserved what he got. Yes/no? If so, would he apply that to the WTC attack? Does he? I'm not familiar with his reporting.
The United States has obtained a videotape of Osama bin Laden describing the damage around the World Trade Center -- where the twin towers and other buildings were destroyed -- as being much greater than he had expected, according to senior government officials.
Ha. I knew it. If this implementation of mine ever ends, I'm going to hunt down where I made just that speculation--that bin Laden had no idea the entire building was going to fall down.
I don't think Fisk really believes that.
If you read him regularly, you'd understand that he exists to criticize the West - and since 9-11 the US in particular.
He couldn't stop the story from getting out, but he'd be damned if he couldn't make it the fault of the US.
I guess I need to hear from someone who would defend Fisk's statement. I recognize that people often say things just for effect. This one just seemed pretty clear.
For what it's worth, I also don't believe he meant it.
Come to think of it Al...you did sell that Enron stock short right???
The Fifth Floor - I am READY!
South Florida Stone Crab/Select West Coast Oysters $30.00
Ahi and Hamachi Tartare/Spiced Grapefruit Granité $15.00
Heirloom Bean Soup/Smoked Ham Hock Tortellini $14.00
Portabello Mushroom "Wellington"/Foie Gras Mousse $13.00
Roasted Sonoma Quail/Purple Potato Salad/Truffle Emulsion $14.00
Trio of Gnocchi/Maine Shrimp Scampi Style $16.00
Foie Gras Steak/Gingersnap Crust/Mango Essence with Vanilla Bean and Jalapeño $19.00
Oyster Saffron Bisque/Leek Flan/Poached and Fried Oysters $11.00
Simple Salad/Emulsified Walnut Sherry Vinegar $10.00
Carpaccio of Comice Pear/Melted Swiss Raclette/Watercress Salad $12.00
Iranian Osetra Caviar/Traditional Garniture $85.00
As bad an actor as Uncle Osama is, I also believe he never thought one or both towers would collapse.
And I'll go you one better --I think it shocked him, the bastard. I think he realized, more or less, what would happen.
A couple of weeks ago, Newsweek ran three adjacent pictures of bin Laden over a period of several years. The amount by which he has aged in the latest picture is staggering.
Nonsense.
Say, you need a good meal 2?
But I smell a rat.
I think he's CIA
That's what I said as well. I think he was planning something that we would huff and puff about, but not go to war over. Now I think even then he miscalculated; I don't think he understood the degree to which using passenger planes would spur us to action. But once the towers collapsed he had to know we'd be coming to get him.
I believe he has a kidney disease? He certainly looks unwell.
But I dunno whether it's this terrorism stuff that's aged him.
My guess is it's juggling three wives.
Aych & joe
What makes you say he didn't mean it? It is possible for one to excuse his attackers. I remember Denny doing that after L.A. riots. While Fisk doesn't believe he is responsible for the terrible treatment all people receive from the west, his attacks took him as a symbol of western imperialism. He knows he did not deserve it if they only knew, but how could they know, so he deserved it as an westerner would.
Oh, I believe you.
I just don't think Blair wants that kind of trouble. I also think Blair'd like to see him dead as we would.
Why is that?
As with Fisk, I believe Denny had other motives for shifting blame.
Fisk exploited the event to demonize the US. Reginald Denny was probably told by his lawyer that looking like a forgiving sufferer would get him more sympathy (and dough) in a lawsuit against the city.
Meanwhile the tabs are now claiming that Osama killed Princess Di.
From the Wash. Post story:
On the tape, which was obtained in Afghanistan during the search of a private home in Jalalabad, bin Laden praised God for far greater success than he expected, using language that indicated he was familiar with the planning of the attacks, according to one of the officials.
Well, if I'm wrong it won't be the first time. Have to go now Waiting For God is on.
This is something, if true:
Osama bin Laden plans a TV suicide that will trigger attacks on London, Paris and the US, the DAILY MIRROR of London is planning to report on Monday, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned....
Hey jex - maybe we don't have to worry about the pantywaist Brits after all.
Meanwhile I plan on shitting
Iranian Osetra Caviar/Traditional Garniture $85.00
Thanks AL!
While Fisk doesn't believe he is responsible for the terrible treatment all people receive from the west, his attacks took him as a symbol of western imperialism...
But then he should have said, "I understand why they did this even though I didn't deserve it". But he didn't say that. He said, "I deserved it as a Westerner" if, in fact, he means it.
I don't know, Al. It's just that the implications are rather severe. It's a very short step, at most, to the belief that any and all Westerners are subject to the death penalty for any perceived injustice inflicted by any Western nation.
Clearly, a few people in the world subscribe to this. Even taking into account the widespread anger and frustration, however, it seems awfully irrational to me.
He said the Arabic-language videotape found in Afghanistan was a kind of smoking gun in which bin Laden showed ''significant knowledge of what happened (on Sept. 11) and there's no doubt about his responsibility.''
A U.S. official familiar with the tape, speaking on condition he was not named, said it showed bin Laden looking ''amused'' that some of the hijackers did not realize they were on a suicide mission.
What a guy.
But again, that might have been due to the inordinate degree of damage. I don't know that he expected us to react as hugely as we did; I imagine you are thinking of the assassination of the NA general--Massoud, I think his name is?
The Government will announce the fact tomorrow when Colin Powell, the American secretary of state, visits London to mark three months since the September 11 attacks.
Whitehall sources said that, barring objections from the new Afghan government, Britain would send a brigade of three infantry battalions equipped with armoured personnel carriers and reconnaissance elements with light tanks.
Mr Hoon said at the weekend that if British forces captured bin Laden he would be handed over to America only if there was no danger of the death penalty.
Downing Street hastily said the opposite in a "clarification".
Daily Telegraph
American Taliban.
Some Internet postings examined by Newsweek, show that young Walker could be pretty militant himself. In a 1997 message to a hip-hop site, he demanded to know why a rapper named Nas "is indeed a 'God'? If this is so," Walker indignantly asks, "then why does he smoke blunts, drink Moet, fornicate, and make dukey music? That's a rather pathetic 'god,' if you ask me." Writes Walker in another e-mail: "I have never seen happiness myself." Selling off his hip-hop CD collection on a rap-music message board, he converted to Islam.
One important question I have:
What the hell is "Dukey music"?
Tolja, dude.
Blair don't want no mess wid Uncle Sam.
I guess at this point I should thank Lebanon. For 25 years, I
have covered Lebanon's wars and the Lebanese used to teach
me, over and over again, how to stay alive: take a decision –
any decision – but don't do nothing.
So I wrenched the bag back from the hands of the young man
who was holding it. He stepped back. Then I turned on the man
on my right, the one holding the bloody stone in his hand and I
bashed my fist into his mouth. I couldn't see very much – my
eyes were not only short-sighted without my glasses but were
misting over with a red haze – but I saw the man sort of cough
and a tooth fall from his lip and then he fell back on the road.
For a second the crowd stopped. Then I went for the other
man, clutching my bag under my arm and banging my fist into his
nose. He roared in anger and it suddenly turned all red. I missed
another man with a punch, hit one more in the face, and ran.
I was back in the middle of the road but could not see. I
brought my hands to my eyes and they were full of blood and
with my fingers I tried to scrape the gooey stuff out. It made a
kind of sucking sound but I began to see again and realised that
I was crying and weeping and that the tears were cleaning my
eyes of blood. What had I done, I kept asking myself? I had
been punching and attacking Afghan refugees, the very people I
had been writing about for so long, the very dispossessed,
mutilated people whom my own country –among others – was
killing along, with the Taliban, just across the border. God spare
me, I thought. I think I actually said it. The men whose families
our bombers were killing were now my enemies too.
I'm sorry, SnowOwl.
God spare me, but I wish they would've killed him.
I'd waste time explaining this, so I recommend that you go to the source - read Fisk's superb and impassioned Pity the Nation.
See, our man makes no bones about where his heart lies, and he alludes to it again in his reference to Lebanon in the piece about the attack. Fisk loves Lebanon, and is now part of the landscape in Beirut. His history and experience in that country gives form to his passion and to his anger, and it is carefully drawn out in that book, his reasons for despising Israel's aggressions, his reasons for similarly despising Arafat's motivations and leadership.
There was an interesting NYT article on the man and the CC phenomenon over the weekednd -if I remember who wrote it I'll link it in. The CC under Robertson camouflaged and vastly oversold the actual power of the Christian Right in this country. Though the real numbers in terms of followers remained stable (and now are decreasing), the power of the organization completely overstepped the actual potential niche warranted by numbers.
We have Bush instead of McCain because of the religious right, and now we have Ashcroft because of them too.
How this group of avowed extremists hijacked a mainstream party is an interesting and worthwhile story. The saga seems to have ended now, with Powell and his men increasing their own hold on the Republican image, and with Robertson losing a great deal of popularity thanks to his pathetic and bigoted remarks post 9/11.
I trust that we'll see some good analysis of how this hijack took place in the coming months. It's necessary because these zealots need to be prevented from executing such a manouevre ever again.
Thanks to Pat Robertson, the religious right also captured — and killed — the conservative intellectual movement. By the mid-1990's, as the Christian Coalition consolidated its control over the Republican Party, any intellectual to the right of center who dared to criticize the television preacher was purged.
By 2000, all the other factions in the earlier Reagan coalition — neoconservatives, New Right populists, even libertarian conservatives like Barry Goldwater (who famously declared that conservatives should "boot Falwell right in the ass") — were relegated to the sidelines. The obsessions of Christian fundamentalists, like abortion, homosexuality, pornography and evolution, still define today's Robertsonized Right. And conservative intellectual journals like Commentary, National Review and The Weekly Standard now join Kansas and Tennessee fundamentalists in attacking Darwinian biology.
Far from being inevitable, this outcome was unlikely. By inflating the numbers of his followers and taking credit for the Republican capture of Congress in 1994, Mr. Robertson convinced opportunistic Republicans and frightened Democrats that the religious right was a growing force that had to be co-opted or appeased. Polls show, however, that the number of conservative Christians in the United States is stable or shrinking. Most Americans are religious in theory but secular in practice. With each generation, social attitudes become more liberal on questions like abortion and gay rights — a fact that has led Paul Weyrich and other right-wing activists to declare that conservatives have already lost "the culture war."
The genuine swing voters in American politics in the past decade have been not Protestant fundamentalists, but blue-collar "Reagan Democrats," many of them Midwestern Catholics who turned against George W. Bush when he pandered to the Vatican-baiting fundamentalists of Bob Jones University. Although these voters are not liberal, they are more concerned about health benefits and wages than about refuting Darwin. Only a bipartisan political elite unfamiliar with the working-class majority could have been fooled by Pat Robertson into thinking that the mainstream swing voter resembles Ben Jonson's Puritan, Zeal-of-the-land Busy, more than Norman Lear's Archie Bunker.
Pat Robertson enjoyed a remarkable winning streak, despite playing an extremely weak hand. By exploiting the ambition, fear and ignorance of America's out-of-touch political class, this spokesman for a marginal subculture reshaped American politics and became a kingmaker in one of the two major parties.
How long before Mad Cow Mullah Zan calls for a fatwa against this cartoonist?
Al D:
It helps to be white and upper middle class. It helped Jane and it looks as if it will help Walker.
I see you got the chain letter that's been making the rounds.
Marg's knee is uncontrollably spastic once again, I see. Can you imagine what public criminal trials of Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists would be like?
Try multiple OJ Simpson trials to the nth power with the added embellishments of intimidation, threats and murders of the prosecuting attorneys, justices and jurors being the norm. Speaking of jurors, where the hell would they find them?
I have no idea what you are talking about.,p>
marjoribanks
Instead of just mentioning Fisk's book, why don't you post the whole thing on the Mote?
Twenty-five years after first setting foot on Lebanese soil, award-winning journalist Robert Fisk has revised his brilliant study of this troubled country, Pity the Nation, for a third edition, to include the years since its initial publication in 1990. Artificially created as a country by the French in 1920, Lebanon's revenge was to "welcome all her invaders and then kiss them to death". Since arriving during the 1976 Muslim-Maronite civil war, Fisk has travelled its length to seek out, as well as provide, eye-witness account of combat and atrocity. The book's main pre-occupation is the Israeli invasion of the early 1980s and its terrible aftermath, including the appalling massacre of Palestinians at the Shabra and Chatila camps. Banned in Lebanon itself, the first edition of Pity the Nation ended with close friend and colleague Terry Anderson still being held by Islamic Jihad. Inevitably, Anderson's release in 1991, along with other Western hostages such as Terry Waite and John McCarthy, emotionally informs the bulk of the new material, which also considers the Gulf War, Islamic resurgence, the collapse of the Oslo peace agreement and the bloody 1996 Qana massacre in a UN refugee compound by Israeli forces, to which Fisk bears terrible witness. He sees Yasser Arafat make the transmission from "terrorist to superstatesman to superterrorist", but by the end of this exhaustive testimony, virtually the last Western journalist left in West Beirut, he admits, "I still fear the monsters". And then Ariel Sharon is elected prime minister of Israel in February 2001.
So why record my few minutes of terror and self-disgust under assault near the Afghan border, bleeding and crying like an animal, when hundreds – let us be frank and say thousands – of innocent civilians are dying under American air strikes in Afghanistan, when the "War of Civilisation" is burning and maiming the Pashtuns of Kandahar and destroying their homes because "good" must triumph over "evil"?
Well, from the response of the majority of the Afgans, it seems that good has triumphed over evil. I wonder why Fisk does not see this?
One wonders how many more sad chapters this tortured nation can endure. Lebanon's dance of death has dragged on so long the world no longer even shows up for its performances: the last of the American correspondents based in Beirut for a major news organization is gone, chased away after the kidnapping of Terry Anderson of The Associated Press in 1985, and American diplomats cover Lebanon not from the embassy in the hills above Beirut, but from Cyprus.
Remarkably, Mr. Fisk, a British journalist for The Times of London and, more recently, The Independent, is still there, chronicling the tragedies of a country he has come to love. Lebanon, he reminds us in this valuable account of its recent history, is where all the competing forces of the Middle East meld into a single catastrophe that has become symbolic of the region's volatility. He leaves us with not much hope that Beirut ever again will be the "Pearl of the Mediterranean."
Mr. Fisk arrived in Beirut in 1976 during the civil war, when Lebanon began unraveling. His dispatches -- like those of most journalists who have reported on the Middle East from an Arab base -- were criticized by Israel's supporters as being pro-Palestinian. At the heart of the criticism, he believes, is the fact that Israel has acquired a "moral immunity" in the West, where Arabs are often stereotyped in unflattering terms and Palestinian suffering simply does not count for much.
In a lengthy section analyzing Western coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, Mr. Fisk writes that the week hundreds of Palestinians were massacred in Beirut's Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in 1982, Newsweek chose as its cover story the death of Princess Grace of Monaco. Later The Wall Street Journal dismissed the significance of the massacre in an editorial, noting that the casualties included "only 15 women and 20 children."
"The Israelis," Mr. Fisk writes, "acted brutally, they mistreated prisoners, killed thousands of civilians, lied about their activities and then watched their militia allies slaughter the occupants of a refugee camp. In fact, they behaved very much like the 'uncivilised' Arab armies whom they had so consistently denigrated over the preceding 30 years."
Though critical of Israel's conduct in Lebanon, Mr. Fisk maintains an evenhandedness, and finds plenty of reason to scorn Lebanon's old-guard leaders, who had all the subtlety of Mafia chieftains, and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which bullied its way through the country and overstayed its welcome.
Mr. Fisk's book is long and detailed, full of journalistic daring and so many gun battles that the reader is sometimes left numbed by endless descriptions of combat. But in an eminently readable fashion, "Pity the Nation" tells an important story -- of the forces that led to a country's destruction.
Fisk takes great trouble to try and understand the obsessions of the participants in the Lebanese and Arab-Israeli tragedies. He examines the history, the pseudo-history and the myths that combine to create sectarian mentalities. He writes with compassion and justified anger, equally sympathetic to all victims, in his criticism of all aggressors. {This} is a book you finish with conflicting feelings of relief, exhaustion, shame and admiration. You feel that Fisk has taken you on a journey to the furthest boundaries of human cruelty and degradation. Journalists are rarely accorded the title' great war correspondent' until they are dead, and sometimes only then because they were killed in the field. Fisk, alive and still reporting from Beirut, deserves the title now.
So why record my few minutes of terror and self-disgust under assault near the Afghan border, bleeding and crying like an animal, when hundreds – let us be frank and say thousands – of innocent civilians are dying under American air strikes in Afghanistan, when the "War of Civilisation" is burning and maiming the Pashtuns of Kandahar and destroying their homes because "good" must triumph over "evil"?
Fisk should really let the world know how he makes his omelets without injuring any eggs.
It was well done, and touching, and very even-handed. Ostensibly a sister's quest to learn more about her brother's death, it turns into a very poignant exploration of journalists working at the edges of conflicts. Do check it out when it is rebroadcast.
He very eloquently and pithily put into perspective what occurred in Somalia on that day, and also the role of the journalist in times of conflict. In many ways, his account meshes with Fisk's own "if I were an Afghan refugee I'd have attacked Robert Fisk" testimony, which on the face of it sounds bizarre.
Anyway, I know little about this guy other than the name. His accent betrays some African roots, I think he's probably an Indian Ismaili who grew up in East Africa, though I couldn't find anything on the web about him other than part of a distinguished war-coverage resume.
Nobody who matters.
The Washington Post reported that the reconstruction of Afghanistan could cost as much as $25 billion per year for the next five or so years.
I went to Amazon to buy Fisk's book, which is out of print. There was one used for sale, $41 and change, but it was not available. If you have one and want to sell it, I will gladly buy it. There is much I don't understand about the conflict in the middle east, and am always moree than happy to look at all sides. I have lived my life with the belief that "The unexamined life is not worth living." to be honest, I don't really believe that.
You can get the English edition, in paperback, sent to you for probably less that $20 - here.
I appreciate your message above, particularly wrt the Middle East. Suffice it to say that I think this book is the best of its kind, and a searing and impassioned volume from a writer with unparalleled access and information in his hands. It will be well worth your twenty bucks, I'll even refund the price if you disagree.
In the meanwhile, here is the story of one of the hijackers who escaped detection despite warnings.
Thanks, the book has been ordered, that is, I've ordered the book.
Check Half-Price Books next time, too. They usually have a nice selection, and there are many locations.
"The fact that a majority of Muslims greatly sympathize with the attacks on the U.S., have a hatred of Jews that is probably greater than what you could find among Germans in the 1930s..."
How do you arrive at these supposed "facts"? I think it's fair to say that the majority of Muslims sympathise with some aims of Usama bin Ladin (i.e., boot the Americans out of the Middle East, reduce their influence in world affairs, etc.), but approve of 9/11? Definitely a minority.
As for anti-Semitism, it is certainly prevalent in the Arab world, but I reckon it more like that found in the UK or the USA before WW2, rather than the kind found in Germany in the 1930s. I also think it's confined almost exclusively to the educated and literate city dwellers. In the non-Arab Muslim at large, it is certainly my experience that outside the cities, people barely know what Israel is or even what Jews are.
...and are completely unable to adjust their culture to any sort of half-ass accommodation to modern life with respect to democracy, women's rights, a modern economy, and tolerance of other religions simply doesn't register.
I completely disagree, in some cases that your claims are true at all, and, in other cases, that your claims are uniquely applicable to Muslim countries.
I think it's empirically false, and grossly ignorant, to say Muslim countries are "completely unable to adjust their culture to any sort of half-ass accommodation to modern life with respect to democracy"
Muslim countries' record in democracy is perhaps comparable with Latin America's or East Asia's.
Turkey is a long-standing democracy (although it has had military interference in government, almost always to act out the military's paranoia about Islamists, who in Turkey are not exactly radical).
Other democracies in the Muslim world: Bangladesh, Indonesia, Yemen.
Pakistan has alternated between democracy and military governments, but the elections in the past have been recognised internationally as free and fair.
Jordan and Morocco have legislative democracy.
Iran is an emergent democracy.
Finally, the Palestinian legislative council and executive authority (of which Arafat is chairman) were elected in elections which were considered generally fair and free, by international observers including Carter and the Freedom House.
(All of the above countries have universal suffrage.)
Likewise with many of the Arabian peninsula oil sheikhdoms. All of them except Saudi Arabia and the UAE, have elements of democracy, in that they have held free elections to a legislature, although none of these legislatures yet exercise any real power. Except, ironically, in Kuwait. In 1999, the Emir of Kuwait decreed that women would have the right to vote, but the Kuwaiti parliament, freely elected albeit on an all-male franchise, vetoed that decree. I believe that of the Arabian peninsula oil sheikhdoms, only Qatar has universal suffrage.
Algeria had a real free election in 1992, but the military didn't like the Islamist outcome. In Iran before the revolution, there was a real, liberal, westernised, political opposition which was repressed by the US-supported Shah and had been eclipsed by Islamists by 1978. Even Afghanistan had a 10-year democratic experiment (1963-73) with internationally recognised elections to the legislature.
In the case of Egypt and Iran (under the Shah), it's particularly galling to say they are "completely unable to adjust their culture to any sort of half-ass accommodation to modern life with respect to democracy" since Yankistan actively supported the dictator in power who repress(ed) the native democratic movements.
"Modern economy"
Again, I see no reason for singling out Muslim countries. Most Muslim countries are economic basketcases, but so are countries in many other groupings (Christian Orthodox, Roman Catholic outside Europe, African, etc.) Most Middle East countries, including the non-oil-rich countries, experienced above-median economic growth rates in the period 1950-80, only to be stalled in their growth path after circa 1980 -- which is something the Arab countries have in common with virtually the entire Third World outside East Asia.
Women's rights
In a brief exchange, Butterfieldswire and I discussed women's rights in Muslim countries, using the ratio of female to male educational attainment (in years of schooling) as a proxy. He argued that the female/male ratio in Muslim countries on average was lower than in non-Muslim countries on average, even controlling for differences in per capita income. Eventually, I was forced to agree. However, I note that the same could be said for China and the smaller Chinese-majority countries, such as Singapore, Taiwan and Hong Kong -- whose female/male ratios are considerably lower than other countries with comparable income levels. One could make the same observation about India and African countries in general.
Again, the point is: Muslim countries here are not significantly exceptional.
As for religious tolerance, in what way are majority of Muslims intolerant of other religions?
" It is in line, I believe, with your inability to recognize the moral differences between the Israelis and the Palestinians."
I used to be very pro-Israel -- I can show you my comments from the Mote/Fray archives where I am ridiculously pro-Israel in my views. But I have changed my views totally since Intifidah II.
This information is not new, but is conveyed in a convenient form. The UN partition plan of 1947 was gross unfair, and the Arabs were right to reject it.
And, in 2000, despite all the loud claims that "Barak offered 95% of the West Bank and Gaza and Arafat rejected a deal of a life time", how could someone suppose that Arafat could have accepted as a Palestinian state, a discontinguous patchwork of territories stitched together by Israeli security roads and eaten away by Jewish settlements? How could the Barak offer be construed as a genuine deal which would result in a truly sovereign Palestinian state?
One would have to be either Jewish or ethically insane to believe that justice was on the Israeli side.
There are certainly liberal, well-meaning Israelis, but I think the Israeli political elites in general are not really interested in peace. How else to explain the slow de facto annexation of the West Bank through settlements, and the untenable Barak offer?
"I've seen you remark on the Middle East. You have the standard Euro/Antipodean/U.S. Left/Noble White Man view of the situation:"
I disagree. I think Snowowl's views are almost universally held outside the USA and Israel. That is, the vast majority of the world, to the extent that it thinks about it at all, is more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel. Left or right, it doesn't matter. Most Europeans, most Latin Americans, most Asians, most Africans, are pro-Palestinian. The USA is basically an anomaly in the regard. I know there are several exceptions here and there, but the overall point is the same. Of course things may have changed recently.
Basically, the vast majority of Pakistanis think Usama bin Ladin is completely innoncent of the 9/11 attacks (and about half of them blame it on Israel and another quarter on domestic American groups). However, the majority do believe that the 9/11 attacks were terrorism and not "jihad".
The last view implies that the majority of Pakistanis do not believe that 9/11 attacks were justified, and, if Pakistani opinion is representative of world-wide Muslim opinion, then Pincher Martin is wrong that the majority of Muslims believe the 9/11 attacks were justified. The majority simply do not believe Usama bin Ladin was responsible.
Algeria had a real free election in 1992, but the military didn't like the Islamist outcome
If they would have accepted the results, do you suppose there would have been elections in the future? I certainly don't mean into infinity.
A good reason to catch him and try him publicly for all to see. Al Jazeera and CNN could televise the trial to all the world.
Fascinating article on Islamic extremism excerpted from a new book of essays, "How Did This Happen?".
It's a bit overstated about East Asia. I forgot about Japan. However, democracy in Taiwan and South Korea is only about 10 years old. Thailand and the Philippines have alternated between democracy & dictatorship, rather like Pakistan.
Your map and statement on the percentages of area for Israeli and Palestine overlook a major factor -- Jordan was proposed and then established as the Palestinian state.
Actually, Transjordan was separated from the Palestine mandate by Winston Churchill in 1921 or 1922 (I can't remember which) when he was colonial secretary.
But I don't see the relevance of Jordan whatever.
are going along with them, voting for unwarranted bailouts, unnecessary tax breaks and outright boondoggles.
Why are our representatives caving in to their demands? One big reason is because they need their campaign contributions to keep getting re-elected. Unsurprisingly, some of the biggest beneficiaries of Congressís largesse are also among the nation's biggest political contributors.
This corruption of democracy can only be fixed through sustained, broad-based activism. Toward that end, Public Citizen, a Washington,
DC-based non-profit that aims to dramatically reduce the role of special interest money in American politics, has launched a major new initiative to address the war profiteering that has been on the rise in the last couple of months.
Featuring informational resources, activist materials, online action alerts, scholarly reports and much else, HowDareThey.org is a critical outlet for the unavoidable backlash being fostered by the Bush Administration's exploitation of the September 11 terrorist attacks.
Check it out now at:
How Dare They!
Were marj and Fisk dating or something?
Yes, but we had spoken of the ratio of female average years of schooling to male average years of schooling in the general population, which in 2000 was 80-85% was Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore (as well as South Korea). This is low compared to other countries of comparable income levels, as well as former East bloc countries.
Enrolment figures, of course, speak to the current generation of students. In this case, you are right about HK and Taiwan -- the female secondary enrolment % is higher than male secondary enrolment %.
But the same is true in Jordan, Bahrain, Brunei, Kuwait, Lebanon, Maldives, Qatar, UAE, and Tunisia.
And in Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Syria, the female secondary enrolment is 85-95% of the male secondary enrolment -- not out of line for countries in their income group.
--
Al D
I've ordered the book.
Good show. You have, in my opinion, ordered the single best volume on the contemporary Middle East. It's not always fun to read, Al, but I think you will agree that the writer does a superb job by the time you're through it.
Please do comment on the book as you read it, Al, you're the second member of this community to pick it up on my recommendation. The first, roughly five years ago, was the poster now known as Mr. Socko.
I disagree. I think Snowowl's views are almost universally held outside the USA and Israel.
So if Brazilians and Japanese hold a view originated in the cohorts Pincher mentioned, then his characterization is somehow faulty? Or are you insinuating that the majority opinion in the world must be correct becasue it is the majority opinion? Is there any point to your litany aside from an implicit claim that Americans are too sheltered to comprehend beliefs other than our own?
Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda fighters have agreed to surrender after being driven out of most of their mountain hideouts, anti-Taleban commanders say.
Reports from the front line, however, say there appears to be some disagreement among the al-Qaeda command about whether to give up or not.
But anti-Taleban commander Haji Zuman said they had agreed to begin handing over their weapons at 8.00 am (0330 GMT) on Wednesday.
Another anti-Taleban commander, Mohammad Amin, told Reuters news agency that al-Qaeda had been forced to retreat to a last stronghold in the mountains south of Tora Bora, at Spin Ghar.
So Bin Laden isn't there either.
"So if Brazilians and Japanese hold a view originated in the cohorts Pincher mentioned, then his characterization is somehow faulty?"
No, merely pointing out that pro-Palestine sympathies are far from limited to Europeans, Antipodeans and the US left. They are a world-wide phenomenon, and even more a Third World phenomenon.
Moreover, this view did not "originate" in the cohorts Pincher mentioned at all. As far as I know, originally the western left was rather pro-Israel, because Zionists were fellow socialists. Israel's founding was fully supported by the Soviet bloc and Israel fended off its enemies in 1948 with East bloc arms. Israel was an ally of the UK and France for a long time after its independence. Remember Suez 1956? Well, perhaps not.
By contrast, most Third World countries have been pro-Palestinian from the beginning. China and India did not recognise Israel until 1992 and 1990, respectively (though both had had unofficial relations for a while, as do several Arab countries today such as Morocco). Gandhi had opposed statehood in Palestine for Jews.
"Or are you insinuating that the majority opinion in the world must be correct becasue it is the majority opinion?
No.
Is there any point to your litany aside from an implicit claim that Americans are too sheltered to comprehend beliefs other than our own?
What you call my "implicit claim" was not my claim at all, implicit or explicit.
Not quite. I must admit that I'm impressed that you knew about this, one of Gandhi's relatively few forays into contemplation of far-flung foreign affairs, but you're slightly wrong.
He merely felt that the Zionists were going about it wrong - trying to establish a state at the barrel of a British gun. Rather typically, Gandhi believed the way to establish a lasting state would be through winning over Arab hearts.
Relevant quotes from Gandhi:
Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct."
"And now a word to the Jews in Palestine. I have no doubt that they are going about it in the wrong way. The Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract. It is in their hearts. But if they must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only with the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart."
"I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regarded as an unwarrantable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
Whether the position of women in a society is "better" or "worse" from Gautemala to Morocco to Chechnya is not measureable simply by looking at education rates or any other single variable. Education as a proxy for the position of women in various societies was fine for looking at one piece of a much larger argument (of which yours and Swire's was but a sliver), but you cannot honestly expect anyone here to believe that schooling equates wholly with the position of women in any particular society. Especially since the nature of the schooling can scarcely be controlled from place to place.
Nor does it take a statistitian to recognize that religious and political systems for enacting repression or freedom ultimately are more powerful than cultural ones, because they carry with them the authority of God or state and mechanisms of enforcement. That a plitical or religious system of treatment can be moved from culture to culture is what makes it dangerous to the culture being "invaded". Now, "western" values imported into traditional societies are opposed by God and state combined: both Shi'a and Sunni Islam have demonstrated they can and will systematically deprive women even of previously assumed freedoms, under religious law elevated to the status of civil governance.
This is not an indicator of the perfidiousness of Islam, it is a function of the development of Islam, a relatively young religion whose loss of political power to Christendom hundreds of years ago stunted its ambitions. Had this not happened, the lands of Islam might now be the global representatives of secularity and freedom; but they are not. The politically charged part of Islam is now where Christendom was in the fifteenth century. You can't expect modern societies to respect and accommodate what they've already determined is a part of their own inglorious past.
It's all a lot of Muslim defensiveness and anti-Americanism, with a dose of classic contempt for Jews thrown in for good measure: "One would have to be either Jewish or ethically insane to believe that justice was on the Israeli side."
I'm not sure if the implication of this is simply that all Jews think as one (why are you reacting against Jews in the way the bigots you deplore react against Muslims?) or that Jews are "ethically insane". Either way, congratulations for having promulgated a couple more stupid, ugly insinuations.
Here, for the gallery, are two polar examples of Jewish political views:
http://www.deiryassin.org/
(Click on "A Pasover Sermon...")
http://www.newsandopinion.com/michael/ledeen.html
(This guy is obviously a Rustler Pike acolyte)
Pincher did not say they were limited to anything.
Message # 17514
"But this bent of yours--denying that women have it bad in Muslim countries compared to other countries....--is of a piece with your claim that Jews were never so poorly off in Muslim lands compared to Christian ones"
What's wrong with this "bent" of mine?
..or that the widespread belief among Muslims now that Jews were responsible for the 9-11 atrocity is comparable to some belief you dream is held by a majority of Americans that we were attacked because Muslims hate our freedom (or something like that)."
I do rather think the two are comparable.
....with a dose of classic contempt for Jews thrown in for good measure: "One would have to be either Jewish or ethically insane to believe that justice was on the Israeli side."
There is no contempt for Jews at all in that formulation. It is entirely natural for Jews to side with Israel. I regard the Israel/Palestine thing as just another ethnic/sectarian conflict, like the Serb/Croat or Serb/Albanian conflict, or Hindu/Muslim rivalry, or others. And most people side with their co-ethnics or co-religionists. It is entirely natural and unsurprising.
I'm not sure if the implication of this is simply that all Jews think as one...or that Jews are "ethically insane". Here, for the gallery, are two polar examples of Jewish political views:"
The implication is that the vast majority of Jews are pro-Israel, an utterly true proposition. Of course there are some Jews who are not pro-Israel, but those are exceptions and you damned well know it.
(why are you reacting against Jews in the way the bigots you deplore react against Muslims?)
I'm not.
Either way, congratulations for having promulgated a couple more stupid, ugly insinuations.
What's ugly about it?
Not only is this not a "dream" of Pseuder's, it is commonplace received wisdom in these USA. You can and will hear something very much like it on television or the radio every day, and often from those who speak for the government.
Dubya himself, in that famous speech to Congress after 9/11.
thanks
"Whether the position of women in a society is "better" or "worse" from Gautemala to Morocco to Chechnya is not measureable simply by looking at education rates or any other single variable. Education as a proxy for the position of women in various societies was fine for looking at one piece of a much larger argument (of which yours and Swire's was but a sliver), but you cannot honestly expect anyone here to believe that schooling equates wholly with the position of women in any particular society. Especially since the nature of the schooling can scarcely be controlled from place to place."
Yes, yes, yes. I only brought up schooling disparities because that's what Butter himself had brought up a long time ago on this very question. At the time I had not concentrated exclusively on schooling disparities. But if you had to represent a broad category like women's rights by one or several indicators, education-related data are the single best indicators.
And I repeat: I conceded that Muslim countries do on average worse in women's education than non-Muslim countries on average, even after controlling for income levels. But the point was that there are several subsets of "non-Muslim countries" which also do worse on average than the superset of "non-Muslim countries".
"Nor does it take a statistitian to recognize that religious and political systems for enacting repression or freedom ultimately are more powerful than cultural ones, because they carry with them the authority of God or state and mechanisms of enforcement. That a political or religious system of treatment can be moved from culture to culture is what makes it dangerous to the culture being "invaded".
I completely disagree. And several examples illustrate my disagreement.
In traditional nomadic or mountain tribal societies (Albanian, Kurdish, Bedouin, Central Asian Turks, Afghans), the institution of brideprice is practised. Girls are essentially bought and sold as wives between families, and in extreme cases fathers would travel from one locale to another in order to find the highest price. The bridepride practise was banned by Islam, but it persists among nomads and mountain tribes.
The Koran explicitly confers property and inheritance rights on women. But in many Muslim countries, particularly some Gulf Arab and Central Asian ones, women have been denied these rights.
In many Arab countries, as well as Pakistan and Albania, "honour killings" of female adulterers take place at the hands of husbands or male relatives even, and frequently, when there is no evidence of adultery beyond mere rumours or suspicions. Sometimes rape victims are punished as adulterers.
By contrast, Islam requires that both men and women adulterers be punished in exact symmetry. More importantly, orthodox Islamic practise places an enormous burden of proof on accusations of adultery, including that there must be at least four witnesses to the adultery, who must have been witness to the act of sexual intercourse itself. (Other forms of intimacy do not constitute adultery and are not punishable under Islamic law.)
(continued)
The point: culture persists over religion in many many instances. In most Muslim countries, Islam as practised is a jumble of older customs and prejudices, and the application of Islamic orthodoxy might actually amount to an improvement of women's status.
"Now, "western" values imported into traditional societies are opposed by God and state combined: both Shi'a and Sunni Islam have demonstrated they can and will systematically deprive women even of previously assumed freedoms, under religious law elevated to the status of civil governance."
I'm not sure that's true. You can only say this unequivocally for the Taliban, whose creed was far from orthodox Islam and more akin to mountain tribalism. In many Muslim countries, orthodox Islamic practise would likely improve the status and rights of women. Women in revolutionary Iran have lost sartorial freedom, that is true, but educational and work opportunities may have in fact increased since the revolution.
Now, secularism would certainly be preferable to Islamic orthodoxy in terms of women's rights, but in the current climate it's unrealistic for Muslim countries to become more secular. I think the best hope in Muslim countries is for Muslims to realise the progressive possibilities inherent in Islamic orthodoxy.
This is not an indicator of the perfidiousness of Islam, it is a function of the development of Islam, a relatively young religion whose loss of political power to Christendom hundreds of years ago stunted its ambitions. Had this not happened, the lands of Islam might now be the global representatives of secularity and freedom; but they are not....You can't expect modern societies to respect and accommodate what they've already determined is a part of their own inglorious past."
I don't understand the point of the passage. My remarks to Pincher were simply to point out that many of the problems of modernisation associated with Muslim countries (democracy, economy, women's rights, etc.) are hardly unique to Muslim countries.
The politically charged part of Islam is now where Christendom was in the fifteenth century.
No, that's glib and facile. I think political Islam, by which I think you mean Islamic fundamentalism, is a modernist movement, modernist in the sense that it is not traditional. This is something scholars of the Middle East like Bernared Lewis and Daniel Pipes are agreed on.
Message # 17513
your claims about "democratic" Iran aside."
Does anyone deny that there is a democracy emerging, albeit slowly and imperfectly, in Iran?
subsets of 'non-Muslim countries' which also do worse on average than the superset of 'non-Muslim countries'", "predominantly Chinese countries" are not among them. Female youth illiteracy rates in HK, Taiwan and Singapore are 0. Female youth illiteracy rates in China are 4%. It may be that older Chinese women have relatively low education levels given CURRENT income in those countries, but the obvious reason for that is that economic growth has been so rapid in those countries.
Female enrollments in the Middle East have grown rapidly in the last 10 years. Still, Female youth illiteracy rates in ME&N.Africa are 24% (compared to 13% for men). Female youth illiteracy rates in lower middle income countries are 7% (compared to 3% for men).
It relies on selective readings of history and selective analysis of statistics to come to a preferred set of conclusions. Your preferred conclusion is that there is nothing to fear in Islam. But at the moment, there is.
"The implication is that the vast majority of Jews are pro-Israel, an utterly true proposition. Of course there are some Jews who are not pro-Israel, but those are exceptions and you damned well know it."
I might as well claim the "vast majority" of Muslims are antisemitic. But just as one would have to define "pro-Israel" before expecting such a claim as you've made had any relevance, one would have to define "antisemitic" to discern what Muslims feel or believe. Otherwise, all this spouting about "vast majorities" is just fuel for mindless polemic.
There are many Jews who are as pro-Palestinian as they are pro-Israel. They are not all that exceptional, they once formed the bulk of liberal Jewry in the US and probably elsewhere as well. They did, that is, until this past year, when Arafat walked out of Camp David rather than propose any alternative to Barak/Clinton, allowed the Intifada Istiklal to continue in spite of the fact that the Sharm el-Sheikh negotiations proved a deal was indeed reachable, and failed to even attempt to stop a spate of suicide bombings. These events shut liberal Jews up, from the toip down. But those who believe a great wrong was done to the Pals, and must be righted, have not dried up and blown away. They'll be back.
And Jewish opinion has always been more complex than you believe. The very formation of the Israeli state was strenuously objected to not only by the Orthodox but by the Reform movement in the US (and Germany, I believe). It is only in recent years that the Orthodox have come to accept Israel's legitimacy, and many still don't consider it the divinely ordained McCoy: if it blows away, that's God's will, we'll get it back when Moshiach comes.
Polls suggest American Jews are still quite divided in their views about Israel. But whenever Israel is threatened by people who blow up large American skyscrapers, claim they want to take over the world, and publicly liken Jews to pigs and monkeys, Jews sober up and opinion naturally becomes more pro-Israel across the board.
Even so, the percentage of Jews who have for years been openly and vociferously critical of Israel has got to be orders of magnitude more impressive than the percentage of Muslims who are even willing to acknowledge the moral decrepitude, let alone the guilt, of Osama bin Laden, an antisemite and bigot of Hitlerian proportions.
We'll have to leave it at that. I have other things to do this year...
Now those are Jews I can talk to!
No, that is what the Koran requires. Like Judaism, Islam is composed of reams of additional law and commentary on the seminal text; these are incorporated into religious law from surrounding cultures, but they very much are a part of the religion. In other words, Islam, like every other religion, is the predominant totality of its practices, not just the ideal ones you want to cite.
Moreover, if memory serves, the Koran itself does not prescribe that the determination of guilt in an adultery case is at all a "symmetrical" affair. Given the requirements on witnesses, a woman's testimony is essentially rendered useless against a man's.
Now I really must go...
I suggest you look at this statement of purpose from the Americans for Peace Now.
To wit:
Americans for Peace Now (APN), the U.S. partner of Israel's Peace Now (Shalom Achshav) is the leading American Zionist organization working to help Israel achieve a secure peace with the Arab states and the Palestinian people.
Americans for Peace Now believes that Israel's security and its democratic and Jewish character cannot be maintained if it continues to rule over the West Bank and Gaza nor if it remains in a state of conflict with its Arab neighbors including the Palestinian people.
APN seeks a comprehensive political settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict consistent with Israel's long-term security needs and its Jewish and democratic values.
But to describe it as "anti-Zionist" is deceptive and dishonest.
From the charter of Peace Now -PEACE NOW adheres to the Zionist values upon which the State of Israel was founded.......
"In the current climate especially, no one can reasonably claim that Peace Now is "pro-Israel".
Now that is not just untrue, it's outright ridiculous.
Fran nailed it in that Bush was speaking to 'terrorists' and their ilk, and not 'Muslims'. so, your quote of same was needless and irrelevant.
How do you arrive at these supposed "facts"? I think it's fair to say that the majority of Muslims sympathise with some aims of Usama bin Ladin (i.e., boot the Americans out of the Middle East, reduce their influence in world affairs, etc.), but approve of 9/11? Definitely a minority.
I said sympathize, not approve. Most Muslims sympathize with the motivation of the acts even if they do not approve of them. (I don't believe many Muslims honestly think the CIA or Mossad organized the bombings.)
Since we have no polling data, we have to rely on anecdotal evidence. I have seen almost no sentiment from anywhere in the Muslim world that wasn't half-hearted in its condemnation of the acts ("Terrible acts, but what can you expect if you support Israel") or tendentious in its claims the U.S. had no evidence that it was a Muslim instead of (pick your favorite Muslim hobgoblin) who organized the attacks.
continued ...
Jews in the U.S. and the U.K. could be kept out of the best companies and the best universities at the time, but they were generally free from the threat of violence (including the loss of their property) and they did not have their second-class citizenship enshrined in law.
I also think it's confined almost exclusively to the educated and literate city dwellers. In the non-Arab Muslim at large, it is certainly my experience that outside the cities, people barely know what Israel is or even what Jews are.
I'm not sure why you would suggest literacy or urbanity is some kind of baseline for having strong anti-Semitic views. Certainly, these rural, uneducated groups that have come to power in Iran, Afghanistan, etc. have shown an education is not necessary for it.
And it’s irrelevant that some poor Afghans, Pakis, Indonesians, etc. have never heard of Israel or Jews, or don't care that much about them if they have heard of them. They live in a culture that to the extant they will know something about Israel or care to have a public opinion about Jews, it will be nearly uniformly negative.
continued ...
Soon after 9-11, Prime Minister Mahathir said the terrorists shouldn't have crashed in the U.S. No, sirree, he continued, they should have aimed those jets at Israeli targets. Mahathir's a loose cannon, but this is egregious even by his standards. Yet, this is all too often what you hear in the Muslim world.
continued...
Your claims about democracy and Muslim culture are so fucking ignorant, I'm sure you must be putting me on: The progress toward democratic consolidation in South Korea, and the vitality of democracy in the Philippines and Thailand as well, belie the notion of a cultural obstacle to democracy in East Asia. Still, it is difficult to deny that culture plays some role in accounting for the stunning weakness of democracy in the Islamic world, and especially among the Arab states in the Middle East. Of the 43 countries with majority Muslim populations, only one (Mali) is rated "free" by Freedom House, and only seven have the formal structures of democracy. No Arab country is democratic, and 12 of 16 are rated "not free." While levels of freedom have improved in some predominately Muslim states, the growth in Islamist movements throughout Asia and the Middle East in recent years have pressured democratic regimes and constricted political rights and civil liberties, especially for women.
Back to your Message # 17486:
The Global Resurgence of Democracy by Larry Diamond and Marc Plattner, 1996
Muslim countries' record in democracy is perhaps comparable with Latin America's or East Asia's.
You don't have a clue what you are talking about. I didn't think you would say something as stupid as the remark you made about U.S. foreign policy a few weeks back, but this has to be close.
You earlier referred to Freedom House when discussing the Palestinian elections. You should have read their table comparing countries level of political rights and civil liberties.
continued ...
And forget about a comparison with Latin America. There are at least a dozen Latin America/Caribbean countries rated higher than any Muslim country, including such well-developed economies as El Salvador, Jamaica, Uruguay, Ecuador, and Bolivia. The worst countries in Latin America (with the exception of Cuba) are as good as some of the best from the Islamic world: Colombia, Peru and Venezuela rate as well as Jordan, Turkey, Indonesia, or Kuwait.
In case you didn't get it the first time, not a single fucking Muslim country out of more than fifty rates as high as El Salvador or Mongolia. I didn't have time to make a comparison with Sub-Saharan non-Muslim African countries, but I'm wondering if even that region would show better marks than the Muslim-majority countries. It certainly couldn't be worse.
Your comparisons are feeble. Iran? Pakistan? Yemen? Give me a fucking break. Who do you think you're talking to? Joe Zan?
I am on rock-hard ground when I say Muslim culture has not reached a half-ass accomadation with modernity, and cite democracy as an example.
I will turn to your other claims when I have time.
Shalom Achshav [Peace Now], the largest grassroots movement in Israel's history, was founded in 1978 by 348 reserve officers of the Israel Defense Forces. Experience had convinced them that while Israel must always be ready to defend itself, violence is not the answer to the age-old conflict in the Middle East.
Americans for Peace Now [APN] was founded in 1981 to help Shalom Achshav pursue a lasting and equitable peace in the Middle East and to build an informed and empowered pro-peace American public.
The vast majority of Muslim states have diplomatic relations with Israel. In other words, they accept its existence.
All other allegations are moot. And besides they're irrelevant, because those countries (with the exception of Iran and Morocco and a couple of others) there are no or trivially few Jewish residents. In both Iran and Morocco, the rights of Jewish citizens are enshrined constitutionally.
The real question is one based in Palestine, where millions of Muslims live without rights, and in fact have are constitutionally deprived of equal status under law. This nonsense about Malaysia et al is a sideshow distraction.
(I will not be around to further engage in this discussion for some couple of hours).
Afghanistan
Of these thirteen, eight are Muslim-majority countries and three are communist countries left over from the Cold War. Not even China can keep up with this group in political oppression and the curtailing of civil rights.
Burma
Cuba
Equatorial Guinea
Iraq
Korea, North
Libya
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
Sudan
Syria
Turkmenistan
Vietnam
Why is this discussion being sidetracked to the red herring of allegations of anti-semitism in Muslim-majority countries?
The vast majority of Muslim states have diplomatic relations with Israel. In other words, they accept its existence.
It isn't a red herring at all, dipshit. If you read the post, you would see I wrote about public opinion in those countries, not government policy. You can tell the difference between the two, can't you? Obviously, some Islamic countries can have relations with Israel since most of them aren't nearly as responsive to public opinion as a democracy would be. I know of at least one Islamic country (Turkey) that has pretty good under-the-table relations with Israel, including militarily.
Hahahaha!!!!!!
ButterfieldSwire, it's a shame you're not around more often to lighten up the mood.
Your claims about democracy and Muslim culture are so fucking ignorant, I'm sure you must be putting me on:
Not at all. Your counterarguments are completely distorted.
For example, your use of various ratings relies exclusively on current ratings, not historical progression of those ratings. Does the fact that Pakistan has alternated between democracy and dicatatorship in the last 50 years, not count at all toward the assessment that Muslim countries. Thailand and the Philippines have been in the same situation as Pakistan, but somehow you count their democratic experience but not Pakistan's (or Lebanon's).
In East Asia, only Japan has been a solid, long-standing democracy. All other examples have been sporadic and/or recent. The same with Latin America. Most Latin American countries are today democratic, but most of their history has been characterised by military or other kinds of dictatorship. (The only Latin American country to have had real democracy for most of its history, is Chile, and before 1973.) El Salvador and Bolivia well-developed? Please. These countries' records of democracy are not only spotty, but also very recent.
And time since independence is important. Most LA countries have been independent for 180 years or so. If they have failed to have much democracy in those years, that's largely their fault. By contrast, the history of independence for most Muslim states ranges from 40 years to 50 years.
By the way, my comments on elections in Muslim countries were drawn from Freedom House comments.
"Most Muslims sympathize with the motivation of the acts even if they do not approve of them."
With that, I agree.
(I don't believe many Muslims honestly think the CIA or Mossad organized the bombings.)
You should believ eit.
Since we have no polling data, we have to rely on anecdotal evidence.
There are polling data for Pakistan.
Message # 17538
I'm not sure why you would suggest literacy or urbanity is some kind of baseline for having strong anti-Semitic views.
Because that's what I have found to actually be the case. Uneducated people in Pakistan or Afghanistan have barely heard of Israel and certainly don't care about the subject.
Certainly, these rural, uneducated groups that have come to power in Iran, Afghanistan, etc. have shown an education is not necessary for it.
??? As far as I know, the Taliban have never expressed an opinion about Jews or Israel, except perhaps since 9/11. As for Iran, the mullahs who came to power were not rural and uneducated.
Message # 17539
"If you could ask this simple question to informed public opinion around the Muslim world: "Does Israel have the right to exist?" Where among the four dozen or so majority Muslim countries would you garner a majority to answer yes?"
I would say, the answer would be majority yes in all Muslim countries of the world, except, possibly, Egypt, Jordan and Syria.
"Your preferred conclusion is that there is nothing to fear in Islam."
That is not my conclusion at all. There is definitely an extremist strain within Islam which is to be feared, and is feared by Muslims themselves. But its size, strength and character are frequently exaggerated, and it is portrayed as far more representative than it actually is.
I might as well claim the "vast majority" of Muslims are antisemitic.
They are, by PC American standards. But I would liken this antisemitism most to that found in the USA and the UK before the war.
Message # 17532
No, that is what the Koran requires. Like Judaism, Islam is composed of reams of additional law and commentary on the seminal text; these are incorporated into religious law from surrounding cultures, but they very much are a part of the religion. In other words, Islam, like every other religion, is the predominant totality of its practices, not just the ideal ones you want to cite.
Nonsense.
There are certain prevalent practises in some Muslim countries which cannot be considered consistent with Islamic law by any standard.
And Islamic law is based on Koran and Hadith. The abundant commentary on those has no legal standing of any kind.
Moreover, if memory serves, the Koran itself does not prescribe that the determination of guilt in an adultery case is at all a "symmetrical" affair. Given the requirements on witnesses, a woman's testimony is essentially rendered useless against a man's.
I have no idea what this means. (1) The Qur'an requires that both parties to the adultery be punished, and punished identically. (2) There is no gender discrimination in the value of witnesses in adultery cases.
So anyway, you are outraged about Barak's Camp David offer. What do you think is a fair land for peace deal?
Well, "outraged" is a strong word. I just think it's understandable that Arafat rejected Barak's offer.
My larger view is essentially that the Israel-Palestine thing should be relegated to what it really is, an Arab nationalist issue, not one which should exercise Muslims per se. All non-Arab Muslim countries should recognise Israel, as Iran had done under the Shah.
What would be a fair deal? Return to the status quo ante of 1967 would be fair.
Not according to a comparison between members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and the listing of diplomatic missions abroad (as of October 2000) from Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Not at all. Your counterarguments are completely distorted.
There is nothing distorted about my counterarguments. They are supported by scholars who research democratic development (as my cite of Platter showed). You're simply being evasive.
For example, your use of various ratings relies exclusively on current ratings, not historical progression of those ratings.
You've got to be kidding.
For a couple of cases, yes. For a few cases, maybe. But for fifty god damn cases! Did all but one of more than fifty Muslim countries happen to avoid scoring "free" this year by historical coincidence?
Frankly, if you can't accept the abundance of evidence showing that it is Muslim culture that contributes to this, then there is no finding of social science you should support.
Does the fact that Pakistan has alternated between democracy and dicatatorship in the last 50 years, not count at all toward the assessment that Muslim countries. Thailand and the Philippines have been in the same situation as Pakistan, but somehow you count their democratic experience but not Pakistan's (or Lebanon's).
Lebanon is a special case. Until very recently, it was not a majority-Muslim country.
Pakistan and the Philippines have comparisons going back to 1972 at Freedom House. They both go up and down, but the Philippines consistently scores higher than Pakistan, and even during the worst of Marco's years in power, it was never as low as Pakistan has been during numerous times over the last thirty years, including this year.
continued ...
So, they still are there. Something not true of any of the Muslim states. I don't leave out some barrier for the non-Muslim states that I do give to Muslim states. You would think a handful of fifty would stray over into "free" (even if by accident) just as half-a-dozen have from East/Southeast Asia and more than a dozen from Latin America. But instead, only one does, and that one just barely -- Mali.
The same with Latin America. Most Latin American countries are today democratic, but most of their history has been characterised by military or other kinds of dictatorship.
Of what fucking relevance is this? Democracy -- real democracy -- has been gaining speed nearly everywhere in the world, except for that portion of it dominated by Muslims and a few (former) communist countries. In the Arab world, you applaud the great strides taking place when some mock democracy is carried out in Iran or Yemen, but fail to recognize as significant any real democratic change in other places because it hasn't been set for longer than ten years.
(The only Latin American country to have had real democracy for most of its history, is Chile, and before 1973.) El Salvador and Bolivia well-developed? Please.
That was a joke.
These countries' records of democracy are not only spotty, but also very recent.
Yes, and recently the Muslims have made few solid gains, and with the rise of fundamentalism, many have gone backward.
continued ...
Yes, so have South Korea and Taiwan; so, for that matter, has the Philippines. Mongolia has been free less than ten years and in that time they have scored "free" every god damn year. Again, you're grasping for straws.
Lebanon is a special case. Until very recently, it was not a majority-Muslim country.
Utter nonsense. The last official census in Lebanon was in 1932. Then there were 51% Christians and 49% Muslims. It is well known that fertility is higher among the Muslims (in particular among the Shia, who are thought to be the largest religious group at present,)and the emigration rate is higher among Christians.
"I just think it's understandable that Arafat rejected Barak's offer. " I do too. Beyond the fact that the offer itself was unacceptable, its clear that Barak and Clinton ganged up on Arafat to accept their political timetable, even though Arafat had a far more difficult task in selling a final settlement.
On the other hand, the offer was a big step forward by the Israelis. It also seems clear that there was further room to negotiate. So, then why Intifada II? I found the almost universal Israeli interpretation that the Palestinian people don't really want peace to be very understandable.
My larger view is essentially that the Israel-Palestine thing should be
relegated to what it really is, an Arab nationalist issue, not one which
should exercise Muslims per se. All non-Arab Muslim countries should
recognise Israel, as Iran had done under the Shah.
What would be a fair deal?
By the way, Pincher abusrdly claims that Turkey has "under-the-table" relations with Israel. It does not, it has openly cooperated with Israel in any number of areas including defence.
1st 9/11 indictment announced:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft announced Tuesday what he said were the first federal indictments directly related to the September 11 terror attacks.
Ashcroft said Zacarias Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan descent, has been charged with conspiring with Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda to "murder thousands of people" in New York, Pennsylvania and at the Pentagon.
The multiple conspiracy charges against Moussaoui allege that he engaged in the "same preparation for murder" as the 19 hijackers who commandeered four U.S. jets and crashed them. If convicted, he could face the death penalty.
why no tribunal? he's too public?
I linked in this story yesterday. Yes, this guy is the "20th hijacker.
Thanks. Or perhaps the 21st hijacker, according to the FBI, if I read the story correctly.
Aren't the US's close allies among those countries anti-democratic? Of course they are - no one has used democracy as a yardstick for compelling US foreign policy. Isn't Bush, even now, praising Saudi Arabia openly for its grudging cooperation in the "war on terrorism."
Didn't the CIA rather openly topple the nascent democratic movement in Iran in favor of the autocratic Shah? Hasn't the US openly supported autocrats in virtually every country in the region and beyond? Remember Suharto? Look at Musharraf right now, dammit.
How did democracy in Muslim countries suddenly become a matter for American concern?
In fact, I don't think it is. Even now, despite Pincher's protestations.
Utter nonsense. The last official census in Lebanon was in 1932. Then there were 51% Christians and 49% Muslims. It is well known that fertility is higher among the Muslims (in particular among the Shia, who are thought to be the largest religious group at present,)and the emigration rate is higher among Christians.
I seriously doubt you have the slightest fucking clue what you are talking about. Fertility rates (and emigration rates) are not a constant. Even from generation to generation they vary tremendously.
As for where I got my information, I believe Friedman's book on Beirut and Jerusulam says something about the demographic change coming around the time the Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan. I will check when I get home.
Yes, Turkey and Israel have, inter alia, conducted joint naval exercises. Maybe Pincher should confine himself to commenting on Taiwan and its immediate surroundings of which, presumably, he has some real knowledge.
Pelle, aren't you the ignorant fuck who spent more years in the Middle East than I have in East Asia and yet still managed to avoid learning how to speak any of the languages in the area?
I have no idea about every aspect of Turkey and Israel's military cooperation, but my characterization is certainly accurate for the main part of it. The cooperation may be the worst-kept secret in the Middle East, but it is still not something Turkey chooses to advertise. Kaplan has a description of it in his most recent book.
Please don't interject yourself in the conversation until you have a clue what you are even trying to say.
Please just spend that extra minute thinking really hard about what you want to say, and if it doesn't come to you, take another minute.
Your characterization is nonsense. It is not a secret of any kind.
Very senior Turkish military staff have visited Israel, the two countries (and the US) have conducted joint naval and air exercises. Israel has at least a couple of lucrative defence contracts with the Turkish military. Feel free to check out the Jersualem Post's search engine for numerous other details in the public domain of this "worst-kept secret."
Please peruse my #17573, as an exercise, when you find time.
"Frankly, if you can't accept the abundance of evidence showing that it is Muslim culture that contributes to this, then there is no finding of social science you should support."
I have never been particularly impressed with empirical research in political science, and I certainly do not take political science research as seriously as I take economic research. And there is no reason to. Every time I read some research conclusion (democracy & war, violence & religion, etc.), some obvious extraneous variables seem uncontrolled for.
And these little scores you like to trot out -- these are useful for parlour games but I'm not sure they constitute serious research. I've never taken too seriously index variables like "degree of capitalism" or "index of economic freedom", either. There are too many problems with weighting, subjectivity, etc.
No, I don't think I'm grasping at straws; and I don't understand why you think it irrelevant that democracy in most parts of the Third World is a very recent phenomenon.
I concede that, in recent years, the Muslim world has seen less progress toward democratisation than in other developing countries. But cultural explanations of political and economic behaviour require a much longer view than some few years of data points. In the late 19th or early 20th century it was commonplace to dismiss "Confucian culture" (or whatever variant of East Asian cultures) as inimical to economic & political modernisation. It would have been reasonable to make such an extrapolation at the time.
But given the elements of democracy (such as free elections to genuine legislatures, the existence of genuine political partie) that are found in many Muslim countries, and the real democracy that does exist today or has once existed in several others, I think it's unwarranted to conclude, as you have done, that "Muslim culture has not reached a half-ass accomadation with modernity" with respect to democracy. A more reasonable conclusion is that some factor is causing democratisation in Muslim, particularly Arab, countries to be taking place at a slower pace than in other developing countries.
I'd also like to be more cautious of making inferences about cultural determinants of politics from global comparisons of countries with widely different political histories. You can easily control for income and other economic variables in the comparison, but there are so much else which muddles the picture.
The state in almost all countries in the Arab world, plus Iran, either (1) is a continuation of a regime installed by colonial or foreign powers (Tunisia, Jordan, Morocco, various Gulf emirates); or (2) are late revolutionary reactions to the governments installed by colonial or foreign powers (Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, etc.)
I am not blaming the colonial/foreign powers for the political evolution of these countries. But I do observe that revolutionary regimes become more institutionally rigid and entrenched, by creation or cooptations of "mass" organisations like youth groups, unions of various kinds, hierarchical party structures, and various other simulacra of mass participation. This is true of socialist-revolutionary Algeria, Egypt, Iraq, and Syria; and Islamist-revolutionary Iran. None of these countries is ruled by a superficially ensconced military junta. Rather, they are bloated, pervasive and entrenched bureaucratic-revolutionary states.
Until the recent elections, Mexico had had such a "corporatist" regime in power and it was very difficult to un-entrench. My point is that you may be drawing conclusions about the cultures of these Arab countries even though the relevant commonality may actually be the way these modern states were founded.
Message # 17563
"In the Arab world, you applaud the great strides taking place when some mock democracy is carried out in Iran or Yemen, but fail to recognize as significant any real democratic change in other places because it hasn't been set for longer than ten years."
??? I do not applaud. I merely observe. And why do you say I fail to recognise democratisation elsewhere?
If anyone is failing to recognise something, it is you. You dismiss as mock democracy what's going on in Iran, as though its elections are akin to those in the old Soviet Union or Mexico under the PRI.
Yes, and recently the Muslims have made few solid gains, and with the rise of fundamentalism, many have gone backward.
I don't follow you. Fundamentalists would win at least 15-25% of the popular vote in an election held in most Muslim countries. That is one of the institutional reasons for the regimes delaying demnocratisation in such countries as Egypt.
I will find that quote by Kaplan tonight and post it here later.
On the contrary, Pincher Martin, I suggest that you continue huffing-and-puffing and trying to blow smoke about Muslim countries, democracy, and now Israel.
It comes as no surprise to me those posts on democracy and Muslim countries didn't make a dent in your head. You have an uncommon talent for avoiding facts when you find them inconvenient for your beliefs.
Please peruse my #17573, as an exercise, when you find time.
Why? Is that the post where you claim a majority of Muslim countries recognize Israel?
Those posts you have lengthily tables here on Muslim countries and democracy are entirely unexceptional.
They're also almost entirely irrelevant to the discussion thread.
Again, when did democracy in the Muslim countries become a preferred yardstick of any kind, particularly in the context of US foreign policy towards those countries?
Answer - it never has. It is still not.
You cannot discuss the recent history of democratic movements in the Middle East and Muslim countries without grappling with this episode.
Should September 11 be a national holiday?
results:Yes: 43%; No: 57%
i voted no. i'd be interested to see what others vote and what the pro-holiday voters have in way of justification.
Ducks, by the way, isn't it time to change the thread title? It's been three months.
what do you suggest? i was thinking 'America's Ongoing Terrorism Reponse'
but then, i don't like my own suggestion due to it being too close to 'American Politics', so i dunno.
if there are no suggestions by tomorrow, consider it done
Yes, please check Friedman and provide ample references. I have the book too (the 1990 Fontana edition).
The data I cited are from The Near East After the First World War (1991) by M.E. Yapp then professoe at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London.
the demographic change coming around the time the Palestinians were kicked out of Jordan
The ones who were kicked out were a few thousand Fatah fighters. The multitudes in the refugee camps stayed on (except the unfortunates in Sabra and Shatila).
What do my linguistic abilities have to do with my knowledge of facts? You have been caught out in mis-statements and your desperation shows. Poor Pincher. No chance of recovery, I fear.
In any given year, except the last few years, the Freedom House scores in political rights & civil liberties for Pakistan and the Philippines differ by 1-2 points, on a scale of 1 through 7. Now, if the average difference were 3-4 points I might recognise the value you apparently attach to these scores. But an average difference of 1-2 points in a disputably constructed & weighted index of qualitative variables is to be taken less seriously. By the way, the Philippines do not consistently score higher than Pakistan. In the 1970s Pakistan generally scored higher than the Phil. I suspect that would have been the case throughout the 1950s and 1960s, even by FH concepts of measurement.
Well, I wanted to emphasise that one cannot necessarily infer the condition of a country's political culture from the presence and persistence of authoritarian regimes. For they can entrench themselves in power in spite of what the people at large may want. I submit that many Muslim countries demonstrate this. It is illogical to suggest, for example, that Iran "has not reached a half-ass accomadation" with democracy when it has had meaningful elections for both parliament and presidency just because the elections cannot yet fully overturn an entrenched elite. This indicates to me, not that the culture has yet to embrace democracy (or some imperfect democracy), but that the attitudes of the entrenched governing elites lag well behind those of the populace. I think the same thing could have been said for South Korea in the 1980s, with its student and labour demonstrations against the military government; and one might say the same thing for Singapore today (though it doesn't have the Korean militancy). I submit this is the case for most Muslim countries.
An interesting article by Christopher Hitchens. Perhaps someone can link to it.
Though the following is worth quoting here -
This brings me to the other piece of great recent news. Apparently unimpressed by those who maintained that the Al Qaeda death squads were trying to utter a cry for help about the woes of the world's poor (a dismal song I must say I haven't heard being sung so much lately), Judge Baltasar Garzón has put the Spanish wing of this gangster network into custody. We know this judge is not soft on crime, because he helped open the new era of universal jurisdiction by issuing a warrant for the arrest of General Pinochet. He has now gone one better, by telling Attorney General Ashcroft that arrest and detention work only when they are used to enforce the rule of law. No country that respects these norms will deliver prisoners to a country that does not respect them. Military tribunals that take evidence in secret and that have the power to impose the death penalty are, by definition, not up to recognized international standards. Perhaps Ashcroft learned these techniques of jurisprudence from the abattoir regimes, like those of Chile and Guatemala, that the American right has so long defended. It will be very interesting to see how this near-perfect confrontation plays out. Of course, those who were soft on the original crimes will get correspondingly less of a hearing as the debate goes on.
Funny, I was under the impression that in Iran the clergy ultimately controls the presidency and the judiciary, and no one gets to vote for clerics. If there were anything like real democracy in Iran, would not the son of Mohammed Rezi Shah Pahlavi have left his home in Texas by now?
I will only comment on the subordinate clause.
I characterised Iran as an "emergent democracy", not a "real democracy". By my term I mean that free elections are held for presidency and parliament which do wield some real power, but that power is constrained by, and shared with, an unelected clerical elite.
The only person I've heard utter things interpretable as such is George W. Bush, or possibly one of his shills. You mistake administrative propaganda for popular sentiment, and so does Pseudoerasmus.
As for the view by Muslims that Israel was the perpetrator of 9-11, officials from (Druze) Walid Jumblatt in Lebanon to the editorializing sister of Megawati Sukarnoputri in Indonesia have opinined as much. Irving Snodgrass has claimed polls there show a clear majority of the population believes The Jews Did It.
Frankly, I suppose Americans are simply less likely than third worlders to buy into official administrative propaganda (although press propaganda is another story). And I think official antisemitism is kosher in Muslim countries, while it is not in the west--nor was it, to anywhere near the extent it is in Arab countries today, in the US and England in the 1930s, as PE has claimed.
I am not so certain. People who have lived under authoritarian regimes may be more cynical of official propaganda (unless it already caters to their prejudices). In fact I think it makes them unreasonably cynical. That many Muslims don't believe bin Ladin committed the acts of 9/11 may reflect such naive cynicism about official postures.
P: "No, that's glib and facile. I think political Islam, by which I think you mean Islamic fundamentalism, is a modernist movement, modernist in the sense that it is not traditional. This is something scholars of the Middle East like Bernared Lewis and Daniel Pipes are agreed on."
Of course such movements are modernist in the sense of not being traditional (tradition having evolved up to the present day!), but they are undeniably archaic in the sense of desiring to incorporate 15th century notions about women and the place of dhimmis into modern practice, which they then claim to be traditional. Neither Bernard Lewis nor Daniel Pipes would object to such an assessment, which is neither glib nor facile but is readily ascertainable from the most cursory reading of any fundamentalist tract.
P: "I have no idea what this means. ...There is no gender discrimination in the value of witnesses in adultery cases."
Why don't you have any idea what this means?
A single man's testimony is worth that of four witnesses, as long as he swears before God that he isn't lying, five if he invokes a curse on himself if he's lying (Quran, 24/6-7).
1. menstruation
2. childbirth
3. separation from mother and father upon marriage to a strange person
4. pregnancy
5. not having control over one's own person
6. smaller share in inheritance
7. liability to be divorced and inability to divorce [same problem in Israel]
8. having only one husband at a time while the husband can have four wives
9. having to keep her head covered at home
10. having to stay secluded inside her home
11. her testimony having only half the strength of a man's testimony
12. not being able to go out alone, but only accompanied by a near relative
13. not being able to take part in Friday and feast day prayers, or funerals
14. not being able to serve as a judge or ruler
15. having to wait four months and ten days after the death of a husband before remarrying
16. having to wait three months after getting divorced by a husband before remarrying [prevents the new husband from inadvertently being the father of the old husband's child]
17. having very little merit when compared to men (merit having one thousand components, only one of which is attributable to women, while 999 are attributable to men)
18. having half the sentence of punishment for profligacy on Judgment Day as compared to men [one benefit in 18 disadvantages isn't bad].
A single man's testimony is worth that of four witnesses, as long as he swears before God that he isn't lying, five if he invokes a curse on himself if he's lying (Quran, 24/6-7).
Nice try Andonly. Stop citing the partial quotation of some internet screed, and look at 24:8-9. The two verses give the woman the IDENTICAL rights in case she is accused. All an accused woman need do is bear witness four times (with an oath) that her husband is lying.
From a mildly interesting interview with some professor named Soroush (http://www.seraj.org/zanan.htm): "Kant’s view was very similar to that of Mulla Sadra and master Sabzevari, who believed that women were capable of understanding particulars, but that generalities were, on the whole, beyond their comprehension.
This view was widely held in ancient Greece, by Islamic and European scholars, and even up until the dawn of the Enlightenment. It goes without saying that women’s rights and the rules of behaviour concerning women were adversely affected by this view. Not only did they place women on a lower level in terms of thinking and understanding, but they believed that women were not in full control of their sentiments either and that they, consequently, not only led others into temptation, but were also largely incapable of acting in their were own best interests. You will find it said in Islamic narratives and in Ghazzali’s Revival of Sciences that women form half of Satan’s army and that Satan can achieve his aims in a religious society with their assistance. It has been stated in another narrative that his holiness the Prophet once said that, on the night of the ascension, I looked into hell and saw that most of the people there were women.
These narratives are most likely fictitious but they are phenomenologically very telling. That is to say, they reveal to us the religious community’s thinking at the time; the thinking of a scholar of the standing of Ghazzali; the thinking of the people who read this learned man’s books and accepted his ideas."
"This al-Ghazzali bloke"...., is surely a better regarded scholar of Islam than you are.
Perhaps, but why should he be taken seriously if many of his pronouncements contradict the plain words of the Qur'an? The part about divorce and the others I mentioned are egregious.
As for that passage in Ch 24, wasn't it written after one or another of the Prophet's enemies claimed his beloved Ayesha had committed adultery? This would have required that he punish her; knowing Ayesha to be innocent, Mohammed expanded on his earlier pronouncement in Ch 4, verse 15: "As for those of your women who are guilty of lewdness, call to witness four of you against them. And if they testify (to the truth of the allegation) then confine (the women) to the houses until death take them or (until) Allah appoint for them a way." So in the subsequent sura, oaths substitute for witnesses, but women may deny the charge and be spared punishment.
"Men are predominant over women, because Allah hath made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend of their property (for the support of women). So good women are the obedient, guarding in secret that which Allah hath guarded. As for those from whom ye fear rebellion, admonish them and banish them to beds apart, and beat them. Then if they obey you, seek not a way against them. Lo! Allah is ever High Exalted, Great."
My very old, undated copy of the Koran, translated from the Arabic by George Sale and published in New York by Hurst and Co., does not mention beating; rather, the husband may rebuke, then banish to the spare bedroom, then "chastise".
I have no idea what the original term gives over to exegesis, but the modern "traditionalists" probably have no dificulty deciding, especially since the Quran specifies more than once that men are preeminent over women, and also that whores and whoremongers should be given 100 lashes. (But any man who charges a woman with whoring but fails to produce four witnesses gets eighty lashes. Men are also instructed to treat their wives and their slaves nicely.)
Aside form the beatings and lashings, this pre-modern prescriptiveness is not all that different from Jewish orthodoxy; and all the same apologies wrt women are made for orthodox Jews as are made for Muslims.
As I said before, Islam is not the Quran; Islam, like every other religion, is the sum of its practices and commentary. And whether or not you personally take al-Ghazzali seriously, on the basis of what you, secular you, consider to be departures from the proper interpretation of the Quran, he is regarded among Muslims as a substantial figure in Islamic thought and an important critic of philosophy as well as religion.
I might as well argue that Maimonides got the Pentateuch all wrong. (Which I'm sure I could find occasion to argue he did...)
"As I said before, Islam is not the Quran; Islam, like every other religion, is the sum of its practices and commentary"
I don't know why you keep saying this, because it's just not true and you are making the statement up in parallel with some Jewish practise. Islam is Qur'an and Hadith/Sunnah. That's just principle #1 of Islamic jurisprudence. All else is expendable.
I will be back tomorrow for the rest of your comments.
Why did the Pal terror war make you pro-Palestinian? Was it the nail bombs that did it, or the shooting up of civilians in point-blank, city center rampages? Do explain. Thank you.
Maybe because he hates Sbarro's?
Ah, but has he tasted their newest flavor - pepperoni and Jewish toddler?
By the way - as it was, 6,000 of the 600,000 Jews living in Israel in 1948 were killed in the 1948 war. That's 1% of the population killed. That's comparable to, what, 2.4 million Americans KIA? How many Americans were killed in WW2 and what was the population at the time, I wonder. Maria?
Speaking of Maria - you'll like this addictive game. 'Reflections'.
No, I am not. Islam is the Quran and the hadith and the sunnah of Mohammed in Medina, but objectively it is also what the umma in any age agrees it is, just as every religion is what its priests and practitioners claim for it.
The principle of ijtihad as promulgated by the 8th c. jurist Abu Hanifa, required that the development of Islamic law be based on independent reasoning and not simply on the available words of the Quran and hadith (a principle I'm sure enlightened Muslims embrace to this day, just as do enlightened Jews and Christians.)
The 9th century scholar Idris ibn al-Shafii held that there are four roots of sacred law: the Quran, the sunnah (customs) of the Prophet as reported by witnesses (as hadith), qiyas (analogy), and ijmah (consensus of the community). This last is not trivial: the whole ummah couldn't be wrong, so if everyone agreed that a custom was legitimate, then it could become a part of sacred Islamic law even if there was no hadith or Quranic reference to support it.
These "roots," by the way, are pretty much identical to the underpinnings and methods of ancient and less ancient Jewish lawmaking, with the exceptions that instead of the Prophet's customs we substitute a particular Jewish community's historic customs, in place of hadith about Mohammed are sayings about the Jewish sages, and in place of the Quran, of course, is the written Chumash (the Five Books of Moses) and the books of the Jewish prophets. Also, I should say that in Judaism a distinction is made between law and custom, but as far as the orths are concerned both are binding.
We took that many casualties in 1948, and we conquered the land. We will take as many as need be now, and we will conquer the rest of it. The Arabs aren't the only ones willing to die for their right to live free, and unlike them, we've got our back against the sea. True, we're more spoiled than they are, but in the end it's whether or not you have an alternative that counts.
Let Saddam unleash his scuds. We'll take whatever he can dish out, and survive. Anyhow - I'm wasting precious time here, talking on an internet forum when my children are in danger.
"maybe the Powers were saying: 'look, obviously the Arabs will not let the Jews live in peace no matter what we give them"
And maybe that's what Sharonistas like you will always say. So why give the Arabs anything, right? Right.
Here's a prediction: 250 years from now you and the Pals will still be at each others' throats. It's not a conflict. It's a way of life.
Most Latin American countries have had only a decade of solid democracy; very few African countries have any solid democracy, although many have had sporadic episodes in the past; a couple of Eastern European countries have had solid democracy for 10 years; and four East Asian countries (Taiwan, SK, Th., and the Ph.) have had 10-15 yars of solid democracy. Clearly, the vast majority of non-Muslim developing countries have only recently reached an "accomodation" with democracy.
Also, if we use the Freedom House scores that Pincher relies on, particularly the limited number of observations from the past (1972-01) that are available, it's clear that, historically, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Malaysia and Turkey have done about as well in civil liberties & political rights as Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand, and the Philippines. The major difference is that the four EA countries have definitely shown a trend for improvement over the period, while the three of the Muslim countries have fluctuated between relatively high and relatively low scores. (Malaysia shows an overall deteriorating trend.)
First, as to the question of Turkey and Israel's military alliance, I was wrong, and Pelle and Marj were right. I checked Robert Kaplan's Eastward to Tartary and he does not support my point. In fact, he says precisely the opposite: In 1996, the two countries signed thirteen military accords. In 1997, nearly all the ranking officers of the two militaries met with each other as large uniformed delegations exchanged visits. Israel agreed to upgrade Turkey's Phantom jet fleet and to train Turkish pilots in electronic warfare. The two sides also agreed to coproduce missiles, and to share intelligence about Iran and hostile Arab states, and concluded a free-trade agreement.
As to the question of Lebanon's demographics, I wrote: "Lebanon is a special case. Until very recently, it was not a majority-Muslim country."
Pelle took exception to the remark, writing: "Utter nonsense. The last official census in Lebanon was in 1932. Then there were 51% Christians and 49% Muslims. It is well known that fertility is higher among the Muslims (in particular among the Shia, who are thought to be the largest religious group at present,)and the emigration rate is higher among Christians."
continued...
I thought From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman supported this, but the selection I did find was ambiguous: This understanding [The so-called National Pact -- ensuring Christian predominance in the Lebanon's government] held up as long as the Maronites and other Christians made up roughly 50 percent of the population. But by the 1970s, rapid demographic growth among Lebanon's Muslims had turned Lebanon upside down. The Christians had shrunk to little more than a third of the population and the Muslim and Druze had grown to two-thirds, with the Shiites becoming the largest single community in the country.
This is too vague to support my point or Pelle's. On the one hand, Friedman says that by the 1970s, the Christians had shrunk to little more than a third of the population. (Since the Christian population is currently estimated to be about 30 percent, I doubt it was as low in the 1970s as Friedman suggests here.) On the other hand, Friedman says the National Pact held together so long as Christians made up approximately half of the population; that would make the seventies the crucial decade.
continued ... The Shii in particular had grown from 18 percent of the population in 1968 to 30 percent (approximately 1 million today) of Lebanon's 2.5 million to 3 million population to become the largest community in Lebanon.
This shows large demographic changes were continuing in Lebanon after the 1970s. Given that Christians are currently estimated to be around 30 percent of Lebanon's population, Friedman must be wrong when he says they only made up a little more than a third of it in the 1970s.
What about Pelle's claims on emigration? Have Christians been the only people in Lebanon who tend to emigrate? This passage from Esposito suggests otherwise, Within this context [post-independence], the Shii were the most politically, economically and educationally disadvantaged group in the country, a distant third to the more powerful, better organized, and more prosperous Maronite Christian and Sunni Muslims communities. Shii disaffection with their lot had resulted in emigration abroad, particularly to West Africa and the Gulf.
Other selections I found support this general point. While Muslims had complained about the arrangement that gave Christians slightly more political power, and there appear to have always been some tensions about it, Muslims are not perceived to be a clear majority of the people in Lebanon until the late 1960s/early 1970s at the earliest (other than Friedman's ambiguous comments).
No one disputes that Muslim countries are less democratic on average than non-Muslim countries. You contend that it's a chronic condition which is disputed (mainly because it's eminently disputable).
But anyway: What do you infer from that? That we Christians should go to war with Islam? Are you engaging in a wake-up call for the next Crusade?
"No one disputes that Muslim countries are less democratic on average than non-Muslim countries."
Well, I agree with this proposition if it refers to the condition of developing countries in the last 10-15 years. But I would disagree if it refers to the last 50-60 or so years.
Pincher Martin has asked "of what fucking relevance is [it]" that democratisation in most developing countries is a recent phenomenon. Frankly I do not understand how a longer-term view than a mere decade is not required in order to make a grand statement about culture and democracy.
Because culture changes. There is nothing inherently wrong with Islamic culture that it couldn't eventually become modern. But it is ignorant to argue that its current manifestation (including the recent turn towards more fundamentalist ideologies in the last two decades) doesn't have serious trouble accomadating itself to modernity, including democracy, the treatment of women, and tolerance towards others.
Looking over the last decade or two at those countries dominated by Islamic culture and comparing it to other regions and cultures seems far more relevant for making an assessment than does any other way I can think of.
Most Latin American countries have had only a decade of solid democracy;
You were arguing that the records of Latin America and Muslim countries' democratization are comparable. Muslim countries do not have a successful democratization period of any length that compares with what has happening in Latin America and parts of East Asia.
very few African countries have any solid democracy, although many have had sporadic episodes in the past;
Yes, I agree. But I would guess that despite their numerous problems of development, Sub-Saharan non-Muslim countries probably have a better record of freedom than do Muslim-majority states.
continued ...
You still leave out Mongolia. It has ten solid years of democracy.
Clearly, the vast majority of non-Muslim developing countries have only recently reached an "accomodation" with democracy.
Where have I argued otherwise? Most of the world is developing: by definition that means they are struggling with modern economic, political, and social structures. Still, some regions of the developing world struggle with it better than others do.
What I have argued, and what I have read many scholars argue, is that Islamic culture (and Arabic culture in particular) is the best explanation for understanding the difficulties the majority of these states are having adjusting to modern life. None of the other factors -- economic, colonial history, etc. -- show as strong a correlation as does the culture.
You contend that it's a chronic condition which is disputed (mainly because it's eminently disputable).
Where have I contended it was chronic? If I suggested so, it was a mistake.
"Looking over the last decade or two at those countries dominated by Islamic culture and comparing it to other regions and cultures seems far more relevant for making an assessment than does any other way I can think of."
And I think looking at the last 50-60 years is a better way of gauging, empirically, the compatibility of democracy and "Muslim culture".
Frankly I have a hard time believing that I am being called ignorant on this issue. The situation is exactly opposite to your description. (1) In most Muslim countries, the status of women has improved in the last several decades, in the sense that they have more education than before, more rights to work, more emancipation from male control, etc. They may not be insufficient or slow from a western point of view, but the improvement is undeniable. There hasn't been deterioration, except in Afghanistan. In Iran, the status of women worsened in the late 1970s/early 1980s, then has been improving since then under the pressure of "feminist Islamists" to a point that more women than even during the secular regime of the Shah, are educated, able to work, represented in government, etc. -- despite the significant diminution of per capita income since the 1970s. (2) Even when it comes to democracy, there is more improvement than deterioration in Muslim countries. (3) You still haven't fleshed out your claims about tolerance.
But I would guess that despite their numerous problems of development, Sub-Saharan non-Muslim countries probably have a better record of freedom than do Muslim-majority states.
It doesn't look that way to me upon casual inspection of your 1972-01 data. Really, the only countries in that FH list that really do well are Botswana and Namibia. Angola, Tanzania, Kenya, Mozambique, and most other non-Muslim-majority African states don't appear to do any better than the Muslim-majority ones.
should be:
"They may be slow or insufficient from a western point of view, but the improvement is undeniable."
You do it the way you would any other factor in social science: pin it down with a definition and name it. "Causality" is not the name for it though, but you can certainly show strong correlations.
I didn't bother to do this in my original posts (this is a chat site after all), but even a semi-sympathic reader of them could have seen what I was aiming at or at least elicited the information without calling my idea "grossly ignorant" and "empirically unsupported."
You say "culture changes" which sounds like a fad, with things changing every decade or two. Maybe you should have called it something else, and we might have had a different exchange.
I can't see how someone can look at the fundamentalist ideology that has swept across the Muslim world since the seventies and not define it in some sense as "cultural." It's hardly a passing fad. It's been limited to the Muslim states and populations. It's been a major factor in the Islamic world for a generation and appears it will last at least another generation, maybe longer.
You started it ;-)
The situation is exactly opposite to your description. (1) In most Muslim countries, the status of women has improved in the last several decades, in the sense that they have more education than before, more rights to work, more emancipation from male control, etc. They may not be insufficient or slow from a western point of view, but the improvement is undeniable. There hasn't been deterioration, except in Afghanistan. In Iran, the status of women worsened in the late 1970s/early 1980s, then has been improving since then under the pressure of "feminist Islamists" to a point that more women than even during the secular regime of the Shah, are educated, able to work, represented in government, etc. -- despite the significant diminution of per capita income since the 1970s. (2) Even when it comes to democracy, there is more improvement than deterioration in Muslim countries.
I can agree with all of this. But it is the social (or political) equivalent of the "Hindu rate of growth." The slow improvement in many Muslim countries still leaves a widening gap between them and much of the rest of the world.
I still think a different factor explains the paucity of democracy in the MENA countries, such as I suggested in Message # 17580 and Message # 17599.
??? Why does one look for (unbiased) correlations to begin with? Because one wants to make causal assertions about those correlations.
But you haven't really answered my question. In academic discourse about development and modernisation, "culture" typically denotes some chronic or semi-intrinsic condition . That is certainly the spirit in which your own Plattner said: "The progress toward democratic consolidation in South Korea, and the vitality of democracy in the Philippines and Thailand as well, belie the notion of a cultural obstacle to democracy in East Asia." I think you're now backtracking and making it seem as though you've always meant some kind of shorter-run, more malleable phenomenon.
I can't see how someone can look at the fundamentalist ideology that has swept across the Muslim world since the seventies and not define it in some sense as "cultural."
Well, the difference between you and me, perhaps, is that I don't see a single fundamentalist ideology in the Muslim world but you see Talibanism from Morocco to Indonesia. Fundamentalists who would take over Algeria or Saudi Arabia would indeed be Taliban-like, but fundamentalists elsewhere would be more like those of Iran or Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood. Americans and Israelis should find it alarming because the Muslim Brotherhood would be anti-American and anti-Israel, perhaps virulently so, but from perspectives other than those, I find the ML less than alarming. For example, see ML on the role of women.
The point is serious, however. Marginal improvement or relatively small improvements in certain contexts don't seem a fair counterargument that a culture is resistant to modernity. We're talking about a general argument here in a broad context, not isolated details.
I'll guess Saudi women have made enormous gains in literacy over the last fifty years. I'll also guess the numbers of those Saudi women attending college have increased enormously and that the number of female Saudi doctors and other professionals who can work in segregated areas have also greatly increased during that same time period.
Now, is that an argument that Saudi Arabia is modernizing its attitudes towards women?
Your take on Iranian democrary strikes me as somewhat along these lines. Yes, there has been democratic progress in Iran, and it is to be applauded, but when the entire system is looked at, it falls far short of anything most of us would recognize as democracy. Presses are ruthliessly shut down. Candidates (including Khatami) are vetted by a Guardian Council with more than 90% of them rejected. All real power lies in the hands of the council. And this is one of your positive examples from the Muslim world showing how they can accomadate with democracy.
Well, I have never argued anything good about Saudi Arabia. I have always said that Iranian-style fundamentalism would improve Saudi Arabia in a variety of ways.
"Your take on Iranian democrary strikes me as somewhat along these lines. Yes, there has been democratic progress in Iran, and it is to be applauded, but when the entire system is looked at, it falls far short of anything most of us would recognize as democracy. Presses are ruthliessly shut down. Candidates (including Khatami) are vetted by a Guardian Council with more than 90% of them rejected. All real power lies in the hands of the council."
The above remarks are true, but my problem is your drawing a cultural conclusion from this. See Message # 17599.
"And [Iran] is one of your positive examples from the Muslim world showing how they can accomadate with democracy."
Well, no, Iran was offered as an example of a fundamentalist regime evolving, albeit slowly, toward democracy. My "positive examples" included Turkey, Bangladesh, Indonesia, etc.
This is news to me (and what is semi-intrinsic?). I would argue that "culture" is only a semi-respectable concept in social science with many analysts still quite uncomfortable using it as a variable in their work.
I would also argue that many social scientists would agree that culture changes. In the introduction to the book Culture Matters, Lawrence Harrison writes "A consensus existed among all the panelists and members of the participatory audience [at a symposium on culture] that cultural values change, albeit slowly in most cases."
I would argue that "culture" is only a semi-respectable concept in social science"
You keep saying "social science" as though its several manifestations were alike. I would argue that culture doesn't have much stock among economists, but it sees more daylight among other "social scientists".
You keep saying "social science" as though its several manifestations were alike.
I'm sure you want a priviledged position for economics, and I'm inclined to give it to you, but why have you strangely taken to casting aspersions at political scientists, among others? You don't appear to be one of those economists who works in the rarefied air of the kind of mathematics and thought experiments that other social scientists are not known for. Surely those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
I would argue that culture doesn't have much stock among economists, but it sees more daylight among other "social scientists".
Yes, but not much. Why would someone like Harrison need to title his book Culture Matters except as a defense to have his point of view taken seriously. He pretty much says so in the book.
"I'm sure you want a priviledged position for economics, and I'm inclined to give it to you, but why have you strangely taken to casting aspersions at political scientists, among others? You don't appear to be one of those economists who works in the rarefied air of the kind of mathematics and thought experiments that other social scientists are not known for. Surely those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."
I'm not sure I understand you. It is true that I have an empirical bent much more than a theoretical one, but I see a lot more promise in the sort of analytical politics Slackjaw specialises in than in traditional political science. And I certainly see theory and "thought experiments" as crucial to framing empirical investigation.
"Why would someone like Harrison need to title his book Culture Matters except as a defense to have his point of view taken seriously. He pretty much says so in the book."
Well, Harrison's been trying to get economists and economic historians to take culture as a determinant more seriously. But just look at how many prominent scholars have written highly regarded books & articles about culture & development. Sowell, Fukuyama, Landes, etc. Neo-Weberians are a large and popular crowd. They are not exactly an embattled minority struggling to get heard.
PE, culture isn't an academic phenomenon; it changes, just as Pincher has said. Or perhaps one should say, it evolves.
In any evolution the thing changing is recognizable for long stretches of time, not only by virtue of being distinct from what is around it, but because it has a collection of characterstics whose nature or order of priorities is given. Yet even these can change radically, and one can still say that a changed cultural subset is part of the larger culture--as Wahhabism, for instance, is undeniably a subset of Islamic culture.
Moreover, cultural evolution is traceable. One could discern the precedent for organizations like the Ikhwan in the early Qadarites or, depending on the nature of a particular jama'at's activism, the Karajites, who opposed their Umayyad rules and considered that such "apostates" should be put to death.
It is not incorrect, nor anti-Muslim, to observe that Islamic culture has repetitive themes which have not evolved out of the whole, as similar threads have mostly wound their ways out of Christianity and Judaism (for now). One of these is surely the uses of the faith against rulers perceived to be unjust. Another appears, against original doctrine, to be the mistreatment of women.
PE: "Well, no, Iran was offered as an example of a fundamentalist regime evolving, albeit slowly, toward democracy."
You are backpedaling egregiously. You cited Iran as a democracy, you even questioned (incomprehensibly) my observation that the Iranian clergy controls its presidency and judiciary. Now you concede Pincher's essentially identical comments: "Presses are ruthliessly shut down. Candidates (including Khatami) are vetted by a Guardian Council with more than 90% of them rejected. All real power lies in the hands of the council."
Because religious dictate supersedes democratic governance in Iran, any advances made by women there are tenuous, subject to being wiped away by the caprice of the imams. The population ovrwhelmingly wants liberalization, but can't have it. Barring another revolution, or the eventual liberalization of the clergy, I don't see how they're going to get it, either. So what stops a truly liberal evolution in Iran right now? Power, at the intersection of religion and culture.
"PE, culture isn't an academic phenomenon; it changes, just as Pincher has said. Or perhaps one should say, it evolves."
Yes, I agree. So what? It just seems to silly to pronounce on the compatibility of Islam and democracy based on 10-15 years' worth of observations.
I don't see any value in the rest of your comments in this post. Pincher's comments are comprehensible, yours are not worth deciphering. If Pincher sees something in your comments that he likes, he can reprise them.
Message # 17670
"You are backpedaling egregiously. You cited Iran as a democracy..."
No, I am not backpedalling. I cited Iran as an emergent democracy from the very beginning. See 17487.
"you even questioned (incomprehensibly) my observation that the Iranian clergy controls its presidency and judiciary. Now you concede Pincher's essentially identical comments: "Presses are ruthliessly shut down. Candidates (including Khatami) are vetted by a Guardian Council with more than 90% of them rejected."
Sorry, I did not mean to agree Pincher's last sentence, which is "All real power lies in the hands of the council." I agree with his characterisation of Iran's political system, except that one.
Khatami does wield real, if limited, power. He has conducted his own foreign policy of opening toward the West. Iran's foreign policy in Central Asia is largely his. The liberalisation of the hijab rules, employment rules, the legalisation of contraceptives, women's admittance to the bar, the vast increase in the number of jobs in the civil service, and the opening up of places for women in scienctific & engineering professions -- these are basically Khatami's doings in conjunction with his majority in parliament. Moreover, the conservative reaction and opposition to these measures have not come through their control of the Guadian Council. Rather, the conservative opposition has come from within the parliamentary system, through bills introduced to either limit or roll back some of these reforms.
"The population ovrwhelmingly wants liberalization, but can't have it. Barring another revolution, or the eventual liberalization of the clergy, I don't see how they're going to get it, either. So what stops a truly liberal evolution in Iran right now? Power, at the intersection of religion and culture."
A good passage, until the end. The last sentence is typical Andolian meaningless cipher.
"Candidates (including Khatami) are vetted by a Guardian Council with more than 90% of them rejected."
I don't know where he got that figure.
"The early part of the year was dominated by elections for the sixth Majles (Islamic Consultative Assembly). Parliamentary elections in 1996 had been marred when the Council of Guardians vetoed more than 44 percent of the candidates. This year the council, a government-appointed body of twelve senior clerics and legal experts, vetoed less than 10 percent of the candidates. Of 6,083 candidates who stood for election to the 290 seats, 576 were disqualified. Despite the exclusion of representatives of parties opposed to, or openly critical of, clerical rule, Iranians were presented with a choice of candidates representing a range of views."
http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/iran.html
There were two general tones: 1) the war was doomed to failure and 2) fear that the US would give too much consideration to global opinion--ie, give in to Powell--and not gut it out and do what needed to be done.
I was very worried about the second possibility back in November; it seemed to me that the US was at risk of backing down. The whole debate over whether or not we should stop bombing for Ramadan, for example, was just absurd. This was the view of Krauthammer and Kristol, who are cited in the Slate piece.
This concern was also warranted. I linked in a piece right after the Taliban lost Kabul, although I can't remember where I read it. There was a real tug of war between Powell, who bends over for the world's easy access, and Rumsfeld, who thinks wars should be fought to win. At the time that Kristol and Krauthammer wrote the cited articles, Powell was making headway. Fortunately, Rumsfeld prevailed shortly afterwards and the results were immediate.
This was an entirely warranted fear, unlike the pessimism that was displayed by the other articles cited, with "you can't win from the air" and "Afghanistan is a quagmire" objections.
I don't think it's accurate, much less fair, to refer to the Krauthammer/Kristol (and my own) fears about the government's willingness to carry the war forward as inaccurate or unfounded.
But I'll see if I can dig up the cites.
I never thought the US would do what you apparently worried about (I think the "bending over" metaphor is disgusting, btw). It's just not American, nor, would I argue, Powellian, to stop bombing through some local holiday. And in fact there is hardly any country that would go to war and have sensititivities like that.
But I do admit to doubts about the effectiveness of the war effort. Which led to humanitarian concerns because if bombing prevented crucial aid from arriving without any hope of the Taliban folding, then bombing was doing all kind of bad, and little good.
I was proven wrong, I have admitted so here, and I am glad that I was proven wrong.
I don't understand people like Weisberg's protagonists who won't admit to mistakes, especially not in cases like war luck where there are all kinds of unknown and unknowable factors.
But I think the notion of air war ineffectiveness has been proven wrong by Kosovo and Afgh, and possibly Kuwait as well.
Instead, I think it is more accurate to argue that like many cultures, Islam is prone to being occasionally hijacked by reactionary autocrats and Luddites, and that the rise of Islamic fundamentalism in the past 10-20 years is an example of that hijacking.
Is it *more* prone to being hijacked? Maybe. But observers at various points in European history might have said the same about Christian culture. 50 years later they might have reached the opposite conclusion. I see nothing to indicate the current wave of fundamentalism is a sign of a permanent weakness in Islamic culture rather than a temporary one. I think this is what PE is getting at.
I think PM hit the nail on the head when he observed that "culture changes".
Yes, well, so do I. But then what was his point in railing so loudly against Muslim countries? It did look like he was building up to a galvanising justification for a clash of civilisations because they're fundamentally incapable of producing anything modern. But then, suddenly, he says "culture changes".
Ironically, one of the main Islamist tenets and arguments against democratic-minded Muslims, is that democracy is fundamentally Western, therefore alien to Islam. Maybe they can find a job for Pincher Martin.
But maybe I misunderstood one or the other.
Actually, I do not accept that fundamentalism is necessarily incompatible with democracy. So I do not accept that increased fundamentalism in some countries necessarily betokens increasing cultural incompatibility with democracy.
Has no one noticed that the worst autocrats in the Arab countries holding back any democratic development are secular? Syria, Iraq, and Egypt.
Comedian Al Franken says Clinton told him that if Gore were president, Republicans in Congress would be criticizing Gore's prosecution of the war, holding hearings about the administration's failures and perhaps even seeking Gore's impeachment.
"He said there would be congressional hearings about how they let their guard down," Franken said in an interview Tuesday. "He was saying how the bipartisanship we're seeing now is really a one-way street."
Do you agree?
cultural incompatibility with democracy."
But which way are you going to bet? The relationship between fundamentalism and democracy does not have to be perfectly inverse for it to still be negative. Does a rise in fundamentalism in the Islamic world, in general, help or hinder the tendency toward democratization that is occurring worldwide?
"Has no one noticed that the worst autocrats in the Arab countries holding back any democratic development are secular? Syria, Iraq, and Egypt."
And I believe it was you who pointed out that this is partly because of (at least in Egypt and Syria) the rise in Islamic fundamentalism.
"Has no one noticed that the worst autocrats in the Arab countries holding back any democratic development are secular? Syria, Iraq, and Egypt." [PE]
And I believe it was you who pointed out that this is partly because of (at least in Egypt and Syria) the rise in Islamic fundamentalism.
Yes. But I wonder whether the fundamentalists would not be better than the current crew in power in those two countries.
If nothing else, fundamentalism tends to want to spread itself.
Look at Kuwait for a good example.
It remains entirely to be seen whether democracy will ever emerge in Iran under Islamic rule.
A: "So what stops a truly liberal evolution in Iran right now? Power, at the intersection of religion and culture."
P: "A good passage, until the end. The last sentence is typical Andolian meaningless cipher."
It isn't meaningless, and I'll thank you not to condescend. As per usual you fail to understand that culture is an evolutionary force among all others, itself changing while constraining or directing change. If you cannot comprehend that religion is a vector for culture and that politicizing religion can function as a culture's appeal to divine endorsement and entrenchment of the power that codifies it, then that's your problem.
But since they began here and were germane to this discussion, I will return to my assertion that Islam is the whole of its traditions, not just those you or some collection of (what I would deem) right thinkers wishes it were. Those traditions are based on interpretations premised in cultural norms which became incorporated into Islam via their incorporation into Islamic law. If you object that the mistreatment of women or any other retrograde social practice is un-Islamic, fine. Go make yourself useful and tell it to the clerics in Saudi Arabia.
It is a much noted fact that the voices of prominent Muslims unambiguously opposed to Islamism or backward versions of Sharia in general are very quiet right now. When they can at last be heard above the din of the explosions of martyrs and the doctrine of Wahhabists and the filth taught in Pakistani madrassahs over the last decade, and the fatwas of misogynist mullahs who are "un-Islamic", we pigs and monkeys will have nothing to complain about. But that moment hasn't arrived yet. At this moment, the most popular name given to newborn boys in Muslim countries, after Mohammed, is Usama.
"I have to say that your post reminds me of the claims of various Marxist, who kept saying that despite the horrible democratic and human rights record of communists in power, *this* revolutionary group would be different."
Revolutionary groups? The ones I mentioned as moderate are not revolutionary groups. The Egyptian ML participates in Egypt's limited parliamentary elections. In Tajikistan, the aforementioned Islamist group, Islamic Renaissance, signed a peace agreement with the neo-communist government and now participates in normal electoral life.
Yeah, it's incompatible only in practice.
Exactly.
Say a prayer for the four man crew.
So what?
Andonly's Message # 17689 is incomprehensible, talking about vectors and cultures appealing to things.
In practise I don't think these traits necessarily go together.
"It is a much noted fact that the voices of prominent Muslims unambiguously opposed to Islamism or backward versions of Sharia in general are very quiet right now. When they can at last be heard above the din of the explosions of martyrs and the doctrine of Wahhabists and the filth taught in Pakistani madrassahs over the last decade, and the fatwas of misogynist mullahs who are "un-Islamic", we pigs and monkeys will have nothing to complain about. But that moment hasn't arrived yet. At this moment, the most popular name given to newborn boys in Muslim countries, after Mohammed, is Usama."
I think you are, rather self-servingly, conflating anti-semitism and anti-Americanism with retrograde attitudes toward women's rights, democracy, etc.. I think Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood is a relatively progressive form of Islamism that is simultaneously anti-Semitic and anti-American.
Likewise, in Pakistan there is enough anti-Americanism that according to a Gallup poll, something like 90% of Pakistanis wished for the Taliban to win against the USA. Yet, religious parties in Pakistan have never won more than 10-15% of the national vote. The point: anti-American manifestations, such as naming newborns Usama, does not necessarily indicate fundamentalist trends.
A liberal Muslim state could be fully as democratic as a liberal Jewish, Christian, or Hindu state. But there are as yet no liberal Muslim states.
What is Turkey, a conservative Muslim state?
My point has been that the political immaturity of Muslim countries has been largely characteristic of the political immaturity of most developing countries. Muslim countries have really only lagged other developing countries in the last 10-15 years.
developing countries in the last 10-15 years."
To what extent do you believe this has been driven by fundamentalism? This was my point earlier, and you haven't really addressed it. Pointing to moderate Islamist groups doesn't really answer whether the growth in fundamentalism is at the heart of this.
I'm sorry, but every such retrograde attitude is explained by some radical Muslim group and/or fundamentalist in terms of its propriety under some interpretation of Islamic law and its application to Muslims everywhere. If non-radical Muslims cannot overwhelm this rhetoric in public, and if they have as heroes the exemplars of such retrograde attitudes, then they can be assumed to hold such views as a consequence not of naked anti-USAism but of their afiliation with Islam. Just as any Jews who failed to denounce Kach or the JDL could be presumed to hold their politcal views as a consequence of their Judaism.
What you are claiming is that non-radical Muslims' anti-Americanism (or antisemitism or whatever else you'd like to attribute to the adulation of ObL) somehow wholly overwhelms their revulsion for the un-Islamism of the Taliban, the un-Islamism of bin Laden, the murdering of civilians, the mistreatment of women, etc., etc., to the extent that they would name their children after ObL. Presumably, then, Usama is the favorite name for new babies born in the revolutionary squads of Colombia--after all, he's he's just a symbol of anti-Americanism, not Islam.
Fundamentalist trends in Pakistan are not merely a function of voting records, either. Had the bad old US not pressured it's unelected president into sacking them, there'd surely be a few more fundies in the ISI than there are now!
Turkey is not goverened by Sharia. Turkey is a Kemalist secular state full of Muslims.
"Message # 17698: I do not understand how the response relates to the remark you quoted."
I am not remotely interested in your and Pincher's argument over how long one must observe Islam before one can conclude that it is or is not compatible with democracy. I said simply that liberal Islamic governance should be as compatible with democracy as any other religion's liberal regime, and that we have yet to see the development of a liberal Islamic regime. We could see one erupt tomorrow, or hundred years from now. Until then, the illiberalism of political Islam appears to preclude genuine democracy.
Thank you.
For the record, the point was perfectly clear.
I didn't mean ours.
Osama bin Laden escaped the embattled Tora Bora base to Pakistan 10 days ago with the help of tribesmen from the Ghilzi tribe, according to a firsthand account Wednesday by a senior Al Qaeda operative and Saudi financier. Abu Jaffar, who spoke from an Afghan village still sympathetic to Mr. bin Laden and his fighters, says that several days later, bin Laden sent his 19-year-old, married son Salah Uddin back to act on his behalf. He is now the only bin Laden family member inside the Tora Bora terror base.
To the extent that it is emerging, it is being strangled by fundamentalist Islam, which at this point in history is inimical to democracy in Iran.
For democracy in Iran to become a reality, which it is not now, Islamism in Iran must either be banished or changed so utterly as to cease being fundamentalist in nature.
Oh, never mind. I'm sure this is much too hard for you to decipher.
There go the plans to film They Died With Their Sandals On.
From:
Submission
"Welcome to Submission
Your best source of ISLAM (SUBMISSION) on the WWW
In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful
Women in Islam (Submission)
Quranic Perspective on
Wife beating and Abuse
By: Fatimah Khaldoon
Despite advances in modern psychology and improved understanding of behavioral patterns of men, civilized and uncivilized, a successful solution to this aggressive behavior has not been found by man.
A solution has however been presented to the world in the Quran, the Final Testament, more than 1400 years ago, in verse 4:34.
[4:34] The men are made responsible for the women, and GOD has endowed them with certain qualities, and made them the bread earners. The righteous women will cheerfully accept this arrangement, since it is GOD's commandment, and honor their husbands during their absence. If you experience rebellion from the women, you shall first talk to them, then (you may use negative incentives like) deserting them in bed, then you may (as a last alternative) beat them. If they obey you, you are not permitted to transgress against them. GOD is Most High, Supreme.
>>>>>>
At first glance this verse may appear as if promoting physical abuse of women. But when reading 4:34 carefully one realizes that it actually prohibits abuse and beating of women by using the best psychological approach.
The advise to first talk and then avoid sexual contact, provides the necessary time and space for both parties to cool off, reason, examine the problem and reach a favorable agreement for both of them.
Abuse of a wife will not happen if the man learns to follow the clear commandments of God in this verse and in the order decreed. Abuse will only happen when a man does not follow these commandments, and thus fails to cool off and reason with himself or with his wife."
Hmmm. I see. I may beat my wife -- BUT?????
ANYWAY
A dog, a wife and a hickory tree,
The more you beat them the better they be
Culture
Culturally
Danish special forces are to be sent to Afghanistan. 
They are going to be part of the peacekeeping force.
(Did you know we actually have special forces?)
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The chairman of the militant Jewish Defense League and one of his followers have been arrested in an alleged plot to bomb a major Los Angeles area mosque and the office of a California congressman, among other targets, federal officials said on Wednesday.
JDL Chairman Irv Rubin and group member Earl Krugel, who were arrested at their homes on Tuesday night, were charged with conspiring to bomb the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, a Los Angeles suburb; the offices of Southern California Congressman Darrell Issa, the grandson of Lebanese immigrants; and the Muslim Public Affairs Council office in Los Angeles.
I assumed that was how you guys kept the Greenland Liberation Front under control.
You are right about the English.
Those damned Danish imperialists deserve what is coming to them.
419 N. Fairfax Blvd near Hollywood -Kitty-Corner almost from the CBS studios. It's one of those unobtrusive bright orange storefronts that you may not notice if you weren't looking for it. However, once you walk inside...you are confronted with a 50's style diner, with a maple leaf patterned ceiling, a bakery and very awesome jewish delicatessen. The portions are huge, homestyle with the best kosher dill pickles. It comes complete with 24 hour service and a "kibutz" cocktail lounge. Very good food, sweet service, and great prices. I tried to call ahead for reservations, but it wasn't needed. The place was packed at 12:30. HIGHLY recommended dining!
Note the proximity to CBS.... West Coast Hdq. Intl _______ Conspiracy and terrorists
actually the Faroese debate on independence is heating up of late. And some oil companies doing exploration there have just made some promising discoveries. (Most Danes' reaction would be a 'good riddance', btw).
The Greenlanders aren't as independent-minded. 
Photo of target....Delta force on ground now with laser sighting and GPS equipment
Aside from their terrorism, bin Laden and Mullah Omar strike me as elitist cowards. Bin Laden flees to Afghanistan and sends his 19-year-old married son back to Tora Bora to "represent him" and incidentally to face almost certain death or capture along with the rest of the remaining al Qaida terrorists. And bin Laden gets a big chuckle on video tape after 9-11 over the ignorance of most of the 9-11 terrorists that they were on a suicide mission.
And Mullah Omar disappears in thin air, leaving his loyal Taliban fighters to face the music.
Am I missing something about Arab/Muslim morality, or are these two guys first class shits?
Dreadful food, a pathetic replica of the genu-wine Murcan diner experience. Jews should only serve sandwiches on the east coast. On the west coast their lot is to make movies.
I wonder whether the Anti-Defamation League assisted in the JDL bust in any way.
--
Anyway, as I posted in another forum a week ago - this search will now move to Pakistan. Both available options are a disaster for Musharraf. Either the US itsself mounts a search, complete with bombings etc. Or he is forced to mobilize his own troops.
The unthinkable would be to see the "allied" tribes cross over the Afghan border into Pakistan in search of Bin Laden and the reward money. In that case, Musharraf would have something like a two-front war on his hands, and probably a complete collapse of civil rule.
Note: I predicted something like the last possibility months ago.
Now, all those (big) problems could fade to meaningless in the face of the coming problem posed by Bin Laden and all the Al Qaeda leadership being presumably at large in his territory.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/LAW/12/12/jdl.arrests/index.html
Let us assume that the CSM reports are correct and Bin Laden has moved into Pakistan. In many ways, he's on safer ground, and the Pathans there are likely to be (a) more hospitable than those across the border and (b) he will have sympathizers in officialdom. The US will also now hestitate, clearly, to embark in hot pursuit on an ally's territory.
Then, Id arrives and the other (very sketchy and possibly unreliable) reports also turn out to be accurate - the ones that warn of a second "big" tarrorist attack on the US - presumably with biological weapons (as Walker is supposed to have warned).
Now what happens?
I once had a date at Cantor's Deli. With TWO girls at once, no less. Don't knock Cantor's Deli.
--
Slightly relatedly, I wish the US spokespeople would be a bit more cautious and circumspect in their statements about Bin Laden's whereabouts. Today they've expressed grave doubts, even dismissed, the credible reports that Bin Laden has crossed the border. Why be so vehement? Don't they realize they then look stupid when their predictions/assumptions go wrong?
I don't understand what it would cost them to be a bit more circumspect. "We cannot be sure of his whereabouts, but we can assure the world that no stone will remain unturned until the Al Qaeda leadership is brought to justice." Is that so frigging hard?
It is an ugly scenario, but don't count it out.
And that report may be on its way, since Karzai said as recently as yesterday that he has no idea where Omar is - and his men control most or all of Kandahar province at this point. 
"Oh, never mind. I'm sure this is much too hard for you to decipher."
No, this time you have stripped away the usual opacity and turgidity from your prose.
"To the extent that it is emerging, it is being strangled by fundamentalist Islam..."
You ignore the clear and definite evolution in Iran's political system. Iran's politics have evolved from the total dominance of one clerical faction, rigging of elections & parliamentary irrelevance durings the early 1980s; to pluralism among clerics, elections generally regarded as free and fair, legislative independence, and substantive reforms enacted by the parliament in the 1990s. Even with respect to the notorious vetting of candidates by the Council of Guardians, the percentage of rejections has fallen dramatically.
I don't think you can call that "strangulation". It seems more like (very) gradual emancipation to me.
I don't see any reason to consider the conservative clerical opposition to the reformist movement terribly different from the conservative opposition elsewhere which initially long opposed reformism & democratisation but gradually and ultimately relented -- such as has been seen in South Korea and dozens of other countries now democratic. As you say, the Iranian masses want liberalisation and democracy. It's going to have to come one day somehow, and I wager it will come in an Islamist context.
"For democracy in Iran to become a reality, which it is not now, Islamism in Iran must either be banished or changed so utterly as to cease being fundamentalist in nature."
This view ignores that most of the reformists in Iran are Islamists.
"Pointing to moderate Islamist groups doesn't really answer whether the growth in fundamentalism is at the heart of this."
It does, in part, since the implicit assumption here has been to equate increasing fundamentalism with an increasing rejection of democracy.
PE: "Muslim countries have really only lagged other developing countries in the last 10-15 years."
Rask: "To what extent do you believe this has been driven by fundamentalism?
Very little, in my opinion.
Firstly, this lagging is due primarily to the fact that most other developing countries have sped up and achieved meaningful democratisation, while the Arab countries and Iran are evolving at a glacial pace.
Secondly, more reforms have taken place in the Arab world during the 1990s than during the entire post-war period even though fundamentalism was also more in evidence during the 1990s than at any other time. It is during the 1990s that Jordan and Morocco achieved at least something approaching a legislative democracy, even though it is also during the 1990s that the fundamentalists came to the fore in those countries.
Thirdly, the entrenchment of the secular authoritarian Arab regimes in power and their desire in preventing a political evolution in their countries, long predates the rise of fundamentalism. Of course these entrenched regimes may be digging in their heels because of the fundamentalist challenge and might have allowed more liberalisation if it were not for the fundamentalism. That's possible, but rather hard to prove since the bureaucratic-revolutionary regimes in Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Algeria, etc. have been in power since the 1950s and had never shown much fondness for democracy. It's more plausible for regimes in Morocco and Jordan.
"If non-radical Muslims cannot overwhelm [the radical] rhetoric in public, and if they have as heroes the exemplars of such retrograde attitudes, then they can be assumed to hold such views as a consequence not of naked anti-USAism but of their afiliation with Islam. Just as any Jews who failed to denounce Kach or the JDL could be presumed to hold their politcal views as a consequence of their Judaism."
Why?
The fact of the matter is, there is great deal of public opinion in Muslim countries which is sympathetic to the anti-American political objectives of extremists, yet which does not at the same time embrace the extremists' domestic social & political agenda. Arab governments themselves, even the ostensible US allies such as Egypt, encourage the extremists to spew anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric as compensation for the repression of their self-expression on domestic matters.
"What you are claiming is that non-radical Muslims' anti-Americanism (or antisemitism or whatever else you'd like to attribute to the adulation of ObL) somehow wholly overwhelms their revulsion for the un-Islamism of the Taliban, the un-Islamism of bin Laden, the murdering of civilians, the mistreatment of women, etc., etc., to the extent that they would name their children after ObL. Presumably, then, Usama is the favorite name for new babies born in the revolutionary squads of Colombia--after all, he's he's just a symbol of anti-Americanism, not Islam."
For the great majority, yes.
"Fundamentalist trends in Pakistan are not merely a function of voting records, either."
Precisely. And this supports my point. Fundamentalist encroachments into Pakistani political life have been a top-down affair, begun by Zia's military dictatorship, with the Islamisation of the army, the intelligence services and the courts. Yet at the polls throughout the 1990s, fundamentalist political parties (which, in Pakistan, are truly extremist and Taliban-like), have fared very poorly in provincial and national legislative elections. This supports my point that the Pak populace -- the majority of which rooted for the Taliban against the USA and considers Usama completely innocent of 9/11 (according to a Gallup opinion poll) -- nonetheless has no interest in the Talibanisation of Pakistan.
Message # 17705
"Turkey is not goverened by Sharia."
Neither are the majority of Muslim-majority states. Shariah is the law in Iran, Saudi Arabia and some other Gulf emirates. In Pakistan, elements of Shariah are part of the civil legal code. There are surely other Muslim states which enshrine the Shariah, but none of the major ones amongst the MENA countries.
"I said simply that liberal Islamic governance should be as compatible with democracy as any other religion's liberal regime, and that we have yet to see the development of a liberal Islamic regime. We could see one erupt tomorrow, or hundred years from now. Until then, the illiberalism of political Islam appears to preclude genuine democracy."
Well, as I said before, I disagree that all manifestations of "political Islam" are illiberal. You just say so and ignore or dismiss the liberal developments in Islamism in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, Indonesia, Iran, etc.
"I predicted something like the last possibility months ago."
To be precise, you begged for it.
It makes sense to preserve the leadership rather than sacrifice them in Afghanistan if al Qaeda is planning to carry out further attacks on Western targets.
You're confusing terms. Of course not every single manifestation of Islam is inherently illiberal, but Islamism, aka "political Islam", seeks to establish Sharia as the basis for governance and the law of the land. I don't see how Sharia is compatible with genuine democracy over the long run.
Anyway the countries you cite are quite a mixed bag from which to extract your point. There would probably be nothing especially liberal about Jordanian rule but for Jordan's westernized dynasty. Indonesia is not governed by political Islam, nor is Turkey, and Iran is illiberal, its vaunted reforms all too fungible. I know nothing about Morocco.
As for Egypt: the only reason the Muslim Brotherhood there has become less radical in its aims is because its most radical members have systematically been purged (along with most reform-minded opposition) by the government. Yet it was Mubarak who led the way toward some sort of accommodation when he invited formerly exiled Ikhwan back into the country--in the early eighties, was it? Even so, the majority of the few seats the Brotherhood holds in parliament now were obtained by running as independents, the wise course since voters thought to be casting ballots for Brotherhood members have been known to be shot at.
So after years of trying to overthrow Egyptian rule, the radicals have moderated; the Ikhwan says it now is content to move Egyptian governance toward Sharia from within, rather than violently deposing insufficiently Islamist leadership. To some extent therefore despotism can be presumed to have moderated Islamism in Egypt, not simply by handing it carrots but by restraining it and beating it with sticks.
Were one to emerge some time in the next decade or three, I expect it would come out of Lebanon. Perhaps such a movement could in fact be comparatively liberal because at least two Islamist political parties in Lebanon (Amal and Hizbullah) have developed already some experience in quasi-democratic governance alongside westernized Arabs.
wonkers2 did not post the above. There must have been a glitch. Maybe it was Sakonige's contribution???
"You're confusing terms. Of course not every single manifestation of Islam is inherently illiberal, but Islamism, aka "political Islam", seeks to establish Sharia as the basis for governance and the law of the land.
No, I am not confusing terms at all. I used the term Islamism by which I mean the same thing as "political Islam" or "Islamic fundamentalism".
"I don't see how Sharia is compatible with genuine democracy over the long run."
I suppose that depends on what you mean by "genuine democracy" but I disagree.
"Anyway the countries you cite are quite a mixed bag from which to extract your point."
No, I don't think so. There are political parties or movements usually labelled fundamentalist or Islamist in Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Morocco, etc. which exhibit more liberal tendencies than is commonly imagined.
"There would probably be nothing especially liberal about Jordanian rule but for Jordan's westernized dynasty. Indonesia is not governed by political Islam, nor is Turkey..."
Jordan isn't governed by "political Islam", either.
You are confused. I am not talking about Islamists in power, since only a handful of countries (Iran, some of the Gulf countries, Sudan) are ruled by Islamists. I am talking about Islamist political movements & parties.
"To some extent therefore despotism can be presumed to have moderated Islamism in Egypt, not simply by handing it carrots but by restraining it and beating it with sticks."
Yes, that accords with what I know about the ML in Egypt. So what? How does that detract from my point? Sometimes beating generates salutary effects.
Many Islamist political movements have been moderated through their participation in restricted legislative frameworks, through regime cooptation, and through the realisation that the entrenched regimes cannot be overthrown. Again, so what?
Message # 17756
Right. I accidentally used a formatting convention from another messageboard.
It makes sense for al Qeada leadership to preserve their own lives if further attacks are planned. The abandoned troops may even support that decision, as a way to assure that their sacrifices will be avenged against their enemies.
If Osama did escape to Pakistan, I'll bet he didn't stay there very long.
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria are all secular states, i.e., the Shariah is not the law of the land.
Also, some things must be cleared up about Turkey. In Turkey, church and state are not separated as in the USA. Rather, the Turkish government simply has an official interpretation of Islam and a controlled body of mullahs who are allowed only to speak in public according to the official party line. Moreover, anticlericalism in Turkey verges on the illiberal, with public employees banned from growing a beard and (for women) wearing headscarves. Women observing the hijab are banned from universities and public employment.
Contrary to your supposedly informed view about deprived people, many illiterates, even Muslim ones, can think and are not devoid of morals. The issue is what they're allowed to think about, and who or what actually constrains their thinking. There is always a collection of constraints on thought, always including cultural ones.
Isolating what you claim to be one dominant factor behind the glorification of ObL (anti-Americanism) and assigning it to "the majority" of Muslims, does not erase all the other causes of the tendency to glorify ObL, any number of which may even contribute to the anti-Americanism itself.
But I'm sure any attempt to elaborate will only result in your claiming you don't understand my "opacity", can't cope with my "prolixity", or some other such cop out.
But you don't believe the terrorist went to heaven when they died, either.
So you fail to demonstrate that moderation inheres naturally in Islamism, and implicitly concede that radical Islamism historically is moderated through force or as a result of contact with western culture or legislative structures.
Message # 17765
The straightforward interpretation of the twin results --consistently low electoral results of the fundamentalist parties in Pakistan, yet a consistent rooting for the Taliban against the USA -- is that the people of Pakistan harbour anti-American sentiments but do not exactly wish Taliban-style rule for themselves. I take Pakistan to be representative of the larger Muslim world in this respect.
"...many illiterates, even Muslim ones, can think and are not devoid of morals."
I never said illiterates are devoid of morals.
"It's facile and insufficiently penetrating to blame a majority opinion on "illiteracy" or "poverty" or "anti-Americanism"....The issue is what they're allowed to think about, and who or what actually constrains their thinking. There is always a collection of constraints on thought, always including cultural ones."
This all sounds like a lot of aprioristic abstracted hogwash.
"Isolating what you claim to be one dominant factor behind the glorification of ObL (anti-Americanism) and assigning it to "the majority" of Muslims, does not erase all the other causes of the tendency to glorify ObL, any number of which may even contribute to the anti-Americanism itself."
What are all the "other causes of the tendency to glorify ObL"? Remember, you're the one claiming this widespread tendency to glorify ObL.
But I'm sure any attempt to elaborate will only result in your claiming you don't understand my "opacity", can't cope with my "prolixity", or some other such cop out."
No, this time I will cop out by wondering why I am even bothering to read the personal assessment of Muslim opinion belonging to someone who has never even been in a Muslim country.
Anyway, this discussion has become too tedious to continue.
But you don't believe the terrorist went to heaven when they died, either
Are you suggesting that ObL believes that nonsense? Or are you speaking for yourself. As stated above, a head honcho, whether in the U.S.A or any other nation aren't quick to risk his life. There might be lots less war if that were not the case.
The difference, though, is that ObL vowed he would win or die in the effort. Sounds good to the troops.
Mullah Omar urged others to live a simple life; the animals in his palace lived bettr than many Afgans. Or course, he may have a great affection for those little animals. 
"Drawing on hundreds of interviews, No God But God opens up previously inaccessible segments of Egyptian society--from the universities and professional sectors to the streets--to illustrate the deep penetration of "Popular Islamic" influence. Abdo provides a firsthand account of this peaceful movement, allowing its moderate leaders, street preachers, scholars, doctors, lawyers, men and women of all social classes to speak for themselves. Challenging Western stereotypes, she finds that this growing number of Islamists do not seek the violent overthrow of the government or a return to a medieval age. Instead, they believe their religious values are compatible with the demands of the modern world. They are working within and beyond the secular framework of the nation to gradually create a new society based on Islamic principles... Both fascinating and unsettling, Abdo's findings identify a grassroots model for transforming a secular nation-state to an Islamic social order that will likely inspire other Muslim nations. This model cannot be ignored, for it will soon help organized Islamists to undermine secular control of Egypt and potentially jeopardize Western interests in the Arab world."
You suggested a book. Within minutes I bought it. I suggest to you, if you have not already read it, Ken Kesey's Sometimes a Great Notion. You are in it. Your name is Boney Stokes, a guy who could spread more gloom while giving "good" advice than several Cassandras.
"Parties and movements, of course, generally are not in positions as powerful as governments are."
What the hell differences does that make? The subject was fundamentalism and its impact on political evolution in Muslim countries. Surely the attitudes of fundamentalist political parties & movements bear on that question.
FWIW, the post you reference above is a (very amateurish) counterfeit perpetrated by Syko.
Have I told you lately that your religion is a disgusting, self-inflicted disease?
17781. bombolurina - 12/12/01 11:26:24 PM
Ok - I admit it...
I love you, joezan.
And I love Jesus, too.
Anyway...in other news:
I guess he figures it's better to burn out than to crash and burn:
Neil Young Defends Anti-Terrorism Crackdown
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Neil Young may be Canadian, but the veteran rock star was honored Tuesday for promoting
freedom and justice in his adopted country.
People for the American Way, a free-speech advocacy group formed 20 years ago to combat the so-called ``religious right,''
presented Young with its Spirit of Liberty lifetime achievement award during its annual fundraising dinner in Beverly Hills.
Young, in turn, raised a few eyebrows among the liberal crowd by defending anti-terrorist measures that have angered civil
rights groups. But he urged the audience to ensure the controversial measures were only temporary.
``Never let America forget that these are our rights and we can get them back,'' said Young, who recently recorded the song
''Let's Roll'' as a tribute to the doomed passengers who overpowered their hijackers over Pennsylvania on Sept. 11. 
Indian parliament attack kills 12.
Pakistan - accused by India of supporting Kashmiri separatists - quickly condemned the attack.
Indian government officials said all the gunmen had been killed along with six police officers.
The militants, armed with guns and hand grenades, burst into the red sandstone parliament complex shortly before noon local time and started shooting.
The gunbattle raged for an hour as police and security forces rushed to the area.
"This was not just an attack on the building, it was a warning to the entire nation. We accept the challenge," Mr Vajpayee said.
We can always use a few hundred million more allies...
Excerpt:
Being contrary isn't the same as being insightful: As I said, academics want to look original. Actually being original, however, is hard work. The second-raters, therefore, tend to look for ways of seeming original without doing the heavy lifting required to actually come up with something new. One way of doing this is to set yourself against whatever the popular view is in the hopes that others will mistake this for incisiveness. (This frequently works, since other people are often not willing to put in the necessary effort to tell the difference). But knee-jerk contrariness isn't original — it's just conformity in the opposite direction. After a while, this becomes obvious even to casual observers.
Government Leaders Still Get High Marks for Handling War.
Disapproval of Ashcroft is highest, at 31%, among self-described liberals, but even among this group a majority, 56%, say they approve of the job the Attorney General is doing. 
Stunning dichotomy here: I wish someone would do a count of Ashcroft media reports comparing negative/positive. I'd be willing to bet the negatives outnumber the positives at least 5 - 1.
I wonder how it can be, in light of the reporting, that Ashcroft's approval rating runs so consistently high - even amongst liberals?
NOT!
I linked in a poll in Civil Liberties about American support for the various ideas on the table.
All this is just terrible timing for Pakistan. Yesterday the BBC reported that up to 20 top Taliban leaders had crossed the border in the past weeks. Mullah Omar is now rumored to be somewhere in Pak territory. Bin Laden himself supposedly has crossed into the FATA and who knows where. And now this attack, which will assuredly be traced back to one of the groups based in PoK.
India has traditionally shown great restrain wrt these kinds of attacks, partly out of prudence partly due to international constraints. I think it will do so again, out of pragmatism. But it will watch and see what the US does in the next few days very closely.
My TV is out...cable work.
I will have to wait for the re-run.
I'd try and find a webcast.
There's one on CBS and probably others, too...that was just the first place I looked.
There is a God.
UBL is on TV with his bois. They're talking about dreams and visions from Allah. Much like our own Warrior King's spiritual journey.
Beware the Night of Power.
The month of Ramadhaan, the month of blessings has come to you, wherein Allah turns towards you and sends down to you this special Mercy, forgives your faults, accepts prayers, appreciates your competition for the greatest good and boasts to the angels about you. So show to Allah your righteousness; for verily, the most pitiable and unfortunate one is he who is deprived of Allah's Mercy in this month.
Laylatul Qadr (Night of Power)
Whoever stands in prayer and worship in the night of power with Imaan and with sincere hope of gaining reward all his previous sins are forgiven.
Look for the night of power among the odd numbered nights of the last ten days of Ramadhaan.
ALLAHU AKBAR! WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States on Thursday released a videotape of Osama bin Laden apparently recounting plans for the Sept. 11 attack on America and said his comments in Afghanistan were proof that the Saudi-born fugitive masterminded the devastating strikes.
``(inaudible) We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower,'' bin Laden said, according to a translation released with the tape by the Defense Department.
The comment apparently referred to hijacked airliners which hit and destroyed the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City.
``We calculated that the floors that would be hit would be three or four floors. I was the most optimistic of them all,'' he is quoted by a translation of the amateur 40-minute videotape shot after the attacks.
"It was not only an attack on the building but also at the very heart of our governance and symbol of democracy."
The Home Minister said terrorists have thrown a challenge to the nation and "the nation accepts the challenge."
“The assault is a reminder and we take up the challenge that confronts us. We will liquidate them whoever they are and wherever they are," Advani said.
Terming the attack a dastardly act, he said the first requirement for the battle was that "each of us has to be vigilant and every one has to be united."
Allah be praised, my asse.
?????????
Laylatul Qadr a few hours early I guess.... and thanks to that Genocidal Infidel Rosie O Slerb, have decided to head to Kandahar, wrap myself in the Cloak of the Prophet and make my way to Tora Bora
or is it Bora Bora????
Allah ordered Prophet (s) to spend most of the night in worship in order to prepare his heart for the tremendous revelation of Quran. This night worship was the means for the Prophet (s) to ascend and to attain more and more power. His Companions would join him for the night prayer and would be rising up in station and spirituality.
Now I would like to pray the Prayer of Recollection (salat ul-tasabih) to express a little bit of praising from our side to glorify our Lord Almighty Allah. That glorifying Allah Almighty in salat ul-tasabih consists four cycles of prayer (raka'ats) in which we are glorify our Lord 300 times by saying
"Glory be to God, all praise be to God, there is no god but the One God Allah, God is Most Great!" (Ar. "Subhanallahi wal hamdulillahi wa la ilaha illa Allahu wa Allahu Akbar." May Allah Almighty glorify His beloved and most praised servant, Sayyidina Muhammad (S), and may mercy from His endless mercy oceans fall on you, and fall on our descendents, and fall on our ancestors, fall upon east and west, and may its blessing fall upon all from North to South, upon all oceans and upon all continents.
Allah Allah...Karim Allah...Aziz Allah...Subhan Allah...Sultan Allah Oh our Lord You are the only Sultan.
Raise up Your Work and bring down the work of destructive disbelief and evil which seeks to harm Your human beings and all other creations by means of a destined appointed and authorized sultan from your Divine Presence.
Bihurmat al habeeb wa bi hurmat al fatiha.
Daniel Pipes had a brief review of the book:
"Yes, he concludes, Jews were better off in the Muslim world. In part, this was a matter of physical security. "The Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries (up to the thirteenth century), experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom." Living among Sunni Muslims brought other benefits as well, which Cohen meticulously and convincingly documents: in Dar al-Islam, Jews enjoyed a more regular legal status, they participated far more in the mainstream cultural life, and they had more social interaction with the majority community. In all, Jews living among Muslims were less excluded, making them less vulnerable to assault. Of particular interest, while Christians had a horror of intermarriage, Muslims allowed it on condition that the man was a Muslim. Indeed, Islamic law requires the Muslim husband to permit his Jewish wife to observe her religious rituals, to pray within the family house, to keep the Sabbath, and to maintain the kosher requirements. She may also read her Scriptures, on the important condition that she not do so out loud."
What Lewis says (and your excerpt says as well) is that Jews were considerably better off in Islamic lands during the Middle Ages, but that the comparative picture becomes spotty as Ottoman power begins to fade, whereupon the preferable life for Jews is found not in "Muslim lands" (or necessarily in Christendom), but in the central and strongest parts of the Ottoman Empire. After the Emancipation in Europe, even this c\could no longer be said to be true. By the 19th and early twentieth centuries, Jews were scarcely better off in Muslim lands than in Europe. And when the Holocaust rolled around, the Mufti of Jerusalem wrote to Hitler with a proposal that Hitler back an Arab plan to settle the "Jewish problem" in the same way the Germans were doing.
Lewis: The simplified and idealized nineteenth-century accounts of the history of the Jews in Spain present a black-and-white picture of Christian intolerance and Muslim tolerance, with the Jews fleeing from one to the other. It was not always so. During the centuries when both Muslim and Christian states existed in the Iberian peninsula, thre were times and places, as in Maimonides' own birthplace, when it was the Muslims who persecuted and the Christians who offered refuge. In North Africa on the one hand and Iran and Central Asia on the other, the pattern of Jewish life from the later Middle Ages was one of increasing poverty, misery, and degradation. Only in the central lands of the middle east, under the rule of the Mamluk sultans and far more under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, were Jews able to preserve some status and dignity, and even to enter on a new age of efflorescence.
The Lewis is a survey of numerous comparative studies, BenPseudo, including Cohen's.
I don't see how that could be since Lewis's book was published before Cohen's.
"The simplified and idealized nineteenth-century accounts of the history of the Jews in Spain present a black-and-white picture of Christian intolerance and Muslim tolerance, with the Jews fleeing from one to the other. It was not always so. During the centuries when both Muslim and Christian states existed in the Iberian peninsula, thre were times and places, as in Maimonides' own birthplace, when it was the Muslims who persecuted and the Christians who offered refuge."
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell me something I don't know. I read the Lewis book in the late 1980s.
I have never argued that Jews and Muslims lived in inter-faith utopian harmony in Islamic lands. I've never argued anything other than that, historically, on balance Jews had it better in Muslim lands than in Christian lands.
"After the Emancipation in Europe, even this c\could no longer be said to be true. By the 19th and early twentieth centuries, Jews were scarcely better off in Muslim lands than in Europe. And when the Holocaust rolled around, the Mufti of Jerusalem wrote to Hitler with a proposal that Hitler back an Arab plan to settle the "Jewish problem" in the same way the Germans were doing."
An irrelevancy, I think, because when one says that Jewish life was more pleasant in Muslim lands than in Christian lands, one is talking about developments before the 18th century.
"Jews were considerably better off in Islamic lands during the Middle Ages, but that the comparative picture becomes spotty as Ottoman power begins to fade, whereupon the preferable life for Jews is found not in "Muslim lands" (or necessarily in Christendom), but in the central and strongest parts of the Ottoman Empire."
This passage makes no sense.
The Ottomans are a post-mediaeval phenomenon. The House of Osman is not even founded until about 1300; the centuries of their unremitting expansion are the 15th and 16th; and their zenith is the 17th century. Ottoman power begins to fade in the late 18th century. The central lands of the Ottoman empire were the Balkans, Anatolia and the Levant.
I tip my fez
Lewis references Cohen, if not the book whose blurb you posted, then another. Jews of Islam is a survey of comparative studies, not a single comparative study.
"Yeah, yeah, yeah. Tell me something I don't know. I read the Lewis book in the late 1980s."
How erudite.
"This passage makes no sense."
A typo, I was hurrying and meant to refer to the fading of Arab power, not the fading of Ottoman power. The details are of course more complex, since Jews prospered and then fell out of favor among th Ottomans; but it simply isn't right to speak sweepingly of "Muslim lands".
"I've never argued anything other than that, historically, on balance Jews had it better in Muslim lands than in Christian lands."
Come now. You argued this in the context of claiming that Jews didn't have it so bad off in the world generally, only in Europe, so that the creation of a Jewish state was unnecessary. In such a context this argument that "on balance" Jews "had it better" in "Muslim lands" could charitably be called a distraction from the truth of widespread Jewish misfortune since, by the time the Zionist movement came into being, Jews did not have it better. Nor had they been secure in all "Muslim lands" with any reliability, long before that--which is the issue.
But this "on balance" device of yours is terribly useful. I think one could employ it to argue all sorts of things that have no important bearing on particular circumstances at particular junctures in history.
"On balance", Iranian women are much better off than women were under Taliban rule. They should feel good about that! What are those silly Iranian feminists whining about? Democracy, after all, is emergent.
"Come now. You argued this in the context of claiming that Jews didn't have it so bad off in the world generally, only in Europe, so that the creation of a Jewish state was unnecessary. In such a context this argument that "on balance" Jews "had it better" in "Muslim lands" could charitably be called a distraction from the truth of widespread Jewish misfortune"
We can actually reexamine our Jewish homeland debate in the Mote's international thread, and determine whether you are lying through your teeth or merely hallucinating.
I never cited anything about Jewish fortunes or misfortunes in Muslim lands as an argument against the Jewish homeland.
What I did argue, with enthusiasm, was that the Jews did not require a homeland in Palestine, because they could have gone elsewhere, particularly North America, Western Europe, and Australasia.
Message # 17830
"On balance", Iranian women are much better off than women were under Taliban rule. They should feel good about that! What are those silly Iranian feminists whining about? Democracy, after all, is emergent."
Actually, I've said that the status of women in Iran is better than the status of women in many other Muslim countries, not just Afghanistan under the Taliban.
By the way, if I use "on balance" arguments, then you simply employ lies as argument. After all, I have never said that Iranian women have nothing to complain about. I recognise that reforms in Iran have been driven by local (Islamist) feminists, and I wish their endeavours well.
I have yet to read the transcript of the tape.
Of course, Al Jazeera claims he was talking about some wedding or something, but it was good enough for me.
Here's a multi-part video - linked on the front page, playable in either Real or WinMedia.
I haven't flown since before 9-11, and I'm flying to Omaha tomorrow a.m. I'm packing right now, and was just about to wrap a gift I'm taking.
Am I wasting time and wrapping paper? (I'm only going for 3 days, so all I've got is a carry-on).
Of course they do. The things he said, the way he said them, the laughter - are all even more convincing than if he had stood there and said 'I did it'.
I'm not buying this "it was found in a house" bullshit.
I bet whoever shot the video got a very tidy sum for it.
BTW - ObL is reportedly surrounded in a cave, according to CNN.
1. I'm disgusted by the rush by many columnists and talk-show hosts to declare Walker guilty of treason and to call for his execution. I regard these people as couch-potato commandos who are calling for a hanging to demonstrate what manly patriots they are.
(My view, stated here a few days ago, is that Walker is an expatriate who has forfeited his citizenship, and an enemy soldier who should get the same treatment as other POW's in the Taliban forces. I support President Bush's refusal to rush to judgment.)
2. I'm also disgusted by the mocking sneers directed at Walker's parents' defense of their son. Hey, he's their SON! Surely they can speak in opposition to his proposed execution.
3. Finally, the ridicule of young Walker's conversion to Islam is a slight against that religion. To read some of these comments, you'd think Walker had joined the Hale-Bopp Comet compound rather than a religion with a billion adherents.
And why do the ridiculers consider it so unusual for a 16-year-old to seek and accept confirmation into Islam when millions of American young people are confirmed into Christianity every year? Do those who mock Walker's choice because of his youth mean to say that these millions of young Christians don't know what they're doing either?
Okay, I guess that's three cents.
Not one person I've read/heard/talked to/seen on tv has criticized Walker's conversion.
The criticism arises not from this idiot's conversion to Islam, but from his 0 - 60 in-nothing-flat conversion to radical talibanism. Who the hell decides, at the age of 16, that not only do they want to convert to a completely "foreign" religion, but to a wacked-out version of a religion, which does not permit people to laugh, or females to learn, etc.
Hale-Boppers indeed. At least they didn't kill anyone but themselves.
And no one has criticized the parents for defending their son, either. It is the way in which they have done so -the father alternating between asinine statements which can only serve to damage the son's case and completely out-in-leftfield statements like "I'd like to give him a good kick in the butt (or, as Bill Maher aptly paraphrased, "You are sooooo grounded!"), and the mother's equally clueless babbling.
Get a grip.
"'Our blackness does not make white people hate us,' he wrote at one point, 'it is their racism that causes the hate.'
"Of the word 'nigger,' he wrote, 'It has, for hundreds of years been a label put on us by Caucasians... and because of the weight it carries with it, I never use it myself.'
"Hip-hop proved to be a phase on Walker's way to all-out black militancy. By age 1, his parents say, he drifted over to Islamic Web sites and discovered "The Autobiography of Malcolm X."
Page sees how Walker "went from cultural shopaholic to spiritual pilgrim to hip-hop, which all failed to offer the sort of spiritual discipline he said he needed."
Sounds like a fucked-up kid to me but Walker's 20, he chose, now he pays.
Oh - that's right. It was me.
Well, I've certainly used it to point out that he couldn't have "suddenly" gone schizo at the age of 20. Converting to Islam isn't odd in and of itself, but it's extremely unusual. Then add in becoming an extremely devout Muslim, then going at the age of 17 to Yemen to speak "pure" Arabic, then haring off to Pakistan and Afghanistan are all of a like category--very fucking weird. It's not impossible to think that the oddball who converted at 16 wouldn't progress to the oddball who fought for the Taliban.
Thus those who say, "Hey, he's a schizophrenic; it commonly occurs at age 20" have to account for him seeming completely normal at 16, when he first started down the path.
His parents would probably do better to say, "No, he's been nuts for years" but of course that would make their support of his wacko behavior inexplicable.
If I felt making such acknowledgements were unsafe for his legal woes, then I would shut the fuck up. I certainly wouldn't go around blabbing about what a great kid he is and how I might "kick him in the butt"--I mean, dude, you are like so grounded.
I have not "lied" about you concerning Iranian women. As far as I know I was not referring to any opinion you've actually voiced on that subject, just cobbling together absurdities with isolated things you've said to make the point that one can come up with any dreck around the qualifier "on balance". If it appeared I was imputing such an improbable view to you, I regret it.
Is this factual, Joezan, or comedic?
God knows what you read, Joe (see Message # 28241 in thread 34 ); but some examples of what I'm talking about can be found at the Wall Street Journal's online editorial page, www.opinionjournal.com. In particular, see columns by Claudia Rosett (12/6), Shelby Steele (12/10) and James Taranto ("Best of the Web Today", daily).
Is this factual, Joezan, or comedic?
I heard it on NPR - actually, a couple of ME/Subcon journalists were interviewed regarding their takes on the tape, and one (I forget his name) opined that while there was certainly no doubt in his mind, he didn't think the tape would change many minds in the Muslim world, and used the Al Jazeera assessment as an example of how willing many are to simply blow the thing off as a fake.
According to the other panelist, the word on "the Arab street" is that it is obviously faked because "Ossama's voice is muffled, and much lower than that of the others" - I can't remember if he attributed the source of that assessment to Al Jazeera or to some other outlet.
Was Walker normal at 16? I doubt that. In the 16-25 year old age group, schizophrenia is more common among men. It does not happen overnight, it is more like a slow process that matures at 20 or so.
Message # 17488
Anyway, to sum up, (1) it is obviously false, even in Muslim countries with no record of democracy, that they are "completely unable to adjust their culture to any sort of half-ass accommodation to modern life with respect to democracy"
It is not obviously false. Your citations of several Muslim countries’ dubious democratic achievements show the exact opposite.
and (2) the record of Muslim countries in democracy is no worse than those of Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
You now admit it is worse than either non-Muslim Asia or Latin America. You simply ascribe this to some complex interplay of extraneous forces which you have only vaguely described.
You complain my comparison is focused too much on recent history (the last ten to fifteen years, you say), but in looking back at your examples, I see that all of them were based on recent history. Iran's emerging democracy (as you called it) to cite one example. Indonesia was another.
continued ...
Malaysia, for example, was consistently freer than Thailand during the 1970s. But over the past thirty years the Southeast Asian Muslim country has steadily regressed. Neighboring Thailand, a non-Muslim country, has done the opposite for the most part. Sometime in the eighties the two countries switched places with Thailand becoming the freer place (despite the fact that Malaysia was the wealthier and faster-growing economy during the last fifteen years). Why?
One reasonable hypothesis is that Malaysia benefited from the head start of a British colonial heritage of democratic institutions while Thailand, which was never colonized, received no such benefit. Other former colonies, particularly former British colonies, probably show a similar strong start. (You have argued that India's democracy is at least partially due to the colonial heritage left behind by the British.)
continued ...
Take Mongolia for example. Nothing about Mongolia's history or development explains why it is a free country. You like to mention Taiwan and South Korea as the examples of free countries in East Asia and then quickly dismiss them as developed and so not worthy of comparison with other areas in the Third World.
But Mongolia is as poor as Pakistan. It has been a de facto colony of Russia for over half a century. It is sandwiched between two huge countries (China and Russia) not known for their love of human rights or democracy (or a free Mongolia). A Communist government ruled Mongolia for seventy years until 1992 (and Communists are now back in power). And yet, Mongolia has as good a record on democracy and civil rights over the last ten years as Taiwan. No Muslim country anywhere in the world, at anytime over the last thirty years, has a decade of time as free as the last ten years have been for Mongolia.
You can't say its economic development is responsible for this. You can't argue it's a favorable colonial history. You can't protest it's a geographical proximity to a large democratic neighbor. Mongolia is a bit of an oddity, but it is an oddity you can find in almost all regions of the world: Latin America, non-Muslim Asia, and non-Muslim Africa.
continued ...
He then went on to say that those who now believe bin Laden is guilty are a minority. The majority think the tape is a Hollywood fabrication. And he said that Palestinians in Gaza who want a secular state achieved through negotiations are the cohort willing to be disabused of the fiction of bin Laden's innocence, while those who want an Islamic state achieved through jihad are the people who can't imagine the US did not cook up a damning videotape.
Perhaps PE will insist, although I'm not sure how he honestly could, that this unshaken adulation of ObL accrues to anti-Americanism, or anti-Israelism, or illiteracy, or some other weirdly disembodied factor that has nothing to do Gazans' identification with Islam.
For the record, I will say I really don't expect Muslims everywhere to react like those in Gaza. I figure the more liberal and less fundamentalist the Muslim, no matter the degree of his anti-Americanism, the more likely he will be to face the reality that Osama bin Laden is guilty of planning the 9-11 assault. Anyone who is non-fundie and also anti-American will simply find ways to excuse bin Laden's guilt by pinning it on some failure of the US.
At a press conference, John Gordon, U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, declared, "Not long after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, I announced my office's promise to vigorously prosecute hate crimes." He continued, "Last night's arrests [of JDL plotters] confirm that we meant what we said."
Hate crimes, shmate crimes. These guys are terrorists or at least would-be terrorists (and "hate crimes" is one of the dumbest new fads in American law). I don't have a perfect definition for terrorism, but I'm at a loss to figure out how these guys don't fit the bill.
...In fact, my feelings about hate crimes notwithstanding, I'm hoping the United States will be extra tough on these guys -- because they're Jews.
This is a rather chilling article about blacklisting or something very close to it.
''We should take a decision as early as possible on a pro-active policy against terrorists. There is also need for hot pursuit of terrorists and destroying of PoK terrorist training camps," party spokesman V.K. Malhotra told reporters after a group of BJP MPs met Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee.
They said government should adopt the stand similar to the one taken by the US in Afghanistan following the September 11 attacks, he said.
However, the Prime Minister (himself a BJP man) has wisely said that this "hot pursuit" would not be an option, and that criminal investigation, diplomacy and the stamping out of domestic support would take priority.
I used to be very pro-Israel -- I can show you my comments from the Mote/Fray archives where I am ridiculously pro-Israel in my views. But I have changed my views totally since Intifidah II.
What in the world could have possessed you to make a 180-degree turn in your views on this issue over the last two years? Was it the Palestinians' peaceful and mature way of dealing with a plan they didn't like?
In fact, nothing has happened over the last couple of years you couldn't have seen happening at any other time over the last fifty years in the Middle East. Your radical change in opinion on this issue is of a piece with your radical change in opinion towards U.S. foreign policy. It doesn't seem to have been sparked by anything outside of you, but simply a dramatic change in personal attitude.
This information is not new, but is conveyed in a convenient form. The UN partition plan of 1947 was gross unfair, and the Arabs were right to reject it.
You produce a map, mention demographics, and the make an astounding leap of moral judgement ("...either Jewish or ethically insane to believe that justice was on the Israeli side.") based on them. (You also admit the history is nothing new. So why would it have anything to do with your remarkable new attitude?)
And the Palestinians' history over the last fifty years makes their decision to reject the peace plan look far less the right one than you would have us believe.
continued ...
Yes, that's right. Israel is rightly concerned about its security. It has already won this land through force (which is a legitimate way to take over land) and not the combined power of all the Arab armies in the world could take it back should it stay vigilant. Any deal, however, severely weakens its defense. But because it is a modern nation with a respect for human rights and democracy, Israel has been persuaded to give up land. There is no power in the Middle East that is making Israel do this. It is the Israelis' modern Western mentality (and the U.S.).
So the price the Palestinians have to pay -- at least for the time being -- is a state that is a patchwork of various real estate. If the Palestinians peacefully protested, over the long term they could probably win more, a lot more -- both by appealing to a sense of fair play and by making the Israelis feel secure at the same time. But it isn't in the nature of the Arab to have peaceful protests.
How could the Barak offer be construed as a genuine deal which would result in a truly sovereign Palestinian state?
Why not. He was offering more than he was probably capable of producing.
Now, of course, we have a better and more nuanced view of what went on at Camp David.
I did not. I knew the offer was bullshit and said so.
Yes, he was so much more on target back then. I think he's been hanging around you too much, Banks. You've infected him with something viral. I hope it's a passing thing.
I have no idea what steroid-enhanced philosophy this is based on. In fact, there is such a thing as international law, and there are any number of conventions (many signed by Israel) dealing with this issue, and then there are global bodies (like the UN) which exercise some jurisdiction in such matters.
In near unanimity, these consider the West Bank and Gaza to be occupied territories, and the Israeli incursions - settlements, roads, battlements - to be illegal.
All these bodies and conventions and laws have been applied and used by the US, even in the Middle East. They provided a legal umbrella, for instance, during the Gulf War. Hussein, after all, by your lights acted in a legitimate manner when he took Kuwait by force.
Maps depicting the proposed fragmented Palestinian state like those Pseudoerasmus provided were included in news reports within a day or two of the collapse of the Camp David talks.
I submit that you're on some kind of drugs or perhaps just a surfeit of unused testosterone. Kindly un-pump yourself and stop posturing like a juvenile. Perhaps Spike will lend you his Dovish "girlfriend".
--
I am referring, in the case of Camp David, to balanced analyses such as this one.The authors, both parties to the negotiations, make it clear that what actually occurred at Camp David is not nearly as simple as most of the American media made it out to be in the immediate aftermath. This has not stopped certain quarters from peddling the simplistic view endlessly.
The negotiations were an obvious farce intended to discredit and weaken Arafat. I didn't understand why anyone thought otherwise.
"Arabs, sometimes, the way they talk, give the impression they did something while they are expressing wishful thinking and sympathy. You cannot take the unclear dialogue, the unclear persons and justify a war out of this tape." - LAT
Allah be praised!
That international law is an amorphous, unenforced body of ideas and notions doesn't mean it does not have some generally recognized principles.
And the United Nations (nearly one-quarter of it comprised of Muslims states, many of which are despotic and do not in any sense follow international norms regarding human rights) does not pass international laws.
This is a typical smug piety, backed by exactly zero facts. It's a bit funny that it follows a sentence like "not the combined power of all the Arab armies in the world could take it back", but not that funny.
Israel has a stronger and better equipped military than all of the neighboring countries combined (two of which have treaties with it). Israel's economy is stronger and larger than that of all the neighboring countries combined. Israel has a superb, modern, air force. Israel has nuclear weaponry. Israelis are backed by American might and an immense flow of welfare and aid.
The Palestinians have none of these things, and are in essence a subject, captive, people.
It is thus mendacious to claim that an Israeli withdrawal or a Palestinian state would "severely weaken" Israel's defense. It would not. In fact, it is rather clear that a total withdrawal to pre 1967 borders would eliminate a great part of the exposure to potential attack that Israel now deals with.
PE: "I disagree. I think Snowowl's views are almost universally held outside the USA and Israel."
I have no idea why you would remark on this passage at length. It was meant to be a brief dismissal of her views, not a comprehensive compiliation of what they were like.
What on earth does this mean?
The generally recognized principles, if you want to reduce clear legal standing and precedent to this, all point to the illegitimacy of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. There are simply no two ways about it.
PE: "Well, possibly, if Iran is any guide."
Well, since Iran has not yet had free elections, I suppose your comment is based on some future date the rest of us are unable to see.
Very few countries can afford to flout international law. The US, to some extent, has shown itself capable and even willing to do so. I regret this, but it must be admitted that this country really may be in a special category.
Israel is not. It is at great cost that Israel flouts international law, and it will be at even greater further cost if the situation continues as it has developed in the past few days.
You are using arguments that Arafat should have used to justify acceptance and continuance of constructive negotiations along the lines of what Barak was proposing.
What you cannot get around is the fact that--nuanced or no--there was a formula for a final status that may have worked, and due to Arafat's cowardice, was not given a chance. He placed his own survival over that of the people he claimed to speak for.
Compared to a Michael Collins, who recognized the comparative strength of the British and the weakness of the IRA, took what was offered, convinced the populace to ratify it, and was killed for his troubles (and left a viable country at his death), Arafat's actions were disgraceful.
Yawn. These "generally recognized principles" of the 4th Geneva Convention are applied conspiciously wrt Israel, but where else?
The UN's 1999 ruling on the Israeli occupation's "illegality" 32 years after the fact/i> was simply the product of Arab politicking at the UN. Israel, of course, disputes the ruling.
Dore Gold before the UN:
This initiative is totally unacceptable to Israel. It is completely divorced from any basic reading of political reality. After all, since 1949, have the High Contracting Parties ever convened with respect to any single conflict worldwide? When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan or Czechoslovakia, was a conference convened? No.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait, was a conference convened? No. When Vietnam invaded Cambodia, was a conference convened? No. In fact, in repeated cases of wars of aggression, ethnic cleansing, and even genocide, the High Contracting Parties did not meet a single time
But while the High Contracting Parties never met once since 1949 to discuss the Fourth Geneva Convention, even after wars of aggression against member states of the UN, now a proposal is being made to convene the signatories of the Convention with respect to the one case since 1949 that was an unquestionable case of a war of self-defense, the Six Day War.
For what it is worth, I have always considered Arafat an unlikely and unsuitable leader for the
"Palestinian side" in contemporary negotiations for a Palestinian state. He is a petty tyrant, and a kind of guerilla leader with fading legitimacy.
However, let us remember for a second that it is with him that Israel chose to negotiate, in Oslo and beyond.
And, even given the disgraceful shenanigans of the Palestinian leadership embodied in Arafat, there is an eminently legitimate standing for the Palestinian claims. Demonizing the leader, or rightly denouncing him, does not change the standing of those claims one whit.
If you look under International Law in this website's scroll-down menu, you will see a clear and unequivocal description of the various nuances involved. 
And *who* was "Connnaught"? I did some bidniss in HK at a building named after him, HK side.
This is a typical smug piety, backed by exactly zero facts. It's a bit funny that it follows a sentence like "not the combined power of all the Arab armies in the world could take it back", but not that funny.
You imagination is limited in dealing with many areas, Banks, but it is particularly limited when dealing with the military.
Israel has a stronger and better equipped military than all of the neighboring countries combined (two of which have treaties with it). Israel's economy is stronger and larger than that of all the neighboring countries combined. Israel has a superb, modern, air force. Israel has nuclear weaponry. Israelis are backed by American might and an immense flow of welfare and aid.
Unlimited American aid and might to Israel can't be considered a given. Nuclear weapons are useless except as a deterrant. The modern military is great for some threats, but as Lebanon, Intifada, and bomb-carrying terrorists show, it doesn't work against all threats.
continued ...
äééñåìëåàä ìò ìàøùé äìéèîù äòåðúä ùôåç ìò úåìáâää
ïä úéçëåðä äãàôéúðéàä õåøô æàî íéçèùá úéðéèñìôä
,ïô÷éäì òâåðä ìëá éìàøùéä ùåáéëä úåãìåúá íéã÷ú úåøñç
úåëøòî ìëá äòéâôä úøîåçìå úåëùîð ïäù ïîæä êøåàì
äìéèä øáòá íâ ,íðîà .íéáùåú ïåéìéî äùåìùë ìù íééçä
ïéá ,íéðéèñìôä ìù äòåðúä ùôåç ìò úåìáâä ìàøùé
áåùéé ìò øöåò åà íéçèùä ìò éììë øâñ úìèä úåòöîàá
àì íìåòî úåëùåîî äëå úåôøåâ äë úåìáâä íìåà .íééåñî
.åùòð
Thanks Marj! That about settles the debate IMHO
However, in typically bogus feigned-boredom, the question is asked -"the 4th Geneva Convention (is) applied conspiciously wrt Israel, but where else?"
The answer is - everywhere. Again, Milosevic is facing charges of contravening these very Conventions. He may go to prison for life for these contraventions.
The Geneva Conventions were also a very large part of the international legal basis for calling for the Indonesian withdrawal from East Timor.
That leaves who as a "threat"? The Palestianians? Who have no air force and no army and no tanks and no missiles and no significant weaponry other than machine guns and youths strapped with TNT? And a withdrawal of the occupation, with a corresponding beefing up of border security would make Israel less secure?
I have some submerged paddy fields to sell you, Pincher. Certainly you are either completely a naif or simply uninterested in factual analysis.
Banks,
International law, by the way, is enforced all the time and every day. It may have escaped Pincher's attention that Milosevic is currently in the dock in the Hague.
You mean that guy we helped to overthrow by doing an end run around the U.N. to knock his troops out of Kosovo? Yes, it appears that our neglect of the international community on that one helped bring Milosevic before an international court. These rare exceptions don't make my general comment about international law wrong. Once in a blue moon it is enforced. So what?
Very few countries can afford to flout international law. The US, to some extent, has shown itself capable and even willing to do so. I regret this, but it must be admitted that this country really may be in a special category.
Dipshit. Read the International Charter on Human Rights and then go through an Almanac sometime to guess how many countries flout that international standard.
Israel is not. It is at great cost that Israel flouts international law, and it will be at even greater further cost if the situation continues as it has developed in the past few days.
What cost is that? Muslim countries -- nearly all of which flout human rights of some sort -- are going to break off contact with Israel? So what?
Connaught Circle in Delhi was one of those grand bits of architecture sprinkled around when Lutyens designed the bureaucratic center.
It's named after the Duke of Connaught, who had a famous company of Lancers (Marathas I believe), and was the commander of the Bombay regiments.
The family was later all over the Empah, you know. There are places in Canada, malaya, HK named after the buggers.
Backpedal a bit more, such behavior is becoming to you.
Really, care to name them? Would the Universal Declaration of Human Rights qualify, you think? How many of the Muslims countries do you think pass the test contained in them that no discrimation be made on the basis of sex or religion?
The answer is - everywhere. Again, Milosevic is facing charges of contravening these very Conventions. He may go to prison for life for these contraventions.
Yes, thank God Nato avoided the U.N. to help bring that about.
The Geneva Conventions were also a very large part of the international legal basis for calling for the Indonesian withdrawal from East Timor.
International laws are used sparingly and selectively. Any chance the U.N. will get its inspectors back into Iraq anytime soon, and do you think the World Body will support force if Saddam does not allow them back in?
The Spanish court that tried to extradite Pinochet. Any chance that transgressions during the Spanish Civil War and the Franco period would be handled by magistrates outside of Spain?
Any chance of challanging the legal basis of those countries laws which discriminate on the basis of sex or religion?
No I didn't think so. And there are thousands of thousands of examples like this.
Franky, you're being an idiot.
Would the Universal Declaration of Human Rights qualify, you think?
I have yet to hear of a successful international prosecution or action by a part of the global community that was strongly based on it. This does not mean that it is not binding - it merely means that it is, to date, toothless.
How many of the Muslims countries do you think pass the test ...
This is the pathetic, dishonest, tactic used now so often by apologists for one atrocious policy or the other, not just in Israel but the rest of the world. Grow up.
International laws are used sparingly and selectively.
By the US, mainly. As I've stated, it is possible to argue that the US is in a slightly different category, in real terms, than the rest of the world. Israel is not. The laws are applied, they eminently apply in the case of the occupation of the WB and Gaza.
You may wish to reduce everything to a bullshit zero-sum argument. That does not change the fact that the Palestinians have strong legal basis for their claims, and that these claims have been repeatedly reinforced by United Nations resolutions.
On this last, I find it rather typical that you'd have to ask about them despite blowing smoke for the last few days about the Israel-Palestine question. There are literally dozens of such resolutions - look up 242 and 338 for starters.
In taking note, I caution the Israeli hawks themselves not to overrate the phenomenon. It is highly unlikely to be a lasting one, but merely reflects a general anti-Muslim mood. Like all vagaries, it is subject to caprice and instant reversal, particularly since the American right, which is mostly in question, has serious underlying anti-semitic roots.
In the current environment, there is a better chance of Jordan and Egypt breaking relations with Israel than there is of Syria successfully concluding talks with the Jewish state.
That leaves who as a "threat"? The Palestianians?
Your hypothetical is ridiculous (Syria and Israel won't be coming to any sort of agreement anytime soon), but even if there were some rapproachment between the two, you would still have Iraq and Iran.
But the security problem of a state in Israel's already small position ought to be clear in the aftermath of 9-11. Nonconventional threats from inside the P.A. (or future Palestinian state) will continue to exist and will probably proliferate. Israel will need security buffers to control and isolate them whereever they pop up.
continued ...
The state doesn't have to be in mortal danger to be threatened. Some guys did fairly damaging things with airliners. What do you think? Should Israel give the Palestinian State the right of way for aircraft (747s from Saudi or Iraq) of any sort fly into Palestine? I mean, it's a right any other state would have.
I have some submerged paddy fields to sell you, Pincher. Certainly you are either completely a naif or simply uninterested in factual analysis.
I'll buy, but only so long we do the contract under international law.
The problem with your thinking, Marj, is that it's always either/or. Despite your professed love of nuance, you simply don't have the ability to think at the margins where the real action will take place.
Where's the backpedaling? I admit it caught me offguard when you said international law is everywhere. I had to think a bit to come up with a nice way of breaking it to you.
A more serious, and balanced, analysis can be found here.
Excerpt:
II. The Controversy over the Applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention
It thus follows that Article 49 of the 1949 Convention is the main provision to be studied. But a first and preliminary question arises as to whether this Convention does apply at all to the Territories under Israeli control.12 The Government of Israel has maintained that it is doubtful whether these Territories are subject to the provisions of the Convention due to a precondition to its applicability to cases of occupation laid down by the second paragraph of Article 2 of the Convention:
"In addition to the provisions which shall be implemented in peace-time, the present Convention shall apply to all cases of declared war or any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.
The Convention shall also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance...13 [Emphasis added.]
(cont.)
Hahahaha!
(more)
Lastly, Professor Roberts is of the opinion that there are precedents showing that states have considered the laws on occupation to be applicable `even in cases that differ in some respect from the conditions of application spelled out in the Hague Regulations and the Geneva Convention.'25 However, it seems that the rejection of the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention has rather been the rule and not the exception in the practice of states:
There are, in fact, so many situations in which the applicability of the Geneva Conventions ... has been denied that the not uncommon practice has been rejection of the law, rather than its formal recognition and implementation.26
The problem with you is that you think, if you can call it that, only in those so-called "margins". The mass of what you have to say is unexceptional and regurgitated, and the truly original bits are trivial. This is fine and dandy by itself. My objections lie to the unexceptional standard-issue regurgitations themselves - they're dishonest, they rely on dubious data, and they seek to view the Israel/Palestine matter through a tinted American long lens .
Israel will need security buffers to control and isolate them whereever they pop up.
What kind of nut are you, exactly?
The Palestinians, as previously mentioned, have nothing in terms of an army, air force, heavy armament. They live under severe and stringent occupation, in largely isolated pockets, there are large numbers of Israeli personnel on the ground preventing mobility. There could not humanly, possibly, be more security buffers between most Israelis and the Palestinians.**
Yet, all these buffers come to nought. Israel's experience has demonstrated again that you cannot win peace by waging war. It is simply impossible, unless the Israelis actually kill every last Palestinian they hold.
They have to withdraw from the Palestinian territory. It has nothing do do with magnanimity, it has everything to do with law and beyond that simple survival. They cannot keep the Palestinians from desperate measures by force, they can only play this deadly game of attrition.
As for what kind of state the Palestinians choose to implement in their territory, that is a matter for the Palestinians to decide, as it is for all sovereign peoples. The utterly trivial reduced argument about planes et al is meaningless, but I'll answer it anyway - Israel can allow nations to use its flight space or not, it is as simple as that.
** (The settlers do live cheek-by-jowl, but that is entirely their problem.)
Andonly,
As I said earlier, the Fourth Geneva Convention is only one basis used to determine the illegality of the Israeli occupation of the WB and Gaza.
Your link, and the posted material, is interesting but just one opinion.
The key part is this -
srael's official attitude concerning the non-applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention has been criticized inter alia by the UN Security Council and General Assembly,18 by the International Committee of the Red Cross,19 by the United States20 and by various writers
Yes, I believe the word I used was "unenforced." And that document just celebrated its fiftieth birthday. Do you think there is any chance of it getting "teeth" before it gets senescence?
This is the pathetic, dishonest, tactic used now so often by apologists for one atrocious policy or the other, not just in Israel but the rest of the world. Grow up.
You mean expecting Muslims around the world to act civilized is dishonest and pathetic, and that the more mature route would be to allow them to continue with regimes that do not respect human rights, women's right, democracy, or conducting themselves in a peaceful manner when protesting?
You get upset with the U.S. death penalty and the lack of clear, legal protection for homosexuals, but you let slid so many more worse crimes elsewhere. That's a clear double standard, Banks.
By the US, mainly.
Really, did you miss my Spanish example? Any chance France will allow an international probe into its past conduct in Algeria. How about Turkey and the Kurds? Iranians and Bahais? I mean the list goes on and on and on.
Do you even understand the difference between the U.S. not agreeing to sign an international treaty and violating international law?
continued ...
They are meaningless as laws (who do you think will enforce them?). They have some weight to the degree that everyone agrees on them.
You may wish to reduce everything to a bullshit zero-sum argument. That does not change the fact that the Palestinians have strong legal basis for their claims, and that these claims have been repeatedly reinforced by United Nations resolutions.
U.N. resolutions are worthless, Banks. They have no bite except where others give them bite.
C. Obligations Created by the Convention
1. Circumstances of Application [See Article 2]
The pertinent articles of the Convention apply only to actions of states (by direct policy or by individual acts by officials of the state, including military personnel) which take place during a declared war or an armed conflict, even if a state of war is not recognized by one of them. (Note that this language is ambiguous. The Convention might not apply if, despite an ongoing armed conflict, neither state officially recognizes a state of war.) The articles apply to any occupation, even if that occupation does not meet with armed resistance. The articles do not bind signatories in their actions against non-signatories, though as noted above the Conventions may have achieved customary international law status. The question would then become whether the Convention's reciprocity trigger is also customary. [I.e., the Palestinians would then be bound as well as the Israelis, which they seem not to be now because they have no state. Any wonder Arafat hasn't just declared one unilaterally
2. Prohibited Actions and Required Conduct [See Articles 53, 146-147]
Article 53 prohibits destruction of private or state property except where such destruction is an absolute military necessity. Article 53 imposes only limited requirements. Most notably it only prohibits those acts which are not militarily necessary. In terms of legal significance, this provision not only provides a broad-based defense but also introduces an element of subjectivity. It is thus impossible to say exactly which acts Article 53 prohibits because the same act might be lawful in one set of tactical or strategic circumstances and unlawful in another.
Article 147 specifies whose acts which constitute "grave breaches" of the Convention. Among the prohibited acts is "[t]he extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly." This article appears to modify the obligations established in Article 53 in two ways. First, unlike Article 53, Article 147 eliminates the "absolute" from the military necessity exception. Second, and probably more importantly, Article 147 adds the phrase "carried out unlawfully and wantonly." Use of the term "wantonly" appears to create a standard akin to the tort/criminal law concept of willfulness (or arguably recklessness). In other words, Article 147 only prohibits destruction of property which is intended or where the destruction arises from the conscious disregarding of an obvious and extreme risk. Incidental or indirect damage to property (and by extension environment) which results from otherwise lawful exercise of force is not prohibited by the Convention.
Yeah, isn't it amazing how a few terrorists can bring people together.
You still haven't answered the million-dollar question. Why can't the Palestinians peacefully try to achieve their aims? Why don't they attempt to build trust and achieve their aims through non-violent methods?
In taking note, I caution the Israeli hawks themselves not to overrate the phenomenon. It is highly unlikely to be a lasting one, but merely reflects a general anti-Muslim mood. Like all vagaries, it is subject to caprice and instant reversal, particularly since the American right, which is mostly in question, has serious underlying anti-semitic roots.
Do you think any Jew here would trust a word you said, Banks? When has your advice for Jews and the Jewish state been anything but bad?
But the larger point is that what everyone agrees on in this case is a highly politicized interpretation of a vaguely worded document, which many international laws seem to be.
Beyond this, of course, laws can simply be unfair. Stateless peoples harboring and supporting terrorist belligerants weren't on anyone's mind in 1949, when the Geneva rules were written. If the Israelis are to be bound by rules of war, then so must the Palestinians. If the Palestinians will not be, then in fairness Israel's security concerns would seem to trump the "illegality" of its occupation.
I will post some relevant general excerpts:
The declared purpose of the settlers, like that of Israeli governments that established the settlements, was and continues to be to change the demographics in the Occupied Territories, a change that was actually accomplished, at least in those areas in which there is congested Israeli settlement.
The Israeli government initiated most of the Jewish settlement in the Occupied Territories. All of the relevant ministries and authorities assisted by expropriating land, planning, implementing, and financing. The various Israeli governments encouraged and continue to encourage Israeli civilians to move to the Occupied Territories by providing benefits, such as grants and loans under favorable terms.
Even where individual settlers, rather than the government, established settlements, the government acted retroactively to turn these into permanent civilian settlements. To achieve this, the government assisted with planning, infrastructure, establishment of public buildings and institutions, expropriation of land to expand the settlements, and encouragement of other Israeli civilians to live there.
Settlements established pursuant to the decision of a government committee, through governmental planning, implementation, assistance and encouragement, clearly breach article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Article 46 of the Hague Regulations prohibits the confiscation of private property. Article 52 allows the occupying power to requisition land in exchange for compensation, but only to meet its military needs. Requisition of land, contrary to confiscation, is temporary by definition, and the occupying power does not obtain ownership. Article 55 of the Hague Regulations stipulates that the occupying state is regarded only as trustee of public property in the area, and does not obtain ownership of the property.
Since the military commander is not the sovereign in the territory and his administration there is only temporary, he may exercise only two considerations when making decisions concerning the occupied territory: the welfare of the local population and his security needs. Thus, the occupying state may only institute permanent changes where they are intended for the local population.
Since it has never been contended that the settlements were established to benefit the Palestinian residents of the Occupied Territories, the legal justification for their establishment must be that they were temporary actions intended for security needs. Since this is clearly not the case, in establishing the settlements, Israel is violating a fundamental principle of international humanitarian law.
Building or expanding Israeli settlements also generally entails violation of Palestinian human rights where the construction is executed on land that is not under private or communal Palestinian ownership. The reason is that, in many cases, the settlements are situated on land that, because of its geographic location, comprises the natural space for development of Palestinian villages and towns. According to the first article common to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, "All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources..." Since land is one of the most important natural resources and the settlements prevent the Palestinian people form taking advantage of this resource, the establishment and expansion of the settlements violates this right.
An excerpt from the analysis, by Henry Siegman :
In light of the findings of the Mitchell Committee Report, it is time for the Bush administration to reconsider the support it has given to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s policy of refusing negotiations with the Palestinians before they put an end, unilaterally and unconditionally, to their violent resistance in the territories. The demand makes no sense if responsibility for the violence lies with both sides, as the Mitchell Report found, not just with the Palestinians.
Support for Sharon’s refusal to resume negotiations with the Palestinians makes no sense for another reason as well. The Mitchell Committee Report affirms that a key source of violence is Israeli expansion of settlements. But Ariel Sharon has stated that this expansion will continue, even if Palestinians end the intifada. Indeed, Sharon has just submitted a formal request to Israel’s Knesset for huge additional sums (1.5 billion NIS) for this purpose. There is no point to demanding that Palestinians ceasefire unilaterally without an Israeli commitment to end settlement activity.
US policy-makers must surely understand by now that Sharon’s objectives remove whatever incentive Palestinians might have had for ending their violent resistance to Israel’s occupation. From a Palestinian perspective, the only purpose a cease fire would now serve is to make the occupation less costly and less embarrassing to Israel. There is no reason why the US should now encourage, much less pressure, Palestinians to accommodate Sharon's demands.
It may be argued that the US has already told Israel that it opposes the enlargement of settlements in the territories. But the reality is that as long as the US supports Sharon’s insistence that Palestinians must end their violence before any negotiations can take place, they are enabling Sharon to continue with his present policies, which include the enlargement of settlements.
Unfortunately, Sharon continues to enjoy wide support among Israelis, including Israel’s Left, who believe the Palestinians betrayed them when, in response to Barak’s far-reaching proposals at Camp David, they launched the al-Aqsa intifada. But this widely held belief is wrong. The conventional wisdom about the causes of the intifada does not accord with the facts. The Mitchell Committee reports that the roots of the Palestinian intifada pre-date the failure of the Camp David talks. Palestinian violence was not triggered by Arafat to force further Israeli concessions, but was the consequence of profound Palestinian disillusionment with the peace process, which did not bring about an end to the occupation.
The Mitchell Committee’s finding is corroborated by no less an authority than Ami Ayalon, the former head of Shin Bet, Israel’s legendary security organization. In a dramatic interview on Israeli television on April 30th that startled the Israeli public, Ayalon stated that the intifada broke out not because of perceived deficiencies in Barak’s proposals, but because by then Palestinians no longer believed that Israel would ever deliver on its promises and end its occupation, no matter what Barak or even Arafat told them. Violence erupted, Ayalon said, because Palestinians are in a state of despair, "and are saying ‘We will reach our goal in another way.’ "
Even more startling was Ayalon’s assertion that the Palestinian Authority had in the past arrested thousands of Islamic Hamas militants opposed to Israeli-Palestinian peace, and had killed and tortured many of them in order to insure Israel’s security. He said Palestinians did this because of Israel’s assurance that such measures would help them reach their goal of a Palestinian state next to Israel. But it was a promise that was never kept.
I will now post excerpts:
During the half-century of its existence, Israel has had the strong support of the United States. In international forums, the U.S. has at times cast the only vote on Israel's behalf. Yet, even in such a close relationship there are some differences. Prominent among those differences is the U.S. Government's long-standing opposition to the GOI's policies and practices regarding settlements. As the then-Secretary of State, James A. Baker, III, commented on May 22, 1991:
"Every time I have gone to Israel in connection with the peace process, on each of my four trips, I have been met with the announcement of new settlement activity. This does violate United States policy. It's the first thing that Arabs -- Arab Governments, the first thing that the Palestinians in the territories -- whose situation is really quite desperate - the first thing they raise when we talk to them. I don't think there is any bigger obstacle to peace than the settlement activity that continues not only unabated but at an enhanced pace."
The policy described by Secretary Baker, on behalf of the Administration of President George H. W. Bush, has been, in essence, the policy of every American administration over the past quarter century.
Most other countries, including Turkey, Norway, and those of the European Union, have also been critical of Israeli settlement activity, in accordance with their views that such settlements are illegal under international law and not in compliance with previous agreements.
The problem with you is that you think, if you can call it that, only in those so-called "margins". The mass of what you have to say is unexceptional and regurgitated, and the truly original bits are trivial. This is fine and dandy by itself. My objections lie to the unexceptional standard-issue regurgitations themselves - they're dishonest, they rely on dubious data, and they seek to view the Israel/Palestine matter through a tinted American long lens.
When I demand that Palestinians make their claims peacefully, how is that dishonest Marj? When I say that not a single Arab state (No, PE, not even Yemen) comes anywhere near the level of granting the mass of its citizens the kinds of rights Israel grants its Arab citizens, how is that unexceptional? When I say that Israel feels threatened by its neighbors and their attitudes --feels legitimately threatened by extremism -- how is your reply that it has nukes in any way a serious answer to that?
The Palestinians, as previously mentioned, have nothing in terms of an army, air force, heavy armament. They live under severe and stringent occupation, in largely isolated pockets, there are large numbers of Israeli personnel on the ground preventing mobility. There could not humanly, possibly, be more security buffers between most Israelis and the Palestinians.
Yes, but that is now. The proposal by PE was to take those buffers away from the Israelis and make a more contigious Palestine State. That seemed to be PE's reasoning that Barak's offer should be rejected. The Israelis have a right to security, and if that means roads through a Palestinian state, then the Palestinians will have to live with it.
continued ...
Israel is not waging war. The last few times the Israelis actually waged war (Lebanon excluded), they've done quite well. Certainly much better than this no-man's land of a policy has given them.
Unlike your claim, Israeli's experience should show that half-measures don't work and that a Palestinian state will only be a possibility when Palestinians truly want peace. Arafat does not look to be the person who will help the Palestinian people reach that point.
They have to withdraw from the Palestinian territory. It has nothing do do with magnanimity, it has everything to do with law and beyond that simple survival. They cannot keep the Palestinians from desperate measures by force, they can only play this deadly game of attrition.
I think they need to knock off the P.A. leadership (Arafat, especially), take out as much of the Hamas leadership as they can, and then continue to apply force as needed. The new P.A. leadership, whoever it might be, will find he needs to make peace -- in a peaceful way -- or risk the same fate. Eventually the Pal leadership will get it and adapt their methods.
continued ...
the GOI takes the position that "Israel is engaged in an armed conflict short of war. This is not a civilian disturbance or a demonstration or a riot. It is characterized by live-fire attacks on a significant scale.. [T]he attacks are carried out by a well-armed and organized militia..."
Yet, the GOI acknowledges that of some 9,000 "attacks" by Palestinians against Israelis, "some 2,700 [about 30 percent] involved the use of automatic weapons, rifles, hand guns, grenades, [and] explosives of other kinds."
Thus, for the first three months of the current uprising, most incidents did notinvolve Palestinian use of firearms and explosives. B’Tselem reported that, "according to IDF figures, 73 percent of the incidents [from September 29 to December 2, 2000] did not include Palestinian gunfire. Despite this, it was in these incidents that most of the Palestinians [were] killed and wounded. . ."
I thought you lived in Israel? Didn't you realize how small the place was when you were there? That some terrorist attacks could take place with greater ease because an Arab state pushes Israel's borders further in is not the slightest bit meaningless.
Repeated - Thus, for the first three months of the current uprising, most incidents did not involve Palestinian use of firearms and explosives.
The fact is that there are security concerns. A stronger and clear border would eliminate most, a withdrawal of the settlers would eliminate most of the rest. What remains is manageable, it's what most states have to live with and manage more or less fine.
Here is what Mitchell unambiguously recommends -
We acknowledge Israel's security concerns. We believe, however, that the GOI should lift closures, transfer to the PA all revenues owed, and permit Palestinians who have been employed in Israel to return to their jobs. Closure policies play into the hands of extremists seeking to expand their constituencies and thereby contribute to escalation. The PA should resume cooperation with Israeli security agencies to ensure that Palestinian workers employed within Israel are fully vetted and free of connections to terrorists and terrorist organizations.
Manageable, isn't it? But the Israeli hawks (and now a few parroting American hawks) prefer to massively overstate the concerns for rather obvious reasons.
Now.
That seemed to be PE's reasoning that Barak's offer should be rejected
Barak never made an offer. Read the New York Review of Books article before pursuing this thread again.
Israel is not waging war
You don't know very much about the Israeli stance (including on legalities) then. Read the Mitchell report.
Israeli's experience should show that half-measures don't work and that a Palestinian state will only be a possibility when Palestinians truly want peace.
In fact, other than rhetorically, Israel has not made a half-measure towards peace, while the Palestinians have. Read the Council on Foreign Relations analysis.
I have cut you some slack, Pincher, because you are on a learning curve and because you write a clear sentence. This despite your penchant for gonadal rhetoric.
But the above is so monumentally stupid, so head-up-the-ass pat, so incredibly meaningless, that I really can't see discussing this matter with you any further.
The Mitchell Committee Report affirms that a key source of violence is Israeli expansion of settlements. But Ariel Sharon has stated that this expansion will continue, even if Palestinians end the intifada. Indeed, Sharon has just submitted a formal request to Israel’s Knesset for huge additional sums (1.5 billion NIS) for this purpose. There is no point to demanding that Palestinians ceasefire unilaterally without an Israeli commitment to end settlement activity.
Building more settlements? Because Jews build, Palestinians must throw stones and set off bombs. Apparently, it's like a chemical thing.
Didn't I just get through making the point that Israel would be forced to give up much -- and this includes land -- if the Pals could ever learn to protest peacefully? Yes, it might take time. But a peaceful protest by Pals would work eventually -- including repatriation, a capital in Jerusulem, etc.
The violence wins them nothing and will probably lose them a great deal.
But Marj doesn't want to give the Pals the moral responsibility to make their own choices and take what comes with them. The moral decisions are only for the Israelis. Arabs don't make moral decisions. They just react.
Take it up with PE.
You don't know very much about the Israeli stance (including on legalities) then. Read the Mitchell report.
Israel is not waging war, you idiot, I don't care what the Mitchell Report says. Arafat and the Palestinians would quickly know the difference if it did.
In fact, other than rhetorically, Israel has not made a half-measure towards peace, while the Palestinians have. Read the Council on Foreign Relations analysis.
If you are talking about that Seligman article, it's a piece of shit. Seligman tries to excuse Pal. violence with 'well, what can you expect when Israel is building settlements and Sharon is such a meany.'
By the same author, Siegman, linked in before. The article outlines a security arrangement, and political settlement, that I fully endorse, in every detail. Siegman has his finger on the solution.
I've never seen this article before, oddly. It's formatting is somewhat fucked up but I urge you all to read it.
I expect future debate on this matter to be informed by the (mostly American) material I have tabled.
I referred to Seligman's article. It's absolutely silly on the question of why the Pals need to resort to violence. Seligman says Sharon didn't do what the Pals wanted him to do so they had to turn violent. Basically, what you are arguing through your proxy Seligman is that violence is an acceptable tool in peace negotiations. But that's a dangerous position for the weaker side of the negotiations to have. It certainly cuts the legs right out from your moral right to be free from the fear of Israeli missiles and jets.
You need to come up with a better answer.
George Mitchell, former Majority Leader of the US Senate?
Henry Siegman, Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, former National Director of the American Jewish Congress and the Synagogue Council of America.?
or
PincherMartin, Resident of Taiwan, presumably employed, perennial blowhard?
The choice, amigos, is yours.
1) the author is Siegman, not Seligman.
2) You have either not read the article(s) or you are incapable of even minimal comprehension.
Israel's leaders must finally tear themselves away from the notion that they can subcontract their security to their adversary, a notion that is absurd on the face of it. Responsibility for the security of its citizens rests solely on the government of Israel, and a government that refuses to shoulder that burden, or can't figure out how to do it, forfeits its legitimacy.
By now it should be clear to everyone in Israel that trumping every Palestinian act of violence and of terror with Israel's superior ability to punish Palestinians does not provide the security that Israel's citizens are demanding.
Indeed, no Israeli government can provide that security as long as it persists in its efforts to maintain its presence beyond Israel's pre-1967 borders and to retain territories inhabited by 3 million Palestinians.
The expectation that a Palestinian government will provide Israeli settlers the security they need to live undisturbed lives on those lands suggests an arrogance echoing colonial sensibilities of an earlier age that Western democracies - one hopes - now find an embarrassing memory. There is only one way out of the current spiral of violence. It requires that Israel limit its national sovereignty to areas within which it can on its own assume responsibility for its citizens' security. This means a return to Israel's pre-1967 borders. To be clear about it, it requires that Israel give up not only isolated Jewish settlements but the major so-called "settlement blocks" as well.
it is far wiser and more conducive to Israel's long-range peaceful coexistence with its neighbors to transplant the settlers who now live in these settlement blocks to the areas within Israel demanded by Palestinians in exchange for the existing settlements. This could also provide an answer to the Palestinian refugee problem, for the evacuation of the settlements would enable Palestinians to resettle the refugees in these former Jewish settlements. Indeed, if it achieved only this - a resolution of the refugee problem - a complete evacuation of the settlements by Israel should be seen as the single most important measure for its future security. But even if the issue of settlements is not linked to the refugee problem, a physical border between Israel and the new Palestinian state that is not twisted and distorted to accommodate Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza would allow Israel to assume responsibility for the security of its own citizens.
If the new Palestinian state is negligent in its responsibility to prevent cross-border revanchism, a defensible border vastly facilitates Israel's ability to deal with such violations. With Palestinians no longer under Israeli occupation, Israel is freed to use its superior military power - which it could not take advantage of against a population with which it is fully intermingled - to put an end to such threats. It has been able to do that with neighbors far more powerful than a Palestinian state ever can hope to be.
You know, I'd claim that the author has been reading my past posts on this matter in this forum were it not for the fact that his eminently reasonable analysis is quite obvious to any clear-thinking observer unburdened by ideology and aware of the facts.
Whatever "ruling" of legality the international community comes up with is ultimately only a majority opinion of politicians. As Pincher observed, the judgment is enforceable only to the extent that anyone decides for political reasons to enforce it. And unlike judgment under real "law", for some reason this one has no possibility of appeal.
Forget John Walker, Forget Afghanistan (Kinsely)
i don't know one way or the other, but i hope this isn't a breech of the ROE.
As I have repeatedly posted, the Geneva Conventions are only one part of the international laws referenced wrt the illegality of Israeli actions in the occupied territories.
Obviously, prosecution of any of these has some political elements involved. This does not invalidate them, and the fact that they are not being pursued this instant in this regard is not a guarantee that this will always be the case.
The fact is that these laws have been exercised in the past, and that they are constantly referenced by the international community when it comes to the Israeli occupation. The culpability is not going anywhere, and neither is the international awareness of it.
That is it, really.
You may be interested, relatedly, in that recent Jerusalem Post editorial which prominently states that Israel "doesn't need the UN" in large part because it has the US in its corner. I find such statements rather shallow and short-sighted, not to mention cavalier about history. It is my sincere belief that Israel should not heedlessly ignore or deride international convention, legitimate complaints about them notwithstanding.
Although foreign policy fetishists may deplore it (and globalists are right that the world impinges on sovereign nations more and more), the freedom to ignore the rest of the world has always been part of our American Dream. And if you can't ignore Afghanistan, who can you ignore? You could say that this war is about restoring our right to ignore Afghanistan once again.
I defy you to find a single post of mine where I have denied America's right to act against Al Qaida and the Taliban or criticised how that right has been exercised.
Don't be silly. That Pincher lives in Taiwan these days is common knowledge, at least for the degenerate "foreign crowd" around here.
?????
I think you need to read that excerpt again.
Why did you dedicate that excerpt specifically to me? Did you think I wasn't aware of the opinions expressed there? That I would gather valuable new insights? Ack, the tragedy of being underestimated.
This is hilarious. Let's rearrange it a little:
"The expectation that an Israeli government will provide Arab Israelis the security they need to live undisturbed lives within Israel suggests an arrogance echoing Arab anti-Zionism of an earlier age that Arab contries - one would wish - now find an embarrassing memory."
I mean, why the fuck shouldn't a Palestinian government offer citizenship to settlers desperate to stay in Palestine, & guarantee them rights to protection and everything else equivalent to what Arabs have in Israel. Any who refused to accept citizenship under those conditions could be invited to sell his nicely developed property (not including the land under it), get out of the Palestinian state, and go back to the Jewish state.
Arabs live in Israel as Israelis, Jews should be able to live in Palestine as Palestinians. Hell, given a Pal state willing to make real peace, both countries could one day offer their peoples dual citizenship...
Andonly,
For one who is prone to bleating "moral equivalence, moral equivalence" at the drop of a hat, you sure are prone to making bad arguments steeped in it.
The Siegman quotation deals with the current reality, not some hoped-for future. It refers to the current (illegal) settlements in the occupied territories, and he makes an excellent point.
That you would insist on drawing a parallel between Israeli Arabs who have every right to possession of rights, and injected settlers with no such legal rights and in whose name any number of further illegalities have been committed, is at once unsurprising and indicative of the levels to which you will sink.
The Economist
What a Bonehead
test
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Just one day after Congress sent President Bush the intelligence authorization bill, Attorney General John Ashcroft started implementing it, creating a task force to review sanctions governing leaks of classified information.
``Leaks of classified information do substantial damage to the security interests of the nation,'' Ashcroft said in a statement Friday. ``As a government, we must try to find more effective measures to deal with this damaging practice, including measures to prevent it.''
Um, because you always get cranky when I state unequivocally that Americans don't have to care about other countries, that it's part of what being America is all about, and imply that it is some sort of right wing patriotism run amok.
And yet here is Michael Kinsley, a well-credentialed liberal, making much the same point.
I wuz just saying, "See? See?"
There is no point to demanding that Palestinians ceasefire unilaterally without an Israeli commitment to end settlement activity.
You know, we built a lot of settlements in the Sinai, and the Egyptians wound up using them (to the extent that they weren't razed before being handed over). Building houses is a constructive thing, and it is reversible and open to new uses. Chopping off kids' arms and legs and wedging poison-laced steel bolts into their intestines is none of the above.
I am posting this in the I&P thread too, in the hopes of moving the discussion there.
Is not.
1) the author is Siegman, not Seligman.
2) You have either not read the article(s) or you are incapable of even minimal comprehension.
I read Siegman's article. It says the Israelis are to blame for the Palestinians becoming violent because the Jews build settlements. That's silly, even by your standards. It's another way of saying the Palestinians can become violent for any non-violent Israeli action which the Palestinians disagree with. And it does not address why it would not have worked for the Pals to have taken up a non-violent approach to address the issue.
You may be interested, relatedly, in that recent Jerusalem Post editorial which prominently states that Israel "doesn't need the UN" in large part because it has the US in its corner. I find such statements rather shallow and short-sighted, not to mention cavalier about history. It is my sincere belief that Israel should not heedlessly ignore or deride international convention, legitimate complaints about them notwithstanding.
Is it your sincere belief? That takes a load off my mind. I thought you were giving your insincere beliefs.
The United Nations has been hypocritical in its treatment of Israel. It ignores similar circumstances in many parts of the world. Any chance of a series of U.N. resolutions calling for a Kurdish or Tibetan state? How about Xinjiang? How about freeing many of the enslaved women in the Arab world?
continued ...
As I have repeatedly posted, the Geneva Conventions are only one part of the international laws referenced wrt the illegality of Israeli actions in the occupied territories.
Obviously, prosecution of any of these has some political elements involved. This does not invalidate them, and the fact that they are not being pursued this instant in this regard is not a guarantee that this will always be the case.
The international legal aspect of the settlements is meaningless, Banks. I have mentioned several examples of how international laws are unevenly applied or completely ignored. A Middle-East solution will be political, with the Pals and Israelis both engaged in peaceful negotiations to reach it. Until that happens, all U.N. resolutions in the region matter not a whit since no one will try to enforce them.
The fact is that these laws have been exercised in the past, and that they are constantly referenced by the international community when it comes to the Israeli occupation. The culpability is not going anywhere, and neither is the international awareness of it.
There is a new international awareness now. That of terrorism. If the Pals don't crack down on their own terrorists, they lose international legitimacy, and any possibility of getting a state.
So you're saying the attack on India's parliament should go unanswered?
Russia wanted pipelines built on its territory, and some were. The United States backed a pipeline from Baku, Azerbaijan, to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan, bypassing Russia entirely. The pipeline consortium is led by BP and represented by Baker & Botts, the law firm of James A. Baker III, a Bush family confidant and former secretary of state.
Over the last year, Russia's opposition to that route has subsided, and in October, the oil ministry invited BP to make a presentation about it to domestic oil companies. Industry analysts said that meeting would have been unthinkable if ties between the United States and Russia had not improved. Russia's largest oil company, Lukoil, confirmed that it was seriously looking into investing in the project.
The arc of countries in Central Asia where Western oil companies work grazes Afghanistan. But the value of Afghanistan itself, if any, might be as a pipeline route.
Finally US Media Have Picked the Story Up - NyT
Heretofore, only the Toronto Sun and the Daily T have been on to it and that for weeks now
I have no idea what you're Tonkin about. Please explain.
The Resolution 
In a land that seeks to marry religion and politics, militant Muslim clerics clash with scholars who use Islam to support the U.S.-backed monarchy.
Allah be praised!
May Allah Almighty glorify His beloved and most praised servant, Sayyidina Muhammad, and may mercy from His endless mercy oceans fall on you, and fall on our descendents, and fall on our ancestors, fall upon east and west, and may its blessing fall upon all from North to South, upon all oceans and upon all continents.
Allah Allah...Karim Allah...Aziz Allah...Subhan Allah...Sultan Allah
By chance did your eye catch this: The results are plain. The Middle East today stands in stark contrast to the rest of the world, where freedom and democracy have been gaining ground over the last two decades. In its latest annual survey, released last week, New York’s Freedom House finds that 75 percent of the world’s countries are currently “free” or “partly free.” Only 28 percent of Middle Eastern countries could be so described, a percentage that has fallen during the last 20 years. By comparison, more than 60 percent of African countries today are free or partly free.
This small reality, however, cannot prevent hallucination and will not deter the usual suspects from the same old calumnies.
No, you just slighted -- in passing -- my earlier analysis on Muslim states and democracy, even though Zakaria relies on the same source and makes, largely, the same judgement.
Oh really, dull-witted one? A citation, please.
What I said then, and I say now, is that it has never been US policy to pursue "freedom and democracy" in the Middle East, or Muslim countries in general. This sudden interest (which, obviously, is not an official government interest still) is a red herring.
I also pointed out that the US has gone out of its way to help stifle democratic movements in these countries in question, few and paltry as these movements have been. And it has backed to the hilt anti-democratic strongmen in virtually all of the countries concerned.
So, it is a bit mystifying to even encounter the argument from an American right-winger that democracy is somehow desirable in those countries, and it is to their discredit that they haven't nurtured it.
I'm with Zakaria on his stance, by the way, that "constitutional liberalism" is what is desirable and should be pursued. I've previously argued, at length, in this forum's predecessor, that this is all that should be desired, in the end, from any country.
Actually, no. Zakaria talks Arab states and democracy, whereas you talked about Muslim states and democracy. Freedom House lists 11 Muslim-majority countries as electoral democracies, none of them Arab.
I will address your posts from Friday tomorrow. 
Actually, no. Zakaria talks Arab states and democracy, whereas you talked about Muslim states and democracy. Freedom House lists 11 Muslim-majority countries as electoral democracies, none of them Arab.
Actually, yes. Did you catch the qualifier "largely"?
I repeat: "...you just slighted -- in passing -- my earlier analysis on Muslim states and democracy, even though Zakaria relies on the same source and makes, largely, the same judgement."
Again, if you going to argue these points, then stick to what I wrote.
By the way, Zakaria uses "Middle East" countries in his article, not "Arab" countries. While almost all of his examples are Arab countries, he writes near the end of his piece, "Wherever Muslim fundamentalists have been involved in day-to-day politics — Bangladesh, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran — their luster has worn off. People have realized that the streets still have to be cleaned, government finances have to be managed and education attended to. The mullahs can preach, but they cannot rule. For this reason, Iran might well hold out the greatest promise for liberal democracy and secular politics in the Middle East. Having lived under Islamic fundamentalist rule, Iranians are now inoculated against its appeal. It may take another decade or two, and risking that long—and bumpy—roller-coaster ride is dangerous for countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
This use of Iran shows Zakaria doesn't equate "Arab" with "Middle East."
continued ...
Oh really, dull-witted one? A citation, please.
I aim to please.
Marj in Message # 17577: "On the contrary, Pincher Martin, I suggest that you continue huffing-and-puffing and trying to blow smoke about Muslim countries, democracy, and now Israel."
I reply in Message # 17583: "It comes as no surprise to me those posts on democracy and Muslim countries didn't make a dent in your head. You have an uncommon talent for avoiding facts when you find them inconvenient for your beliefs."
Marj responds, a little incoherently with Message # 17584: "Those posts you have lengthily tables here on Muslim countries and democracy are entirely unexceptional."
Most people would accuse Marj of lying, but after watching him retreat from his own words earlier in this thread, I understand that he is simply practising "nuance" as he understands the word.
a) there were a lot of civilian casualties (they gave a figure but I swear I can't remember it)
b) unlike Bosnia and other wars - nobody seemed to give a shit about said casualties. Not the media, not the public
I had said much the same thing in this thread and got jumped for being unamerican.
Ah, I understand now. Does seem a bit flimsy.
Who is retreating, O slow-witted one?
Those posts that you have endlessly regurgitated here about Muslim countries and democracy are, as I said and stand by, entirely unexceptional.
You interpret this as a disputation of your regurgitations? If so, it is only one more of your problems.
Those posts that you have endlessly regurgitated here about Muslim countries and democracy are, as I said and stand by, entirely unexceptional.
I thought they were a lot of "huffing-and-puffing and smoke."
But clearly they were designed to put you off the trail of explaining how the legal ramifications of Israel's Declaration of Indepedence give the U.N. more authority in Israel than it has anywhere else in the world or even under its own charter. 
Let's assume that the US finds, conclusively, that bin Laden is not in Afghanistan. That means, to them, that he and his elite Al Qaeda leadership have moved into Pakistan.
There is virtually no way, barring a stunning diplomatic move, that the US will itself launch operations into the mountainous Pathan stronghold. It will rather count on Pakistan to sweep the territory, which Musharraf will likely show himself to be doing.
But what happens a month or so from now, when Musharraf claims that Bin Laden is not in Pakistan either? This announcement is sure to come, you can count on it. Will the US take his word, or will it mount a campaign on Pak soil? I think it will likely "assist" Musharraf in the initial search, while denying it to the Pakistani public. And there is a possibility that it will eventually tire of playing nice with Musharraf and act unilaterally.
Look to media leaks in the next few days for indications. If you start reading, again, a great deal about ISI complicity with the Taliban and perhaps Al Qaeda, and you start to hear of "conclusive" evidence that the Pakis are semi-officially sheltering "fugitives" it'll be bad news for Musharraf.
Finally, if the US is seen to "go in", to command its own operations in the FATA, all bets are off as to Indian policy wrt the Pakistani bit of Kashmir. India has refrained from attacking terrorist camps across the border, but it may succumb to domestic pressure and take the opportunity if the US breaks the ice.
Excerpt:
That recent encounter between a Red Crescent plane from Iran and a specialized "local liaison" soldier highlights how the war in Afghanistan has led to increased contacts, often surprisingly cooperative and good–natured, between America and Iran, on opposite sides of the political divide since 1979.
U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, visiting American troops in Bagram on Sunday, said that at one point earlier in the war, American special operations troops actually worked, indirectly, alongside the Iranian military.
I can't resist a prediction. I'm a born gambler.
The US will be involved by that time, because both Pakistan and Afghanistan will have become very unstable, and control of Pakistan's nukes will be in question. The ill-planned US campaign against terrorism will have plunged both countries into civil war. As predicted earlier.
Domestic newspapers reported yesterday that Tehran's conservative-controlled press court had imposed a 26-month jail sentence on Mohammad Salamati, deputy minister for labour and secretary-general of the Islamic Revolution Mojahedin Organisation (Irmo).
In addition, the party's weekly, Asr-e Ma, or "Our Era", was banned, joining the ranks of 60 pro-reform publications closed by the courts since early last year in response to the conservatives rout by reformists in general elections.
Both cases have gone to appeal.
Mohsen Armin, deputy speaker of parliament and chief editor of Asr-e Ma, said the existence of the reformist movement was under threat. He also said conservative clerics on the powerful Council of Guardians were using their powers of veto to block virtually all moves by parliament -even a convention on shipping with Slovenia.
Earlier this month the Guardians also blocked, for the second time, Iran's first law on foreign investment for nearly half a century.
...
Last week an appeals court imposed a seven-month jail sentence on Mohammad Dadfar, a prominent pro-reform member of parliament, for a speech he made attacking the courts. Yesterday newspapers reported that Abdollah Ramazanzadeh, Mr Khatami's cabinet secretary and former governor of Kurdestan, had been given a six-month jail sentence for his criticism of the annulment by the Council of Guardians of elections in his province last year.
...
That's interesting, and regrettable if true. I have seen nothing in the US press mentioning a civilian death tally of anything like 3,500. Can you link to that Haaretz piece?
Excerpt:
None of this means the US should not have reacted to the September 11 attacks. But in doing so it should not forget recent history or try to find in Islam the causes that more legitimately and justly rest in its own policies. For instance, the Wahabism dominant in Saudi Arabia that American scholars now point suspiciously at has been an arm of American policy in the Middle East since the end of the Second World War. It is a bit tough that now it should be seen in altogether different colours.
Or consider even the present line-up in the Muslim world. The three Arab countries which approximate the secular ideal are Syria, Iraq and Libya, all on America's hit-list of enemies. In none of these countries is 'radical Islam'--the kind which feeds on American fears--a domestic threat. By any yardstick, Malaysia is a liberal country in social terms and one of the few Muslim countries to have done well economically. But the US doesn't like Mahathir Muhammad. Iran is outside the US orbit of influence but not because of its adherence to the Shiite brand of Islam.
The common thread in all these cases is something else. Secular or religious, a republic or a half-way house to democracy, any country that has stood up to the US, and questioned its double-standards in the Middle East, has come on the list of its enemies.
Ayaz Amir is a bit of a caterwauler. Yet, in this he has part of a point, one I have raised in this thread repeatedly. What is the value in assessing democratic gains or a lack of them in the ME in the context of American foreign policy? The US has never been for democracy in the region, it still isn't.
Next stop...Argentina!
Allah be Praised!
Today, at the end of the holy month of Ramazan, this is a moment of serious reflection for all Muslims. As they celebrate the occasion all over the world, they must resolve to emerge out of a long nurtured state of self-pity and inaction and meet the many challenges confronting them today.
Their plight is mainly rooted in factors that have remained unattended. First and foremost, the cause of their backwardness is their powerlessness. Many Muslim states are abundantly rich in resources and manpower, but poor in utilizing these. Every conceivable element essential for progress is within their grasp but is being exploited by others. Though nominally free and sovereign, they are virtually enslaved by their rulers, who are driven by selfish motives rather than larger interests.
People, mostly poor and ignorant, have little say in their affairs. Apathy and lack of awareness have contributed to their misery. Autocratic rulers decide their fate in most cases. The principle of consultation and consent (Shoora) - the ground norm of an Islamic polity - is twisted to suit vested designs.
Enlightenment is another casualty, so that its absence allows the status quo to continue. Thinking sections helplessly watch this situation. If they do not rise even at this juncture to play their due role as a dynamic force and come up with a vision and motivate the masses to change the existing order, they will share the blame for an unpardonable lapse.
Another segment that wields considerable influence on Muslim societies consists of clerics, who unfortunately are creating divisions among Muslims instead of bringing them closer to one another. Their sectarian approach has made many of the mosques and madrassahs breeding grounds for hatred and schism. Our ritualistic approach to the tenets and practices of Islam is self-defeating and our prayers have a hollow ring in the absence of matching actions.
The rigorous regimen of Ramazan meant to inculcate piety, charity, restraint and discipline should find expression in our deeds. Shunning extremism and choosing the middle path as good Muslims must be the badge of our distinction. The true image of Islam that has unfortunately been tarnished more by its own votaries than by its detractors needs to be restored, specially now that it is being linked with terrorism by interested quarters to suit their designs and their perverse political aims.
The best way to dispel this sort of canard about Islam and its followers is to cite the teachings of the Quran in the light of Sunnah. This final revelation, which wrought a revolution in the contemporary world, was gifted to mankind during the month of Ramazan. This Book is a perfect guide and of binding charter for the believers.
For the Muslims, it is the touchstone to determine right and wrong. Its teachings are crystal clear and all-embracing. Going by its words, respecting the worth of human life is an integral element of faith. Those who disregard this Quranic edict and indulge in killing innocent people anywhere cease to be believers. They are not only terrorists, but also heretics.
I also recommend the Opinions page.
Very successful first stage in the war on terrorism. Onward and upward to Iraq, Somalia, the Sudan or whichever.
In recent days, as Fox News Channel's Geraldo Rivera says he has been ducking fire in Afghanistan, he has also been drawing unwanted attention at home.
News executives and journalism ethicists say Fox News needs to investigate and explain publicly the genesis of a discredited report by Rivera from the front lines of the war.
...Rivera had claimed in a Dec. 6 dispatch to have choked up after saying the Lord's Prayer over the "hallowed ground" in Afghanistan where "friendly fire took so many of our, our men and the mujahedeen yesterday."
But, as Rivera admitted after questions were raised by The Sun, he was several hundred miles from the site outside Kandahar where three Americans were killed on Dec. 5 by errant U.S. bombs. In an interview by satellite phone on Tuesday, Rivera said he had confused the Kandahar deaths with another "friendly fire" incident that cost several Afghan lives in Tora Bora.
I knew it was a mistake for Fox to hire this guy.
Well, I hear Ringling Bros. is hiring.
Very successful first stage in the war on terrorism. Onward and upward to Iraq, Somalia, the Sudan or whichever.
Maybe more successful than some suspect.
Imagine if we had in fact captured or killed ObL and/or Omar?
Half the frigging world (including all of Europe) would be insisting the war was now over, our dead avenged, and everyone should go home now.
I almost hope these two clowns acquire that ol' Elvis mystique.
That's interesting, and regrettable if true. I have seen nothing in the US press mentioning a civilian death tally of anything like 3,500. Can you link to that Haaretz piece?
It's in Ivrit. They didn't translate it. You still interested? It was by Yossi Melman, in Sunday's paper.
Chickens have come home to roost for Bubba
joezan -
Yes, it would be more inconvenient in many ways if those two were publicly brought to heel, particularly in the case of bin Laden. I've already heard at least one report of the 'flying dutchman' possibility I predicted.
Repeated offers by the Sudan of intelligence on bin Laden and his associates, including their whereabouts on several occasions were obdurately ignored by the Clowntoon administration.
His 'targets' were far too narrowly defined as bin Laden and a few of his top associates with no effective coupling to the Taliban regime.
Over and over, the WP article repeats the refrain from the Clowntoon administration of never enough intelligence, too indecisive, insufficient planning, excuses found to do nothing but throw away credibility by uttering repeated empty threats.
The only time action was taken, as
ineffective and inappropriate as it was, is when it gave domestic political cover to x42 during the impeachment process, with the additional undesirable effects of further emboldening Al Qaeda and increasing the intrasigency of the Taliban government.
Actually, the Russians have turned out to be largely right all along about the Chechen terrorists... That doesn't excuse the devastation in Grozny, but it does mean that the West can no longer quite so reflexively moralizing about the Russian war.
I see you've come around to my viewpoint on the issue.
Unfortunately, I don't do Ivrit well enough to read more than the label on a jar of tehine. My Hebrew dictionary is also woefully out of date.
They sound like they think whatever they're singing about is very profound.
Ando - I love you. How you could figure out that these two think they're profound is beyond me. But they do - you're right. It's part of the problem I have with this whole country, though. Everybody thinks they are hot. Sometimes it makes me understand Hamas a bit more. I guess there are extenuating circumstances: a deep-seated insecurity, maybe... but still, there is something unbearable and stupid and provincial and, mostly, angering about this arrogance.
Etty Ankri and David D'Or are both from North African Jewish families. They belong to the more intellectual (for lack of a better word) stream of Israeli pop music. To the extent that Ankri does ethnic stuff, it is quite self-awaredly ethnic. They are somewhat avant garde in some of the things they do, Ankri and D'Or. They are played on Army Radio every bit as often as any other 'Western' pop artist and are not particularly popular with the masses in Bat Yam and Or Yehuda, who prefer truly Mediterranean artists like Zehava Ben and Sarit Hadad.
Ankri is an actress turned songwriter-singer, who thought she was queen of Israel for a while, but her record sales were very poor last time she recorded an album. D'Or has a unique voice that I find pleasant and he is a professional singer, with less pretense to be anything but that.
What are the lyrics? The only song of theirs I have heard played often on the radio is 'Lolita'.
Given that partisan atmosphere, the Clinton administration had to make damn sure that that Bin Laden was killed or not attempt anything at all. Given how intelligence is collected and processed, that was a virtually impossible task.
Had the cruise missile attack in Afghanistan succeeded, I would have been amused to see how some would have attempted a negative spin on that.
Had the Republicans given the Clinton administration a small fraction of the support that Bush is getting now, it is possible that Bin Laden might have been "disrupted" before 9/11.
I do not think that Concerned and PoJ are capable of anything approaching a rational review of Clinton's efforts against terrorism and Bin Laden. What they post should be considered as partisan nonsense.
Is there any other way to consider it???
The Pak military is said to be securing the border as best they can, but one wonders if a single senior Taliban leader or Al Qaeda member has been handed over to US authorities. My guess is not, and that the Pakis and Afghans who've crossed are being simply allowed to blend back into the populace.
The US will naturally put pressure on Musharraf to mount some kind of military campaign in the FATA and perhaps clamp a kind of military rule in the Peshawar area. I think Musharraf can manage this without too many problems, but any kind of truly effective routing-out campaign is not in the capability of the Pak army.
Enter the US. The next few weeks are going to be interesting indeed. I've predicted martial law for Pakistan and a wholescale purge by Mushrarraf -but this will come at immense political cost, perhaps one that he now cannot pay even if he wanted to. Certainly, if he doesn't pay he will have the US beating him with every stick they have (they have considerable leverage), but if he does he will unleash a discontent that will see him out of office, possibly violently.
The nukes, and now the presence of the Taliban and Al Qaeda guarantee close US involvement, by force or by invitation. Very, very, tough scenario for the Pakistanis - and to top it off you have India rumbling on the other main border.
Interesting. The two guests were Mansoor Ijaz, the ubiquitous Paki-American who seems to be a fervent Musharraf man, and Haroon Amin - the NA reprsentative in the US.
The audience was almost shut out of discussion, as these two went at each other wholescale. Amin is gung-ho, alomst licking his chops, about sticking it to the Pakistanis - pointing out the long government and ISI ties to the Taliban, claiming that the top tier of Taliban are all in Pakistan, calling for total military cooperation from Musharraf in an Afghan-like war on the extremists, playing up the NA cooperation.
Ijaz played defense for a while, claiming that Pakistan was doing its best, slandering the NA for various things, and saying that if the NA had info about Taliban in Pakistan it was being irresponsible for not handing it over. But he lost his cool a little, virtually calling Amin a liar.
These two guys obviously have some real animosity for each other, as the NA and the Pakis clearly do. Not news, but interesting to see even in this rarified total-PR session.
Gen. Rashid Quereshi said the confrontation erupted as more than two dozen prisoners were being transferred to a jail in northern Pakistan. After the prisoners seized weapons from their captors and opened fire, their van overturned.
--
Security officials blocked roads leading to the area from Peshawar, the largest city in northeastern Pakistan. Authorities in Parachinar, near where the incident occurred, said they had no immediate details.
But a local Pakistani journalist in Parachinar said the prisoners of war were among 250 fleeing al-Qaida members, driven from the Tora Bora area, who were arrested Tuesday while trying to cross the border into the Kurram semiautonomous, tribally administered area, 200 miles west of Peshawar, near the White Mountains.
--
After the firefight, at least 42 prisoners made off in four vans, the journalist said, and tribal security officials and soldiers went after them, catching six. The rest remained at large, with helicopters involved in the search.
Pakistan has poured helicopter gunships and thousands of soldiers into the tribal areas along the border and set up 300 checkpoints to cut off escape routes from the Tora Bora area, which al-Qaida fighters fled in the face of relentless U.S. airstrikes and a ground assault by Afghan tribal fighters backed by U.S. and British special forces.
Pakistan earlier said it had arrested at least 88 fighters fleeing Tora Bora, including 38 on Saturday.
Captured Taliban and al-Qaida fighters have been reported to have crossed into Pakistan, allegedly with the help of Afghan tribal elders and, in some cases, Pakistani officials. Pakistan has denied the allegations.
He was born in Florida and grew up in North Carolina, as I recall from a brief biography I saw online. He's some kind of international businessman turned consultant. Looks South Asian, but he is very much American.
Nothing unusual about that, of course. The same can be said of the Americans Dinesh D'Souza or (in this context) Fareed Zakaria. The last is an upmarket, better-assimilated, version of Ijaz.
Wombat -
I see you do not really deal with the substance of what I posted on the effete posturing of the Clowntoon administration in relation to terrorism. To attempt to excuse the x42 adminstration's inertness wrt international terrorism on the basis of the fear of a potential 'spectre' of Republican censure really seems to me to be actually more damning of the Clowntoon administration than anything I posted on the matter.
As far as Stostosto goes, he merely displays, once again, that he is emotionally committed to disparage anything I post, regardless of merit.
Kumbayah, indeed.
I posted a similar observation weeks ago, to similar reactions as seen here now.
Marj,
Amin and another Pakistani representative (maybe the same Ijaz, I don't recall) were on CNN a while back and it was the same. They could hardly have a dialogue at all.
I deny the validity of such a statement, which is nothing more than a cheap attempt at passing the buck.
I'm sorry, but to excuse Republican partisanship's role in what you call the Clinton administration's
"inert" response to the threat is at variance with the facts. Almost every Clinton action involving the threat or use of force was heavily criticized by the Republicans, in addition to the usual coterie of left-wing Democrats. With bipartisan support, the latter could be ignored. Clinton never got that.
There was certainly a hesitance to use force, particularly when Christopher was Sec State, which I criticized at the time. Like his successor, Clinton was not particularly interested in foreign policy issues when he took office, and this abetted Christopher's passivity.
The advantage that Bush has compared to Gore in the response to 9/11, is that the Republicans are not going to undercut him, and most Democrats have provided a level of bipartisan support that speaks very well of them. If Gore had been President when 9/11 took place, I suspect he would have carried out policies similar to that of Bush, but the Republicans would not have been supportive. This speaks badly of the Republican party's patriotism, although I am sure you would not recognize this.
If Bin Laden had been killed in 1999 or 2000, would we have had to do what we are doing now? He may be an irrelevancy now, because we "burned his house down" around him rather than shooting him through his bedroom window. Would Al Quaeda have been able to operate without Bin Laden? We'll never know, thanks to the very narrow constraints that Clinton had to work under, due in large part to Republican partisanship that failed to understand the threat that Bin Laden posed.
You were managing in your response until you attempted to portray Repubicans' patriotism negatively over an unsupportable hypothesis in the third paragraph.
Would Sudan have wanted normalized relations? Would they want to be removed from the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism?
You can bet that had Clinton responded positively to Sudan, the Republicans would have hooted and hollered about the Clinton administration's dealing with a regime that persecuted christians, etc., etc.
What about the hypothesis is unsupportable? Gore winning? The Republican's managing to control their partisanship?
It falls to me to point out that the objections to Cruise Missile Clowntoon's CM attacks on the Sudan and Afghanistan were quite bipartisan, and largely because of their ineffectiveness.
Read this link and its related links. (I know Corkery personally and he's a good guy, so this isn't bullshit on his part.)
It's insupportable because the Republicans practice the concept of the 'loyal opposition' much better than the Democrats, who tend toward the selfish and irrelevant, do.
Loyal jagoff
Wag the dog...Kosovo...don't wipe UR butt with your middle finger
How "unpatriotic" of them! 
I wonder whether PE feels that this possibility is one to be seriously concerned about?
All stations now flocking to Stanford Medical School Plastic Surgeons and doin stories on those neato computer programs that show you what they can do for your looks....upshot, Pakistan has more than adequate medical facilities to turn OBL into someone even his momma won't recognize in about 5 hr operation.....
Don't cry for me Argentina!
Well, at least we'll have done some more nation=building
As far as Stostosto goes, he merely displays, once again, that he is emotionally committed to disparage anything I post, regardless of merit.
When you post something with merit I'll be the first to commend you. I actually already did over in International.
I am emotionally committed to the betterment of concerned's postings, you see. It's all for your own good.
It is easy for armchair strategists such as ourselves to criticize government actions or lack thereof ex post facto. Given how terrorists and governments operate against each other, most preemptive actions do not even see the light of day unless there are arrests or attacks.
Should counter-terrorism have been first priority in the Clinton administration's domestic security and international policies? I would argue that it should not have been; just as I would argue the same for the Bush administration prior to 9/11.
It is easy to say yes in hindsight, particularly if one is a rabid partisan such as yourself. Could the Clinton administration have done more? Of course, in retrospect.
However, most presidents have other foreign policy interests as well. Clinton was committed to trying to find a workable settlement to the Palestinian-Israeli problem. He came very close. He also came around to the idea of projecting US force to end conflicts elsewhere (with minimal Republican support). Can you argue that counterterrorism should have taken a higher priority?
Before 9/11, President Bush's foreign policy interests appeared limited to abandoning international agreements and making nice with Mexico's president (in order to woo the Hispanic vote). If counter-terrorism had a place on his foreign policy agenda, it certainly did not rank as high as it did under Clinton.
WP: "The Taliban had been driven from power, but almost all its top leaders remain at large."
We may not have Al Queda and may never have Osama but one hella loya jirga
Do let us know when you add anything coherent.
For this we can all be grateful this Christmas Season
Afghan on Bush Staff Eyed as Envoy to Kabul
The Bush administration is turning to the highest-ranking Afghan -- and highest-ranking Muslim -- in the government to become the first post-war ambassador to Afghanistan.
Zalmay Khalilzad, who was born in Mazar-e Sharif and works for the National Security Council, is expected to be tapped for the key job once the interim Afghan government is sworn in Saturday, according to senior administration officials.
Khalilzad would be the first full ambassador posted to Afghanistan in more than a decade. He would replace U.S. special envoy James F. Dobbins.
An ethnic Pashtun, Khalilzad has not lived in Afghanistan since 1971, but is respected by many leaders among the ethnic and religious groups and tribes, according to Afghan sources.
Khalilzad played a critical behind-the-scenes role during the Bonn summit that established a new Afghan government this month. "He worked incredibly hard, along with Dobbins, and made a big difference at important moments of the talks," said a U.S. official involved in the diplomatic effort.
The Economist
And he doesn't have Osama either who I understand is enjoying hunting at Poppy's club in Beeville TX this holiday season
Excerpt:
The survey by the Pew Research Centre, the Princeton Survey Research Associates and the International Herald Tribune newspaper, was conducted among 275 people of influence in politics, media, business and culture.
Forty of them were in the United States, while 235 were in 23 other countries, and they were asked to reflect the views of their compatriots.
In America, only 18 per cent considered that "US policies and actions in the world" were seen as a main cause of the attacks. Elsewhere, that rose to 58 per cent, and to 81 per cent in the Middle East and the area around Afghanistan.
While 70 per cent of the Americans questioned believed that the United States was seen to be considering its partners' interests, an almost identical proportion elsewhere said that Washington was seen as acting unilaterally.
All the Americans felt that no one would regard the US as having overreacted to the terrorist attacks. By contrast, 40 per cent of those interviewed elsewhere reckoned the war was seen as an overreaction, a figure rising to 60 per cent in the Islamic world. Only minorities, even in Europe, thought their people would support the anti-terrorist offensive being extended to countries such as Iraq and Somalia.
But the most interesting themes that emerged were a barely disguised resentment at America's massive power in the world, and a gulf between Americans' views of how the world sees them and the world's actual feelings.
From its closest allies, in Europe, to the Middle East, Russia and Asia, a uniform 70 per cent said people considered it good that after 11 September Americans had realised what it was to be vulnerable.
As usual, they piss and moan about American power while simultaneously whining that we don't use it to their benefit often enough.
Allah Be Praised!
Ahem.
That's hardly contradictory.
I think for instance that it was a typical example of American narrow-mindedness and denial when Bush declared that the terrorists "hate our freedoms". All indications are that what they hate is American presence in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia.
Now, there are good reasons for the American presence there, but perhaps these will have to be explained rather than to replace the issue with brain-dead wishy-washy self-promoting rhetoric.
that is two issues. I would agree that America is seen as imposing itself commercially (Coca-Cola, McDonald's, Hollywood, Madonna) as well as militarily, and that this is perceived by many as a threat to local culture on many levels. This mechanism is very well known in Europe as well, as the heroic and almost officially celebrated Frenchman Monsieur Bové's attacks on a McDonald's outlet testifies.
But regarding whether the rejection of Western freedoms is "a major factor in why Islamic nations in the Middle East lag behind other countries", that is a highly simplistic and view.
Virtually all of the fastest growing economies in the world over the last three-four decades have had highly illiberal authoritarian regimes during most of that time - some still do, like China.
Speaking of which, Bush's move yesterday to freeze the assets of Lakshar-E-Taiba is an interesting move. The group has no assets within the purview of the US, and probably none in the UAE (which has been cooperating recently) either. What they do have, lock stock and barrel, is solid standing in Pakistan.
The move now, no doubt, will be to get Musharraf to go after them, even as he scrambles to show the Yanks that he's being tough on the Al Qaeda troops who've entered his country. For now, there is nothing about the Taliban top tier which is almost certainly in his territory as well.
But Musharraf simply can't go after them, for reasons of domestic politics. It's be the straw that throws his government into martial law. The next few weeks will be very interesting, especially if Lakshar acts again.
Of course, but those authoritarian regimes (China, Singapore, etc.) have liberalized economically, which is itself a Western liberal tenet.
My own bias is that without liberalizing socially as well, they will reach a wall, but it's still early in the game.
And btw, I see nothing in Islam that is inherently inimicable to liberalizing both economically and socially. I just wish they would get on with it.
Excerpt:
With his latest actions, particularly naming Lashkar-e-Taiba as a terrorist group, Mr. Bush appears to be pushing the Pakistani leader toward even greater political hazards. Kashmir is a far more sensitive issue for most of Pakistan's 140 million Muslims than the fate of the Taliban.
"What Bush is demanding now is that Musharraf make the biggest U- turn yet," a former official with close links to the government said.
"It places the general in an even more difficult position than he was in after Sept. 11, because what he's been told this time is that he has to abandon the militant aspects of the Kashmir liberation struggle — and that's an issue that is much closer to the hearts of most people in Pakistan than the survival of the Taliban, which mattered a lot to the Islamic militants and to their sympathizers in the army high command, but not nearly so much to ordinary Pakistanis."
Placing a terrorism brand on Ummah Tameer-e-Nau, a group founded by a retired Pakistani nuclear weapons scientist, was another kind of shock from the Bush administration. Senior Pakistani officials said Mr. Bush, with the blunt wording of today's announcement, was as much as accusing General Musharraf of lying in his government's repeated statements that the group was involved in relief work in Afghanistan and had nothing to do with nuclear weapons.
General Musharraf appears to have been told that Pakistan, after more than 50 years of battling India over Kashmir, must now abandon the armed struggle there, and rely henceforth on political means of confronting India. The question now is whether the general will comply, and whether he can carry Pakistan's masses with him if he does.
ust to puncture our hypocrisy for a moment: We've been battling terrorism by bolstering backers of terrorism in Pakistan.
Pakistan, our new ally in the war on terrorism, has a long history of supporting indiscriminate attacks in India and especially Kashmir. The latest, headline-grabbing attack was the assault on the Parliament building in New Delhi that now threatens war between two nuclear powers, but many thousands of civilians have been killed over the years by Pakistani-financed terrorist organizations.
All in all, Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, or I.S.I., is responsible for many more killings than Osama bin Laden.
I disagree with his conclusion - that this hypocrisy is okay and expedient. But the tone is just right.
Pakistan, after so many wrong turns in its history, has tentatively taken a right one in the last few months. Now it must build on that by clamping down on its own terrorists. And, whatever the stench of blood in Islamabad, we Americans must hold our noses and do all we can to help General Musharraf hold his course.
Exterminate the Pathans.
Using that standard, America is under a constant assault from commercial imposition of other countries. We've got Afghan restaurants, Korean barbecue, Chinese delis, Mexican brands of cheese--My God, it's cultural terrorism!
By what logic is it imposition for us to put McDonalds in other countries--largely successful endeavors, I might add--but admirable entrepreneurialism for other countries to export their product to us?
I don't know if I agree that the terrorists "hate our freedoms". I think they hate us because we're rich. But it's idiotic to assert that "indications" are that they hate American presence in the Middle East. Americans--including the military--have been in the Mid East for 50 years and it never bothered anyone, including bin Laden. It wasn't until he felt personally ready to fight his own battles that he got pissy about American military presence.
You would do well to consider whether it might not be idiotic to assume terrorists have anything approaching intellectual integrity.
Plus, I'm pretty sure MickeyD's doesn't allow its foreign employees to sleep on their storage room floors, as foreign restaurant owners here in the US do.
No, I don't equate Pakistan with Pathans. But it is impossible not to notice that Pathans are equated with terrorism, in both Pakistan and Afghanistan. The war(s) to eliminate terrorism from both countries are becoming ever more clearly defined as wars against Pathans. The US, Pakistan and India are all targetting them specifically.
It may have escaped you that Hamid Karzai is Pathan, and that several members of his cabinet are as well. The King of Afghanistan is a Pathan - the world is supporting all of them.
The comments about India and Pakistan are similarly rubbish, god knows where you're getting the material to misinterpret in this manner.
None of this takes away from the fact that the Pathans are a dreadful lot of tribal savages, of course.
He's just a bandaid the UN slapped on the gaping wound left by the dispersal of the Taliban back into the general Pathan population.
Two prominent lawmakers called yesterday for the creation of an independent bipartisan commission to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks as momentum builds in Congress for a full accounting of the institutional and individual lapses that may have allowed the terrorists to succeed.
Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) said the panel -- equipped with subpoena powers and professional staff -- would investigate the role of intelligence agencies, foreign policy and law enforcement before recommending structural changes to prevent a recurrence.
WPost
The Helmand
430 Broadway, between Kearny & Montgomery Streets (362 0641)
Bus 12, 15, 30, 41, 83. Dinner served 5.30-10pm Mon-Thur, Sun; 5.30-11pm Fri, Sat. Average $20. Credit AmEx, MC, V.
The Helmand consistently appears on lists of recommended eateries, partly because the city has so few Afghani restaurants, but also because the food is inexpensive and deliciously aromatic. Its cooking is influenced by India, Asia and the Middle East; marinades and fragrant spices give each dish a unique character. The pumpkin ravioli with a leek sauce, when available, is exquisite, as is koufta challow, a dish of tender lamb meatballs in a cinnamon-spiked tomato sauce. The pleasantly formal dining room belies the reasonable prices on the menu.
Damn Wiz... I thought I saw her on Castro street last night....
LOL!
By what logic is it imposition for us to put McDonalds in other countries--largely successful endeavors, I might add--but admirable entrepreneurialism for other countries to export their product to us?
That's an interesting question. My own tentative idea is that while Americans are devoted to the "American way of life" they are much more ready to redefine the definition of what it is than Europeans are of their way of life.
At the same time it should be made clear that France is not representative of Europe at large but rather an extreme case. Over here there is very little talk of American cultural imperialism other than from stalwart leftist survivors from the 70s.
Interesting to note that terrorists are forced to use their own money or live off of crime in the US. But in Europe:
According to Lawrence Mead, Europe is about a "generation behind the US in confronting the social problems that are created when a discriminated-against group becomes dependent on state aid."
Black people aren't immigrants (for the most part). That said, they don't become terrorists.
But ignore blacks for the moment and compare the differences between our treatment of Arab, African, and Hispanic immigrants and that in Europe. With the exception of some of the Hispanic population, we don't get immigrants who thrive for generations on welfare.
Usama bin Laden finds that the promised virgins are not precisely what he expected.
Hey, jex & CD, when can I expect your conversions to Islam?
So how did they get there? And haven't they "thrived for generations on welfare" or at least since welfare benefits were extended to them?
ignore blacks for the moment
It's a very convenient line of argument, isn't it? I remember a discussion with ranheim where I pointed out that although the US spends more than any other OECD country on health care it has lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality than most. His reply was along the line of "yes, but if you ignore the blacks ...".
What has income growth from welfare benefits to do with the subject under discussion?
But that's largely the point. Once the US realized that longterm welfare recipients (primarily black) were a real problem, they moved to address the issue. Not perfectly, obviously. I'd rather they change the reward system for having kids. But that's another matter. The assertion is that Europe is a generation behind the US in making that realization.
So how did they get there?
Involuntarily. But centuries ago. They are native born Americans. Europe doesn't grant citizenship readily, as I understand it, and thus they have first, second, and third generation immigrants who come to the countries solely for welfare benefits--or at least many of them. The issue is whether this is an environment that encourages terrorism. They have no need to find jobs, and plenty of time to feel resentment.
Do men and women get welfare benefits? This isn't true in the US, where only women with children get benefits, and even those are limited. Otherwise you have to be on some sort of disability.
His reply was along the line of "yes, but if you ignore the blacks ...".
It is entirely relevant when comparing the US to Europe in many areas. But in this case, I was saying "ignore blacks" because Europeans don't really have a similar population to compare to, and because the issue was whether generous unquestioning welfare causes terrorism by giving angry resentful populations an easy living that gives them plenty of time to resent their underlying problems.
The US doesn't do this and, as a result, there don't seem to be a lot of angry immigrant populations living solely off of welfare--much less fomenting terrorism. Europe seems to have this problem. That's the question.
I said nothing of income growth from welfare benefits. But I probably wasn't clear. You were implying that Americans don't have their act together as far as black Americans and welfare go. I first said it's not a valid comparison--and I stand by that.
But even if you use them as a comparison, I started thinking. What percentage of African American children born to parents on welfare grow up to be on welfare? What percentage of African Americans are on welfare at all? And how do these stats compare to European immigrants who apparently show up to live on welfare?
I will check to see whether African Americans on welfare have more income growth than European immigrant populations living on welfare.
CalGal Message # 18128
I said nothing of income growth from welfare benefits.
I see your latest posts as a desperate backtracking from an ill-considered opinion. I will let it, and you, rest in peace.
???
I don't backtrack, and I'm not backtracking here. Your question implied that I suspect immigrants of profiting off of welfare--no doubt because you Europeans are a tad limited in your knowledge of the American debate about welfare. Rest assured, that's an 80s debate and it's certainly not one I bother with or even support.
So I'm not backing off of anything. I restated because it seemed obvious you misunderstood. If you had some other "hint" in mind, do let me know.
This has nothing to do with the actual assertion on the table, of course. Namely, European countries are doing a small line in state sponsored terrorism by providing them with generous welfar benefits. We Americans make them work (ie, steal) or use their actual money.
Second idea on the table: Europeans seem to be well behind the Americans in understanding the problems inherent in letting populations become dependent on state aid.
Your grammar and spelling are breaking down under the stress of backtracking while denying backtracking.
Good night from chilly Stockholm.
>The US says its warplanes have attacked a convoy of vehicles in eastern Afghanistan believed to be carrying leaders of the Taleban or Osama Bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror network.
>But another report says the planes mistakenly bombed a convoy of Afghan tribal chiefs heading for the capital, Kabul, for Saturday's inauguration of the new interim administration.
This kind of shit isn't accidental.
>Several Afghan elders, tribal chiefs and commanders were among the victims of the killings," Sayed Yaqeen, an official of the Paktia tribal council, was quoted as saying.
>BBC Washington correspondent Stephen Sackur says that if this version of events proves to be true, it will represent a severe embarrassment for the Pentagon.
Actually, they will brush it off with a shrug.
I think you will see some serious ethnic cleansing of Pathans in the near future.
I wasn't backtracking from anything; my original statement was the same as my first. But since lies seem to be more your style these days, I don't find your posts surprising.
fuck. wrong messageboard. no edit.
marjoribanks, msg num=18132 is 4 U.
BRRRRR!
Take film as an example. Italy has had a very modern and influential film industry for years. They even managed to export films in an American genre in the US in general release not so long ago. Much of our sound technique originates with Italian innovation. Editing conventions we take for granted come from Russian, German as well as American film. What is the American response? Use it and incorporate the best techniques into American style film. We have no exaggerated notion of Americanism as a static character, but as an evolving one. Static culture societies in such an enviroment can either isolate themselves, or strike back to try to end evolving societies.
Terrorists don't hate our freedom out of some sense of envy that they are not Americans, they want a static known culture to be established with absolute knowable and unchanging norms. They hate American influence on their own nation and culture. Anything unfavorable in their nation or culture is presumed to have an American origin.
American presence in the Middle East. Americans--including the military--have been in the Mid East for 50 years and it never bothered anyone, including bin Laden.
That's two pieces of news to me. The CIA helped topple Mozadeq in Iran in 1956 or something. It's a stretch to call that military presence. But it's an even greater stretch to say "it never bothered anyone", to put it mildly. Did the Iranians bother with Americans in their revolution in 1979?
Where else was US military present without bothering anyone in the Mideast? Lebanon 1983? Libya 1986? Gulf War 1980-88 (where Kuwaiti ships sailed under American flag protected by US Navy)?
Kuwait 1990?
Where were the Americans when Nasser seized the Suez Canal? Weren't it Israelis, British and French that intervened? (Did that bother anyone, btw?).
You would do well to consider whether it might not be idiotic to assume terrorists have anything approaching intellectual integrity.
I assume they are fanatics, which pretty much precludes intellectual integrity. That means they will gladly rail against their perceived enemies, whether their complaints can be supported or not. But I submit their railings tend to deal with infidel military power and oppression of Muslims, not the political and social freedoms that Americans are blessed with in their own society.
They may well be motivated also by the poor man's feeling of inferiority to the rich, as you also cite. But Bush wouldn't say so because that, if you notice, is essentially the leftist argument that the roots of terrorism lie in poverty.
Finally, we go so far as to remake tons of well made films from other countries or re-tell their stories with our own twist. American film is often not high a quality art, but great craftsmanship.
Stos - sometimes you're more polite than I am.
Don't feel the rich/poor analogy is very applicable to Al Qaeda since many of them were/are relatively well educated and well off. The Afghanis are relatively poor by comparison, but glad to be rid of these fanatics.
When we were exploring for oil, setting up partnerships with local governments and national companies for production and distribution of oil products and building industry startups from the profits, we were popular. When we put pressure on the colonial powers not to reoccupy their previous positions following WWII we were damn popular. Now that the societies have failed to mature with the economies and technology, we suck.
Rising expectations have continued while the economies are not able to keep up, and the societies have been stagnant.
Danish movies and TV programs are the most popular ones in Denmark. French movies and TV programs are the most popular ones in France. British movies and TV programs are the most popular ones in Britain. Japanese movies and TV programs are the most popular ones in Japan. German movies and TV programs are the most popular ones in Germany. Etc. etc. etc.
But none of them are very popular outside their home markets. America enjoys a massive advantage in its sheer market size and the fact that English is the second language everywhere. It's economies of scale first, second and third. Then it's an undeniable knack for appealing to mass audiences. (Hollywood movies are often not particularly "American", but rather use an abundance of visual effects and a vocabulary of staple universal emotion grippers lest anybody any culture specific subtlety should go right over the audience's heads). Then it's the money to attract talent from all over the world - again a function of scale advantage.
Which is not the same as quality.
American oil companies are not American military presence. Besides, the oil business was generally nationalised in the sixties leading to OPEC's strength in 1973. Why nationalise it if the foreigners were that popular?
What are the two pieces?
But I submit their railings tend to deal with infidel military power and oppression of Muslims, not the political and social freedoms that Americans are blessed with in their own society.
Track with me, Sto: you said Bush made an assertion. You then made a counter-assertion. I have not said that Bush's assertion is correct; in fact I've said I don't agree with it. It doesn't make your assertion about American military presence any more accurate.
Terrorism against America began long after the American military showed up in the Middle East; they've been there since the beginning and were welcomed. There was a military base in Dharhran through the 60s and 70s when I lived in Saudi Arabia and yet Osama seemed not to be fussed by it.
Thus your counter-assertion is as full of shit as Bush's is.
Bullshit. "Quality" is not only a film's critical success--and never mind the fact that American entertainment wins out there much of the time as well.
But nonetheless, you seem to be conceding the point. We are successful overseas because we make an incredibly popular product, not because we have some need to force it down your throats.
You also haven't answered my main point--why is it that you accuse Americans of "cultural imposition" while admiring the entrepreneurial efforts of successful European imports to America?
Well, I should ask instead what basis you use other than jealousy, pique, and pissiness. Something that suggests a modicum of logical consistency is what I was looking for.
I have no quarrel with the point that European welfare systems and societies are ill suited to handle large contingents of ethnic strangers who feel alienated, and whom the locals tend to want excluded from their normal environment as much as possible, nor that the American system does much better in this respect.
I am beginning to think that a high level of welfare benefits (and taxes) requires a level of social cohesion and feeling of commonality that is hard to achieve in large and heterogenous countries. This is one major reason the European welfare model is under strain, I think.
I think you are correct on the welfare association. Contrary to Pelle's intimations, I had no agenda in making that post. I first read it right before I posted it and it seemed like a very interesting correlation. I don't mean to suggest that all state welfare should be done away with. But I do think that the European model has some serious flaws, and these flaws are being exposed both by the immigrant dependence on that welfare as well as the current anti-immigrant bent that is found in a lot of European countries these days (like Denmark, as you've discussed).
I have never said anything about having it forced down our throats. I didn't even endorse the line at all, I said America was seen to impose itself commercially. And I maintain that the "incredibly popular product" that America produces is invariably second to the most popular local products. Whatever quality it does have is largely a function of economies of scale, as I said.
You also haven't answered my main point--why is it that you accuse Americans of "cultural imposition" while admiring the entrepreneurial efforts of successful European imports to America?
I haven't done that. You brought that up.
Yes, you did. But the question still stands. Why do you offer this as a reason when it clearly doesn't stand up to close inspection?
Ditto with the "admiring" bit. I think I've read that from you in the past, but I'll accept that you're offering this as the reasoning of others.
Why do you offer it as a reason when it clearly fails to pass this simple test? Why do people eagerly export their culture to America for material gain and yet get angry when we do the same?
And I maintain that the "incredibly popular product" that America produces is invariably second to the most popular local products.
Being second best everywhere is still "incredibly popular". Does Denmark manage as much?
I was trying to explain a hostile attitude, not justify it. And, as Pelle notes, hostility is actually largely gone in Europe. When I grew up, America was a real bogeyman, I tell you.
Why do people eagerly export their culture to America for material gain and yet get angry when we do the same?
Could it be that you're big and proliferate everywhere and we're small and struggle to be noticed?
Hahaha!
No, it's being incredibly, consistently second best! But making a bundle out of it.
That, btw, is something that I've maintained is the case for a long time. With a relatively fractionated society, the various cultural groups will tend to act in opposition to other groups (and the society's as a whole) interests. Which is why some cultural commonality is important to have both social services and an economically competitive society.
This is also something that most Lefties are a very long way from grasping, conceptually, and a great reason to deride many of their more fatuous suggestions.
Are you serious? That's just silly. Well, actually, it's provincial. I'm surprised at you, Sto.
I was trying to explain a hostile attitude, not justify it.
But that's not an explanation, since it isn't based on reality. Better to say, "These people are idiots and have a skewed world view in which everything America does is wrong."
Don't forget that, either.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Friday offered U.S. military support to foreign nations struggling to rout out terrorists and predicted that ``next year will be a war year.''
No, you earnest Californian you. Sheesh.
Cal: But that's not an explanation, since it isn't based on reality.
Um, you mean attitudes are always based on reality? And if they're not, i.e. some aspect of reality is at odds with that attitude, then they can't be explained, but only be understood as idiocy?
I'll remember that in case - just in case - one day some American displays some hostile attitude towards others which is not completely founded in solid, demonstrable reality.
Of course, I am happy to say, that is really hard to conceive of.
For those of you who avoid the mediocre food and touristy crowds of North Beach, Helmand might be reason enough to give the neighborhood another shot. Not particularly noticeable among the ubiquitous Garlic! Garlic! Garlic! restaurants and neon-signed sex shops, Helmand offers well-executed Afghan food perfect for a special night out or just a casual post-work meal.
Helmand's dining room is large but cozy, with dark heavy furniture and chairs that look lifted from an old-fashioned hotel lobby. White tablecloths and lantern candles break up the space and give each table an intimate feel. The comfortable but slightly formal effect is marred only by the tacky National Geographic posters depicting Afghan life that line the walls.
With influences from India and Persia, the food at Helmand is hearty, but elegant. Every meal begins with a basket of warm unleavened naan served with a trio of sauces: cilantro-vinegar, yogurt-cucumber, and spicy red pepper. The tart, cooling, and piquant tastes of these sauces reflect the deft combination of flavors in each of Helmand's dishes....
Mahmood Karzai Rox! Ready for your next LoyaJirga meal
Anthony Pidgeon
A River Runs Through It: The Helmand presents its Afghan fusion in a room reminiscent of the private banquet hall of some reclusive foreign despot.
A bearded, turbaned fellow passes silently through a back room. You see an elaborate, uncomfortable-looking Afghan costume aging slowly behind glass.
Or rather, you're probably assuming that's an Afghan costume, because chances are you don't know dick about Afghanistan, or even what a Helmand is. And then, a step closer to the kitchen, it hits you: the amazingly sultry smell of lamb. Lamb shanks baked with raisins, glazed carrots, and long, slender, chewy grains of rice laced with cardamom, cinnamon, nutmeg, and cumin seeds; grilled leg of lamb sautéed with yellow split peas; charbroiled kebabs of marinated lamb; steamed leg of lamb sautéed with vinegar; chunks of lamb sautéed with spinach and "Afghan seasonings." "Afghan seasonings" can mean just about anything given Afghanistan's location on the old Silk Road, at the heart of Asia, a land traversed by merchants, nomads, and figures of history such as Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, the poet-Mogul Babur, and the ruthless, warmongering Persian Nadir Shah.....
SF Weekly
Great picture of President Bush at the Olympic torch ceremony this morning at the White House. morning.
He really does look like/act like a Texan cowboy.
Mullah or Cowboy or First Shrink?
Be thee Vulcan or be thee human Rose?
The bombing in Afghanistan is just about done, but the war isn't over because Congress never declared war, which is difficult to understand. The Denver Post 
Before we ever went to war, President Bush said the war on terrorism would last many years - perhaps longer than a generation. I didn't hear anyone carping about it then (anyone who matters, anyway - even the Democrats in the House didn't complain).
Like I said - it's probably a good thing we didn't get bin Laden.
The big question is: are his dead eyes open, or shut?
We got a convoy of Afghans headed for a loya jirga party....Osama is in Argentina
Allah Be Praised!
A politicians dream! 
Classified CIA Photo of OBL Bungalow, Bora Bora
These are high standards...
Really - where do you get this shit, jex?
It was Noriega's own people that dubbed and called him Pineapple Face. I never once heard an American (except, of course, moi) refer to him as such.
These are high standards...
Free Manuel!
They pick us.
I mention this in case my former post was too flippant and might have been skipped as a result.
"Walker's unique in that he's the first American al Qaeda fighter that we have captured,"
Just two weeks ago, the president had described Walker as a "poor boy" who had been "misled, it appears to me."
I saw that and I'm surprised more people here haven't reacted to it. It shows the terrorist attacks against the U.S. haven't stopped, and that it must still maintain vigilance.
I'm happy to see the strong and immediate reaction from the American Airlines crew.
My own tentative idea is that while Americans are devoted to the "American way of life" they are much more ready to redefine the definition of what it is than Europeans are of their way of life.
Americans want to define what the "American way of life mean?
How cheeky!!!!
No wonder we are so hated.
What amazes me is the man was said to be an Arab with no luggage and carrying a passport which said his name was "Reid"...???? Where is the logic in not suspecting someone like that? Why wasn't he questioned further before being allowed to board?
You'd think if it was in the on-line story, the reporters live on air would be clued in a tad better than these appeared to be...
The reports I read said the man looked Arab, whatever than means. If he spoke great English, who knows. I have a couple of relatives with Tom, Dick, and Harry names who could pass for Arabs if they didn't open their mouths.
But your right about the luggage. That a man makes a cross-Atlantic flight by himself without luggage and no one bothers to take a closer look at the him or his passport worries me.
When I flew over Thanksgiving I saw little old ladies being frisked at random in the U.S. I suppose the French didn't think of checking shoes. Hopefully now they will. And thanks be to observant airline attendants.
I also wonder how many French airport personnel are, say, of Algerian birth? Or am I indulging in the dreaded vice of profiling there?
I think you are jumping to conclusions about what I said.
I was mostly trying to be funny. I probably failed, but I need the practice. lord knows I need the practice.
Arky,
I agree that the lack of luggage should have been a major red flag, and the shoes are a more forgivable oversight.
However, I'll note that last time I flew from Munich to Zurich, my luggage was x-rayed (no surprise), I went through the metal detector(no surprise), but, despite not triggering the metal detector, I was subjected to a body frisk that was remarkably through, down to the person pressing on my shoes firmly in several places to be sure there was nothing hidden. I've never encountered any US security quite this vigilant.
And I'm flubbergasted that neither the NYT nor Ynet seems to think it's the leading story of the day!
Well, I guess I'm just in a heightened state of...
fear
here. We've reached the point where my children are asking me what to do if a terrorist starts shooting into their classroom.
And waking up in the dark to the (now extra-amplified) muezzin calls in the surrounding villages every morning is a chilling way to start your day.
You see - they've managed to turn me from proud Israeli to trembling Jew. Our Council Head purposely provides no security, my wife prevents me from carrying firearms - what can I do except turn into a Jew?
When I flew over Thanksgiving I saw little old ladies being frisked at random in the U.S. I suppose the French didn't think of checking shoes. Hopefully now they will. And thanks be to observant airline attendants.
Flying to Omaha and back last weekend (the first flight any of our party has taken since 9-11), my dad was asked to remove his shoes so that they could be checked four times - me, three times. Of the six people in our party, everyone got the shoe check at least once.
My most disheartening moment? Right at the beginning of the trip, going through the metal detector in Grand Rapids. This old guy cuts the line - I mean OLD -like 80...hunched over, doing the geriatric shuffle. He's wearing some kind of uniform, and he tosses a little gym bag on the conveyor and walks right through to stand guard (gulp!) on the other side.
He turns around, and I can make out the words on his shiny brass badge: ARGENBRIGHT SECURITY
Maybe the guy led the charge on Omaha Beach on D-Day. Sometimes fighting spirit, alertness and leadership is more important than brawn.
I'm not exagerating - this guy looked too old to have been at Omaha Beach.
The incident, at the height of the holiday travel season, follows a warning on Dec. 11 by the Federal Aviation Administration to airlines and airport security personnel to be wary of the possibility that terrorists might try to put weapons in their shoes. "The directive talked about the possibility of terrorists carrying out hijackings in the U.S. or Europe over the holidays and one of the things mentioned was a concern that hijackers could conceal weapons in their shoes," said a Bush administration official. The official said the F.A.A. planned to issue a new warning on Sunday that security inspectors should be especially careful about possible weapons smuggled in shoes.
Okay, now how the hell did they know to warn about shoes?
This confirms two things I've been saying for a while:
a) Increased airport security doesn't do a damn bit of good. 9/11 created the only additional safety measure required: a vigilant and ever-ready passenger pool.
b) Racial profiling doesn't help at all. Terrorists aren't stupid; they aren't going to mark themselves as Arabs--or even Muslims--anymore.
There are about four statements in your post and they are all wrong.
Okay, now how the hell did they know to warn about shoes?
Either they had some specific information or they used their heads. Maybe they follow the WWTD thread.
Increased airport security doesn't do a damn bit of good.
Not when the security people and machines suck, no. But would the guy have gotten past security at Ben Gurion Airport?
9/11 created the only additional safety measure required: a vigilant and ever-ready passenger pool.
This was a stewardess who saved the day, not the passengers. Though they helped plenty in phase 2.
Racial profiling doesn't help at all.
The reports specifically said the guy looks Arab.
Congratulations to Lt. Joezansbrother!
(that's an even stranger name than Hyman Rickover, or Norman Schwartzkopf!)
Gallipoli then? 
IT'S RUDY!!! (a decent, diplomatic choice, imo).
Weird, huh?
If Giuliani was anything this year - he was a man.
Who da person?? Who da person??
Weird, but I've seen weirder.
For instance - I know you are wearing something with red circles on it.
Close.
...actually, it's ringworm.
George Salem, a Washington lawyer who chaired Arab Americans for Bush-Cheney 2000. Salem, a friend and major contributor to the president, also is raising money for Sununu.
Until recently, one of Salem's clients was the Texas-based Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. On Dec. 4, Bush ordered the foundation's assets frozen because it allegedly supports the Middle East terrorist group Hamas. WPost
Have they said where the plane was at the time the guy lit the match? Was he over New York City?
BTW...MSNBC had video of the guy being taken away in the backseat of a car - looked Middle Eastern to me. It was also reported his passport was a fake.
Pentagon officials initially described the 10 to 12 vehicles struck near the eastern city of Khowst late Thursday as carrying Taliban leaders. They dismissed reports from the region that the attack killed 65 supporters of the new Afghan government en route here for Saturday's inauguration.
LAT
They were probably paid off for safe passage by Taliban and al-Qaeda leaders, so screw 'em.
Are we supposed to mourn the loss of people who smuggle our enemies to safety?
Likewise, you should reserve your self righteousness.
What you say reflects just as much about you as what I say does about me, Joe...so don't wrap yourself in the "less" self rightous mantle so quickly.
You might want to learn the difference between a statement and a question. Asking how the hell they learned specifically about shoes is a question. It can't be incorrect or correct; the only issue is whether the answer is obvious. It is not yet obvious why there was a specific warning about shoes.
I wasn't talking about the measures taken in Israel because any solution that would require far fewer flights and several hours per security investigation "doesn't work" in any country with a real world flight schedule, unlike Israel's pretend schedule.
Flight attendants are always vigilant and as Judith points out, she would have noticed a lit match long before 9/11. It is unlikely that she could have counted on passenger participation before 9/11. So the new factor is the passenger vigilance. That said, I'll cheerfully add "crew awareness" to the list. The point is that it has nothing to do with increased security measures that add hours to flight prep time.
"Looks middle-eastern" and "racial profiling" are entirely different things. Calling for a program to give Arabs extra scrutiny will do no good if they have passports that say they aren't Arab. I said a few months ago that any terrorist with sense would just call himself Jose and evade all the additional scrutiny demanded.
So if the deal now is to give extra scrutiny to anyone with olive skin, dark hair, and brown eyes, fine. I think that goes beyond racial profiling into appearance profiling--you'd not profile a blonde, no matter where they were from? Or you'd profile blonde Arabs and dark-skinned Italian Americans--or Jews, for that matter. Hey, any security that makes you go through more shit can't be an entirely bad idea. I'll have to reconsider.
So in fact, none of my "statements" were incorrect, nor were they all statements. But keep trying.
They've turned Man of the Year into a do-gooder award. I understand the impulse, but the meaning of it was corrupted.
A 20-page Home Office document, in support of the Government?s claim that a Moroccan man should be kept in custody following his detention under the new anti-terrorism law, says: ?The presence of extremists at this time and for the foreseeable future creates a situation of public emergency threatening the life of the nation.?
The document, put before the court on behalf of David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, gives warning of the dangers of a ?devastating? nuclear attack, a strike on the London Underground using an explosive device, or from a biological or chemical weapon. It says that although the latter weapons would be likely to cause less immediate destruction, they would lead to widespread public alarm.
HMG Lists Terror Threats
[A]senior official said India has told the United States, Britain and the European Union that India has not ruled out crossing the so-called line of control into the portion of Kashmir controlled by Pakistan, where the militant Islamic groups that India wants banned have training camps and bases of operation.
"Whatever action we take across the line of control, if it comes to that, will be after full preparation and in the expectation that it will lead to a large-scale conflict," he said.
Terrorism is as Terrorism Does - NyT
My money is on Osama working as a yoga instructor in Brentwood.
You're such an arrogant American idiot, CruelGal. But I'm glad to see that you at least accept the fact that we do have airplanes in Israel, and don't just travel by camel.
Your theory about heightened security having been somehow proven to be unnecessary is one of the most idiotic things I've heard. Get this: French authorities said Reid had tried to board the same flight Friday but was turned away after raising suspicions.
In other words -the person, who looks like this
French police said the suspect -- who also goes by a third name, Abdel Rahim -- was given permission to board after intensive questioning, but by then had missed Friday's flight. He had only one small bag with him and said he was traveling to Antigua to visit relatives, police said.
(NYT)
yet has a passport with a British name, raised suspicions, was turned away from a previous flight, yet was able to board a new flight with explosives in his shoes. What is that but a classic case of crappy security? What are you but a classic case of arrogant moron?
If anything, when it comes to handling day to day terrorist threats, we have a lot to learn from Israel.
The guy on the left is Reid. The guy on the right is the FBI man, Mahmoud el Zibbi.
But I'm sure you knew that.
Mark my words, this will be the next 'in' terror weapon: little old ladies (not like your mom -she's young and posts on the internet!) with C4 in their bones. How would they detonate it, though, I wonder?
You're a MORON!!! 
The guy is a Sri Lankan named Tariq Raja. And you're right, Jen - this guy is BUTT-ugly!
Did CalGal actually come out and post that she thought extra security at airports was unnecessary because of this 'Reid' incident?
Sheesh.
To Reid's credit, it should be said that he probably looked a bit prettier before 100 passengers, including a 6'8" basketball player, stormed his butt.
The military buildup, described by officials on both sides as the biggest in years, comes as relations between the two nuclear-armed neighbors have slipped to their lowest point in decades"
Fire Up the Tandoor!
As the two nuclear powers edged closer to war, Pakistan accused India of detaining and beating up a member of its embassy staff in Delhi and India called on the United States to name and shame Pakistan as a “terrorist state”.
The Indian border guards were said to have died in the Samba sector of Kashmir. Several others were injured, the Indian Army said.
Pakistan said that its troops had fired in response to an “unprovoked” attack by Indian forces. Times of London
Lal Krishna Advani, the Indian Home Minister, who is No 2 in the Cabinet, told the Hindustan Times yesterday that he would ask the Bush Administration to identify Pakistan as a “terrorist state” when he visits Washington in January
He's so ugly it's almost silly. I can't help but nervously laugh.
The idea of blowing up myself (or maybe just my feet!) is something I cannot relate to. I simply do not understand the whole kamikaze/suicide terrorist mentality.
I wish Osama would blow himself up, though.
But as Martha says, that is a good thing, right?
To promote the legislation on Capitol Hill, the president is holding a Three Stooges Film Festival the week of January 14th at the White House. Said the president, "The Three Stooges were pioneers in developing counter terrorism measures that can be employed by the average person with only limited training and intelligence. I've watched their films many times and I'm still learning from them. We'll probably use a couple of their shorts in the training program."
Happy Holidays to the left coast, Cellar & Jexter!
Why is the government going to give the families of the victims of the WTC attack an average of $1.65 apiece? I believe this is over and above any life insurance and privately donated money. Is the government admitting that it is somehow responsible for failing to prevent the attack? If not, then I see no rationale for a payout of any sort.
Is the family of a guy who is killed by an airplane while sitting in his office more deserving of a huge handout than a guy who has a heart attack? Or a guy who is killed in an auto accident? I think not.
And now the families of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing are running for the TV cameras with their hands out proclaiming their victimhood (again).
Yes, these two terrorist attacks were truly tragic, and many people died senselessly. But on an individual basis, their deaths are no more senseless or tragic than hundreds of other deaths that occur every single day in this country.
If anyone sees any logic in this special sense of entitlement among the WTC and Oklahoma City families, please explain it to me.
I've bitched about the entitlement nonsense before. However, I think the government fund, intended to strongly discourage lawsuits, is very fair. So fair that rich people probably will reject it.
The government fund is over and above charitable donations, because it was perfectly obvious that this would cause the families to avoid going to charity until after they'd locked down the government funds. There was no way to prevent it.
But it isn't over and above insurance and other money. All of that will be deducted from the total.
I thought the guy was amazingly fair, and considered poor victims far more "valuable" than any lawsuit. The irony is that far too many people are unaware of how ruthless a lawsuit is in figuring pain and suffering.
There was an article in Newsweek or Time about it; I'll see if I can find it.
Feinberg’s rules, which he completed under what for Washington bureaucrats was a preposterous deadline of four weeks, suggest that this could be one case where the shock of September 11 may have jolted the powers that be into making tough decisions rather than ducking them—and making them quickly and on the merits. The rules dispense with all kinds of complicated issues crisply and sensibly, while smartly refusing to wade into the quicksand of deciding whether one victim suffered more or less than another as he died; all get $250,000 plus $50,000 per dependent for pain and suffering as part of the overall package outlined on Feinberg’s chart. He also has a mechanism for every claimant to get an initial $50,000 “in a matter of days,” he says, with the rest of each award coming within 120 days of filing.
As much as Patrick Cartier resents those charts, Feinberg has made the gaps between the lowest and highest awards far more egalitarian than they would be in any court. The real-world courtroom spread in New York is closer to zero to $30 million, not the $500,000 floor and the $3 million to $6 million upper reaches that his rules envision. And in court Cartier might well be one of those at the bottom of the scale. Under New York law, a father, like Cartier, of a deceased victim is entitled to zero damages unless he can show that he relied on his son for financial support, which Patrick Cartier did not. Yet Feinberg’s chart seems to give Cartier about $670,000 for his son. Told about that possible award, Cartier (who says he plans to divide any monies among his six children), says, “To me it’s really like a bribe not to go to court. But maybe I’ll take it.”
Merry Christmas! Long time no see.
Thanks for the explanation.
I bet there are more than a few spouses of World Trade Center employees sitting in their living rooms on Christmas Eve with their heads in their hands and tears in their eyes. "Dammit! Why me? What did I do to deserve this fate ? Why did my husband have to survive the WTC attack?"
I have a real philosophical problem with the notion that victims get more attention if there are a lot. So we are spending tons of energy on millionaires' widows, just because their husband was in the WTC, whereas there are any number of children still stuck with crack whore parents that we say we can't help because of funding problems.
It's the whole publicity whore aspect of Americans; we want in on a tragedy, so we give a lot if we see it on the news. 
Hindu activists & Narj tried to break through a police cordon on Wednesday in New Delhi while protesting the attack on Parliament that killed 14 last week
"U.S. officials are concerned that Pakistan has moved medium-range missile batteries to the sites along the Line of Control. He identified them as Poonch, Balakote, Kerni, Akhmoor-Chickenneck and Unshera."
Chicken Tandoori
* Chicken pieces- 2 lbs. (washed & dried in paper towels)[Akhmoor-Chickenneck will do]
* Tandoori masala- 1 tablespoon
* Garam masala- 1 tsp
* Grated ginger- 1 inch piece
* Small onion- 1
* Plain yoghurt- 1 cup
* Lime juice- 1 tablespoon
* Salt
* Chopped cilantro (coriander) leaves
Rub the chicken pieces with salt and lime juice. Keep it aside. Grind the chopped onion, ginger, yoghurt, salt, tandoori masala and garam masala together and make it into a smooth paste. Place the chicken pieces in a glass tray and pour the ground paste over them. Let it marinate in the refrigerator for about 5-6 hrs (preferably overnight). Then drain the excess marinade.
Preheat the oven to 400°F. Arrange the marinated chicken pieces in an ovenproof shallow pan and cook for about 30 minutes or until browned. Garnish with chopped coriander leaves. Serve hot.
Happy War Year Everyone!
These people disgust me. Take the money, give it back to the donors.
1. I would bet that any of them would happily trade their money for their loved ones if such were possible.
2. There hasn't been enough money printed in the history of the federal reserve system to be enough for them to trade willingly for their losses.
Sadly some form of "blood money" is all we can offer.
Osama B Free
Allah B Praised
You are saying that they are entitled to more than anyone else who lost a loved one?
"These people disgust me. Take the money, give it back to the donors."
I agree.
And from your link, a quote from Barbara Perlmutter, senior vice president of public affairs at the company and executive director of the MMC Victims Relief Fund:
"If someone had a heart attack in our office, is their dependent entitled to health care for life?" she asked. "Is their loss any different? Think about it."
Exactly right, Ms. Perlmutter.
I realize these families are distraught about their loss and angry at pretty much everyone, so they aren't thinking straight. Still, the sense of entitlement astounds me.
"I would bet that any of them would happily trade their money for their loved ones if such were possible. "
I'm not so sure. I doubt if most would trade a loved one for a few thousand bucks. But once you get over a million bucks, its easy to start thinking that dear old dad had one foot in the grave anyway ... and sometimes he could be a mean son-of-a-bitch ... and he would want me to enjoy my golden years .
``It is their right to annihilate people as long as they are Muslims ...
"Surely my Lord is on the straight path" (Q11:56).
"Whatever good befalls thee, it is from Allah" (Q4: 79).
On December 4, the President took questions at a "town meeting" in Orlando, Florida. (A transcript is provided here.) In response to a question about how he learned about the World Trade Center attack (he was in Florida, making a scheduled appearance to talk to some schoolchildren), the President said:
"I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower - the TV was obviously on. And I used to fly, myself, and I said, well, there's one terrible pilot. I said, it must have been a horrible accident.
"But I was whisked off there. I didn't have much time to think about it. And I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card . . . walked in and said, 'A second plane has hit the tower, America is under attack.'"
Huh?? Of course he didn't see the first plane hit the tower live on TV. Nobody did. Very odd.
THAT would be somethin to see!
Pre-traumatic stress.
Are you saying he was in on the whole thing?
Have you two dingbats considered the possibility that bin Laden might already be dead?
Oh, yeah? How about Clowntoon and his claiming to remember church burnings which occurred before he was born? And then there's Pinocchio Bore (not that he's presidential timber, mind you) with his plethora of lies about Love Canal, the Internet, Love Story, etc.
"LoveCanalInternetLoveStory!" Hahaha!
The logic of force has not worked in Kashmir. If it has been impossible for Pakistan to decide the issue by a clash of arms, it has been no more possible for India to crush the post-1989 resistance by a recourse to repression. The resulting stand-off has embittered the Kashmiri people, for whose presumed sake both countries have deployed their armies in Kashmir, and kept both countries locked in a futile conflict.
Point-scoring and sabre-rattling are games both countries can play. There is nothing new in this since this is what they have been doing since 1947. Anyone except unreconstructed hawks would think it was time to move on.
But two truths have to be accepted before any forward movement is possible: (1) that Kashmir, without any ifs and buts, is a problem awaiting a final solution; and (2) that while a miracle would be welcome, there is no immediate solution to this problem. Once understanding is achieved on these two points, the problem of militancy can be addressed.
If Pakistan at this stage expects anything more than an acceptable form of words regarding Kashmir, it will be guilty of a lack of realism. If India thinks it can attain the end of militancy without even making a verbal concession, it too will be living in a paradise of its own.
To unbiased observers this would look like a sensible trade-off. After all, the major concession would be coming from Pakistan and only a semantic one from India. But India's problem is different. It cannot abide any sort of concession, no matter how inconsequential, to Pakistan. For the thing it detests above all is to be hyphenated with Pakistan -as in "India-Pakistan relations" - and to be seen on a par, even if for a fleeting moment, with Pakistan. This is a psychological barrier which India alone can cross. 
A couple of things are interesting about this tape (or the excerpts we know about) and the reception it has rec'd in the US and world media.
1) Bin Laden, effectively I think, has moved to take the "high ground" wrt Muslim and Arab opinion. His less popular "causes" apparently are not mentioned, such as the establishment of a Muslim hegemonical state, and even the criticism of anti-Islamist Arab regimes like Saudi Arabia's. Also unmentioned, apparently, is the US military presence in the Muslim holy lands.
Instead, it's all about Israel - a topic and stance guaranteed to resonate in the Muslim world and perhaps beyond. I doubt there has been a time in recent memory when Muslim opinion has been so uniform wrt Israel/Palestine, and in this context, cleverly, Bin Laden will sound quite reasonable, even heroic, to his intended audience.
2) The media reception of even the brief excerpts has been totally different in the US and in Europe and Asia. The US media seems to express great disappointment that Bin Laden is even alive.
Here is the NYTimes rather absurd and redundant leader -A new videotaped statement from Osama bin Laden, purportedly made in late November or early December, shows him looking tired and gaunt but alive.
Whereas the world media focuses on the content of the tape, and the rebuttals made by US and UK authorities as well as the statements made by Karzai's new government in Afghanistan.
With the images of 11 September etched into our collective memory, and United States and British forces still engaged in armed combat in Afghanistan, church and state leaders the world over united in lacing their Christmas messages with appeals for tolerance and peace. Among the most pointed was the plea from Pope John Paul II, the voice, as so often, of a universal conscience: "May God's name never be used as a justification for hatred. Let it never be used as an excuse for intolerance and violence."
The one discordant note of the festive season was struck by the Israeli Cabinet, when it voted to prevent the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, from travelling to Bethlehem for the midnight service. This was a mean-spirited ban, almost as far in spirit as it could be from the seasonal exhortations of peace and goodwill, and fraught with consequences for the politics of this volatile region in the future. Of just such small-minded slights are the great grudges of history born.
.....
This arbitrary decision has united dozens of countries in new condemnation of Israel, at a time when suicide bombings had tipped the scales of international sympathy in Israel's favour. And it has allowed Mr Arafat to seize the moral high ground in the continuing dispute about holy places in Jerusalem and to cast fresh aspersions on the Israeli government's sincerity in seeking peace.
It was instructive, too, to see the impotence of Israel's friends and allies, despite last-minute appeals to Israel's President. The EU and the US are implicated in the resentment Israeli policy generates in the Muslim world: they may need to employ stronger levers to influence decisions in Jerusalem.
"We say that the end of the United States is imminent, whether bin Laden or his followers are alive or dead, for the awakening of the Muslim umma (nation) has occurred," he said, calling the world's only superpower "fragile."
"It is important to hit the economy (of the United States), which is the base of its military power...If the economy was hit they will become preoccupied," he added.
Amazing coverage of the Bin Laden videotape. I watched a bit of MSNBC (not by choice) where they had a guy with earphones on translating portions almost live from the al-Jazeera feed. Plus, snippets are being put on the web immediately like the above from the Reuters website.
Excerpt:
Those who have met bin Laden feel he is still in Afghanistan. Their logic is simple: Afghanistan was attacked because of him; its people suffered because of him. If saving his own life had been bin Laden's intention, wouldn't he have fled Afghanistan before the US attacked the country? The counter-argument is that perhaps he underestimated the US, that he never thought it could run through the country so easily. No, counter others, arguing you can't credit him for organising attacks on the US and still believe he could have got his calculations about the US so wrong.
Those who feel bin Laden is still in Afghanistan argue that he still has support among the Afghans, never mind what the Americans might say about the cooperation they are receiving in their Osama hunt. There are many Afghans, including his cook, Tooti, who would be willing to sacrifice their own lives to protect the Saudi fugitive. Having publicly expressed his wish to die as martyr fighting the Americans, bin Laden won't run away from Afghanistan and abandon his loyal band of followers.
I think there is merit in Yusufzai's speculations.
Yes, it is no secret that Pseuder is part Yusufzai Pathan.
Expect PE to visit the wrath of whatever gods the Pathans believe in on you.
Of course bin Laden might still be in Afghanistan, but he may also be under a couple hundred feet of rubble.
Btw, anybody hear the 'latest' on Mullah Omar?
The ignorance! It almost hurts. 
What brought on your nitwittery?
Disappointed again.
Perfect!
Members of the captured group of 30 Pakistani militants nabbed by forces of Eastern Alliance said in Kabul they were among a batch of 400 strong group, directed by Islamabad to mass in Palandri in PoK, facing Poonch region of Kashmir for what the group called deployment for "special operations in Kashmir".
The 30 mercenaries were brought to Kabul in the last two days and had fought alongside Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda fighters before being captured. Jamil Ibrahim, who hails from Bhawalpur in Sindh, told PTI that prior to October 2001 there were about six to seven thousand Pakistani militants, including some Pakistan army regulars bolstering the Taliban forces in northern Afghanistan, Mazar-i-Sharif, Kunduz in southern Afghanistan and around Kashmir and around Kabul.
1) Bin Laden is widely alleged to be in Pakistan.
2) The NA claims the entire "top tier" of the Taliban has fled to Pakistan.
3) The US has now declared 4 Pak-based organizations (two of them very large) to be "terrorist".
--
India is making its most bellicose moves in years, and Musharraf's troops are split between the Indian border and the border with Afghanistan which he's sworn to seal off for the Americans.
It does not look good for Musharraf. I think India will lay off for now, after extracting some serious quid pro quos from the US behind the scenes, but I think martial law is very close to a sure thing in Pakistan, combined with real and serious moves to clamp down on the extremists.
Contrary to Pelle Snipson's words, Yusufzai is a tribe, not a clan. (A clan is a subdivision of a tribe.) My clan is Qayum Khel.
In the Arab countries outside the Arabian peninsula, plus Turkey, if a woman even observes the Islamic dress code at all, then the hijab is the rule.
In the Arabian peninsula countries and amongst Bedouin, women are forced to don various forms of total covering which obscures the face to various degrees.
In Iran, the women are required to wear the chador, the head-to-toe covering which keeps the face exposed.
In Pakistan, women almost universally wear the dupatta -- a light and sheer scarf thrown casually over the head, keeping the face exposed.
In Afghanistan, most rural women regardless of ethnicity wear the burqa -- the total body covering with just a vent for the face. In cities you can see hijab, chador, dupatta or other forms of wrapping which keep the face exposed. (Before the Taliban the burqa was generally rare in cities.)
And you will find the bloody carcass of this latest in AP.
Yes. Considered and rejected. I don't indulge wishful thinking which I leave to morons.
Thanks, PE.
jexster -
I think the 'bloody carcass(es)' you refer to have the names 'Clowntoon' and 'Bore'.
You're the one guilty of wishful thinking. I did nothing more than mention the bare possibility. You and cllrdr are the ones guilty of evil chortling over us 'missing' bin Laden with such idiotic certitude.
If bin Laden is alive and hiding out in Pakistan, maybe we should send that little prick Daschole over there to take him out rather than have him fucking up our economy.
But wee problem among many larger ones. And that is the fundamental cowboy naivete of statements like this
I don't the believe the US will hesitate in the least to project military force into Pakistan itself.
Seeing as how we really didn't project substantial military force INTO Afghanistan, your parellelism falls apart at the start.
See terrorists are not armies. Fighting terrorists is not war. Fighting terrorists is more akin to fighting the Cali Drug Cartel. Fighting terrorists depends every bit as much as real war on good intelligence but in the case of "wars on terror", intelligence is very hard to come by except for the host country.
Case in point: Al Quaeda. As AQ and Talis were headed for the hills, and our "military force" in Afghanistan were rounding up stragglers for transhipment to Death Gurneys, do you know what the sum and substance of our intelligence was?
A list of 12 names. No addresses. No background info to speak of. Little identifying information.
So projecting military force into Pakistan - leave that to Gunga Din
But on a less partisan note...this "what-if" from The American Prospect assessing the maybes and possiblies if the real President were sitting in the WH instead of the impostor.
It might surprise some....
I'm sorry to say that you're not even coherent here, jexster.
Sorry to see that the Angry Army Ants of Fact ate what was left of the left side of your brain...
The New Low Risk "War"
Seeing as how we really didn't project substantial military force INTO Afghanistan, your parellelism falls apart at the start.
It ain't Pakistan, ain't Iraq...
. The Special Forces rode with Afghans on horseback (using wooden saddles until leather ones were airlifted in) and traveled by pickup truck to help the Afghans to plan their attacks.
The Green Berets called in airstrikes, using radios and laptop computers to transmit bombing coordinates to American pilots, and laser designators to pinpoint other targets. Air Force Special Tactics units performed a similar role.
Navy Seals, hiding in the countryside, carried out long-range reconnaissance. The C.I.A. also deployed its Special Operations Group, a small unit that worked with the Afghan resistance and conducted operations in both northern and southern Afghanistan.
First, you're the only one bringing up the ridiculous implication of a full-bore US military assault on Afghanistan.
Secondly, you are ignoring the US bombing of the Taliban and Al Qaeda which is where the US was projecting most of its force.
Have fun beating up your strawman, dingbat.
Eventually, she pulled ahead into a left turn lane, where she perfectly centered her car in the lane waiting for the turn signal to turn green. I note this because I wanted to be able to determine whether she was simply a terrible driver before I made a decision of what to do. I got her license number and wrote it down. Later that day, I called the FBI and gave a description of her car, the incident and the license plate number to the person who took the call.
There's something degenerate and unwholesome about a religion which even allows for its adherants to believe that persecution of all others is an acceptable course of action.
After stoking high expectations that the federal takeover of airport security would lead to a new breed of airport security screener, one who was better educated and more qualified to assume a position of increased responsibility, the Department of Transportation has decided not to impose rules that would displace thousands of current screeners.
Most significantly, the department will not insist that screeners be high school graduates, a requirement that would have disqualified a quarter of the present work force of 28,000.
Disgusting. I cannot believe all this effort was spent creating thousands of new government workers to eat up money in salaries and benefits all in the name of increased security--and they are now letting the same useless fuckwits keep their jobs.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas and one of the principal authors of the new security law, said Congress decided it was too limiting to restrict screeners to being high school graduates.
"We know there are people who have dropped out of high school who still have the basic intelligence to do that job," Ms. Hutchison said. "The military service doesn't require a high school diploma, and we think the Transportation Department is also capable of making judgment calls on a person's background. You don't want to judge someone in a cookie-cutter way if they have a good work record."
Republicans are on board for this? Where's the money? What have I missed?
Royal Answer: We must let the world know that we accomplish our mission - which is to insure a stable Afgh!"
Kate O'bierne & Robert Novak each had a camel
I am first in lotsa things...war...peace...your pants
But in fact, I wasn't the one who pronounced sentence on Pakistan "I am sure they will feel the wrath of full US military force" ...the implication of course, since the Imbecile Warlord did same in Afgh. he do ole Pervez (his new "soul mate") in a New York minute
We hear the same old shit about Iraq and Sadaam from idiot cowboys.... 
The Faces of War: The Rummy Minister of Defence with his Paki counterpart today. Earlier in the day,the latter blasted India for its "terrorist killing of 75,000 Kashimiri" martyrs.
here is a test case, the first example of the New New World Order in action: In the past 48 hours, the Indian-Pakistani conflict has exposed almost every fuzzy, unconsidered, unclear aspect of our new foreign policy, and with alarming speed.
Five Critics Dish on the Best Movies of 2001
More Bogus Spin From the Cloning Industry
What's a Stadium Name Worth?
For one, we are suddenly prisoners of our own rhetoric. Two weeks ago, a group of suicide bombers leapt from a car and blew themselves up in front of the Indian parliament, killing 14 people. India suspects that the bombers were members of terrorist groups resident in Pakistan, and Indian officials now claim to be at war against "state-sponsored terrorism." If the United States was well within its rights to destroy terrorists who attacked Washington and New York, the Indians are well within their rights to destroy terrorists who attack New Delhi: Imagine a suicide bomb attack on the House of Commons or on the steps of the U.S. Congress. If we are not to appear hypocritical, we are obliged to sympathize with India.
At the same time, we are hijacked by our new military alliances.... We may be obliged to sympathize with India, but we are also quite desperate to prevent India from attacking Pakistan."
After all it is War Year's Eve!
A former US ambassador to Pakistan, author "US/Pakistan, 1947-2000": Not surprising. India could cut Paki in two in about as long as it took Tower 2 to fall. Paki would reply with nukes.
Black Hawk Down
The movie also comes out shortly. From The Washington Post, Stephen Hunter's Top Ten: Black Hawk Down doesn't open here till Jan. 18, but it's the best pure battle movie since "Zulu" many years ago. You are simply there, with the 75th Rangers and First Special Forces (Delta) for 12 hours in Mogadishu in 1993, when 2,000 men with AK-47s and RPGs decided to wipe them out. It's a terrific tribute to military professionalism and sheer guts. Ridley Scott directs a great cast, including Josh Hartnett, Tom Sizemore, Sam Shepard and Aussie Eric Bana in a star-making turn as the toughest of the tough Delta commandos.
I also recommend the book because it looks as if Somalia may be a future battleground in the endeavor to decimate al Qaeda. Indeed, Somalia may have educated bin Laden, as the author suggested (three years prior to the strike on the World Trade Center) when he wrote No matter what ultimate impact Aidid's arrest would have had on the UN's goals in Somalia, it was important to see the mission through once Task Force Ranger was committed. The lesson our retreat taught the world's terrorists and despots is that killing a few American soldiers, even at a cost of more than five hundred of your own fighters, is good enough to spook Uncle Sam.
Rather, the goal has to be quick and massive annihiliation of combatants, with the death and or detention of the leadership as the key. Killing a lot of people - and then withdrawing once our nose was bloodied - did not serve our interests well in Somalia. Targeting the leadership and exacting massive bombardment, however, worked to great effect in Afghanistan and, though at times haltingly, in the Yugoslav campaign. Or so says Karzai.
For example, we have asked Yemen to let the Marines in to hunt Al Quaeda. They will comply, not as a result of diplomacy, but because Afghanistan is littered not with the dead of ignorant and unfortunate civilians, but with Taliban and Taliban families. Afghanistan can serve as the new template based upon Bush's "you are either with us or you are with the terrorists." The suffering will not come from the rank-and-file. The deaths will not be exacted primarily from the innocent. Rather, it will be Yemeni ministers and military commanders and their families and homes in line for destruction.
Actually, Julius, I think you guys bombed another 100 Afghan civilians in some village into kingdom come today. But don't let that bother you none. It don't bother me much.
Black Hawks Back to Somalia? The Special Forces should fare a lot better this time.
by Christian Lowe, The Weekly Standard
IS SOMALIA NEXT? Reports from the region suggest U.S. Special Forces teams have been in the Somali countryside scouting possible al Qaeda sanctuaries and drumming up local support. Yet the mere suggestion our troops could go back into that wasp's nest provokes anxiety.
Some of the U.S. military's most seasoned and best trained troops took a beating in Mogadishu during the U.N. famine-relief mission in 1993. Images of dead Americans dragged through the streets by drug-crazed Somali bandits will forever color thoughts of our military's involvement in that lawless land.
But the military--and their civilian leaders--appear to have learned the lessons of those failures and translated them into operational doctrine. American forces toppled the Taliban regime and ferreted al Qaeda operatives out of their supposedly impenetrable caves, with only a few friendly fire casualties, in less than three months.
Contrast that with the 18 elite Rangers and Delta Force commandos killed and 84 wounded in just 17 hours of furious fighting in the crowded streets of Mogadishu. These forces had no effective air support, and help on the ground arrived too late.
For the last eight years, special operations forces and strategists in the Pentagon and elsewhere--notably Maj. Gen. David Deptula and retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Paul Van Riper--have been pushing the services to change the way they train for and fight wars. They call the murky conflicts of the future 4th Generation Warfare. September 11 worked like a slap in the face to concentrate all military minds on the new realities. The war in Afghanistan makes plain that 4th Generation Warfare thinking has begun to take hold.
In the new type of war, precision ground forces develop the intelligence needed to paint an accurate picture of who and where the enemy is and how to ferret him out. These forces need support, on the ground and from the air, when they get into trouble. More important, Allard suggests, the commandos must be free to decide how best to accomplish the mission and not have it decided for them by the brass. Information needs to go directly to those who are hitting enemy forces.
From the moment the war began, precision ground forces such as Army Green Berets, British Special Air Service troopers, Navy SEALs, Rangers, and Delta Force commandos--and even covert CIA operatives--were employed to strike at the heart of al Qaeda and the Taliban. Rather than using a sledgehammer to take the enemy down, these operators acquired intelligence and fostered working relationships with anti-Taliban fighters to help do their work.
Well trained, aggressive, and resourceful, Special Forces operate best when given leeway to get a job done on their own terms. This, coupled with massive and precise bombing, explains why there have been so few U.S. casualties--or Afghan anti-Taliban casualties--in this fast-paced war. But the commandos did, on occasion, need to call in air support to pound them out of a pinch.
Now that's changed. In Afghanistan, Spectres regularly strafed enemy forces and swept the ground ahead of Special Forces' escape routes. And when our forces slip back into Somalia to finish off al Qaeda cells and camps, gunships will be covering their backs.
Perhaps the biggest change since the Somalia operation is a better understanding of the still-evolving concept of Effects-Based Operations. In Afghanistan this concept is best illustrated by the continuous bombing of entrenched al Qaeda and Taliban forces. It wasn't the destruction of the forces themselves that was the goal, it was their defeat--a telling distinction. The bombing rattled the enemy to such an extent that they gave up without much of a fight. Remember the predictions that a bloodbath would ensue when anti-Taliban forces entered Kunduz? It never happened, yet the enemy was defeated. And the cave to cave fight to knock al Qaeda out of Tora Bora? Nope. The terrorists were defeated without a bloody assault on the ragged mountain stronghold.
The article is not available to non-subscribers.
Caesar would entertain an apology.
i'm sorry you posted the whole thing
The only thing worse would be if Bill Kristol jumps on the bandwagon.
Despite the rout of his al Qaeda terrorist network, Osama bin Laden has likely survived the U.S.-led military campaign and may have escaped into Pakistan, the chairman of the Senate intelligence committee and other U.S. officials said yesterday.
Ever yours TD..first in war,peace,pants
Officials with Pakistan's military intelligence agency gave figures today intended to show that India had moved 23 more army divisions with at least 150,000 additional combat troops into what Pakistan described as strike positions along the border in recent days, bringing Pakistan's estimate of India's border force to about one million. Pakistan also said that India had deployed 600 combat aircraft....
Mr. Vajpayee spoke out defiantly against what he called Pakistan's sponsorship of terrorism against India. In effect, he brushed off President Bush's request that India give Pakistan credit for ordering the arrests of individuals linked to the two Islamic militant groups accused in the attacks, Jaish-e-Muhammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba. The groups, Army of the Pure and Army of Muhammad, have operated openly in Pakistan with the support of that nation's military establishment.
Since the Dec. 13 attack on its Parliament, India has undertaken the largest mobilization of its army since it last went to war with Pakistan 30 years ago. It has requisitioned trains to station large numbers of troops along the full length of its 1,800-mile-long border with Pakistan and positioned missiles, tanks and jet fighters close to it as well.
I for one am outraged that those wogs are dissin our Warriour King!
Actually, Julius, I think you guys bombed another 100 Afghan civilians in some village into kingdom come today. But don't let that bother you none. It don't bother me much.
Not that it bothers me much either way either, but:
U.S. OFFICIAL DISPUTES REPORT.
But a senior U.S. official, who spoke with NBC News on
condition of anonymity, said that the Pentagon had ordered the
raid after receiving a variety of intelligence “over an extended
period of time” that Taliban and al-Qaida leaders were meeting at
a compound in the village.
“We hit exactly what we
wanted to,” said the official, who
described the compound as five
buildings encircled by a low mud
wall.
“If there were any civilian
deaths, we regret that,” the
official said, speculating that the
al-Qaida and Taliban may have
brought their family members into
the military compound.
Pentagon sources also said
that there were “significant
secondary explosions” after the
airstrike on the compound, an
indication that there were large
fuel and ammunition dumps in the
compound.
This is now.
New World natives aren't as hostile to Muslims as Europeans are. 
I too had read Black Hawk Down, enjoyed it, and posted about it. Interesting contrast with the weekly standard article you posted though. Bowden mentioned in his book that there was not any study w/in the military on Somalia prior to his research, and he specifically refuted the no air cover/no gunship allegations in the article.
What I found most impressive about BHD was how Bowden really, really tried to tell the whole story as accurately as humanly possible. One of the things I liked most was that he mostly tried to avoid the simplistic scapegoating that accounts of this type usually resort to.
He didn't shy away from writing about the mistakes that were made-- but he also keeps the reader continually aware of how non-obvious the mistakes were at the time. He tells the about screwups and differences of opinions of the players straight up -- Lt. Smith says Cpt. Jones is wrong about so-and-so -- but then he actually went through the trouble of talking to Cpt. Jones and gives more than a couple of straw-man sentances explaining just how and why the decision was made.
On a tactical level, the book illustrates very well Clausiwitz's dictum that in war everything is simple, but the simplest thing is very difficult.
Lastly, the book also illustrates that military and diplomatic strategy that are effective against nation-states should perhaps be rethough when dealing with countries where the state is not the primary loyalty of most of its citizens -- call them national tribalisms? clan-states? As i think the Afghanistan campaign thus far has shown, a divide and conquer method works much more effectively than the full frontal assault model that has been popular through most of this century. But then, I am talking to Julius Caesar. I think you mentioned in your book the importance of using this tactic. Let us hope that Ambiorix isn't lurking in some afghani cave, eh?
Liberals? I thought this was the conservatives line....
First, gun-toting Geraldo Rivera becomes a "war correspondent" (he's got Ashley Bahnfield's glasses, boys, and from the looks of it, at 48, he's got her tits too) and in no time, he is not so much uncovered as confirmed a lying cretin, trading in on the death of American servicemen in a false report from "hallowed ground" in Afghanistan.
The Atlanta Journal Constitution on the Rivera Lie
and Jonah Goldberg on Rivera in General
Remember, this indignity follows earlier claims by Rivera that he bedded Liza Minnelli, Margaret Trudeau, Judy Collins, Chris Evert and Bette Midler. It's like announcing that you just nailed Bea Arthur.
Second, we have some of the WTC families. Their losses are terrible, but they are also the same losses suffered by many who lived in Oklahoma City, which has the unfortunate problem of being a place Billy Joel and Paul McCartney would not visit if you paid them. They are also the same losses felt by less recompensed military families now, and later. The New York Times, caught in the uncomfortable position of writing about the naked greed of the bereaved and an opportunity to dig at those heartless Wall Street types, has stumbled perilously close to solid, straight reporting on the matter. Here is an example - Familes Demand Lifetime Health Insurance.
This is a decent article on The Charity Issue
From our own Mr. Lindh, the father of John Walker, who at a minimum was part of an enemy military force and at maximum, may have had a hand in the death of CIA agent Mike Spann, who was beaten, kicked, and bitten to death.
"He's really a good boy,"
"I don't know of any information, any suggestion of any information indicating that he's done anything wrong."
"The John that I know, as my son, is a very nice, very sweet kid," Lindh said. "Now, I'm left here with a gap. We haven't heard from him from May until now, and there is a problem here. How did John get to Afghanistan? I don't know. Why was he there? I don't know. What did he do when he was there? I don't know."
''I'm proud of John. He's a really good boy. A really sweet boy.''
For her part, Walker's mother parrots every other American progenitor of some accursed brat. ''If he got involved with the Taliban, he must have been brainwashed,'' the mother Walker told Newsweek. ''He was isolated. He didn't know a soul in Pakistan. When you're young and impressionable, it's easy to be led by charismatic people.''
Unlike the opportunistic rabble who clamor to condemn the permissive child-rearing of Lindh and Walker, I don't ask that they be good parents. Only that they shut their yaps.
"Excuse me, sir, could you take a picture of me and my family in front of the ruins?"
Fifth, Everybody involved with this Monstrosity
I agree about Black Hawk Down. It is a triumph of objective reportorial work. Take, for example, the author's treatment of David Hackworth's chapters on the Somalia operation. On the one hand, he points out both Hackworth's inaccuracies and his bias. On the other, he credits Hackworth's chapters as ones, faults and all, that should be read.
On the no cover/no air ship allegation, I recall (perhaps wrongly) that Bowden made both arguments in the book. I do know the request was made and it was denied by the Pentagon. I also found this exchange on the Philadelphia Inquirer message board between a poster and Bowden:
Poster
Know what TFR wanted AC-130 Spectre gunshop coverage? orbiting overhead, Spectre's sensors identify unseen friendlies, then eliminate them with surgical firepower -- the ideal urban fore support platform. Works equally well escorting convoys. The shooter love packing Spectre in their mo-bags. Aspin screwed 'em bad.
Bowden responds
I have heard many of the veterans involved in the fight say the much the same thing. I have heard others, also knowledgeable, say that in a densely populated area the AC-130 could not deliver the same accuracy as the Little Birds and that collateral damage was minimized by using the AH-gs as the platform. I don't know what the answer is. In his Senate hearing, General Garrison indicated that the Little Birds provided more than adequate fire support with extraordinary flexibility.
The lesson I derive is that it is an open question, but when the military makes a request for gunships and tanks, the Pentagon should simply say "yes."
"The US govt is too decentralized and small 'd' democratic to be able to sustain more than a handful of military casualties when there is little public support for or interest in the issue at hand."
I think this sentiment has exceptions. I think that when the stakes are the lives of foreigners, you need congressional approval before you can expend significant American lives.
"Lastly, the book also illustrates that military and diplomatic strategy that are effective against nation-states should perhaps be rethough when dealing with countries where the state is not the primary loyalty of most of its citizens -- call them national tribalisms? clan-states? As i think the Afghanistan campaign thus far has shown, a divide and conquer method works much more effectively than the full frontal assault model that has been popular through most of this century. But then, I am talking to Julius Caesar. I think you mentioned in your book the importance of using this tactic. Let us hope that Ambiorix isn't lurking in some afghani cave, eh?"
The problem with Somalia was that we were not there to conquer (it was of no strategic or military value, and even though American businesses had leased most of the land, the oil possibilities were not that urgent). We were there to cripple Aidid's operation, because that operation was stealing United Nations aid. And we were attempting to intervene delicately (i.e., capturing Aidid and his lieutenants instead of killing them), which required intricate and dangerous use of our military.
Or indeed, the losses suffered by anyone who ever had a loved one die. The notion that your grief is somehow different because your loved one died in a group is bizarre, and one I never understood either now or in Oklahoma.
I'm surprised it took you so long to notice the victims' families whoring their grief; Ducky, Greystoke and I have been screaming about it for a month or so.
The Walker parents are disgusting, but what I find even more perturbing are the people who feel the need to excuse him. It is the Andrea Yates syndrome.
It was fought at this remote high-desert outpost favored by senior Taliban commanders. After an opposition force had taken Tarin Kot in the first days of Ramadan without firing a shot, Taliban troops rushed to recapture the town -- and ran into a hail of fire that finished them as a fighting force.
Decisive Battle
Jules - The task force ranger was simply a SNAFU, nothing as bad as FUBAR. We lost 18(19?) people, but the Rangers/Deltas handled themselves marvelously. It was not in the firefight or really the planning for it, that we fucked up. It was in the response, the continuing response, to the deaths of our soldiers. We made it clear, and continue to make clear, that the lives of our soldiers are more precious than the lives of any number of non-Usan civilians. Instead of taking the losses and resolving to better focus on and pursue a mission, we cut and ran. In Afghanistan, we are not focusing on the very real dangers that Afghani civilian deaths pose to our strategic interests (not to mention to the Afghanis), instead we are focusing on reducing US casualties as far as possible.
The moral of Mogadishu is not to give the military on the ground any damn weapon they ask for, but rather to accept that the deaths of US soldiers is an integral part of US military deployment. That we dishonor our soldiers when their deaths cause us to withdraw from the mission or from the ground.
I wished not to further embarrass PM by taking up his foolish wager.
I would qualify that by amending the latter portion to:
...but rather to accept that the potential may exist for the deaths of US personnel in the execution of certain military maneuvers.
Concerned - I would not accept that amendment. If we get timid then we fail in our duty to our soldiers. No, death is an integral part of a soldiers life, we lose sight of this and then get politically squeamish when we say, ...the potential may exist... We have lost several, I forget how many, soldiers in the course of the Afghani operation, though only one is due to enemy activity. If the military operation is being pursued with intention and vigor then US deaths will occur, we need to accept this when we decide to commit our forces.
"We need, in short, the laws that Congress refused to pass. And I ask them again . . . pass these laws now."
Pretty strong stuff.
(I do wonder if she ever made peace with her gay son, however.)
You see it's OK if she has a gay son. It's ryone else's sons that have to be put through the Fundie Brianwashing machine.
My favorites from the article linked by Jenerator:
We are now told that it all may have been masterminded from Germany. We commend President George W. Bush's plan to tell all our so-called friends and allies in other lands that they have to make a choice. You're either with us to stamp out terrorism or we will assume you are against us. Cooperate in handing over the criminals or we will consider you the enemy! Any NATO country that doesn't fully cooperate should be automatically expelled from NATO.
Yeah, that's the ticket: ban the evil Germans and all their intelligence expertise from NATO.
And let's bring back the House Committee on Un-American Activities. We need congressional watchdogs to close the cracks in our internal security.
One needs comic relief at a time like this.
People who come to the United States do not automatically absorb our values, our respect for the Rule of Law, and our belief in individual liberty. It's up to our immigration laws and regulations to screen out those who come with a world view of hate and terrorism.
That's why visitors and immigrants must be subjected, involuntarily if necessary, to the Vulcan Mind Meld.
We cannot tolerate new security measures that treat citizens and aliens alike, such as a national ID card. Any new legislation must make that clear distinction, because American citizens are not willing to live in a police state.
Yeah. I have been living unwillingly in a police state ever since I got my driver's license. Plus, I once had to produce my social security card to get work at a university. Fucking fascists. Down with identity cards and UPC codes! Next they'll be tattooing the Number of the Beast on our scalps.
A national anti-terror campaign will certainly need its share of unitary, top-down strategies on the public-health and national-defense models; but if it is to be sustainable and successful it will need to treat the public first and foremost as a resource to be enlisted, not merely as a population to be instructed. As we know from United Airlines Flight 93, engaging the intelligence and moral judgment of ordinary people can make all the difference. Why not apply that lesson to the greatest terrorist threat of all?
I recall checking her website not too long ago and not seeing much of the old anti-gay diatribe stuff. Not that there aren't plenty of crackpots who have come along since to fill in any gaps.
The captions on last night's CNN evening program discussing the "hunt" for Mullah Omar read
One Tough Mullah
and
Semper Fi-nd
The complex was abandoned just a few weeks ago"
Semper Fi-nd my ass. Don't those jarheads know that the Cloak of the Prophet makes its wearer invisible?
Some pretty damnig evidence is surfacing that Bill Clinton and his administration suppressed chances of getting vital records from the Sudanese govt. that would have helped prevent 9-11.
01.03.02
Thursday on All Things Considered, historian Bernard Lewis says the Islamic Middle East was once the most advanced society in the world. His book, What Went Wrong addresses what changed.
The audio will be available online after 10PM ET, 7PM PT. (npr.org)
Yeah, ain't it a damn shame how far they have fallen? You don't suppose that Lewis attributes that great fall to the rise of the West, do you?
On the air support issue: I recall from Bowden's book that the tactical problem was essentially that you couldn't really have *both* the little birds and the spectre operating simultanously in the same airspace. The little birds fly really low, often with buildings on either sides of them, and move unpredictably as they respond to target requests and dodge fire.
The odds of one of the birds flying into the spectre's fire zone would be pretty high in a combat situation, and pretty fatal for the little bird. Anyway, as you pointed out, there is room for reasonable disagreement on the issue and in my opinion the administration can't really be beaten too hard for making the decision they did.
What I do fault the administration/state/pentagon team for in Somalia was what I see as the typical American approach of dividing the world into guys with white hats and guys with black hats, and assuming that if you can only take out the guys with the black hats, then the political situation you don't like will be somehow resolved. But that is another post.
To answer your post -- we aren't in Afghanistan to conquer either. We have a limited objective of eliminating the Al-queda terrorist group and denying Afghanistan as a base for their operations in the future. Unfortunately, the political leadership of the country chose to continue supporting the Alq group, and so the war aims essentially had to be expanded to topple the regime. Fortunately, that appears to be relatively easy to do, given the number of domestic enemies the taliban appears to have had and the limited political support for it inside Afghanistan.
1. The US population and US government leaders have a much stronger will to win the war than we did in Somalia.
2. While the Afghani government arguably had a strong will to win, the Afghani people have a much weaker will to win than the Somalian (Mogadishan?) population did.
From Dr. Kern's open letter
Carl von Clausewitz, (the most often quoted and least read military theorist in history), says that there is a remarkable trinity of war that is composed of the (1) will of the people, (2) the political leadership of the government, and (3) the chance and probability that plays out on the field of battle, in that order."
The right not to watch what you say [Kinsley]
If the peoples of the Middle East continue on their present path, the suicide bomber may become a metaphor for the whole region, and there will be no escape from a downward spiral of hate and spite, rage and self-pity, poverty and oppression, culminating sooner or later in yet another alien domination; perhaps from a new Europe reverting to old ways, perhaps from a resurgent Russia, perhaps from some new, expanding superpower in the East.
Federal authorities have extended the national terror alert until March 11.
"Based on the continuing high level of generalized threat information, the current terrorism threat advisory is being continued," the government said in a message sent on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (news - web sites)'s National Threat Warning System.
I'd take "damning" evidence WRT Bill Clinton with a few grains of salt and a stiff shot of Wild Turkey neat if I were you.
The more pressing question:
Why hasn't King George summoned a Royal Investigation of how 9=1=1 happened?
Big yawn
Why do I feel left out here? Is Israel included in this metaphor?
Why aren't we included in the list of possible conquerors? Not enough tanks?
"It's too early to say that things have changed forever, but they have certainly changed. The latent antagonisms between the west and the Muslim world are now out in the open. September 11 has destabilised not the US but the Middle East. Everyone I know, including my children who live in London, feels uneasy and concerned about the possibility of a New York-style attack here. People fear the potential fifth columnist in their midst. There may be terrorists not just in the Middle East but in Cricklewood, learning to fly planes at Heathrow. It makes people more uneasy with everything - the knock on the door. There is a fear of the latent psychosity lurking behind everyday life, of the madness waiting to explode in the local hypermarket. In my novel Super-Cannes, one of the characters says that the future will increasingly be seen as a struggle between psychosities; so many of the people we see involved in this conflict are clearly mad."
U.S. dropped leaflets show bin Laden in Western clothes
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Pentagon is trying to persuade remaining al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan to surrender by distributing leaflets that contain a doctored image of Osama bin Laden in Western-style dress.
The two-sided paper is being dropped in areas of Afghanistan where the United States believed al Qaeda fighters are.
The leaflet has an image of dead Afghan soldiers with the following statement, with spellings retained: "Usama bin Laden, the murderer and coward, has abandoned al Qaeda. He has abandoned you and run away. Give yourself up and do not die needlessly, you mean nothing to him. Save your families the grief and pain of your death."
On the other side is an altered image of bin Laden, shown without his turban or beard and dressed in a white suit and tie. In large letters, it states: "Usama bin Laden the murderer and coward has abandoned you!"
...
U.S. Central Command spokesman Commander Dave Culler said the leaflets were dropped in the Afghan areas of Khowst, Ghanzai, Tora Bora, Sokhta and Tarin Kowt -- primarily in the eastern part of the country.
...
Some analysts say the altered photograph will not play well in some parts of the Muslim world, where there is already suspicion of the United States.
Asked whether the leaflet could be used by some to say the United States is willing to doctor or make up things -- as has been alleged about the videotape found in Afghanistan by the United States -- U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he had not thought about the possibility
The task force ranger was simply a SNAFU, nothing as bad as FUBAR. We lost 18(19?) people, but the Rangers/Deltas handled themselves marvelously. It was not in the firefight or really the planning for it, that we fucked up. It was in the response, the continuing response, to the deaths of our soldiers. We made it clear, and continue to make clear, that the lives of our soldiers are more precious than the lives of any number of non-Usan civilians. Instead of taking the losses and resolving to better focus on and pursue a mission, we cut and ran. In Afghanistan, we are not focusing on the very real dangers that Afghani civilian deaths pose to our strategic interests (not to mention to the Afghanis), instead we are focusing on reducing US casualties as far as possible.
I agree that the soldiers handled the adversity very well, but the line between FUBAR and SNAFU is awful thin. I don't expect military operations to work clockwork, and casualties are part of the deal, but to have to borrow personnel carriers from Malaysians at the U.N. compound (the drivers of whom did not communicate well with our own forces as we attempted to extricate the men from the city) when command on the ground had requested tanks a month prior is a big problem. Becoming lethargic in allowing the men to effect a daylight snatch-and-grab without proper equipment is an error in judgment and/or training that suggests arrogance. And presuming the Black Hawks could never be shot down by RPGs was a mistake in intelligence.
Finally (and this to amax as well), while there is a debate as to whether the AC-130 could have operated in tandem with the Little Birds, many of the men getting shot up on the street thought so, and the point is to allow your people on the ground the option of tactics.
The moral of Mogadishu is not to give the military on the ground any damn weapon they ask for, but rather to accept that the deaths of US soldiers is an integral part of US military deployment. That we dishonor our soldiers when their deaths cause us to withdraw from the mission or from the ground.
I agree with your latter point, but it is not a mutually exclusive moral. If you are unwilling to give your men on the ground the tools they require - a judgment made from a desk - the moral would seem to be that the Pentagon should be at least saying "no" from Mogadishu, not Washington, D.C. This was a hot zone. Prior to the October battle in Mogadishu, 24 Pakistani soldiers (part of the U.N. contingent) had been ambushed and killed, the Somalis had been attacking with hit and run raids, and we'd lost men to land mines and mortar fire.
Thus, a month prior, Major General Tom Montgomery requested four M-1 Abrams tanks, 14 Bradley Fighting Vehicles and some heavy artillery. Two weeks later, the request, titled "Protection of Forces in Somalia," was rejected by then Secretary of Defense Aspin. "It's not going to happen," Aspin said. According to his aides, Aspin feared the additional equipment would signal a deeper U.S. commitment.
While amax and I may have a tepid disagreement as to the value of an AC-130 gunship, to have had what Montgomery requested could have not only saved lives, but amputations, given the time it took to gear up a relief column with the . His was a basic and reasonable request, the tanks and vehicles were but a 4 day trip away, it was denied, and the denial had consequences.
To answer your post -- we aren't in Afghanistan to conquer either. We have a limited objective of eliminating the Al-queda terrorist group and denying Afghanistan as a base for their operations in the future. Unfortunately, the political leadership of the country chose to continue supporting the Alq group, and so the war aims essentially had to be expanded to topple the regime. Fortunately, that appears to be relatively easy to do, given the number of domestic enemies the taliban appears to have had and the limited political support for it inside Afghanistan. This scenario is not all that different than the one we set ourselves in Somalia. The reason that we appear to be succeeding in Afghanistan where we failed in Somalia is ultimately because of two things:
1. The US population and US government leaders have a much stronger will to win the war than we did in Somalia.
2. While the Afghani government arguably had a strong will to win, the Afghani people have a much weaker will to win than the Somalian (Mogadishan?) population did.
In Somalia, we were first there to protect U.N. food deliveries. Later, we became entangled in the local politics, and Aidid became our Moby Dick. Worse, we opted to keep the situation "simmering" by snatch-and-grabs and detention, sometimes attacking Aidid, sometimes negotiating, instead of taking out Aidid, ala' al Qaeda and Afghanistan. I think the scenario is entirely different than in Somalia, which was an operation that also had the misfortune of continuing from one administration to the next. Thus, Clinton - then a rookie - felt sandbagged and perhaps pulled the plug based upon his inexperience and reticence.
Lastly, Aspin's political reasoning for denying the requests of the command on the ground were, to be blunt, the kind of bullshit that gets people killed, which is why prior to his death, he freely admitted that his denial of the request was a mistake.
Adrianne
Please do. slawyer@hotmail.com
Well, THAT certainly makes me feel safer...wonder how many other things he hasn't thought about.
O bejesus, it's you. Why must you change your name? It drives me nuts!
In any case, I sent it.
At years end...or beginning...he seems to go through an identity crisis. On a regular basis.
Julius Niner - I still think that it is the responsibility of the political to regulate the level of the military. I agree that if the military on the ground says, "Without X we cannot be assured that we can accomplish Y." then the political leadership needs to take that very seriously. The failure to provide armor is, IMO, indefensible. The failure to provide Spectre gunships in an urban environment makes sense to me.
However, much of the SNAFU was the result of local command failures. The failure of the forces on the ground to take full armor and night-vision was their own doing, their decision based on their expectations. This failure of the men on the ground to anticipate the potential SNAFU shows that Aspin et al were not the only ones to underestimate the risk. Regarding RPGs in an anti-helicopter role, this was, according to Bowden at least, was a new set of tactics/equipment (pg. 110-111 ISBN 0-087113-738-0). The fuses were changed, the exhaust tubes were altered to redirect the back blast, firing positions were prepared and tactics tested. The commanders on the ground failed to take note of the downing of a Blackhawk on 9/25 using these tactics. Again, a failure on the ground, not in the Pentagon.
Read Ballard.
"Who is this Ballard and why is he the only expert?"
One of the world's greatest living writers.
"Is he gay? Is that why?"
Not gay. Not why.
Great link, Cellar.
Well, the way I see it, the chance of an outside force conquering the Mideast is very very slim. Who would want to? Otoh, the chance that Israel would do something like that eventually is most definitely there. We've been conquering parts of the Middle East for about 55 years now. It's what we do.
Where?
You sure he's not gay? You have enthusiasm for things not gay?
Why would the Oval Office employ a band that called itself Rage in Australia in the first place?
And it might just be me but your link didn't work.
Good one, RP.
Hmmm.
Trying to think of one other than Ballard.
letme et back to you on that.
Usama bin Ladin, shaved and be-discoed, looks *exactly* like Jim Croce. And if that's not scary enough... Croce supposedly died in a plane crash just as bin Ladin went to Afghanistan in the '70s...
Do you think he's trying to keep morale up on the run by singing "Bad Bad Leroy Brown" and "Time in a Bottle" to his surviving troops?
Put a beard on her and --Voila -- Instant Osama!
It was on this page.
Bach was a well known Bach Door Man.
LohrM:
Very good theory. Can we see the two pictures side by side though? Croce and Osama?
Rich is at least in more familiar territory in social essay, as he registers some interesting horror at the American transmogrification of tragedy to commodity. But that point is not his thrust.
Is Rich attacking complacency? Surely, given the warnings of the past, this would be a principled stance, and were Rich to actually present an argument that high school graduates are better at checking one's shoes than "high school dropouts", there might be some weight to his position. But his antidote appears to be to see a silent movie of the towers falling. Complacency four months after the attack is not his target.
In the end, like Dowd, and like so many marginally intelligent scribes, Rich is about taking September 11th and making it his own commodity, a mirror from which to reflect all the things he doesn't like, including, in the sapce of one column, high school dropouts, corporate donors, airline bailouts, dependence on foreign oil, the Bush tax cut, war hawks, imaginary rightist McCarthyists questioning one's patriotism at every step, Enron, Bush's stimulus proposal, a mean GOP that unfairly roughs up ("gasp!) Democratic leaders, profiling, and Democrats who act like Republicans.
September 11th works as well as any corporate jingle for Mr. Rich to sell some of his own wares. Rich is selling the idea that after September 11th, a true patriot, one who fully understood the lessons of that day, would think as Mr. Rich thinks on all the issues of this day.
To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this, your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil. - John Ashcroft
That, welfare reform, and me-tooism, I mean.
Not a tall. You're thinking of David Talbot. (Jeez hat a loathesome slug!)
Still, complaining about commodification while writing for the NYT is. . . . ironic.
Nothing to imaine at all, dear. You have yet to hear the knock at the door.
And I'm speaking literally, not metaphorically.
It's not counsel. It's an assertion. And whether you agree with it or not, it is certainly an attack on one's patriotism, therefore Jex used it correctly as a rebuttal to your declaration that such attacks were imaginary.
When they knock, always have Dunkin' Donuts.
Adios.
Ashcroft's comments are obvious, but here are a couple of other cites:
The New McCarthyism an article detailing the official and semi-official ways that a wide variety of dissent, purposeful and accidental, are being intimidated.
Danny Glover attacked as unpatriotic for being against war and the death penalty.
America was founded by white christian men, by God! We need to ensure that this is taught by our schools and universities so that our nations fundamental principles are not lost! Those who wish to teach that other cultures have a part to play in the US and human society in general are giving aid and comfort to the enemy!
Worse! Heathen anti-property rights communists! Thank God we killed them.
Ashcroft is exactly right.
Sometimes, my friends, there just is not another fucking side to the story.
And you crybabies need to stop with this asinine McCarthyism bullshit. No one's being blacklisted - indeed, every leftwing weirdo is coming out of the friggin' woodwork to get his/her 15 minutes of fame denouncing the New McCarthyism.
It's cheap, cheap, cheap.
BTW, where's Ashcroft been lately? I've been extremely busy, but I've hardly seen him since the statement Jex quoted from him was made.
Listen to yourself - preaching about free speech.
Well, all Ashcroft has done is exercised his right to free speech. No one's been arrested. No one's been deported.
But, like Cellardweller, they wish they were.
It'd give them actual cause to get all self-righteous.
Can you really be this stupid and hysterical? Are you to the Mote's left what Concerned is to the right -- a mindless purveyor of ideological shit?
The first incident in your first link involves a trip by two federal agents to investigate an art exhibit in Houston, almost certainly because someone reported seeing a picture of the Houston skyline burning. The two go through a one-hour tour with the Museum's guide, ask a few questions, and leave. As far as the reader can tell, no action is taken. But the female guide is really shook up because the agents are "really big."
Most of the other stories are similarly blown-up. Apparently, some people think a visit from G-Men ranks right up there with a Jew being visited by the Gestapo. Just the mere visit is enough to strike such fears in their hearts that they will never speak freely again without looking over their shoulders. Of course, we never hear the other side of the story. In most cases, I would bet a report is made of some specific anti-American activity, the feds are then obligated in the post 9-11 environment to go investigate if only to ensure it isn't some stupid wingnut who might cause harm to the U.S. Feds being feds, they need to fill out the paperwork so they ask a lot of questions. End of story.
Your second link is hysterical. Danny Glover is heckled by one member of an otherwise supportive group of listeners and then, later, called to task by a more conservative group, some of whom sanctioned him from being a speaker at some local event and others who want to boycott his film.
continued ...
The fact that you could possibly believe otherwise suggests you aren't so much for free speech as you are for pushing an ideology you want to see supported. Glover was free to say his piece; he's still free to say his piece. But others are also free to respond both in word and in deed.
The above links a hair-raising story about torture under the Taliban.
Listen to yourself - preaching about free speech.
Well, all Ashcroft has done is exercised his right to free speech. No one's been arrested. No one's been deported.
Hey, you know you Elephants have always been terrified of us squeaky mice.
I haven't told Ashcroft to shut up. He can squawk all he wants to, and all the lefty pinko commie liberals will continue to say he's full of crap and that his efforts at shaming them into silence won't work.
try again, forgive my inexperience.
Comparing the congressional testimony - and it's quite damning, damning enough to raise protest from a pretty diverse group of people, conservative and liberal - of the Attorney General of the United States to the plaints of a movie actor makes YOU "hysterical," imo.
Pretending that "free speech" is equally as damaging and frightening - and as full of import -coming from private citizens as when coming from one of the most powerful people in the country, one with the power and desire to change law and the constitution is just, well...
You're right, of course, that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. But the appropriatness of those consequences should be taken into account, too.
Ashcroft has been "silenced" lately for a reason. That's his consequence, I guess.
Could you plese tell me what in the Constitution Ashcroft has said he want's to change, and where he has said it. Or are you perhaps just being
As to Fisk, what is all this we stuff? Has he become an American citizen? Even if he were born in American, I would think he would have renounced his citizenship in disgust. And, of course, J.C. and P.M. and right on and I will not think otherwise until better arguments are put forth. Cellar and jexster need not apply.
Comparing the congressional testimony - and it's quite damning, damning enough to raise protest from a pretty diverse group of people, conservative and liberal - of the Attorney General of the United States to the plaints of a movie actor makes YOU "hysterical," imo.
Did you even read the links provided by Von Kreedon?
I didn't make any comparison between Glover and Ashcroft, and neither does Von Kreedon's links. Glover is a person of no responsibility simply airing his views. There is no evidence Ashcroft has anything to do with him. Von Kreedon is upset because some people called Glover unpatriotic. Well, tough shit. What's good for the goose is just as good for the gander. If Glover is free to say that the U.S. is wrong to make war and questions its real intent in doing so, then others are certainly free to question Glover's motivations.
Pretending that "free speech" is equally as damaging and frightening - and as full of import -coming from private citizens as when coming from one of the most powerful people in the country, one with the power and desire to change law and the constitution is just, well...
Again, you either didn't read the Glover link or you are conflating the two articles Von Kreedon links to. The first is about the Feds' investigation running into some kooky, but probably pretty harmless leftists who either hold or are distributing anti-American material. There is no evidence these Feds did anything illegal nor made any overt attempt to intimidate. But Von Kreedon presents it as "The New McCartyism."
The second article is about Glover giving an anti-war/anti-capital punishment speech and receiving some minor flack for it. This has nothing to do with Ashcroft or the federal government.
continued ...
You're right, of course, that freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. But the appropriatness of those consequences should be taken into account, too.
Let's put aside for the moment the fact that Glover has nothing to do with the Feds' investigation.
The United States had the most serious attack in the country's history about four months ago. Everyone seems to be in agreement that the United States will be attacked again and that there are terrorist cells operating in the United States right now trying to realize that goal. Within the last month, someone got on an international flight headed to the U.S. with bombs as shoes. The U.S. also had several attacks on the government and private citizens involving a biological weapon. This case has not been solved. Most Americans are naturally concerned about this threat of terrorism and the Federal government is trying to help ease their concerns by decisive action.
So what concerns Von Kreedon and Ad? Routine visits by G-Men and private groups calling for a boycott of Glover's film because he said some unkind remarks about the U.S. Again, those views are hysterical and motivated not by any facts of Government abuse, but by partisan concerns and an extreme distaste for the man responsible for the Federal investigation.
I saw that too. Apparently, he was scheduled to go up with a flight instructor and took the plane up by himself. Thank goodness, no one else was hurt.
That is truly horrific.
Tortured for nearly 2 years because these illiterate neanderthals mistook his Red Cross card for proof of his conversion to Christianity.
Perfect metaphor for the moral, intellectual, and spiritual bankruptcy of radical Islam, I'd say.
The article discussing the exhibit and the Durham Tech freshman is entitled "The New McCarthyism" and states "In this article, I focus on the threats to free speech, which go well beyond the much-publicized attack on Bill Maher of Politically Incorrect." For the record, Bill Maher's ratings went up, and he was just on Larry King, sans muzzle.
I suppose that in a forum where proposing military tribunals makes you a Nazi, telling people that ginned-up and hysterical howls over civil liberties would help Al Qaeda is McCarthyite is par for the course.
But do not weep for A.J. Brown. This is her moment in the sun. Read of the entire chilliing encounter They Were So Scary I Had Time to Call My Mother
As for Barbara Wien, who quit her job at the United States Institute of Peace because she wasn't showered with compliments after playing Susan Sontag on September 11th, in the true spirit of McCarthyism, Just Like All Blacklisted Screenwriters and Fired Government Workers at the time, here is her resume on the web.
Katie is especially eloquent on the font of her desire to make a club:
Why did you decide to start an anarchy club? Are other students interested in joining it?
KS: I think we were pretty much a group already. I mean I know we were a group. At the time we didn't have a name. And there isn't anything for us to join at SHS. So I was thinking since we are all interesting in Anarchy and whatnot things it would be a good idea. I read about it on Infoshop...that's how the idea popped into my head. Yeah, there was about 15-20 people who wanted to join.
John Ashcroft, damn you! Damn you to hell!
As for the firings of columnists Dan Guthrie and Tom Gutting, I'm quite sure I saw them pooling their unemployment checks with Ann Coulter.
It is all very distressing, four months after such a calamity, to actually have minimal pressure brought to bear. But keep your wits about you, comrades. Big Brother is watching . . . while you talk to Larry King.
And so the right do their version of the hysterical left: "he said nigger!"
I trust you can understand the difference between an opinion and a fact. Therefore, "they do" is untrue. "I agree with him" is a more accurate position. It is simply not a fact that concern for civil liberties equates to support for terrorism.
More to the point, it is an attack, despite your attempt to present it as "wise counsel". Last I checked, "counsel" means "advice". Ashcroft is not giving advice, he is pronouncing a negative characterization.
I suppose that in a forum where proposing military tribunals makes you a Nazi, telling people that ginned-up and hysterical howls over civil liberties would help Al Qaeda is McCarthyite is par for the course.
This is equally a forum where expressed concerns for civil liberties makes you a giver of aid and comfort to the terrorists. I suppose that's par for the course, too.
Read what Ashcroft said as quoted by jexster (hint, cue on phantoms). Then read your interpretation of what he said (hint, Ashcroft did not say that concern for civil liberties equates to support for terrorism.
Stir, let sit, and get back to me. If you still hold your same positions, we need not discuss it further, for the excellent reason that we do not appear to be using the same language.
If you can revise, I'd be happy to hear it.
Adios.
I never said a word.
I guess that Message # 18510 is purty good evidence that the words speak for themselves
THEY say that Mullah Omar escaped on a Harley.
I SAY...cloaking device...Cloak of the Prophet.
This is your trump card?
Ashcroft is concerned about civil liberties! It's phantom concerns that help the enemy!
Obviously Ashcroft would be concerned about anything he considers a threat to civil liberties.
Characterizing concerns he doesn't share as "phantom" is necessary rhetoric to justify the attack, not a factual delination between valid and invalid. Unless you can offer such a delineation, my characterization was accurate.
But suppose I accept your outlandish rationalization, for the moment. "Gosh, you're right. Ashcroft was only talking about phantom concerns! Jeez louise, what a mistake I made."
I originally took issue with your statement in 18477:
The tenderness of the American left should be cause for concern, that they can take such wise counsel from our Attorney General and imagine yet another smear upon their rights and good nature. (emphasis mine)
Ashcroft's statement is an assertion ("to state or declare positively and often forcefully or aggressively"), which almost by definition is not counsel ("advice given especially as a result of consultation "). (to forestall your inevitable objection, an assertion is a component of advice, not the advice itself)
It is either dishonest or ignorant to portray that statement as counsel.
I believe Jex's rebuttal was valid. You said no attacks had been made; he posted an Ashcroft statement that is indisputably an attack. Ashcroft dismisses any concerns he does not share as "phantom" and then declares all individuals who do not share his priorities are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
I suppose you could assert that a charge of aiding the enemy is not an attack but a neutral characterization.
Well, it also comes from William Safire.
Nonetheless, I haven't ballooned military tribunals to Naziism; I support them. I don't share many of the concerns about civil liberties. My complaint has always been that the various new laws are ineffective. I just don't find your assurances that faith alone will keep us safe to be very convincing. I await the day that you can provide something approaching proof. Until then, I await the day you're willing to actually debate the subject (safety increased by feel-good laws) on a factual basis.
So it's not hysteria that fuels my response. In fact, I would say the same thing if I agreed with Ashcroft. It is indisputably an attack.
I wasn't addressing anything you've written except with regard to your interpretation of Ashcroft's words, which you have now twice explained, and which convinces me (along with your fixation on "counsel" versus "statement") that we are not speaking the same language.
I do understand that you say "many", not all. Nonetheless, it followed a post to me, in which you were complaining about my interpretation. Thus I don't think it was all that unreasonable to assume I was included in your burst.
But whether you include me or not, it is neither narrow or hysterical to interpret Ashcroft's words as an attack. As I said, it doesn't even require disagreement.
For those of you able to contain your seething hatred of Chomsky long enough to read what the man actually has to say.
Rut-ro...
Thinks Sept. 11 Attacks Were Plotted by CIA or Israelis; Opposes Killing Civilians but Would Consider Sending Son to Fight if Jihad Against Islam Continues.
I mean, really: this bozo is an American and believes this crap, and people are worried about the effect the doctored OBL flier will have in Islamic countries?
PPPFFFFFTTTTTT!!!!
Maureen Dowd, of all people, nails the incessant post 9/11 navel-gazing cold. Not a single overblown movie analogy to be found. She should try it more often.
Since Sept. 11, our long voyage of personal awareness has only intensified.
Every day, we check our image, looking for ways, big or small, that we might have changed. We ponder if the changes are good or bad. We puzzle over whether the president has metamorphosed. We palaver about how the country has been transformed.
We gauge whether we are as great yet as the Greatest Generation. We wonder how deep we have gotten and how long our deepness will last.
We've absorbed 9/11 into our shallow fixation on self-image, turning the crisis into a makeover saga. This is what we looked like in the mirror before. This is what we look like in the mirror with ash all over our suit.
...
Our obsession with how much we've changed simply shows how much we've stayed the same.
As if such profound changes could occur in the span of a couple of months.
As if twenty - hell! - ten years from now, there will be any significant lingering psychic or cultural remnants of the attacks, aside from shorter buildings.
The interesting thing is that the pious natterings about how much we've changed have come from the right as much--or more--than the left. Bill Bennett, David Brooks, Peggy Noonan come instantly to mind, but there are more.
In order for any event to have such a large impact as some would have us believe, there needs to be much more widespread suffering and/or sacrifice - you think about your parents or grandparents and the ways in which the Depression or WWII (and if you're Black, the Civil Rights movement) changed them - changes you weren't even around to see happen, but which are nonetheless evident - palpable, even - to anyone with a basic knowledge of recent history.
Most of the other stories are similarly blown-up. Apparently, some people think a visit from G-Men ranks right up there with a Jew being visited by the Gestapo.
There is no evidence these Feds did anything illegal nor made any overt attempt to intimidate. But Von Kreedon presents it as "The New McCartyism."
So what concerns Von Kreedon and Ad? Routine visits by G-Men and private groups calling for a boycott of Glover's film because he said some unkind remarks about the U.S.
PM appears to be saying a couple of things. One is that until we have actual blacklists and internment camps we have no beef with what is happening. That since a visit from Federal law enforcement is not the same thing as being a Jew in Nazi Germany then we should shut up about it. The second thing is that visits from Federal law enforcement are "routine".
(Cont.)
American booksellers are now liable to turn over records of book sales with no recourse. "There is no opportunity for you or your lawyer to object in court. You cannot object publicly, either. The new law includes a gag order that prevents you from disclosing 'to any person' the fact that you have received an order to produce documents." But this causes no chill to PM or Jules, just routine Federal justice system actions within our free country. Nothing like blacklists or intimidation.
(Cont.)
Oh, I dunno about that - just listen at the language she uses.
Cal:
Of course it would inspire more of this wishful thinking from the right: it plays right into many conservative bugaboos -liberal immigration policies, degradation of national security, an emasculated military, etc.
About the only thing I've seen from the left in this regard is the claim that this will somehow reflect badly on radical/orthodox religion across the board (meaning, of course, the Christian Right).
All within the a context in which the head of Federal law enforcement, Ashcroft, has told Senators, fucking Senators, that they are aiding and abetting the enemies of our country, "Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.", for questioning the administration's judicial tactics. The fruits of this context are then seen in the very numerous accounts of journalists losing their jobs as a result of unpopular speach. But this is nothing like blacklisting or internment camps, so PM and Jules would belittle our concerns and call on us to be quiet until something really worthy of outrage should occur. Of course, by then we may not be able to speak out since that point is a little late in the process.
Three points about arbitrary editors, restrictive school boards, energized city councils, and tenacious law enforcement personnel.
First, that you would invoke McCarthyism demonstrates that you don't really have an understanding of the burdens born by its victims. This actually dovetails with joezan's point - the desire to make September 11th a life-changing metamorphasis of a soft citizenry is just that, as greater hardships have such an awesome effect. But the punditry must be served. They have a deadline, and that deadline is now.
Similarly, those who squawk of McCarthyism in concert with the minor intrusions of the day are not only historically inept, but they smack of the desire to be historical in their victimhood. Hence, your claim to be firing the early shots at what may well become "blacklists and internment camps" is unfortunate. Your haste runs you from Anne Frank to Dalton Trumbo (it is no coincidence that the victim first bandied by those who invoke McCarthyism is a Hollywood screenwriter) to poor Danny Glover.
So, it is not McCarthyism, as even a cursory understanding of that era would instruct, and its not "new."
All within the a context in which the head of Federal law enforcement, Ashcroft, has told Senators, fucking Senators, that they are aiding and abetting the enemies of our country, "Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.", for questioning the administration's judicial tactics. The fruits of this context are then seen in the very numerous accounts of journalists losing their jobs as a result of unpopular speach. But this is nothing like blacklisting or internment camps, so PM and Jules would belittle our concerns and call on us to be quiet until something really worthy of outrage should occur. Of course, by then we may not be able to speak out since that point is a little late in the process.
All I can say is that your Paul Revere bid is presumptuous, you necessarily distort Ashcroft's words by snippet, your scholarship is shoddy (the columnnists took the boot before Ashcroft's counsel/assertion), no one asked you to be quiet (only to be sensible) and you display an unhealthy reverence for senators.
Casear has no such reverence.
Ave!
Casear has no such reverence.
Niner - You are undoubtedly one of the funniest people I have ever known.
I'll do a little research and get back to you regarding the historical symptoms of Early Warning Signs of Witchhunting Syndrom(EWSWS) vis-a-vis a personal Cassandra complex.
Such a curious choice of words. What does being "sensible" mean to you? Are you calling for government action against the "unsensible"?
I do wish you had been here to speak to the secret service agents who came to my door.It was quite an amusing secen. They were trying to play "Good Cop"/"Bad cop" but had considerable difficulty doing so in that they were both old enough to be my daughters (if I were straight.)
They said at one point they they "had papers" that I should sign --"but you don't have to" (nudge, nudge) I, of course, refused to do so. In fact, I wouldn't even let them in the house, despite the fact that it was pouring rain.
I have no doubt I shall pay for this in future.
But should imprisonment befall you, Cellar, you have Caesar's card. Please use it. Perhaps we can barter representation for an introduction to the women who appeared at your door, who almost assuredly were tantalizingly armed.
You could have dispensed favors to them that are beyond my ken.
Why can't they sic agents on me that look like Ryan Phillippe? 
This will shut you up . . .but you''ll also become a B&D star in your own right!
Learn to combine words into sentences for some reason other than they sound good.
Please let me know which one of your personalities is providing the above advice so I can fairly evaluate it. 
(One quibble about the author's statement of the facts, describing the disruption as coming from "the students": I recall reading the shouting-down was contributed to by other guests in attendance - not just the students - and was not unanimous.)
Kudos to the school head who apologized. If only the deans of our more monied institutions had such testicles. Of course, when the right speech is being drowned out, everything is copasetic
Thumbs down to the yahoos who can't abide noxious and ill-timed blather for a quarter of an hour.
What's next?
This
I guess Osama and Mullah O impressed him with the disappearing act too.
Cloak of the Prophet Rose, cloak of the Prophet.
May he rest in peace.
Speakin of multiple personalities!
The foregoing advice was per Pufessa Jex, not to be confused with Commander Baba Jex, Warriour and TD molester.
I agree that campus leftists have often shouted down conservative speakers over the last few decades, so the treatment Heaphy received is not unprecedented.
But surely you don't have any sympathy for professional bigot David Horowitz. In fact, Horowitz lives for provoking people into refusing to help him spread his garbage, so he can whine about how big bad liberals are oppressing him.
JC's problem is not Engles....its that he reads the Moonie Times
"One only need surf over to a variety of web sites including Buzzflash, Bartcop, Democrats.com and others of the left-of-center variety to see the often-profanity laced vitriol, the derision with which the president and his administration are viewed. These web sites belong to individuals and groups that are generally anonymous, certainly not elected officials in the public eye. Perhaps they should be given some latitude for their abrasive style of communication, as they are not accustomed to the niceties of life and language inside the Washington Beltway."
The yahoo was on the podium. The solution to bad speach is more speach. That is what the tuition paying people in the bleachers did. The recent elitist notion that just because you are invited to stand behind a podium people in front of the podium have to pretend you are speaking rationally will not stand in a free society.
Jefferson, Henry, Madison, would have thought there was nothing out of place with the behavior of that audience.
It is just you.
Ohio
Your last post serves as parody, and for the record, I laughed. Surely a provocative "professional bigot" deserves no quarter from those who might throw away all newspapers that contain his ad, but Heaphy, a giver of warmed-over platitudes, is so deserving. Your adherance to the high minded Columbus Dispatch sentiment is fleeting.
As for your smear on Horowitz, I defer to Salon's Joan Walsh and Horowitz' Rebuttal
You speak with the assuredness of the mob. Heaphy's speech may have been "bad", but when your estimation is allowed to become all-encompassing, to the point of drowning out Heaphy for others who don't hold your views, you are at best a lout and at worst, a thug.
Additionally, to define "speech" so broadly is to mangle the concept. Under your definition, urinating on Heaphy's shoes and thus chasing her off the stage is similarly "speech."
Walking out, not clapping, even expressing vocal denunciation without muting her words . . . all are acceptable. But acting in a manner that silences dissenting voices is the work of animals.
I have no respect whatsoever for David Horowitz, and no one has to publish his ads or articles. But people who steal newspapers or shut down speakers are simply thugs.
Those 2 have been hangin together quite a bit lately.
Waiting for a dead body perhaps?
We discussed the protest in another thread. I think that the fact that the protest was apparently spontaneous and that the speaker was making a political statement at a graduation mitigates a lot of the offense.
Suppose the speaker had quoted Falwell's nonsense about the cause of 9/11 approvingly? Would everyone have been praised for sitting and listening politely?
The bull's-eyes have it. There's no question that the U.S. air campaign broke (er, blew up) new ground in accuracy. For the first time ever in the history of warfare, most of the weapons delivered got within a few yards of where they were aimed. The few really glaring exceptions to this seem to have come not from bad design or malfunction but from human error, such as when some Green Berets were killed by U.S. bombs (they apparently inadvertently gave their own coordinates as the target location), or when a Red Cross warehouse in Kabul was hit because it was mistakenly included on a target list.
What kind of Green Duncecaps would give their own coordinates as a target location? Those who need some sort of failsafe mechanism to prevent such an occurrence from happenning again, perhaps though an automatic tracking 'keep out' zone for friendlies programmed into the targeting systems.
(assuming we can't have Die Wacht am Rein)
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
Forward into battle see His banners go!
Refrain
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
With the cross of Jesus going on before.
At the sign of triumph Satan’s host doth flee;
On then, Christian soldiers, on to victory!
Hell’s foundations quiver at the shout of praise;
Brothers lift your voices, loud your anthems raise.
Refrain
Like a mighty army moves the church of God;
Brothers, we are treading where the saints have trod.
We are not divided, all one body we,
One in hope and doctrine, one in charity.
Refrain
What the saints established that I hold for true.
What the saints believèd, that I believe too.
Long as earth endureth, men the faith will hold,
Kingdoms, nations, empires, in destruction rolled.
Refrain
Crowns and thrones may perish, kingdoms rise and wane,
But the church of Jesus constant will remain.
Gates of hell can never gainst that church prevail;
We have Christ’s own promise, and that cannot fail.
Refrain
Onward then, ye people, join our happy throng,
Blend with ours your voices in the triumph song.
Glory, laud and honor unto Christ the King,
This through countless ages men and angels sing.
Refrain
I should expect you to support the elitist position, with a handle like that.
The king will frequently consider the people a mob.
Heaphy's speech may have been wonderful but when the people who were there for a graduation ceremony found it disturbing, they quite reasonably attempted to express themselves, just as Heaphy was doing. To think that denying Heaphy an open mike at a graduation ceremony harmed anybody is at best silly and at worst really silly.
Additionally, to define "speech" so narrowly as to exclude spontaneous group outburst is to completely miss the point of freedom of speech.
To suggest that speech is the same a urinating on someone is at best absurd, and at worst, very silly.
Walking out of their own children's graduation is not a reasonable option, not clapping is no communication at all, and vocal expressions from the unprivileged bleachers would be ineffective, though "acceptable" to those who are happy to give the plebes free speech as long as it can be ignored.
But acting in a manner that silences dissenting voices is the work of animals.
What comes beyond "really silly". Is Heaphy silenced? Not at all. Who was dissenting? The people in the bleachers. Who wants to silence them? The self identified animal, Julius Caesar.
Great.
If I should get anywhere near Ann Coulter --I'll kill her.
My extensive research has revealed the secret of the disappearances of Evil Doer Bin Laden and Evil Mullah O
The Tal Shiar, having need of a vessel more suited for their covert operations, assembled the greatest military scientists in the Star Empire. The culmination of their efforts resulted in the Shadow Class. The technology on board the Shadow is extremely classified, so much so that even members of the Romulan Senate are not "officially" aware of its existence. The Shadow comes equipped with phasers, but can be refitted with four experimental technologies.
Phase Cloak -Development of this technology began as early as 2367, but was not completed until recently. The Shadow is the first of its kind to carry a functional Interphase Generator. When activated, the generator phases the ship's molecular structure, allowing it to move through physical objects.
You'd better hope they don't elect Coulter president, or you'll be getting another visit from the Secret Service.
Reminds me of that time Skinhead O'Connor cut up the picture of the Pope while cursing him and the Church, as her contribution to the Dylan tribute concert a few years back. The crowd - literally the entire crowd - booed her skank ass off the stage.
Cried like a baby, she did.
Afterwards, Sir Bob Geldoff commented that the crowd had no right to treat poor Skinhead that way.
Boo-hoo.
Just HOW stupid is he? And when will it be okay for someone to point out his mental inadequacy? (Hopefully before he's re-elected.)
Oh, and the President even said "women of cover" again. (See Message # 8406.) By now, I think he's doing THAT just to aggravate me.
(Maybe they're afraid Ashcroft will arrest them if they do.)
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve nei . . ."
"BOOOOOOO!"
"SHUT UP, FRANKLIN!"
"USA! USA! USA!"
But I imagine he just saw the flames and then later saw the plane hit and just figured he saw it all. That happens some time. I don't think it's a lie.
The thing I find kind of odd is that he knew about it and still went ahead with the reading PR. Even before it was known to be terrorism, wouldn't it be a bad thing that he'd want to react to?
Oops. Toys.
I heard him give that speech live and heard the "woman of cover" thing. It was deliberate; he even paused around it to make sure everyone heard it. I don't get that at all.
No, that was a different thing entirely. The demonstrations during the election flap were similar to the garbage that college students pull to stop any speech they disapprove of.
Again, the issue is that the reaction was spontaneous. People didn't come to protest, they came to see their kids graduate. The speaker said something that they found objectionable. The audience booed. That is rude. But the fault, if any, lies with the speaker would couldn't keep to the sort of mild platitudes that are expected in a graduation ceremony.
What does Zahn look like? Besides, I can imagine them using a line like that for promoting a male anchorman. It's yet another example of PC-feminism tripping over its own lies, is all.
I'm starting to dislike the War on Terrorism. Is that OK with you? I think the US chose a cowardly way out of this, and I think we're all going to pay for that. I don't think you're going to go after Iraq at all. I think you got a bunch of backward mullahs to kill a bunch of other backward mullahs for you, is all. There's a lot of torture going on in Afghanistan now, there are mass graves, there's people suffocating to death in shipping containers and being thrown into holes like Joseph was.
I don't like this war at all. I do not like it, Joe-I-am.
Zan will now go booga-booga at your effrontery.
This, of course, should have been the case for months, all that they've done with this "he's in that cave complex, he's outside Jalalabad, etc" is increase the man's mystique and make themselves look silly.
But the main reason for stopping speculation must be this one - he's escaped to Pakistan. Bin Laden is now anywhere in Pakistan, a US ally, and it will be to embarrasing to admit it even as Pakistan goes through a tough period.
See today's Wp article linked in AP thread "A Doctrine of Moronic Infallibility"
We're comin for you.
After Afghanistan, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz said the Pentagon could turn its attention to Indonesia, the Philippines, Somalia and Yemen.
The Moron King: In Search of Another "Trifecta" Win
As predicted a month ago or more, Panty Waist's Powell is no slouch when it comes to Court Intrigue having sent Wooley Head Woolsey on a fool's errand to get the 9-1-1 goods on Saddam...
Proving once again what we all have known...first in war, peace, etc.
DETROIT (AP) -- Security guards at Washington's Reagan National Airport forced U.S. Rep. John Dingell to strip to his underwear before boarding a flight to Detroit.
The guards at the Northwest Airlines terminal did not believe the 75-year-old congressman's explanation about his metal hip, which he received after a horse fell on him 20 years ago.
``They felt me up and down like a prize steer,'' Dingell, D-Mich., said. ``I was very nice, but I probably showed I was displeased.''
The private security guards made him take off his overcoat, then his suit coat, then his shoes and socks on Saturday. When he still triggered metal detector alarms, the guards took him to a back room and asked him to remove his trousers.
You have your ills, and they must be treated, but you also have your enemies, and they must be defeated.
It's about militant Islamists in Central Asia, roughly centers on one man - Juma Namangani - and the movement he's part of - the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. It's Rashid at his best, highly recommended to all.
As a teaser, here is the conclusion:
> Support from Osama bin Laden has ended, and the I.M.U.'s sources of financing from the Uzbek diaspora and Arabs in the Gulf states have been dramatically cut back. But if Namangani and Yuldashev are still alive, they will soon reorganize and begin carrying out acts of terrorism against the Karimov regime and against American targets in the cities of Uzbekistan. In any case, the I.M.U. fighters who have escaped from Afghanistan will regroup, probably among the sleepers who remain in Central Asia, with their secret organizational structure intact. Funds are still available from the heroin trade. The poppy-planting season began in November in Afghanistan, where the new government is unlikely to be stable for years to come, if ever.
> Uzbekistan and other Central Asian regimes have made no gesture toward reforming their grotesque record of human-rights abuses. Muslim believers remain in Uzbek jails, elections are a farce, there is not even minimal freedom of the press or of assembly, and torture is commonplace. In this landscape of repression, which appears to many to be sanctioned and rewarded by the United States, the I.M.U. and other radical Islamic parties seeking to end the status quo cannot help but find supporters.
January 8, 2002
The Gist
Michelangelo Signorile
The Real American Taliban
Now that America has taken on religious persecution in Afghanistan–and boasted about it from here to kingdom come, with our First Lady leading the charge–will we have the courage to do so right here in our own country? And what about in those other Islamic fundamentalist states?
During the week between Christmas and New Year’s, while many Americans celebrated the fact that we’d liberated Afghans from the Taliban, our dear friends the Saudis beheaded three men because they’d allegedly engaged in homosexual acts. If the beheadings were anything like those of the past, the men were taken to a "Chop Square," which is usually located outside a mosque, where men gather after prayers and watch the event. An executioner lifts a big sword and lops off the restrained prisoners’ heads. The decapitated body is then sometimes crucified. Such is the punishment for homosexuality and a lot of other offenses against Islam in the lovely desert kingdom. It doesn’t seem that the U.S.’s increasing economic and military relationship with Saudi Arabia over the years has changed things a whit. Beheadings have in fact risen in the years since we saved the Saudis’ asses–and the oil fields–from Saddam Hussein.
You probably didn’t hear about these recent atrocities because, as usual, they were largely ignored by the corporate American media, and certainly by the U.S. government. The Saudi story that has been given much more media play since Christmas has been about how Saudi-led OPEC decided to cut oil production to boost oil prices. And that story of course underscores why the U.S. stays mute about Saudi Arabia’s increasing human-rights abuses and its flagrant violation of a UN charter it signed prohibiting torture (in addition to beheadings, public floggings have been occurring in Saudi Arabia as well).
As in Egypt, where Hosni Mubarak’s government stepped up arrests of allegedly homosexual men at the same time that Mubarak supported the U.S. in its war on terrorism, cracking down on homosexuals is a way to show that you’re still down with the fundies on the street, even as you’re siding with evil America for practical purposes. Lop off a few heads in a public spectacle and it may keep the wolves at bay a bit. The Saudis either don’t care about world opinion or know they’ll get away with such abuses on the international stage because countries like the U.S., which at least publicly if sometimes tepidly criticize China for human rights violations, aren’t about to say a damn thing to inflame tensions and perhaps interrupt that oil flow. From our standpoint, what are a few heads if it’ll keep us barreling down those highways? (And don’t get me wrong: I want to keep barreling down those highways too; I’d like to see us do it in ways that get us off corrupt, bloodstained Saudi oil, but that’s another column.)
Well, for the same reason that Saudi Arabia slices off the heads of homosexuals: because some religious fanatics believe homosexuality is bad, and the powers that be kowtow to those religious extremists. They are the real American Taliban–the Christian Coalition, Gary Bauer, The 700 Club and Focus on the Family, the Catholic cardinals–forcing their way into politics and believing their religious beliefs should be the law of the land.
But George W. Bush, you might be thinking, couldn’t possibly support such heinous laws–not our wonderful, compassionate president, who has recently caused his poll numbers to soar by taking on religious fanaticism in a foreign land. Not our president, whose own wife spoke out about the brutal religious persecution of women in Afghanistan.
"I honestly don’t think that Gov. Bush would believe that the [Texas sodomy] law should ever be changed," he told me.
Our former president, Bill Clinton, kowtowed to the American Taliban early in his career as well. He supported the Arkansas sodomy law as state attorney general, and as governor of that state too. But as president, within a national party in which women, gays, African-Americans and others have made a lot of progress, he was at least able to stand up to the American Taliban on gay rights, abortion and other issues.
It is very different for a Republican president, however, as a member of a party that the American Taliban has occupied. More than that, it is born-again George W. Bush who, according to The Washington Post, is now considered the leader of their movement. "Pat Robertson’s resignation this month as president of the Christian Coalition confirmed the ascendance of a new leader of the religious right in America: George W. Bush," the paper reported two weeks ago.
Religious intolerance breeds hate and violence no matter what nation it finds a home in. Our very own religious right inspires the thugs who bomb abortion clinics and kill gays on the streets. Now that he’s vanquished Afghanistan’s mullahs, will George W. Bush have the guts to take on the American Taliban?
Unlike his sad sack Poppy, you won't see GWB's chimp visage on Time with the caption WIMP.
Richard Reid gets no respect. The aspiring shoe-bomber's fellow passengers say he seemed like an oddball from the get-go, and his fellow radical Muslims aren't rushing to his defense. "The guy doesn't look like a genius," observed Sheik Abu Hamza al-Masrik, who runs an inflammatory London mosque that Reid may have attended. Reid, Hamza marvels, "didn't even have a lighter. He tried to light the thing with a match."
I think Reid deserves to be taken more seriously—not as a first-rate terrorist, maybe, but as a sign that the war on terrorism, as it's now being conducted, isn't going to get the job done.
Man in the Arab Street By Robert Wright
Moreover, the lifting of the Taliban's yoke was not the aim of our action in Afghanistan, but rather, a pleasant dividend.
Lastly, Signorile's link of beheadings to seldom enforced and antiquated American sodomy laws demonstrates a vile martyr complex. I'm reminded of Fran Drescher kvetching to Larry King about how hard the paparazzi were on her Manhattan existence while Lady Diana lie bleeding in the street.
Re. 18580 -
But shouting down and harassing speakers they don't like is such a beloved and popular tactic of the Left....why don't they see any wrong in it when they do it?
Meanwhile, I'll struggle to avoid starvation and hypothermia in this even more brutal upper Midwest winter where we have not even had significant snow yet in my neck of the woods and it's supposed to reach close to 50 tomorrow.
LOL!
Note to the FAA: Why not do what you really want and allow access to trainer aircraft for any rubber room material which staggers through the doors of flight training schools?
PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.
In the book ''Bin Laden, la verite interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.
Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''.
She denies all.
On August 20, 1998, our last democratically elected President, Bill Clinton, ordered a cruise missile attack on Afghanistan in an attempt to hit Osama Bin Laden. (Clinton missed by a few hours, the time it took for the missiles to reach Afghanistan from the Indian Ocean.) Two prominent Republican Senators - Arlen Specter (PA) and Dan Coats (IN) immediately suggested that Clinton was "wagging the dog" to distract the nation's attention from Monicagate. These accusations were immediately trumpeted by right-wing commentators on on radio and TV. Obviously these traitors were so obsessed with President Clinton's private life that they were paying NO attention to Bin Laden's terrorist attacks on US targets in the middle east and Africa.
We Can Play 'Wag the Dog'
No, that was a different thing entirely. The demonstrations during the election flap were similar to the garbage that college students pull to stop any speech they disapprove of.
Again, the issue is that the reaction was spontaneous. People didn't come to protest, they came to see their kids graduate. The speaker said something that they found objectionable. The audience booed. That is rude. But the fault, if any, lies with the speaker would couldn't keep to the sort of mild platitudes that are expected in a graduation ceremony.
You miss my point.
I did not say that the two incidents are similar - what I said was People are pissed about the crowd's reaction to Heaphy for just the same reason they could not seem to accept Republicans holding demonstrations in Florida during the 2000 election flap: indignation at their own tactics being turned against them.
The similarity is in the reaction to both events from the left.
Hey connie, what year did you first notice the corpses piling up in the street?
Extra pointes: When did Reagan mention AIDS?
Re:Message # 18613:
You would be mistaken, yet again. There has been a very vigorous discussion within the gay community about responsibility in the AIDS pandemic. In fact, your assertion that there has been no discussion of it at all is ignorant nonsense.
As for responsibility in the propagation of the AIDS epidemic, gay male promiscuity may well pale as a contributing factor compared to societal and governmental marginalization of gays.
It is sadly amusing to see social conservatives such as yourself blame gays for AIDS when you (no doubt) at the same time condemn gay marriage.
I wish I could figure out if Cellar is a communist or a Democrat.
Love to see that "documentation" on the Bush "thaw."
Last time I looked Mary Cheney was still in the deep freeze.
Until she does something about her do, it is probably for the best, as glenda intimated some months ago.
As for the documentation, it is found in Sullivan, and in Newsweek.
And thanks be to God, that that is the black, and not the red.
What I wish is that Michael would get his meds right.
If it weren't for gay pressure in the '80's, the early AIDS carriers would have been tracked and possibly quarantined, as has been the standard practice for any other deadly, incurable communicable disease since the dawn of modern medical history.
If this had been done at the proper time, (and I should point out in the mid '80's that I was strongly questioning the lack of proper medical protective procedures for this epidemic) many hundreds of thousands of predominantly gay men would be alive today.
Thus it appears that the US gay community bears a heavy burden of blame for the destruction of very many of its own, and even, worse that of the continuing loss of tens of millions of lives from AIDS and all its attendant misery worldwide.
Incidentally, discussion 'among' the gay community doesn't cut it at all. The discussion has to be forthright and honest and with society at large. The idiotic pressure to discard sound medical practice that society received from the gay community in its place has been one of the most wrongheaded and destructive societal trends in the last 20 years.
Koop was an extremely proactive surgeon general in at least making the public aware of the disease, although his 'remedies' were inappropriate. Contrast that to the WH Rapist whom you all love, who allowed the SG post to remain empty for three years.
In 1984, I predicted that a cure for AIDS would not be found for at least 20 years regardless of the best efforts of researchers.
Guess I have had a hell of a lot better fix on magnitude of the AIDS situation than all you dumbfucks who bet your asses on a quick medical cure, now haven't I?
You silly goose! Concerned is an ardent centrist; as he will tell you ad nauseam. Between what poles he is centered remains open to question.
If the gay bathhouse crowd in the 1980s had stopped their behavior while the government was investigating how the disease was spread, the so-called epidemic wouldn't have happened.
Now they're blaming Reagan for their lack of discipline
YOU WANT US ALL TO DIE DON'T YOU!! ADMIT IT YOU FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT!!!!!
SHOVE YOUR FUCKING JESUS UP YOUR FUCKING ASS!!!
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what is called nation building."
"It is the record of eight years of stewardship over the American armed forces by President Clinton and Vice President Gore," he said. "Eight years of neglect and misplaced priorities. Eight years of multiplying missions and unclear goals. Eight years during which the enemies of freedom have not been idle. Eight years is a long time -- and eight years is long enough."
Mr. O'Hanlon, the Brookings Institution analyst, criticized Mr. Cheney for not proposing a specific alternative for overseas commitments or enlarging the military. "As much as Cheney says we've overdeployed and overcut, there's been no proposal by the campaign to reverse either of those policies," Mr. O'Hanlon said. "The idea they'll review U.S. commitments and find any big cutbacks is illusory."
A former national security budget specialist under Mr. Clinton, Gordon Adams, said many of the problems Mr. Cheney cited, including substandard military housing, was prevalent during the Bush administration.
"He's selectively culled barnacles of the readiness issue, but many are out of context," said Mr. Adams, who now directs the security policy studies program at George Washington University. "This is not neglect, I'm sorry."
Click on: Je veux mettre fin au terrorism
One is that until we have actual blacklists and internment camps we have no beef with what is happening. That since a visit from Federal law enforcement is not the same thing as being a Jew in Nazi Germany then we should shut up about it.
That was just my spoof on your position. I was quite clear in other parts of my posts that all of the incidents you linked to were trivial ones: no one was hurt, jailed, fired or otherwise put off their feed for any time. To compare this to MaCarthyism is pure bumptiousness on your part.
The second thing is that visits from Federal law enforcement are "routine".
I said they appeared to be routine visits, not -- as you suggest here -- that visits from law enforcement officers are routine matters for most people.
continued ...
That is because art obviously wasn't being sanctioned. The agents were almost certainly following up on a report that said a picture of a burning Houston skyline was in a museum. The agents go to check it out to see if there is any connection to a group wanting to make life imitate art. They ask questions to see if people at the museum might have connections to certain suspected radical groups or terrorist cells. This explains certain lines of questioning: where did she go to school? Who funds the museum? As the agents were there for an hour, I imagine they were a host of other questions designed to see if there might be a connection to some group wanting to cause harm to the U.S. They probably discovered there wasn't. Routine visit over. Agents go back to the office to fill out paperwork. They might make some calls to follow up on some information they received.
This kind of work is necessary for as we now know, many people have lived in our midst for some time even while planning to kill thousands of our citizens. Despite their careful planning, some of them even dropped a few clues along the way as to what they planned to do: comments in a bar, planes left unattended on runways, training at flight schools but not caring to learn how to take off or how to land, etc. Small things that wouldn't have caught the Feds' attention before 9-11, but stand out pretty clearly in its aftermath.
continued ...
PM claims that there is no overt attempt to intimidate. But the woman involved says, " ...they asked me where I went to school, and if my parents knew if I worked at a place like this, and who funded us..." Now if I were asked these questions I would take it as attempted intimidation.
You probably would, but you seem prone to all kinds of misinferences.
I said there was no overt intimidation. I think that if the young woman's version is accurate (we don't have the Feds' account), then the agent who asked if her parents knew where she worked was out of line.
But what he said was not an overt attempt at intimidation, and probably not even a underhanded one. He probably let his professionalism drop for a moment because he was disgusted by the kind of shit he was seeing and let his own morality surface. It shows a lack of professionalism, but it isn't illegal either.
Regarding Danny Glover, the issue is not, as intimated by PM, that he was heckled and that the Trentonian received anti-Glover mail and there was call to boycott The Royal Tennenbaums. The main issue, beyond the death threats, is that the Modesto City Council decided that his principled and longstanding opposition to the death penalty meritted, in the present context, withdrawing their sponsorship of him as the featured speaker at an MLK Day event. A bizarre decision given MLK's opposition to both the death penalty and war, and chilling given that this is a government body sanctioning an individual for unpopular speach.
Wake up, von Kreedon! This kind of stuff has gone on forever, and not just by government agencies, but by businesses, schools, religious institutions, and even individuals. It didn't begin happening after 9-11.
And the move by the Modesto City Council was petty, unnecessary, trivial and legal.
Live coverage of the Rink Rage Trial.
Pentagon says Marine Corps KC-130 refueling plane has crashed near Quetta. Seven Marines believed on board plane, rescue crews en route. Flight from Islamabad crashed on landing approach.
On CNN Talk Back Live, excoriating King Moron I, Panty Waist Powell, their "war" & mongrelization policies.... 
Amazon.com Sales Rank: 4
Don't blame me, I voted for Gore.
Thinkin of you:
Customers who bought this book also bought:
* The Great Betrayal : How American Sovereignty and Social Justice Are Being Sacrificed to the Gods of the Global Economy by Patrick J. Buchanan
* Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News by Bernard Goldberg
* The New Thought Police: Inside the Left's Assault on Free Speech and Free Minds by Tammy Bruce
* Coloring the News : How Crusading for Diversity Has Corrupted American Journalism by William McGowan
So far, the interviews I've seen/heard with him on the News Hour and WNYC were exhilaratingly on-target.
The book is a polemic aimed at people (international relations moralists, human rights folks) who discount the role of power in political reality.
On the News Hour the other night, he pointed out that the US should not necessarily seek to advance democratic reform abroad, but should instead seek to advance freedom, since in many places democratic reforms would lead to greater repression and tyranny than exists already. Conversely, greater freedom may be achievable only under a monarchy or dictatorship.
Not that this in't obvious. It was just a relief to hear someone say it without waffling.
I would have thought one would be branded a fascist. Trying to impose American values on other cultures.
While Clinton diddled...
Kandahar airport is under attack.
Blame Clinton for allowing US to be vulnerable to terrorism?
percent votes
Yes (2,294) (87%)
No (329) (13%)
I'm mainstream, baby! Just like I always told you.
Wombat -
Not sure why you're flagellating yourself by attempting to defend such an unlikely hypothetical.
My take is that Bore would have 'accepted' the first offer to 'negotiate' the release of bin Laden by the Taliban, and by this point in time, his largest accomplishment would have been that he would have allowed them to humiliate the fuck out of him and the US.
Probably the media would eventually also be awash in apologias for Islam which would be touted as the 'religion of the future', under the auspices of a Bore administration.
Jeez....
Hmmmm?
That scum Al Bore would have done___________and it would have been the stupidest thing on earth.
ECO-VANDALS CONDEMNED AS DOMESTIC TERRORISTS
country was still in shock from the attacks on the Pentagon and the
World Trade Center, self-proclaimed members of the Animal Liberation
Front firebombed a primate research lab in New Mexico, causing $1
million in damage. In October, a federal land management facility in
California was torched, causing $85,000 in damage. Members of the Earth
Liberation Front claimed responsibility. The same movement is suspected
of planting two homemade bombs in November at a forestry research center
at Michigan Tech University. As the Bush administration pursues its war
on terrorism at home and abroad, some political leaders, particularly
from Western states, want to ensure that extreme environmental and
animal rights groups share the focus.
Source: San Francisco Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/01/08/MN42119.DTL
...that despite the fact that these hooligans have done far, far more damage and are much more organized and better funded than the abortion clinic trash can bombers, the left always seem to forget about these ecomaniacs in the moral equivalency games they play, post 9-11.
Hello, Rustler Pike from Israel and I'd like to first say what a great show this is and what a wonderful host you are...
This one is to Mr. Zan: sir, you never answered my impassioned pleading in that post where I called you Joe-I-am. Am I wrong to feel the grave doubt I am feeling wrt The WoT?
I quickly forgave you, because as a Christian that is my nature.
I see now that you truly are delusional - or have been unduly influenced by Bony Stokes.
But let me assure you, Mr. Pike from Israel -there were about 50 different ways the war in Afghanistan could have been a catastrophe - both for the Afghanis and the US.
As it turns out, and despite the occasional village bombing, everyone is much, much better off.
..except for the Talis, of course.
Next caller....
Wouldn't you love to see a documentary about these Al Qaeda fellows, waking up from thir sedation to find themselves in the Caribbean, eating fried chicken and ogling at female Marines? It would be better if they blindfolded these guys and dropped them off at a Sandals resort or somesuch, and then picked them up after a week. They'd spill whatever beans they have in order not to be returned to the caves and goats in Afghanistan.
Now there's nothing really surprising about that other than its bad PR for Moron-the-Conqueror (nation-builder?) and perhaps gave the Talibees as false sense of security (an April Glaspy moment) but now Bu$h is dumping on repeated calls by Lieberman/McCain and others for an investigation of the Bush Trifecta Win of September 11....
And that's malodorous
The more accurate hindsight WAG = a good bet Gore would not even have waited that long b4 firing off strikes....
and the reason is not that Gore is muy macho but because his admin., a genuinely elected democratic government, would have been faced with GOP howling for action...talk show appearances, press releases, news conferences, late night meetings of the Conintern, Special Call Ups of Limbaugh Legionnaires, all delivering
Gore's a Wuss preemptive strikes on 9/12.
Aww, c'mon, give my query some more attention than that. What kind of war is this, if you can't even get BoneyLaden and you're not going after Eye-raq and you're letting the Pals get away with their gunsmuggling...? Half the Talis crossed over and became instant Northern Alliance. Your partners in crimefighting, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, are apparently some of the worst offenders as well. Surely you must have some doubts regarding this war.
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL STATION, Cuba (AP) Al-Qaida and Taliban prisoners were allowed an exercise walk Saturday with their hands bound and a U.S. soldier on each side and given medical exams on their first full day under tight security at this remote U.S. military outpost, U.S. officials said.
Of course I have some doubts about the war. And had the Afghan leg of it gone one tenth as bad as everyone said it would, I might be whining about those doubts.
Yea, the Saudis seem to have gotten a big pass. And Iraq...maybe - but that remains to be seen. So far, about all we've got is the diplomat's meeting in the Czech Republic (but I have great faith in GW - I think he'll want to settle his dad's score sooner or later).
But Arafat? From where I'm sitting, it seems the US has pretty much left him flapping in the breeze. Even Powell has said that weapons shipment looks to have been arranged at the highest PA levels.
And just a few weeks ago, we'd have been raising holy hell about Israel's deconstruction of Pal homes and airport, let alone bombing ships in their harbor. And, to tell the truth, the pro-Pal contingent in the US media has been relatively quiet and uncharacteristically non-hysterical these past couple of weeks.
What did you expect - we were gonna go over there and start bombing them too?
Now it seems as if India's got Musharaf shitting his drawers, so I don't think Pakistan will be the safe haven the Talis thought it would. And whatever powers-that-be that exist in Somalia seem to be shaping up to our way of thinking in advance of whatever it is we're going to do there.
So, basically, at this point I'd have to say my optimism at what has happened so far greatly outweighs whatever doubts I have.
That's apples and oranges. The Indian government won't give a fuck one way or another if Pakistan harbors every last Taliban supporter in the world. Their terrorism concerns have a rather different center, and everyone else knows this.
Truth be told, we don't give a fuck if Pakistan harbors hordes of Taliban fugitives; we don't want most of them, taking them would be pointless and stir up anger. and they're a massive liability while they're on our hands, and we'd be returning all but a ten-thousandth of them anyway.
Perhaps you meant to refer to al-Qaeda and not the Taliban. In which case India still doesn't give a fuck, at least once you get past the cosmetic level of international diplomacy.
I thought most of them were Arabs? Afghan food is akin to Indian food. I expect they are serving halal meals, however one refers to it.
The climate is not good for terrorists in Pakistan, and recent events have only served to make things worse for them.
I haven't trusted Musharaf since this whole campaign began. He's looked as if he's had a gun poking him in the back of his head, and I suspect it was ours.
It's nice that he has two guns poking him now.
And yes - I think we do most certainly give a fuck that there are al-Qaeda and Taliban hiding out in Pakistan. We are going to great lengths this very minute to insure that we wipe out whatever small pockets are seeking to regroup in Eastern Afghanistan, and we would be doing the same in Pakistan if we had our druthers.
As has been pointed out many times here, the border separating the two countries in that region is merely a formality.
Uh... OK. Whatever. I hope you're right but the WoT looks a bit uninspiring right now, from my perspective. Send my regards to Bush's wife please and ask her if she's the ice queen she looks like she is, OK?
What the hell has you so...whaddayacallit -verklempt(sp)?
What do you mean by "letting the Pals get away with gun smuggling"?
What are we supposed to do, besides sit back and shut up while you guys do what needs done?
I donno, it's true these simultaneous local wars I'm waging against the Arabs, the Council, the Feminists, the racists and the overdraft -each of which would have been enough to cow a regular man (and please don't be offended by my use of the bovine verb) - have got me nearing the stage where I will crawl back to my doctor and ask for those Prozac prescriptions again, so maybe I'm taking it all on Rumsfeld, through you.
Otoh, there is this creeping feeling that maybe there is no moral backbone to the Bush administration, and no clear objective to this war. If we see ObL's head on a platter sometime soon, the feeling will change. But if we see another ObL video - it's gonna be bad.
As for the ship: the administration is taking weeks to say what needs to be said - that this is Arafat's ship and he's buying time while preparing a Big Terror War and all negotiation with him must stop. Zinni should say that, instead of helping Arafat cover his tush and saying he's 'optimistic'. There's nothing to be optimistic about. The Pals have played their hand and it's a bloody one. Now it's war, and Zinni should say as much. No point in even negotiating a ceasefire, seeing as the negotiations are being used as a smokescreen.
Perhaps you meant to refer to al-Qaeda and not the Taliban. In which case India still doesn't give a fuck, at least once you get past the cosmetic level of international diplomacy.
India does care about whether Al Qaeda escapes to Pakistan to avoid the U.S. attack in Afghanistan -- not for the U.S.'s sake, but for its own.
Al Qaeda strongly supports Kashmiri independence from India, and I'm pretty sure that support includes training of terrorist groups that have infiltrated Indian-controlled Kashmir. At the very least it would include funding and other secondary support.
India can be grouped along with Russia as two great powers who were happy to support the U.S. war in Afghanistan for their own ends. The same is also true of a third great power (China) to a far lesser extent. It was thought that with U.S. bombs taking out the world's largest terrorist network in Afghanistan, local terrorist networks in Chechnya, Kashmir, and even Xinjiang would also be weakened.
Where is he?
My bet would be Saudi Arabia, believe it or not. Or perhaps Yemen.
Farther afield and much better hidden than that is my guess. They are going to be extra careful to preserve their prized figurehead since they so badly underestimated the destruction the US was willing to inflict to kill him. I would guess he is not in an Islamic country.
Somewhere above you made the point that those in the administration were making claims about UbL and Mullah Omar. I believe you confuse pundits for spokesmen for the admin. However, if you can point out who and where anyone in the administration made claims about the l;ocation of UbL, I'll retract.
UbL may be hiding out with the Ute Indians in eastern Nevada.
or Paraguay.
Fleishcer, DD spokesmen, Rumsfeld himself stated categorically for weeks that "Bin Laden is in Afghanistan". I'll look for cites later if you wish.
Very-normal looking people. Unfortunately some were missing arms and legs. First time TV has ever aired the ceremony live. As a New Yorker, I was very proud of those warriors.
Well there you go --playing the Victim Card.
My, how P.C. !
Of course no one in the administration said they knew where UbL was. Runsfeld has over and over again he did not know where Ubl was and if he knew they would go get him. What he did say was he had no credible evidense that UbL had left Afganistan. Of course, your purpose might be to make the administration loook foolish. You are indeed a sly fellow.
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Bush administration will not seek the death penalty for John Walker Lindh, charging him with one count of conspiracy to kill an American citizen and other crimes, a government source said today. A senior administration official said the administration will charge Lindh with one count of conspiracy to kill an American citizen or citizens; two counts of providing material aid to a terrorist organization; and one count of prohibited transactions with a terrorist organization. The source said the charges could subject Lindh to life in prison, but he won't face the dealth penalty.
I wonder if this is because he didn't speak in the interview? I hope so; that's been bothering me.
If he really wants to freak the west out, he'll roll through some casino with a few Saudis playing high roller, and quickly move on. Somebody will spot him on a surveilance tape and it will be all over the press. ObL counts coup on Bush, again.
There is no reason to believe ObL shares your fixation on Bush. It is an intersting projection, though. You identify with a mass murderer.
There is no reason to think he isn't fixated on the man who made him look inept, either.
Rama -
Leave to Lefties to ally themselves with those who would destroy their way of living merely to score imagined political points.
Message # 18665, Message # 18667
How is Kaplan's "pagan ethics" different from, say, Kissinger's "realist" approach? My understanding is it's founded in the belief that the jungle law rules and will always rule international relations (nations don't have friends, only interests and all that).
I actually think the USA has a stellar record of bringing moral considerations to bear in its foreign interventions. From WWII and the Marshall Plan, via (parts of) the Cold War, to Kosovo. No European nation has ever done as much, and no Euro diplomat in his right mind would ever think of doing so.
The US's "go-it-alone" tendency under Bush (pre-9-11) was wrong-headed. Not only morally or ethically (whichever ethics you'd like to apply), but even considering its real interests which are bound up on a stable global environment.
I don't think I've seen the distinction between promoting democracy and promoting freedom made before. I am not sure what to make of it.
since in many places democratic reforms would lead to greater repression and tyranny than exists already. Conversely, greater freedom may be achievable only under a monarchy or dictatorship.
Not that this in't obvious. It was just a relief to hear someone say it without waffling.
I am afraid it isn't all that obvious to me...
Do you have a link to some Kaplan piece explaining his views?
Sure, some will take potshots at us, but even those warlords who might think of challenging a U.S.-led peacekeeping force admit that they were wowed by the incredible power America displayed here. For all the talk about the vaunted Afghan fighters, this was a war between the Jetsons and the Flintstones — and the Jetsons won and the Flintstones know it.
Everyone interested in the anthrax issue must read this report from the Federation of American Scientists:
http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm
Looks like the attacks were domestic, and now we could be facing the possibility of a coverup, or at the least a play-down.
And the opening statement:
All the available evidence indicates that the source of the mailed anthrax, or the method and materials to make it, is a US government program.
I do not identify with ObL in any way other than your febrile and febile imagination.
I apologize for pointing out the painful fact that Bush personalized the struggle against terrorism by strongly identifying it with ObL early on, and that so far he has failed in meeting his objectives thus far. Life as a Bush bootlicker is difficult at times isn't it? Don't worry, he can take care of himself.
ObL may be laughing now, with his finances and organization intact enough for him and his organization's leadership to have largely escaped the noose Bush set for him in Afganistan, but things may change. The administration has hifted its focus to a long term campaign against Al-Qeda and the like, and they will hopefully have the last and best laugh.
The most profound projection in the recent posts is that you assume that I am a moron such as yourself and concerned who is incapable of expressing a criticism of a leader without simlutaneously opposing his objectives.
a little matter of 5 Billion in debt....
Fat chance!
Halliburton will not allow it.
At the same time, I think it is dishonest and insulting to change the race of the firemen.
If they want a memorial to all firefighters, then create something different. Don't repaint reality.
And then there's the inconvenient fact that the ones who didn't survive were also white.
It's not a huge deal, to me. I just don't like it.
The people who commissioned the statue and paid for it have the say-so in how it looks. They decided and that should be that.
In any event, I think it's further indication that affirmative action isn't working. When you move into a sort of Orwellian insistence on a reality that doesn't exist, it's time to try something new.
What makes it disgusting as well as Orwellian is their desire to have it both ways. They could just create an original multi-cultural tribute to firefighters. But no, they want the rush that comes with the natural, spontaneous, photo that caught everyone's hearts. They want that.
And then they want to touch it up so their voters don't get annoyed.
Because that's who this is aimed at. It's not a tribute to firefighters in New York, the majority of whom are white. It's a feel good eventual tourist site, and they want to make sure the minority voters in New York are assuaged.
Best laugh all day!
Who said slighted? Dishonest was what was said.
The three flag-raisers? Well, yes, but I doubt they will compain. They actually did what the statue depicts.
The dead white firefighters?
Sure. Making an issue out of this that could have been avoided by being honest is a slight. Just like making political hay parading around ground zero is a slight.
I just don't think
Full stop is sufficient.
The three flag-raisers?
Actually, yes. Two of them are being slighted. And when you consider that the act that is being memorialized was spontaneous, heartfelt, and their idea, I think that slight becomes something worth considering. The city is stealing their act away from them and perverting it--not in the name of a fire department filled with minorities (since it isn't), but in the name of city politics.
I just don't think the inclusiveness of the proposed statue it should be the big deal that conservatives think it should be.
I think it is stupid to make a big deal out of it, given that they have so little credibility on the subject. But it is a lie. It is a perversion of reality. It is done not for firefighters, but to make minorities in the city feel better about themselves and ensure that the site won't be controversial so that they can get lots of tourist trade out of it.
So no, they shouldn't make a big deal out of it. But it is a big deal.
Despite the fact that three possible names had been selected for this new park and given to the artist who designed it (Maya Lin, who designed the Vietnam Vets Memorial in DC) who was to have the final say (and had expressed a desire to give it the Native American name for the area on which it sits), and despite the fact the no Black individual or organization had contributed a significant amount, and despite the fact that the project's largest private donor - which gave over $3 million -expressed dissatisfaction over the choice...despite all this, the City was bullied into naming the park Rosa Parks Circle - despite the fact that Mrs. Parks has never had a single connection to the City - never even visited.
Change history...rewrite history - same shit.
It's obviously because they were looking for someone famous with the word 'park' in their name, doofus.
If it was a veterinary clinic -then they could name it 'Vietnam Vets Plaza'. You see now?
I'm sympathetic to your point, but if the U.S. makes a re-deployment in the region, we will still be in the Middle East, which is contrary to bin Laden's goal of driving us out. We also will not be so closely tied to one of the most despicable regimes in the world.
Saudi simply isn't cooperating with us in this war on terrorism. With the terrorists on the run and sure to be eventually defeated, I'm less concerned with how our move is perceived by them, then I am with how it is perceived by a state that has tacitly sponsored them.
I think we are in basic agreement on Saudi Arabia and their role in the rise and fall of Bin Laden.
I would like confirmation of Bin Laden's death or his capture before we "settle up" with Saudi Arabia. Remember how Saddam was able to turn his crushing defeat into a "victory" for the teeming masses of the Arab world. I would hate to see Bin Laden turn up on video to claim victory in a similar manner.
In fact, the case can be made that Saudi Arabia has been the most faithful, responsible and accomodating US ally over the past few decades. When the US calls for help, whatever kind of help, the Saudis have generally been the first and most generous of respondents.
When Texas was in deep trouble in the 80's, with oil prices dipping dangerously low, old man Bush went to the Saudis for hep. No problem, Texas was rescued. The fact that oil prices have stayed the way the US mostly wants them for the last 15-18 years is almost entirely due to Saudi compliance. Even in this "war on terrorism", the Saudis have been lauded by virtually every important decision-maker in the Bush II administration for ponying up what is required, but mostly behind the scenes.
Now, when it has become fashionable to hypothesize future sources of oil, the Yanks have partly turned on the Saudis and you hear the overblown rhetoric that they're "despicable. But in the short and medium term, good old Saudi Arabia still holds the global price of oil in its hands and will still be greatly counted on by Americans to maintain their "way of life." And you know what? Despite the Yank rhetoric, those nice sheikhs will continue to do more than almost anyone else to play ball, solid allies that they are.
I have a limited problem with SA - they export Wahhabism. This should be curtailed.
But for the rest, I don't think you can particularly blame the ibn Saud regime for having produced the hijackers and UBL any more than you can blame Venezuela for Carlos or Mubarak for al-Zawahari. Let's not forget that all of these fellows were "turned", became al-Qaeda members, and plotted their acts in Germany and most probably the UK. Should we turn the tap of overblown rhetoric onto those NATO allies as well?
Saudi Arabia has been not just compliant, but uniquely helpful, time and again when the US has needed it. I suggest that this should be kept in mind.
In fact, the case can be made that Saudi Arabia has been the most faithful, responsible and accomodating US ally over the past few decades. When the US calls for help, whatever kind of help, the Saudis have generally been the first and most generous of respondents.
You make it seem as if there has been no quid pro quo in the relationship. You would have less trouble understanding international relations if you would stop looking at it like it was some kind of tea party.
You also egregiously oversimplify Saudi's relationship with the U.S., which has been far more tumultous than this master-dog relationship you draw up here.
When Texas was in deep trouble in the 80's, with oil prices dipping dangerously low, old man Bush went to the Saudis for help. No problem, Texas was rescued.
You are ignorant if you ascribe what happened in the eighties as being resolved by a meeting between Bush and the Sauds. If the relationship was so good, why did Texas's economy suffer for so long in the first place?
The fact that oil prices have stayed the way the US mostly wants them for the last 15-18 years is almost entirely due to Saudi compliance.
It's hard to know where to begin with this. When you say "U.S." do you mean oil companies or the U.S. government? The two have not agreed at all on what oil prices should be at, and both seek to influence the Sauds. Within the last two years, oil prices have fluctuated enormously, with the Sauds making moves that the U.S. consumers did not like seeing. Even more recently, it has been Russia rather than Saudi which has provided more support for low oil prices at a time when the U.S. needed them.
continued ...
On rare occassions, Bush has publicly lauded the Sauds for providing support, but behind the scenes U.S. officials complain they actually receive very little support of information from the Kingdom.
Now, when it has become fashionable to hypothesize future sources of oil, the Yanks have partly turned on the Saudis and you hear the overblown rhetoric that they're "despicable.
Banks, no one here is more subject to intellectual fads (usually -- like Castro or Mugabe -- taken up long after most other people have left them behind) then you are.
There have a few journalistic pieces taking the Sauds to task for their tacit or double-faced support for terrorism, and rightly so. But it is hardly a cause celebre. And as you point out, officially there hasn't been even a whisper of dissatisfaction with the Sauds from the U.S. administration.
Again, when you use a word like "gratitude," I assume you don't understand the nature of the relationship, believing instead that it is built up in a similar way to two pals doing favors for each other over a period of years.
And Saudi can only be considered a stellar ally if you narrow your scope to places like Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Egypt. Yes, by the low standards of the neighborhood and prior to 9-11, Saudi seemed a worthwhile ally.
I have a limited problem with SA - they export Wahhabism. This should be curtailed.
This is not too different from saying you really only have a problem with Nazism's anti-Semitism.
Can I assume then that you don't find Saudi's treatment of women, its human rights record, its lack of democracy in any way "despicable?"
You know, it's hard to read Pincher nowadays without laughing. It's pure gonadal prose, bloated with faux aggressiveness like a puffer-fish inflated with air, like a steroid-enhanced woman wrestler pretending to take on the men in the WWF.
Okay, I admit I laughed at this.
But judge me lightly. You have to remember that I think of you as a balding, overweight Hindu with lightweight ideas about the world. In that light, it's hard not to get puffed up when corresponding with you.
When it comes to Saudi Arabia, and most other countries, I don't think it is in the US interest to start bleating nonsense about womens rights and democracy. It exposes the US as hypocritical to the core, and it diverts this country from focus on what is important - strategic interest, mutual benefit.
In fact, the US has never stood for democracy, womens rights, human rights, et al, with its allies. To the contrary, it has propped up, in some cases created, regimes all around the world which have not given a shit about such niceties. To suddenly start bleating about such matters in Saudi Arabia would be completely ridiculous. It is this fact that made Laura Bush's inanities about the Taliban's treatment of women so unwelcome and farcical.
In effect, I don't particularly give a shit what the Saudis do internally - it's not a matter of international interest and has no implications for the global community. When it exports Wahhabism, their policy becomes an international problem, and I think this should be curtailed as much as possible. (Which will be difficult, since the Saudis sponsor mosques and schools around the world - including the US).
Your analogy bringing in (surprise, surprise) the Nazis is laughable. I've previously commented here that some few (characterization witheld) can only make one analogy for "baddie" and that is "they're as bad as the Nazis". Oooh, that must mean our Saudi allies are awful bad.
There are grand mosques everwhere, from London to New York to California to every Asian country, all built with Saudi money and mostly funded from the kingdom. There is no greater conduit for benevolent and charitable Islamic funds than Saudi Arabia.
This is why it is hard to divorce Wahhabism from Saudi philanthropy. Everyone wants (and many need) the money for good purpose, it;s when it comes with radical clerics that a problem ensues.
Mosques look deserted except at prayer times. In any case, adherents.com states that 10% of Gibraltar's residents are Muslim.
Even if that number has fallen, I wouldn't rule out symbolic importance - there is probably something important for some Muslims/Arabs in seeing a mosque on that territory - once part of a glorious Muslim tradition in Europe.
When it comes to Saudi Arabia, and most other countries, I don't think it is in the US interest to start bleating nonsense about womens rights and democracy. It exposes the US as hypocritical to the core, and it diverts this country from focus on what is important - strategic interest, mutual benefit.
I'm glad you recognize the words "strategic interest" and "mutual benefit," because your earlier posts slighted them altogether with your talk of "stellar friends" and "gratitude."
I called Saudi Arabia a despicable regime and later challenged you to find some basis to defend it against that claim. You now are reduced to a core defense of well, what it does inside its own borders is its own business. I know you don't believe this as you have given a thousand examples contradicting it in the past. But for the purpose of this debate, I'll ignore the elasticity of your views and focus on your basic points.
In fact, the US has never stood for democracy, womens rights, human rights, et al, with its allies. To the contrary, it has propped up, in some cases created, regimes all around the world which have not given a shit about such niceties.
The U.S. has generally been a force for rights and democracy around the world, but with some places, it has been handicapped in its fight by the lack of fertile ground for their development. In most of these cases, the U.S. has usually chosen the lesser of whatever evil was in the region. Occasionally, it hasn't, and occasionally, for the best of reasons, it has picked the wrong fight (like Vietnam).
continued ...
I'm not bleating about them. Saudi was a despicable regime before 9-11 and it is a despicable regime now. But before 9-11, I agreed with U.S. policymakers who thought that Saudi was an ally the U.S. had to keep in a critical region. There were worst countries in the region (Iraq, Syria, and Iran) that were more aggressive in their policies, and the Saudis were wealthy and cooperative. Now, it's hard to argue Iran is as dangerous as Saudi Arabia to U.S. interests if Saudi continues to promote extremism and gives little to no cooperation in the fight against terrorism.
Your analogy bringing in (surprise, surprise) the Nazis is laughable. I've previously commented here that some few (characterization witheld) can only make one analogy for "baddie" and that is "they're as bad as the Nazis". Oooh, that must mean our Saudi allies are awful bad.
They are pretty bad. I'm amazed at your desire to whitewash them, but then you've always had a soft spot in your heart for dictatorial Third-Worlders who defied the U.S.
"Ibrahim-Al-Ibrahim Mosque
Made possible through the kindness of King Fahad of Saudi Arabia. It was built in 1997 and is the most southern Mosque in Europe. It Is a magnificant building which when lit up at night can be seen from across the straits in neighboring Morocco. "
I am sure it's meant to be symbolic.
They have also completely stonewalled the US investigation into the Khobar Towers bombing, wisked ObL relatives and others associated with him who were in the US back to the Kingdom before any of them could be exploited as an intelligence resource following the 9-11-01 bombings, directly financed terrorist orgainizations like Fatah, turned a blind eye to the financing of other extremist organizations through "charities" with are either hopelessly intertwined with fund raising for terror or simple fronts for them, and promoted a reactionary form of Islam at home and abroad.
They had their own interests at heart in each and every decision, and acted in accord with US desires largely when they coincided with their own. Not surprising behavior by any nation, but the essential conflict at the heart of Saudi government policy- reactionary religion with modern pro-western economic organization.
leads to a duplicity in their pursuit of self interest that isn't as obvious in nations without such a schism in their outlook.
That is the key point.
Are we in a position to do without them?
But what Banks calls "fashionable," most others would certainly say is a reasonable change of mind. There is nothing wrong with adjusting your strategy or world view when presented with new evidence. In fact, the opposite is the case: there is something wrong with someone who sees the underhanded promotion of terrorism in a state against a putative ally as not a strong enough basis (fashionable, he calls it) for that ally to make major changes to the relationship.
It's not a question of doing without them. It's a question of whether we are willing to apply enough leverage to get them to change their domestic policies. To do that, they have to believe we are serious enough to cause them more trouble than their own internal dissidents would cause.
Respectfully, I disagree. I'm not particularly interested in changing the domestic policies of despicables like Saudi Arabia. In the end, First World pressure is not likely to inhibit the daily inclinations of the savage. The people of Saudi Arabia (or China, for that matter) must shuck that yoke in later years (or decades).
However, I am perfectly willing to reassess a nation's value to us in terms of foreign policy, and, to the extent their domestic policies harm us (i.e., an inability or unwillingness to crack down on internal extremists bent on exporting violence), I'm all ears.
Do we want Pakistan to become a theocratic state? Do we believe that religious education alone is enough for governance, or do we want Pakistan to emerge as a progressive and dynamic Islamic welfare state?
The Saudi domestic policies I was speaking of in that post are the ones that promote a brand of Islam that supports fanatical terrorism abroad.
We should not apply or threaten to apply force to get the Saudis to let their women drive or to open up their prisons for international inspections. We should, however, begin to promote liberal democracy in Islamic countries just as we do in East and Southeast Asia.
I'm not sure the promotion of liberal democracies are always the best template for every nation. I have serious doubts about liberal democracy in the Muslim world.
Of course, I'm with Italian President Silvio Berlusconi, quoted as saying We should be conscious of the superiority of our civilization, which consists of a value system that has given people widespread prosperity in those countries that embrace it, and guarantees respect for human rights and religion. This respect certainly does not exist in the Islamic countries.
I'm not sure the democratic will of a Saudi Arabia, easily molded by "voters" green to the ways of inflammatory language and political frenzy, would be any more advantageous to our interests.
Why?
Because some of them contribute to the support of terorism overseas.
Because others are so far beyond the pale as to be uncivilized.
I support severe strains in the U.S.-Saudi relationship to fix the first. (I have no doubt the Saudis will buckle if we push them.)
And I now support the mild strains (ones we associate with the current China-U.S. relationship) to push them to fix the second.
Their support of terrorism in other countries is what you consider domestic policy?
The Sauds are extremely pragmatic. Were I to ask them to change their domestic policy, I'd ask them to reduce their birth rate and rebuild their public education system to something we would approve of. I wouldn't care how they did it, either.
As I just pointed out, I see their overseas funding as foreign policy, not domestic. I agree that it's a problem.
You haven't yet said anything that demonstrates why they are such tyrants; what are you referring to? What behavior do you think they engage in that is unpopular with both the US and the majority of their population?
C-Span broadcast a very good special on Saudi-US relations, I suggest that people here watch it on re-run or on their website.
Businessweek ran a good article on the same topic a couple of months ago. The key article is here. A lot of it supports JonesatLaw's fine post. (One quibble, Jones, Fatah is not on the State Dept list of terrorist organizations.)
As for domestic policies such as women's rights, Caesar rightly says that it is a matter for domestic activists to take on if and when they wish. It is both hypocritical and short-sighted for the Us to suddenly crusade for women's rights (etc) in Arabia - for one thing democracy itself may be antithetical to it. Do not forget the example of Kuwait where a somewhat democratic assembly rejected the royal recommendation to extend the franchise to women.
Do I like the Saudis themselves? Not really, but they've been and are reliable allies of the US where and when it counts, in the area that the Saudis are best able to contribute - oil prices. To snap back and talk of peripheral matters like internal womens rights strikes me as a distraction and a foolish misuse of US leverage.
Far from holding to static viewpoints, as Pincher seems to imply is my position, I fully endorse a rethink of US Middle East policy, and a renewed concentration on the matters that are of core strategic interest, partly aimed at reducing the current prevailing view of the US in the region's popular imagination.
Leaving aside the familial links within the Saudi Arabian ruling class that defy and will continue to defy all attempts to track money flows to extremist organizations, Saudi Arabia has a poor record on cooperating with the US in matters relating to Islamic terrorism.
Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has been of great benefit to both countries. That does not mean that it shouldn't be subject to reevaluation and revision.
Al Qaeda is basically an offshoot, perhaps now a remnant, of the global jihad movement which was put together by those three parties, with direct US approval and even leadership.
As has been noted above, Wahhabism by itself does not equal terrorism. There are tens and tens of thousands (perhaps more) of Wahhabis right here in the US, you'll find some very close to your own home if you want to look, it needs other factors to produce anti-West terrorists.
I don't know where Davis has been, since thise kind of natter has been a staple of DD and White House newsconferences for months.
Conveniently, however, Rumsfeld again yesterday speculated (foolishly, I believe) about the whereabouts of the two -here, Al.
I'm not sure the promotion of liberal democracies are always the best template for every nation. I have serious doubts about liberal democracy in the Muslim world.
In the short term, so do I. But the promotion of liberal democracy is not a one-size fits-all template, and over the long term, the stability of the region would be enhanced if a group of liberal democratic states developed there. This would certainly be in the U.S. interest.
The U.S. promotion of democracy in the Islamic world will not cause an army of fundamentalist states to rise up in the Middle East. Most Muslim/Arab states aren't likely to immediately adopt it at our urging anymore than, say, China has. They will probably, however, be shamed into making reforms that could help begin the transistion to more civilized societies.
And even for those states which do fall to the fundamentalists, I believe there is a silver lining. Fundamentalism's appeal in the Islamic world comes more from its attractive marginalization from power than from what it offers. Even now, with their great popularity in some segments of Muslim society, fundamentalists are in control of very few Muslim states. And those they do control, they are usually highly unpopular with their own citizens. If a couple of states in the Arab world fall to fundamentalists because we push for democratic reforms, it won't be an unmitigated disaster. It may even help to innoculate others in the region from following that line.
continued ...
Our civilization is superior, but I don't think there is anything inherent about this. Democracy can take root in Arabia and other Islamic countries just as it has in nearly every other region in the world. Any long-term Middle East security and stability for the U.S. will come only after the region turns to a brand of modern liberal democracy found in those other regions.
I'm not sure the democratic will of a Saudi Arabia, easily molded by "voters" green to the ways of inflammatory language and political frenzy, would be any more advantageous to our interests.
Democracy won't come to Saudi overnight. We've been pushing China for democratic reform for years and to little effect. But we are cleared of the charge of hypocrisy that drives the anger of so many in the region. We also ally ourselves with forces that will eventually effect a change. Saudi's rulers will sell oil to us no matter who is in charge. They will ask for our troops if they are threatened by neighbors. Their people will desire to buy our movies even as they insult us. Democracy in Saudi (when it happens) won't change the equations of any of these questions in the long-term.
A quick comment before I go to bed. I'll try to elaborate on your other questions during the weekend.
The Sauds don't have a foreign policy that supports terrorism, although some of their overseas funding does go indirectly towards that area.
I was thinking of their domestic policies which give local groups money and allow them the leeway to operate overseas. I was also thinking of their practice which doesn't allow the U.S. to interrogate Saudi suspects or interview Saudi citizens to help with investigations. (I suppose one could call this a "foreign policy," but it seems more tied into domestic practice.) There are other minor examples that are similar to these. The Sauds don't have anything so crude as a particular foreign policy which supports terrorism overseas, but rather a group of loose domestic policies that enables terrorism to thrive elsewhere with the support of some Saudi citizens.
Any terrorist group only needs a few people out of a very large pool of like minded people to "take the additional step" out of a general dislike of the US or whatever. The Saudis provide the wherewithal for that pool.
A. Less than two million.
Daniel Pipes article.
Far from holding to static viewpoints, as Pincher seems to imply is my position, I fully endorse a rethink of US Middle East policy, and a renewed concentration on the matters that are of core strategic interest, partly aimed at reducing the current prevailing view of the US in the region's popular imagination.
Actually, there is nothing I've said in the last few posts that you would have disagreed with had someone else said it. Despite your new-found hard-core realism, you are on record here as being enthusiastic for the U.S. increasing its support of democracy in the region (in fact, I would guess you support it more strongly than I do). I also seem to remember you having highly negative comments for the Sauds as well, and voicing your dislike for the ideological unnaturalness of the Saudi/U.S. relationship.
Pelle is correct, and the same probably goes for other mideast US allies.
I believe I'm coming to the conclusion that the promotion of democracy abroad is not at all the highest good. Rather, the US should promote liberalism where it is substantially lacking. A liberal monarchy is better than oppressive mob rule. Liberal religious governance is better than fundamentalist religious governance. Liberal autocracy is preferable to repressive autocracy.
Democracy is for countries that have established traditions of, or proven desires for, liberty-- not for nations which would "democratize" oppression. An Iranian revolution that dispensed with the "democratic" theocracy now in power and reinstalled a Pahlavi shah would be an American ally, not an antagonist. And it would be freer and better for the majority of Iranians.
In a place like Afghanistan, the first order of business, of course, is stability. But stability without freedom is Talibanism all over again. It would invite all the same discontentments and horrors that it ever has, and all the same opportunities for manipulation from abroad. (I don't mean to suggest that the current governmental arrangement is Talibanesque, but I fear it will falter soon and local tyrants will resume brutal de facto authority.)
This isn't the whining feminist side-issue Margarinespanks would have it. In scope, restrictions on third-world women are probably more impressive than restrictions on any group you'd care to name. Females amount to about half of all populations, and women's influence and control over children (including male children) is usually significant, at least until adolescence. How can poor societies which deny work access, birth control, control over one's person, education, or (where relevant) voting rights to half their adult populations be expected to function competitively in the modern world? It seems to me a huge disadvantage.
What do unfree women teach their children?
Would they go to the gallows like good martyrs? I doubt it. Wouldn't it be amusing to watch the rhetorical aftermath of such an offer?
Actually, there is nothing I've said in the last few posts that you would have disagreed with had someone else said it.... you are on record here as being enthusiastic for the U.S. increasing its support of democracy in the region ... I also seem to remember you having highly negative comments for the Sauds as well, and voicing your dislike for the ideological unnaturalness of the Saudi/U.S. relationship.
1) You'll know when I have disagreement with something worth pointing out - I'll point it out, no need to be plaintive about it.
2) I have never, at least not in years, stated support for US promotion of democracy in the Middle East. I did, fairly recently, fully endorse Fareed Zakaria's call for measures to promote what he called something like 'constitutional liberalism' - I think that's pretty much all the US could hope for and even that should be on the backburner to other more coherent strategic interests.
3) I have also said, repeatedly and again today, that it is rank hypocrisy for the US (or some Americans) to suddenly start chirping about human rights and womens rights in Arab countries when it has (a) never been anything like a priority in US foreign policy before and (b) never been a deterrent to close allied relations in any number of places around the world.
America generally does a bad, hamfisted, and confused job of promoting such values, and can be counted on pissing off everyone including the women of the region - if it suddenly became a champion of womens rights. Look at the garbage diatribe in #18816 for clear evidence of confusion. Imagine "third-world countries" being referenced in the context of oil-rich, better than moderately-well-off, Saudi Arabia.
But there should also not be blatant hypocrisy wrt this relationship. You cannot have Mrs. Bush and Mrs. Blair addressing sympathetic national audiences deriding the nasty Taliban for not allowing women to vote, or drive, or get an education, while the governments headed by their husbands are snugly in bed with Saudis who do the same.
Rather than ditching the Saudis, ditch the meaningless, pandering, miserable, rhetoric. Just as in China, the US has long since detatched trading status from human rights matters, the US should shut the fuck up about matters it cannot influence without taking on the entire society (again, look at the Kuwaiti "democratic" example) and focus on dollars and the bottom line and much-needed Saudi cooperation in managing oil prices and supply.
I further recommend that the US troops get the hell out. If there is severe internal Saudi dissatisfaction over it, who needs the frigging aggravation? Who needs to give the extremists more "proof" of American intrangisence, arrogance and hardheadedness. Move the troops to ready-and-willing Qatar and Oman. Distance the US, with some strong language, from the black-hole of Israel's continued occupation and suppression of Palestine. Focus on where real strategic and economic interest lies - that is part of my rethink for the Middle East.
In the short term, so do I. But the promotion of liberal democracy is not a one-size fits-all template, and over the long term, the stability of the region would be enhanced if a group of liberal democratic states developed there. This would certainly be in the U.S. interest.
I'm not sure if I agree. The maturity of the populaces have to be taken into account, and fledgling democracies have problems (above and beyond when American Empire undermines them for geo-political concerns) even without the poison of religion and anti-Western virulence. See South and Central America.
"The U.S. promotion of democracy in the Islamic world will not cause an army of fundamentalist states to rise up in the Middle East. Most Muslim/Arab states aren't likely to immediately adopt it at our urging anymore than, say, China has. They will probably, however, be shamed into making reforms that could help begin the transistion to more civilized societies."
I don't think a nation with a human rights record such as "a href=http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/mideast/saudi.html" target="new">Saudi Arabia's is going to be shamed into anything
We will either require that they do it and punish them for resistance, or not, and at present, their strategic placement and natural resources have me leaning toward a less stringent demand. As I said prior, however, to the extent Saudi Arabia's domestic laxity becomes our problem in the form of exported terrorism, pressure must be applied. But if Saudi Arabia goes democratic, we may very well lose the hammer of the government (even if that hammer is presently not fully on board with our aims).
leads to a duplicity in their pursuit of self interest that isn't as obvious in nations without such a schism in their outlook.
I don't think a nation with a human rights record such as Saudi Arabia's is going to be shamed into anything
And even for those states which do fall to the fundamentalists, I believe there is a silver lining. Fundamentalism's appeal in the Islamic world comes more from its attractive marginalization from power than from what it offers. Even now, with their great popularity in some segments of Muslim society, fundamentalists are in control of very few Muslim states. And those they do control, they are usually highly unpopular with their own citizens. If a couple of states in the Arab world fall to fundamentalists because we push for democratic reforms, it won't be an unmitigated disaster. It may even help to innoculate others in the region from following that line.
This is an interesting point, but wouldn't fundamentalists be most likely to use the democratic model to achieve power, only to discard it as a Western sickness once ensconced?
"Our civilization is superior, but I don't think there is anything inherent about this. Democracy can take root in Arabia and other Islamic countries just as it has in nearly every other region in the world. Any long-term Middle East security and stability for the U.S. will come only after the region turns to a brand of modern liberal democracy found in those other regions."
It can, but timelines are timelines. We are very sophisticated practitioners of democracy. The worst it got over a disputed election last year one year ago was shrill.
By nature, as Empire, we are designed to be hypocritical. We cannot divest ourselves of that reality, unless we are willing to commit massive effort, both financial and military, abroad, and accept a significantly reduced standard of living at home.
Nor do I believe hypocrisy drives the anger. The anger is driven by the fact that we are Empire.
Period!
Our centurions kill for you as they kill for me, Cellar. Your comfortable indignation and reproach are bought and paid for by the starving of many a savage nation.
Jones
You dare interrupt Caesar?
As for "savage nations" ours would do well to look in the mirror. Just because we have clean pressed linen napkins to wipe the blood from our chins doesn't make us any the less bloodthirsty.
I point, yet again, to the record in Kuwait where the small kingdom eventually contituted a roughly democratic assembly partly as a result of US prodding. First major item produced by democratic consent - the rejection of a proposal to grant women the vote. I also offer the example of Qatar, which has uniquely and quite commendably moved towards democratic representation and a set of constitutional freedoms. America's response - a strong official request to curb press freedoms as granted to the Al Jazeera network.
This is Arabia.
Democracy will most often result in a thwarting of US interests and recommendations, and perhaps even a kind of Balkanized chaos. Let our United States push for constrictions on export of extremism, and let the two countries continue to play ball on oil prices - that's what is in the best mutual interest and what is the core of strategic considerations.
It has some surprising sections, particularly in part II, and does an excellent job of analysing the whole bundle of relationshiops involved in US addiction to cheap petroleum.
By doing this we will lay the foundation for democracy in the future. One cannot have democracy without democrats. Democrats depend on an orderly life with predictable and fair rules for individuals to advance their own interests, personally, politically and economically. Self-restraint and enlightened self-interest drive modern democracies, and these things are most often found in people who have something to lose if there is a radical and unpredicable change in the social order.
Salutations to all.
Democracy did not rise in the west in its modern form until relatively recently. Transitional forms were the norm until the last century, with the democratic power creeping down the social and economic strata in rough parity with the increase in material wealth and education.
Why should we expect the rest of the world be able to skip directly into advanced civilization? It is fair to assume that they will advance with a bit more speed and certainty than we did, if only because they can learn from our successes and mistakes, but not that they should be able to create political systems without the underlying social and economic order that brought them about in our societies.
"a vast, interlocking, global network of businesses and investment professionals"
The Carlyle Group
In the gravy as long as the "War" and the Warriour King endure
From the Chevron/Texaco Board Link in the article, the pater familiar
J. Bennett Johnston, 68, was elected a Director in 1997. He is Chief Executive Officer of Johnston & Associates, a consulting firm. He served as a U.S. Senator from Louisiana for 24 years. He is President of the U.S. Economic Cooperation Council and a Director of Nexant, Inc. and Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc. (1, 2, 3)
Zip...zap...send page to...hehehe...
I love stirrin shit
While serving as Ronald Reagan's vice president, he departed from the White House's official stance and visited Saudi Arabia to plead for an end to sliding prices. Bush argued that he was simply trying to protect American security interests by protecting domestic producers, who have higher costs than their Persian Gulf counterparts. But higher prices had another benefit: by protecting domestic oil jobs, they helped shore up support in Texas for what would eventually become his successful 1988 presidential campaign."
Thus spake the Moralist With a Mideast Plan.
What a relief. Can we be let off the hook for unilateralism and capital punishment, too?
America pisses off everyone, regardless, it's a function of being a superpower. We might as well stand on our principles--wherever it's politically possible to do so. Anyhow, past failures are no reason not to aspire to better performance in future, are they.
(By the way, like Pincher I'm finding Spanks' newfound 'hardheadedness' extremely entertaining.)
We'll let no strangers wait outside our door~
Bring it on!
I agree with this on a gut level, but not intellectually. Pulling out would be tactically disastrous unless we extracted a useful concession from someone for doing so, or at least ensured a regional penalty that would have Arabs damning Saddam and Osama in five years' time. For instance, I would have no problem with our removing troops from SA if we could simultaneously disengage from OPEC. But we can't, and it looks like Murcans haven't the discipline or the vision just now to begin moving decisively toward an ideal of energy independence. Which is a shame, and maybe worse.
"Who needs to give the extremists more "proof" of American intrangisence, arrogance and hardheadedness."
Well, this argument is flatulence disguised as rhetoric. Only about 500 US policies announce this "proof", and if they didn't, 500 would have to be invented. Under no circumstances should the US concede or even appear to concede in that way to such opinion--which, as an exponent, you should know is hardly held exclusively by "extremists".
"Move the troops to ready-and-willing Qatar and Oman."
Oman I haven't yet given any thought to, but Qatar does seem an obvious choice (unless it's militarily or politically disadvantageous for some reason). Qatar is controlled in some ways by Saudi Arabia. But it might not be if US troops were stationed there in great numbers.
On the other hand, there's no reason to assume stationing troops in Qatar would necessarily skirt Arab ill will.
Do you train with Bela Karolyi? Your mental gymnastics are positively Olympian. Whatever happened to "America generally does a bad, hamfisted, and confused job...and can be counted on pissing off everyone...?"
How about "Distance the US, with some strong disincentives, from Yassir Arafat's cause, yet maintain efforts to broker a peace deal premised on an end to Arab terror and the formation of a demilitarized Palestinian state"? That's more in keeping with American values and interests: Israel, not nascent Palestine, is our reliable ally. Israel, not Egypt, not Iran, not Syria, not Iraq.
"Focus on where real strategic and economic interest lies - that is part of my rethink for the Middle East."
Your "rethink" for the mideast is strikingly like Osama bin Laden's.
Yes, half a hammer is better than a cleric. Which is why we'd be better off expending political capital advancing liberty in Saudi (and elsewhere in the Arab world), to the extent possible and prudent, than advancing democracy.
The obvious emissaries for such a subversion would be American Muslims. And the prime targets for expanding the expectation of freedom may be women.
Also right.
Saudi Arabia's rulers are increasingly uncomfortable with the U.S. military presence in their country and may soon ask that it end, according to several Saudi sources. Such a decision would deprive the United States of regular use of the Prince Sultan Air Base, from which American power has been projected into the gulf region and beyond for more than a decade.
NY Fire Department Backs Down
The three men – Johnson, McWilliams and Eisengrein – are themselves opposed to any rendering of the flag-raising that does not depict them. Their lawyer warned the fire department to "cease and desist" from using the photographic image of the three men that was to be the model for the statue.
Late this afternoon, the fire department bowed to that pressure. After a day of meetings with Bruce Ratner, the statue's benefactor, Fire Commissioner Nicholas Scoppetta announced he "will consider new options" for a memorial. Ratner, whose real estate company manages the fire department's headquarters building in Brooklyn and who commissioned the statue, has agreed to allow the department to take the lead in finding a new design.
It also mentions that a newspaper owns the right to the photographs, and that the three men's lawyer is also representing that newspaper. So it's unlikely they support the change.
Sort of figured there was some impediment.
But this article sounds like a US withdrawal from SA is an eventual given in any event.
Maybe the next time we have to go to war to protect oil access... we won't. At least, not without a contract.
I wonder if maybe this story is just floated to shut everyone up? "Yes, we'll be divorcing but right at this moment we have to stay together for tax purposes. But we'll file next year, really. We've had the talk."
"By nature, as Empire, we are designed to be hypocritical. We cannot divest ourselves of that reality, unless we are willing to commit massive effort, both financial and military, abroad, and accept a significantly reduced standard of living at home."
Could you expand on that? Why are "Empires" designed to be hypocritical?
There, the FLN-derived anti-colonial/socialist/revolutionary secular regime which had held power since 1962 and which had driven the country into a hopeless economic mess was prodded into holding democratic elections in 1990 (I think). The fundamentalist party (Islamic Salvation Front, FIS) was expected to do well, but not to actually win power. When it turned out to gain a majority in the first round of the two-rounded election, the government cracked down, cancelled the second round and imposed a state of emergency. This resulted in armed resistance from the Islamists, and Algeria has been marred by a spiral of violence and atrocities ever since.
I believe the West, notably (and a bit ironically given FLN's roots) France, has been supporting the Algerian government. But I have always thought it was the wrong choice.
Better let the fundamentalists try their hand at government, even if it meant strangling the fledgling democratic experiment. They'd be sure to run into trouble and calls for liberalisation and democracy.
I hasten to add that I haven't read up on this, and I may have some details of the story wrong.
I'd welcome comments from people in the know here.
The closest thing to what Algeria would have gone through is the experience of Iran, which after over 30 years, a ten-year war in which hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed or injured, an extremely brutal and repressive government, is slowly and incompletely starting to emerge into something resembling a democracy (it also has a long way to go). I don't think that any country should have to go through that, if it can be avoided.
the ten-year war might have been avoidable in Algeria's case. It doesn't have a neighbour comparable to Saddam's Iraq.
I believe that the original strategy for the Kingdom was to build the infrastructure for rapid deployment, with minimal personel there for security, maintenance and those command and control functions that cannot be easily put in place in times of need. We will have to have a certain amount of intelligence gathering people there and people who will serve as liasons to SA officials and other friendly forces in the area.
Towards the larger issue, that of the uneasy fit of foreign troops in a society that is not far removed from the clannish ways of nomads and small villagers, it takes pressure off the House of Saud in their balancing act between their policies supporting an extremely conservative brand of Islam at home and their outward-looking pro-western economic and international policies.
Finally, a gradual distancing of the US from the House of Saud while trying to promote increasingly warm relations with the Saudi public is in our long term interests. Reducing the outrageous dependency we have on imported oil would facilitate this greatly. Without that dependence it would be far easier for us to promote the western liberalism we espouse with greater credibility when we are not forced to make the sort of compromises with those ideals that geopolitcal and ecomonic realities force us into in the middle east and elsewhere.
Empires are designed to be hypocritical because the primary aim of Empire is not worldwide consensus or communal good, but rather, a high standard of living and maximum security for citizens of Empire. In and of itself, there is no inherent hypocrisy in valuing first and foremost these goals, but three factors make the hypocrisy of The American Empire impossible to avoid.
First, in delivering security and wealth, all Empires can afford the luxury of moralism. Internal dissent becomes more and more tolerated, and public servants, more and more uneasy about the brutal aims of Empire, salve their collective conscience with humanitarian gestures that often influence or drive policy. Thus, with morality in the mix, inconsistent results abound.
For example, The American Empire can directly intervene in Chile, propping up Pinochet, and assisting in brutal repression. Why? The high priests of Empire at that time determined that the interest of Empire (wealth and to a lesser extent, security) dictated the action.
The American Empire, however, can also repel an invasion of Kuwait by Iraq and levy sanctions against Iraq (abetting the deaths of thousands if not hundreds of thousands) in what is a morally murkier area, where our interests are served, but our goal is also easier to defend as "good". Thus, we have a greater tendency to wrap the policy in moralistic terms.
Then, The American Empire confers aid to millions of starving people or attempts to protect U.N. food shipments in a Somalia simply because it can afford such a gratuitous exercise.
Second, The American Empire is founded on Judeo-Christian principles, further foisting moral concerns into the policy arena, highlighting the battle of "doing good" and "doing good by us".
Third, The American Empire is a true democratic Empire, and foreign policy debates are often marked by moral issues.
One would hope it could be dismantled and relocated. Somewhere.
I would hope not.
Of course, there may be a military policy that says cost be damned, get our technology out of there. Maybe Pincher knows what happens in these cases.
Especially, 1) "We're not good, they're not evil, everything is relative."
Listen carefully: We're good, they're evil, nothing is relative. Say it with me now and free yourselves.
You see, folks, saying "We're good" doesn't mean "We're perfect." Okay? The only perfect being is the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The plain fact is that our country has, with all our mistakes and blunders, always been and always will be, the greatest beacon of freedom, charity, opportunity, and affection in history.
If you need proof, open all the borders on Earth and see what happens. In about half a day, the entire world would be a ghost town, and the United States would look like one giant line to see "The Producers."
Which dovetails into some of my response to sto on the necessary hypocrisy/moral quotient of American Empire.
That's next year's model.
Saudi Arabia.
Interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai has left for Saudi Arabia on his first trip abroad since taking office last month.
The talks - expected to focus on Saudi assistance for rebuilding Afghanistan - come before an international donors' conference being held next week.
The BBC's Mike Wooldridge in Kabul says Mr Karzai's visit is yet another demonstration of how far things have changed in the region since the 11 September attacks on the United States.
.....
Before embarking on his trip, Mr Karzai told a Saudi newspaper that Saudi Arabia was considered among the first to provide unlimited support to the Afghan people.
....
However, I do think it's a bit ridiculous to call this particular fellow a suspect. The ugly-as-sin bloke should be called Loser Shoebomber or something catchy like that, and be done with it.
thanks, but I am unconvinced. It's clear, btw, that when you say Empire, you actually mean democratic, Judeo-Christian USA. And that hypocrisy springs from the latter two rather than from the first.
What you're saying is that this particular Empire needs moral legitimacy with the public, which necessarily leads to a tendency to lie about its intentions and actions.
I don't think that's necessarily so. And I think your line of thinking gives the executive a free reign to do whatever it finds is in the interests of Empire. No obligation to level with the public, because, hey, as Empire we're designed to be hypocritical. It's just reality. Shrug. And don't forget: We are hypocritical on your behalf too, so just shut up and take it like a Roman.
thanks, but I am unconvinced. It's clear, btw, that when you say Empire, you actually mean democratic, Judeo-Christian USA. And that hypocrisy springs from the latter two rather than from the first. What you're saying is that this particular Empire needs moral legitimacy with the public, which necessarily leads to a tendency to lie about its intentions and actions. I don't think that's necessarily so. And I think your line of thinking gives the executive a free reign to do whatever it finds is in the interests of Empire. No obligation to level with the public, because, hey, as Empire we're designed to be hypocritical. It's just reality. Shrug. And don't forget: We are hypocritical on your behalf too, so just shut up and take it like a Roman.
I did not say empire requires moral legitimacy. American Empire craves it, and probably achieves it seven days out of ten, but that stems from the fact that American Empire is democratic and Judeo-Christian. It is by no means, however, a requirement. Most empires have been rooted in self-interest and ruled with only a passing nod to the will of the people. For those who want American Empire to not only afford them the luxuries of modern life but also want to feel good about it, those facts are unpleasant, but must be faced. Now, historically, there may be non-hypocritical empires, without any reining in of avarice by the will of the citizenry or the "do unto others" ethos. If American Empire is encumbered by these factors, thus necessitating hypocrisy, so be it. I suggest it is preferable to a straigtforward, totalitarian and morally rudderless empire. And even those empires were not averse to an inconsistent position - or twenty.
And when the barbarians come to the gate, your worried and ambivalent head will be on the pike along with that of Caesar. And rightly so.
In their extensive coverage of the John Walker saga, many of the nation’s mainline newspapers and broadcast news outlets have explored the question of why the son of a well-to-do family in Northern California would take up arms against his own country in a harsh foreign land.
What the hell - stop me if you've heard this:
It seems that Osama Bin Laden recently found a corked bottle in the desert. He pulled the cork from the bottle and a beautiful female genie appeared.
The genie offered to grant OBL one wish. OBL became angry at the distraction from his daily terror planning and told the genie to piss off. The genie pleaded with OBL to allow her to grant his wish because if she did not she would be doomed to eternity as a prisoner in the bottle.
With a great deal of apparent disgust OBL said "Alright I would like to wake up in the morning with three American women in my bed".
The genie snapped her fingers then disappeared.
The following morning Osama woke up in bed with Lorena Bobbit, Tanya Harding and Hillary Clinton. His penis was missing, his knee was broken and he had no health insurance.
Reminiscent of the way some of his men find themselves guarded by scowling female soldiers.
'Eat my breasts, burkha-man!'.
His lawyers have "serious doubts" about one of the charges - Conspiracy to Destroy a Vehicle of Mass Transport or something. It's a new charge under the Patriot Act.
"An airplane can hardly be equated with a mass transport vehicle such as a train or bus", the lawyers said in explaning their confusion and subsequent silence in answering that charge.
They were joking, right?
I mean, no one's really that stupid, are they?
Oh, I don't know...you tell me. The newest flyer to be dropped over Afghanistan shows OBL holding a leash with Mullah Omar attached at the other end, like a master and pet out for a walk. Is this the best they could do? Do Afghanis get the concept of pet owning? You never see anyone walking their dogs in newsfilm...
I'm sure they have all sorts of explanations and psychological studies to back up these choices on the flyers but they all seem like they were doodled by Rumsfeld or someone bored on a long drive. "Hey, THAT would be funny...Osama leading Mullah Omar around like a dog! Yeah, thet's the ticket!"
Or maybe the lead guy on the flyer team has bondage issues...
However, if one looks at them from the only angle which really makes sense (but which the US would be ill-advised to admit to) - that the flyers are intended to force OBL and Omar out of hiding in order to maintain whatever credibility they still may have left - then, if one is honest with oneself, one would perhaps be forced to reassess her conclusions regarding Sec. Rumsfeld's intent (though perhaps not his artistry).
However, I do think you should be able to admit when they screw up...the yellow packets of food which looked like landmines; a few mistaken targets; a plane flying into a mountainside...they've made a few mistakes. And I think this flyer is a rather lame attempt. I certainly don't think it's going to be the instrument of sending Mullah Omar and OBL running out into the sunlight begging to be understood and redeemed.
Don't go attributing things to me I don't feel...I don't dispise the American intelligence community at all; I just happen to think they were asleep at the wheel. And according to people more knowledgeable than either you or me, I'm not alone in that assessment.
PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MAKING New Year's resolutions for a long time. Usually they're personal and last no longer than a smoke ring or one of Tom Daschle's smiles. You know the drill: "I'm going to cut down on my drinking, lose a few pounds, and read more books." Of course, by January 3rd, you get drunk, order a pizza, and buy a satellite dish.
3) "The C.I.A. and the rest of our intelligence community has failed us."
For 25 years we have chained our spies like dogs to a stake in the ground, and now that the house has been robbed, we yell at them for not protecting us.
Starting in the late seventies, under Carter appointee Stansfield Turner, the giant brains who get these giant ideas decided that the best way to gather international intelligence was to use spy satellites.
"After all," they reasoned, "you can see a license plate from 200 miles away." This is very helpful if you've been attacked by a license plate.
Unfortunately, we were attacked by humans. Finding humans is not possible with satellites. You have to use other humans. When we bought all our satellites, we fired all our humans, and here's the really stupid part. It takes years, decades to infiltrate new humans into the worst places of the world. You can't just have a guy who looks like Gary Busey in a Spring Break '93 sweatshirt plop himself down in a coffee shop in Kabul and say "Hiya, boys. Gee, I sure would like to meet that bin Laden fella."
Well, you can, but all you'd be doing is giving the bad guys a story they'll be telling for years.
You might have a tiny point if the criticism resulting from the first flyer "fiasco" had resulted in an admission from the administration that it was indeed a bad idea (or even if the "outrage" of the people of Afghanistan - who were, according to the liberal press and its flunkies, to have been highly insulted by our taking them for such fools) had ever come to pass.
But, no...
In fact, the next batch of flyers is even more ridiculous - an obvious parody, as a matter of fact. (Does my earlier prediction of pictures of OBL and Omar screwing a camel seem so far-fetched?)
You'd rather believe the Bush Administration is flaunting its stupidity, instead of admitting you were wrong.
Listen - let me spell it out for you:
The flyers are not being dropped in order to fool the silly Afghan people into believing that OBL and Omar are running around clean-shaven in John Travolta's old suits and engaging in perverted sex acts. Neither does anyone think that they will force OBL to come out flapping his arms yelling "HERE I AM - I'M ALIVE, YOU EVIL INFIDELS!!!!"
We have no way of knowing whether OBL is alive. So we drop these flyers - each batch more ridiculous - more ridiculing - than the last. After a little while, OBL either becomes a laughing-stock, or he lets everyone know he's alive and well and still plotting the demise of the Great Satan - probably with another tape for al-Jazeera.
All we're doing is trying to find out if he's alive.
Get it?
I know!!! Candygram!!
Hey - you know what I find really hard to believe?
That anyone is stupid enough to buy this crap (which, btw, no-one at the DOD has ever asserted) that these flyers are meant to "turn ObL's supporters against him".
I mean, as if the US thinks the Afghans, upon seeing an obviously doctored photo of ObL leading Omar on a leash, are suddenly going to think, "Holy shit! I never realized what perverts these guys were - lemme go turn them in!"
Does the term psychological warfare mean anything to you? Could it be that in Afghanistan, like in most of the Middle east, 'dog' is the worst epithet in the book? Could it be that these ridiculing leaflets are part of a psy-war campaign to establish who's in charge and who isn't? Who's 'da man' and who isn't? Who gets respect and who doesn't?
I haven't seen the leaflets, mind you.
This item might also qualify as psywar though I think "trivialwar" is more accurate.
Walker of 'Walker Texas Rangers" fame has now entered the "war" on terrorism folks in a CBS made for TV movie, tommorrow night, Walker is the President's Man in whatelse "The President's Man"!
On CBS.
If that is the case, why not have GWB holding a leash with OBL on it? That would psych out anyone.
Hmmm. Not bad, I guess. But Joe's ideas are better. You lack Joe's innate evilness, I'm afraid.
No, your ideas are Southern molasses, hon.
As a person who believes that self-interest is (and should be) the basic motivating factor behind a state's actions in the international arena, I'm happy to see such tough-minded sentiments are widely shared here in The Mote, not least of all by its normally strident moralist, Majori Banks.
But most of you take a good thing too far. You have found all sorts of excuses not to implement a moral foreign policy, the type of foreign policy the U.S. must have if it is to practice foreign policy at all, and also the kind of foreign policy that is needed for the US’s long-term interest in the Middle East.
As Henry Kissinger has shown in Diplomacy, most Americans foreign policy-makers since Woodrow Wilson have had a more idealist bent. This includes everyone on the ideological spectrum from Jimmy Carter to Ronald Reagan. To the extant Americans have wanted to engage in foreign policy at all, they have mainly chosen idealistic principles to guide their policies -- mixed with some realist tactics.
continued ...
1) Over the long haul, the U.S. public will not accept a U.S. foreign policy that does not have a strong element of idealism/moralism in it. During the Cold War, the idea that the U.S. was not only fighting for its own freedom, but for the freedom of others allowed the U.S. public to make huge sacrifices over several decades in areas of the world of which it was only vaguely aware. Yes, there was often a core element of self-interest in these policies -- there are in any state's foreign policies. But self-interest is insufficient to explain many of the actions the U.S. took during this period. And U.S. policy-makers often explained their own policies, both to the voters and among themselves, in moral or idealistic terms. This was just as true of a Ronald Reagan as it was of a Jimmy Carter.
continued ...
3) The spread of sustainable democratic governments serves the U.S. interest. There is a good deal of evidence that democratic governments simply get along better, have a higher level of trust, and are able to work together far more closely than other alliances built by non-democracies. There are exceptions (the relationship between India and the United States, for example), but they stand out from the general rule.
continued ... "The early contributions of realism to American foreign policy should not, however, blind us to the serious weaknesses of this framework for viewing international relations, both as a description of reality and a prescription for policy. For realism has become something of a fetish for foreign policy "sophisticates," who often accept the premises of realism uncritically, without recognizing the ways in which they no longer fit the world. The persistence of this theoretical framework beyond its appointed time [the principle of realism was born during the Cold War] has led to rather strange proposals for how to think and act in the post-Cold War world. For example, it was suggested that the West should try to keep the Warsaw Pact alive because the bipolar division of Europe was responsible for peace that has reigned on that continent since 1945; alternatively, it was argued that the end of the division of Europe would lead to a period of greater instability and danger than was the case during the Cold War, one which could remedied through the managed proliferation of nuclear weapons to Germany.'
"Both of these proposals remind one of a doctor who, after treating a cancer patient through a long and agonizing process of chemotherapy that finally forces the cancer into remission, tries desperately to persuade the patient to continue the chemotherapy on the grounds it has been so successful in the past"
I believe I'm coming to the conclusion that the promotion of democracy abroad is not at all the highest good. Rather, the US should promote liberalism where it is substantially lacking. A liberal monarchy is better than oppressive mob rule. Liberal religious governance is better than fundamentalist religious governance. Liberal autocracy is preferable to repressive autocracy.
I agree, but this is mere tactics. Eventually, the liberal mindset must take hold and the final holding house will be a liberal democracy. The U.S. should press the Sauds (and other Arabs) to liberalize women's rights, provide more liberal educaton, respect greater religious tolerance, and other basic individual freedoms before it begins to promote holding elections (which in the best circumstances, would be a long, long time away). This liberalization would have to include, no doubt, a crack down on the extreme fundamentalists, eventually.
An Iranian revolution that dispensed with the "democratic" theocracy now in power and reinstalled a Pahlavi shah would be an American ally, not an antagonist. And it would be freer and better for the majority of Iranians.
Yes, but a liberal Shah wouldn't be as stable as a democratic government would be. That's an important point to remember. You've narrowed down to two options, when there should be more available.
And there is no doubt the majority of Iranians right now desire greater openness and contact with the West as well as a more liberal society. It is not the democratic elements of the Iranian government cracking down on them or keeping them from pursuing an opening to the West.
I have never, at least not in years, stated support for US promotion of democracy in the Middle East. I did, fairly recently, fully endorse Fareed Zakaria's call for measures to promote what he called something like 'constitutional liberalism' - I think that's pretty much all the US could hope for and even that should be on the backburner to other more coherent strategic interests.
I hope you'll note there is no plaintiveness in my voice when I say this is no different from my idea pushing for liberal democracies.
*****
Your recent fondness for self-interest as the sole motivator of a country's foreign policy belies your recent exclamations of grief over the U.S., first, warning Al Jazeera over anti-U.S. propanganda, and then hitting the Arab station's Afghanistan transmittor to stop it.
And a couple of weeks back, you said Israel was bound by its own Declaration of Statehood from pursuing a foreign policy of its choosing, and cited legalisms to back your point up.
This is not the standard idea of self-interest, realism, and power, and your usual posts on international relations here are not the slightest bit informed by those concepts. But I've long since given up on coaxing some coherent viewpoint out of you.
Can you mention an Arab leader who has done this without being thrown out of power?
We could and should demand the equivalent of a South African policy for Americans doing business in the region. Back in the 70s, American women could go unaccompanied into any local restaurant, market, or suq wearing nothing more than pants and a long sleeved shirt. These days they must wear veils and have a man with them to step into the "women's section" of McDonald's. That is unacceptable.
So we can place more restrictions on American businesses--and god knows they'll whine about that. Demand the elimination of all restrictions for American women, or even demand that the restrictions be made optional--after all, if the argument is that women do it by choice, there should be no reason it's required, yes?
But it's pretty clear that the restrictive laws are welcomed by their populace. Why not instead demand that they create an acceptable populace? That's more to our advantage, and it's easier for them to accomplish with dictatorships.
We could push Saudi Arabia for population control and excellent schools. Eliminate the madrassahs. Invent some moronic religious rule about the evils of having more than one child. Set education standards for women. We could link something they want to it--student visas, for example. Countries that don't have an open public education system that meets the US standards can't send any citizens to the US for advanced education.
These policies could yield some decent results in another 30 years--like maybe a population that wants to live in a Western world.
Over the long haul, the U.S. public will not accept a U.S. foreign policy that does not have a strong element of idealism/moralism in it. During the Cold War, the idea that the U.S. was not only fighting for its own freedom, but for the freedom of others allowed the U.S. public to make huge sacrifices over several decades in areas of the world of which it was only vaguely aware. Yes, there was often a core element of self-interest in these policies -- there are in any state's foreign policies. But self-interest is insufficient to explain many of the actions the U.S. took during this period. And U.S. policy-makers often explained their own policies, both to the voters and among themselves, in moral or idealistic terms. This was just as true of a Ronald Reagan as it was of a Jimmy Carter.
As it is practiced now, The American Empire's foreign policy contains a strong element of idealism/moralism. That we might even be involved diplomatically with those who chop off hands and shroud women and maintain complete control over their populaces by threat of violence can be argued as in and of itself idealistic and moral (i.e., moral engagement). That we sometimes expend vast sums and some lives to assist Somalis or Sauds or Kuwaitis is a further testament to our idealism/morality (though I acknowledge that in the case of the latter examples, the moral choice was also one of self-interest)
I think you miss a critical distinction in determining what the public will accept. During the Cold War, the public felt that we were fighting for the freedom of people like us, our brethren, or, in the vein of my most recent posts, those most likely to be the junior partners of The American Empire. But the American public itself felt threatened, and thus, it was willing to expend American lives based upon a modified domino theory.
But the nations you cite, as you say, "owe their democratic form of government to U.S. influence". Japan and The Phillipines do not fit the model, for they fell upon democracy after destruction and/or invasion. But Taiwan and South Korea serve my point that liberal democracy might not be right for the Islamic world. The governments are not the key -- it is the populaces, and the populaces of those nations do not roundly despise the West; they do not adhere to fundamentalism (which makes the West an enemy in all critical forms); and they do not make the Israel question the burning issue of their existence. Moreover, while Taiwan and South Korea are economically important, they do not possess oil.
I see your Fukuyama and raise you a Samuel Huntington: As people define their identity in ethnic and religious terms, they are likely to see an "us" versus "them" relation existing between themselves and people of different ethnicity or religion. The end of ideologically defined states in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union permits traditional ethnic identities and animosities to come to the fore. Differences in culture and religion create differences over policy issues, ranging from human rights to immigration to trade and commerce to the environment. Geographical propinquity gives rise to conflicting territorial claims from Bosnia to Mindanao. Most important, the efforts of the West to promote its values of democracy and liberalism to universal values, to maintain its military predominance and to advance its economic interests engender countering responses from other civilizations. Decreasingly able to mobilize support and form coalitions on thebasis of ideology, governments and groups will increasingly attempt to mobilize support by appealing to common religion and civilization identity. . . .
I think the natural conclusion of Huntington's analysis is, at a minimum, that much of the Middle East is not prepared for democratization, and that when viewed as an import from the West, democratization will fare even worse.
Some cancers cannot be treated, some cancers require different regimens, and some treatment can be harsh (including the support of existing repressive regimes). At present, the Middle Eastern culture is antithetical to American Empire in religion, in governmental form, and in values. We could not be more different and things could not be more dangerous at this point in time.
Given the volatile nature of the populaces of Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states (I understand that the percentage of people in Iran under 30 is staggering), I'm not convinced that Asian model of democracy is in our best interests.
We may come to agreement, however, if and when the populaces of the Middle East turn to democracy in an indigenous fashion, as opposed to having their governments carrot-and-sticked into representative government by the United States. In that case, the banana ripens from green to yellow naturally, which suggests that 1) the emergence of liberal democracy is not an American evil foisted by the evil West and 2) that the populaces came upon a desire for democracy on their own, after finding a home-grown fault with their own systems.
Can you mention an Arab leader who has done this without being thrown out of power?
The late king Hussein of Jordan, followed up by his son king Abdullah.
No, the kings of Jordan are civilized, but they know better than to try and bring their country along with them. Abdullah's major act of bravery has been speaking out against honor killings. And in fact, that's pretty damn brave, considering the strong support it has. At least Jordan does debate the subject.
Jordan has the best human rights record in the Middle East. But the royalty has never been stupid enough to move far ahead of the population, and the population in Jordan is not significantly different from those of other Arab countries.
Failing that, find someone else to bleat at. You are dishonest and unpleasant, and I have better things to do than endure your pedantries because I've offended your pansy European ass.
Always another proverb that contradicts the first one. What matters who said it or where it came from? What difference does it make if it's contracdicted? All truths are paired contradictions, half-truths are absolutes. But the proverbist knows nothing of the two sides of a question. He knows only the roundness of answers. The ball is folowed by the child. Proverbs are what's left of literature after the smoke has cleared away. Proverbs wag their finger at the world. Proverbs always alliterate: that's one thing they have in common. Proverbs are ads that have nothing to sell. Bibles are loaded with proverbs.
Homely wisdom be damned. Let's get at the opposites. Even conservatives believe in "two sides of the question." I believe in four, eight, and ten sides to the question. The answer is asymmetrical but whole. It's not as round as a billiard ball. The world is not round. The sides of your face are never alike. There's never been the same face twice.
"Baroque is always ON THE OTHER HAND."
Karl Schapiro, "The Bourgeois Poet"
I repeat that murders of honour are not legal. However, the perpetrators often receive light sentences (6-12 months) which is, of course, not satisfactory in western eyes.
The problem with Americans is that they see the Arab world through a distorted lens shaped by the social and political conditions in Saudi Arabia. But SA is an atypical Arab country and an even more atypical Muslim country.
Yes, no argument--except that of course one wonders how to go about promoting all these goods in SA.
"Yes, but a liberal Shah wouldn't be as stable as a democratic government would be. That's an important point to remember. You've narrowed down to two options, when there should be more available."
And there will be, in the long run. But what makes you think that at this particular juncture in history a liberal Shah, specifically, a man whose aim is to establish a liberal deocracy, would not be more stable than a democratic government--which the Iranians arguably already have? (I've called it a theocracy out of contempt; it seems a failed democracy to me.)
"And there is no doubt the majority of Iranians right now desire greater openness and contact with the West as well as a more liberal society."
Is there no doubt? I assume a majority in the cities want liberalization, openness and contact; I wonder about elsewhere. Likewise, a majority of youth. But their elders...?
I'm not sure what you're arguing here.
Iran is schizoid but Mr. Hyde has the ATM card and the keys to the car, the house, and the jail. Liberal democracy will not emerge there any time soon unless there's a revolution of some sort. I doubt a liberal Islamic revolution is coming. That leaves a political revolution. It might well be that a liberal shah would have more legitimacy and could command greater power against reactionaries than a liberal democracy in Iran. If that's the case, then such governance would be more stable, since it would not rely on coalitions of factions or liberal majorities, but on the tradition of rule by right.
Such a man could go a long way toward preparing a true majority of Iranians for liberalization etc., and so, liberal democracy.
Can you mention an Arab leader who has done this without being thrown out of power?
No, but I can name so few who have even tried.
Looking at the wider Muslim world, I can think of Kemal Ataturk in Turkey and Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia. The latter is a near-perfect example of what I mean since he has simultaneously fought fundamentalism and overseen his country's modernization over the last twenty years. (He will also never be mistaken for a Western liberal or an American patsy, and yet he has been more helpful to the U.S. in its war on terrorism than has its putative allies in the Middle East.)
We could and should demand the equivalent of a South African policy for Americans doing business in the region. Back in the 70s, American women could go unaccompanied into any local restaurant, market, or suq wearing nothing more than pants and a long sleeved shirt. These days they must wear veils and have a man with them to step into the "women's section" of McDonald's. That is unacceptable.
So we can place more restrictions on American businesses--and god knows they'll whine about that. Demand the elimination of all restrictions for American women, or even demand that the restrictions be made optional--after all, if the argument is that women do it by choice, there should be no reason it's required, yes?
Yes.
continued ...
That isn't true. And it's especially not true among Saudi women. Instead, what seems to be the case is that 1) for cultural reasons, fundamentalists are given greater latitude in espousing their views and 2) those views are given greater financial and educational support. Knock out those two pillars and we would almost certainly see the growth of more liberating alternatives.
Why not instead demand that they create an acceptable populace? That's more to our advantage, and it's easier for them to accomplish with dictatorships.
Isn't that what I am asking?
We could push Saudi Arabia for population control and excellent schools. Eliminate the madrassahs. Invent some moronic religious rule about the evils of having more than one child. Set education standards for women. We could link something they want to it--student visas, for example. Countries that don't have an open public education system that meets the US standards can't send any citizens to the US for advanced education.
These policies could yield some decent results in another 30 years--like maybe a population that wants to live in a Western world.
I agree completely. We have no argument.
If most of Iran is under 30, that's to our benefit. The same can't be said for Gaza and the West Bank.
I am in full support of Ataturk's approach. But I thought he pretty much forced it on an often unwilling population. I advocated much the same thing for Muslim countries a few months ago, but I don't know that we would have the necessary toughness to see it through.
Ironically, if we forced the Saudis to modernize, angry natives could leave the country and come to America to live the life of their ancestors. And here, there wouldn't be a damn thing we could do about it.
Isn't that what I am asking?
If it was, I misunderstood. I got the impression you advocated pushing them to democratic reforms. If we agree that they should use their power to force an often unwilling population to modernize, then I'm a bit confused. But hey, agreement is always good.
But in the past, the US has always relied on democracy as the route to all goodness. In these cases, we would be using the dictatorships to enforce restrictions that any self-respecting democracy wouldn't tolerate. This seems to me a switch from our policy with communist countries, and yet I thought that's what you were recommending.
By the way, I am really appalled at the segregation and other restrictions on American women in Saudi Arabia. It simply wasn't like that when I was there. I can't get over the changes. How the hell did things go so far backwards?
Colbert King's op-ed pieces on gender apartheid (part two here) are on point. I really had no idea things had gotten quite this bad. American businesses should simply not be allowed to set up shop on these terms.
If the fundamentalists were speaking for only a minority, don't you think there would be a lot less support for Osama bin Laden and Iraq? Instead, everything points to the majority of Arabs/Muslims being anti-Western--which, for the most part, means acceptance of the restrictive laws.
As it is practiced now, The American Empire's foreign policy contains a strong element of idealism/moralism.
Not just as "it is practiced now." The U.S. has long had a strong element of idealism in its foreign policy. Even our most notable modern practitioner of "realist" foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, admits that Americans tend between two alternatives in foreign policy: idealism and isolationism. Kissinger says in Diplomacy that the modern variant of idealism in U.S. foreign policy was born in Woodrow Wilson's failure to build a League of Nations: The League of Nations failed to take hold in America because the country was not yet ready for so global a role. Nevertheless, Wilson's intellectual victory proved more seminal than any political triumph could have been. For, whenever America has faced the task of constructing a new world order, it has returned in one way or another to Woodrow Wilson's precepts. At the end of World War II, it helped build the United Nations on the same principles as the League, hoping to found peace on a concord of victors. When this hope died, America waged the Cold War not as a conflict between two superpowers but as a moral struggle for democracy. When communism collapsed, the Wilsonian idea that the road to peace lay in collective security, coupled with the world-wide spread of democratic institutions, was adopted by Administrations of both major Amercian political parties.
Caesar, you are too taken with thoughts of empire, and the language you employ is much more indicative of the Roman (or the Mongol) empire than it is of the American. Realism divorced from idealism is not an acceptable alternative for U.S. foreign policy. It will fill those abroad, who could be our allies, with hatred of the U.S. and it will cause our own fellow American citizens to become even more cynical than they already are.
continued ...
I disagree. The U.S. spent significant blood and treasure in obscure places like Vietnam and Korea. This was obviously not because they were our brothers, and yet the U.S. tried to make those places not just junior partners in an alliance. After the U.S. secured South Korea, the U.S. continued to badger it to reform, even though it was still threatened by North Korea. The current president of South Korea, Kim Dae Jung, owes his life to U.S. interference (and this was due to intervention by the Nixon administration). While this kind of activity is usually associated with namby-pamby liberals like Carter, the truth is that even the Reagan adminstration has felt obligated to push countries like South Korea and the Philippines to bolster their reforms to the point their regimes were threatened or even overthrown.
continued ...
You don't feel threatened now? Surely the War on terrorism is potentially as dangerous for Americans as the Cold War had been for them. Yes, as all of us agree, self-interest is the core interest in our dealings abroad. But, unlike other empires, it should not be the sole interest. Let me end with a quote from a book I'm currently reading that cites John Lewis Gaddis, a distinguished historian of the Cold War: Gaddis points to the crucial difference between what revisionists call the American "empire" and Stalin's: Stalin forcibly constructed an empire with a brutality that ensured its instability, whereas the Europeans voluntarily sought refuge within an American empire. We now know that the savage behavior of the Red Army in Eastern Europe eliminated any possibility that the Russians could construct an Empire by consent similar to that which evolved in the West. In the Soviet empire "there were few people left apart -- from the party and official bureaucrats who ran it -- who believed they had anything to gain from living within a Soviet sphere of influence." In the American zone, "Europeans were meanwhile convincing themselves that they had little to lose from living within an American sphere of influence."
Not all empires are equal, Caesar. For domestic reasons, any American variant of "empire" (and I use the word loosely) will have to be based on idealism. For tactical reasons, we may have to ditch these principles, but only for tactical purposes. In the final analysis, it is in the U.S. interest -- as well as faithfulness to our heritage and ideals -- that we promote democracy abroad.
I haven't got the time to peruse the entire debate, so this is just a comment on your Message # 18881 where you state:
you are free to complain in any number of fora about all the nasty byproducts American Empire must inflict in order to give you good medical, dental, heat, air conditioning, running water, frozen pizzas and a vacation that could feed an Afghan village for two years.
You are actually saying that America is so rich because it has used its military to grab wealth for itself thus denying it to others? Sounds like a page right out of a bin Laden text book. Or out of an extremist anti-globalist leftist campaign flyer.
You have the causal relationship upside-down. America doesn't need "empire" in order to be rich. All it needs is economic activity, investment, technological advance and trade -- which it arguably needs to a lesser extent than virtually every other country on the globe because its own internal market is so large, differentiated and advanced.
You need to cross the Rubicon and weed yourself of your imperial delusions.
The Economist had a leader [requires subscription, sorry] Friday that compared Pakistan's Musharraf to Atatürk - and speculated that this might be more than coincidental:
Given the world-shaking events occurring in and around his country, it would not have been surprising if Mr Musharraf had taken the opportunity to shelve plans for the restoration of democracy, which he has committed himself to deliver by October. But so far at least he has not, and he and his close associates insist that the deadline will be met. The men in khaki will hardly bow out, though. The general himself will remain as president, a post to which he has no title except might. The government will answer to him, and be dismissed by him. Real power will rest less with parliament than with a beefed-up National Security Council, composed of military men and civilians. If the model sounds reminiscent of Turkey's qualified democracy that is no coincidence. As a child, the future President Musharraf lived for seven years in Ankara, where his father was an embassy attaché. Kemal Ataturk's conception of the army as custodian of a secular Islamic democracy must surely appeal to him. Turkey offers a much more attractive model of Islam for Pakistan than do its neighbours, Iran and Afghanistan.
Thomas Friedman: Musharraf's speech has potential - potential
for the first time since Sept. 11, a Muslim leader has dared to acknowledge publicly the real problem: that Muslim extremism has been rooted in the educational systems and ruling arrangements of many of their societies, and it has left much of the Muslim world in a backward state. But he also laid out a road map for doing something about it — not just throwing extremists in jail, but confronting their extremist ideas with modern schools and a progressive Islam.
His remarks on the following of radical Islam are pertinent to the debate on whether democracy in Muslim lands lead to extremist takeovers.
Musharraf can either remake all of Pakistan's jails — to arrest as many militant Islamists as possible — or he can remake Pakistan's politics and move from a military-mosque alliance to a military- Main Street one. To do that, though, he will have to share power, attract better people into politics and dare to hold elections, which would also expose how little support radical Islamists actually have. When not propped up by the army, they have never drawn more than 5 percent.
I believe Pseuder has previously reported that local elections in the most heavily Taliban leaning provinces have yielded at most 30% Islamo-fascist support.
---
One has to be careful, I think. Authoritarian rulers may have an interest in painting themselves as the only thing preventing fundamentalist militant Islamist takeovers in order to justify their oppressive and incompetent rule. This may even earn them financial and military backing from the USA (and its junior European partners - France, in particular, has been on to such a policy in Algeria).
This naturally makes for tribal politics, corruption, cronyism etc. etc. etc.
The Arabs - like many other third world countries - need to build "hard states" in Gunnar Myrdal's sense.
You say this like 30% is a negligible number. That's not fringe, that's a significant percentage of the vote.
Not just as "it is practiced now." The U.S. has long had a strong element of idealism in its foreign policy. Even our most notable modern practitioner of "realist" foreign policy, Henry Kissinger, admits that Americans tend between two alternatives in foreign policy: idealism and isolationism. Kissinger says in Diplomacy that the modern variant of idealism in U.S. foreign policy was born in Woodrow Wilson's failure to build a League of Nations:
The League of Nations failed to take hold in America because the country was not yet ready for so global a role. Nevertheless, Wilson's intellectual victory proved more seminal than any political triumph could have been. For, whenever America has faced the task of constructing a new world order, it has returned in one way or another to Woodrow Wilson's precepts. At the end of World War II, it helped build the United Nations on the same principles as the League, hoping to found peace on a concord of victors. When this hope died, America waged the Cold War not as a conflict between two superpowers but as a moral struggle for democracy. When communism collapsed, the Wilsonian idea that the road to peace lay in collective security, coupled with the world-wide spread of democratic institutions, was adopted by Administrations of both major Amercian political parties.
I don't disagree, and I'm pleased we are in agreement that American foreign policy now has, and has always, maintained a strong element of idealism.
Daniel Pipes: Who is The Enemy?
Interesting article. He breaks down "the enemy" into three parts:
1. Osama and his inner circle--numbering in the thousands.
2. Islamic militants sympathetic and supportive of bin Laden, if not directly involved. He estimates this at 10-15% of the Muslim population.
3. Muslims who don't support every aspect of militant Islam, but who hate the US and are far more supportive of bin Laden, if given a choice. Reliable statistics on opinion in the Muslim world do not exist, but my sense is that one half of the world’s Muslims—or some 500 million persons—sympathize more with Osama bin Laden and the Taliban than with the United States. That such a vast multitude hates the United States is sobering indeed.
Indeed.
Caesar, you are too taken with thoughts of empire, and the language you employ is much more indicative of the Roman (or the Mongol) empire than it is of the American. Realism divorced from idealism is not an acceptable alternative for U.S. foreign policy. It will fill those abroad, who could be our allies, with hatred of the U.S. and it will cause our own fellow American citizens to become even more cynical than they already are.
The ideal of exporting liberal democracy is well and good, but must be tempered by "all in good time." A cynical citizenry is acceptable, sometimes even preferable, and I see no evidence that such cynicism unduly affects American foreign policy. Do you?
I disagree. The U.S. spent significant blood and treasure in obscure places like Vietnam and Korea. This was obviously not because they were our brothers, and yet the U.S. tried to make those places not just junior partners in an alliance. After the U.S. secured South Korea, the U.S. continued to badger it to reform, even though it was still threatened by North Korea. The current president of South Korea, Kim Dae Jung, owes his life to U.S. interference (and this was due to intervention by the Nixon administration). While this kind of activity is usually associated with namby-pamby liberals like Carter, the truth is that even the Reagan adminstration has felt obligated to push countries like South Korea and the Philippines to bolster their reforms to the point their regimes were threatened or even overthrown.
Yes, but the blood was shed in an overall effort to fight Communism, and most citizens did feel threatened by the Soviet Union. Moreover, our promotion of liberal democracy was often-times lame, half-hearted, and halting in places like South Vietnam (where we were complicit in the murder of Diem), Japan (where the same party has essentially ruled since WW II), the Phillipines (where we embraced democracy only after propping up Marcos for decades), and South Korea (a democracy, yes, but one that we would have destabilized if we deemed necessary during the height of the Cold War).
In short, our experience suggests that while we promote liberal democracy, such promotion is littered with conditions and often espoused with a wink and a nod.
"You don't feel threatened now? Surely the War on terrorism is potentially as dangerous for Americans as the Cold War had been for them. Yes, as all of us agree, self-interest is the core interest in our dealings abroad. But, unlike other empires, it should not be the sole interest."
As with the threats in the Cold War, I'm less inclined to place the establishment of liberal democracy in Saudi Arabia above security concerns in a region where the whole thing could bust out at any moment.
Not all empires are equal, Caesar. For domestic reasons, any American variant of "empire" (and I use the word loosely) will have to be based on idealism. For tactical reasons, we may have to ditch these principles, but only for tactical purposes. In the final analysis, it is in the U.S. interest -- as well as faithfulness to our heritage and ideals -- that we promote democracy abroad.
Again, we have a mere tactical disagreement, as long as you allow me sufficient leeway in defining when and how we are faithful to our heritage and ideals.
You are actually saying that America is so rich because it has used its military to grab wealth for itself thus denying it to others? Sounds like a page right out of a bin Laden text book. Or out of an extremist anti-globalist leftist campaign flyer.
I can understand why you might interpret my words so uncharitably given your rush to comment. What I was saying is that to the extent The American Empire is hypocritical (or whatever other aspersion you can muster), comfort thyself in the fact that it is so to your comfort.
You have the causal relationship upside-down. America doesn't need "empire" in order to be rich. All it needs is economic activity, investment, technological advance and trade -- which it arguably needs to a lesser extent than virtually every other country on the globe because its own internal market is so large, differentiated and advanced.
Do you imagine the American Empire could keep its present grotesquely high standard of living for its citizens with mere "economic activity, investment, technological advance and trade?" Would such niceties have repelled Sadaam Hussein or served to hopefully separate bin Laden from dialysis?
You have your own rubicon to cross and your own delusions to overcome.
Actually, it's not the US standard of living which is unusual, since most first world countries have at least comparable SOL's. It's the fact that it's so widely distributed among nearly 300 million citizens within a single political entity.
That is what is unique.
An Interesting Analog to our Discussion
Abroad, ideology as a driving force for foreign policy has a much more spotty history. Pursuit of economic advantage is a far more dominant and consistent shaper of American foreign policy. This is true if we are speaking of the War of 1812, the Barbary Corsairs, the Spanish-American war or the Monroe Doctrine. Some of the exceptions to the general trend are extremely large and important events. World War I and II were driven largely by ethical/ideological concerns as was the Cold War.
I noted earlier that I thought that the inherent contradiction in Saudi Arabia between modernist international economics and reactionary Islam was the source of much of the hypocracy and duplicity to be found in its relations with other states. In the US, the contradiction is between a state whose foreign policy is an outgrowth of a mutli-ethnic democracy united by ideology, and one whose policy is servant to the political power and economic interests of mutli-national corporations.
sto: I expect Musharraf suffered in the comparison. From what I know, it would not be all that easy for another Islamic leader to choose Atatürk as a model. You cannot just declare yourself the father of your country, or even the next Dwight Eisenhower.
The Arabs - like many other third world countries - need to build "hard states" in Gunnar Myrdal's sense.
Nor can a "nation" just declare that it intends to be the next Sweden and set about doing that.
The unspeakable tragedy of September 11 dramatically interrupted that trend. Almost instantly, we rediscovered our friends, our neighbors, our public institutions, and our shared fate. Nearly two years ago, I wrote in my book Bowling Alone that restoring civic engagement in America "would be eased by a palpable national crisis, like war or depression or natural disaster, but for better and for worse, America at the dawn of the new century faces no such galvanizing crisis."
Now we do.
But is September 11 a period that puts a full stop to one era and opens a new, more community-minded chapter in our history? Or is it merely a comma, a brief pause during which we looked up for a moment and then returned to our solitary pursuits? In short, how thoroughly and how enduringly have American values and civic habits been transformed by the terrorist attacks of last fall?
Bowling Together? {Robert Putnam}
BEIJING, Jan. 21 -- China attempted again today to link its fight against ethnic separatists in northwest Xinjiang province to the international war on terrorism, claiming publicly for the first time that the terror network led by Osama bin Laden had supplied violent groups in the region with money, arms and leadership.
In a 15-page report distributed to foreign reporters and posted on the Internet, the government blamed separatist forces in the largely Muslim region for more than 200 explosions, assassinations and other attacks over the past 11 years that have killed 162 people and injured more than 440. The report included unusually detailed accounts of attacks on local officials, police officers and Muslim leaders who support Beijing.
Sure. Switzerland can.
Would such niceties have repelled Sadaam Hussein or served to hopefully separate bin Laden from dialysis?
Saddam Hussein was no threat to the USA. If your "empire" was so cynical as you'd like it to be, it could have just sat back and let him take Saudi Arabia. Like you could have just sat back and let Hitler take Europe. Your "grotesquely high standard of living" would have suffered a dint, but not much more. Others would have suffered far worse. But your "empire" doesn't do such things. It's a Judeo-Christian democratic human rights morality touting kind of empire. (To think that a Yurpian has to argue such to an a-Murkin).
Besides, if you didn't have all your "niceties", you wouldn't be able to run and operate an "empire" in the first place.
"Niceties" begets "empire", not vice versa.
As for bin Laden, well, there might still be bin Ladens. But over the course of time America hasn't suffered any worse from terror than many other countries. In fact, probably much less.
I'm pleased we are in agreement that American foreign policy now has, and has always, maintained a strong element of idealism.
And your line of just wanting wiggle room in deciding what that element should be.
It seems after all you don't want your "empire" to be as cynical as I thought you did and implied in my post above. Good.
Thanks for the article, I skimmed it and it seems fairly sensible to me.
But my comments on the 5% Islamist votes in Pakistan were sparked by the debate on whether democracy in Muslim countries will necessarily lead to Islamo-fascism in power. I.e. bin Laden with a state, perhaps even a nuclear-armed state (like Pakistan). That is not likely. Will the populace be anti-American leaning, and will this be reflected in the diplomacy of such countries? No doubt.
But such a situation is hardly unique to Muslim countries. I grew up in a country that, though a long-standing member of NATO and having been freed from the Nazis by the decisive help from the USA which also supported us economically after the war, was leaning heavily in the anti-USA direction. I tell you: Heavily. The Vietnamese were the heroes of the day, we had Ho Ho Ho Chi Minh! and Yankee go home! painted at walls in the city, the public discourse was extremely critical to the USA, and the government took exceptions from NATO's policies (this was during Reagan when our government was actually conservative, but it was in majority on foreign policy issues, a weird situation that it tolerated for years).
(cont.)
Their acts were often considered horrible, but they were invariably understood and explained in light of the perceived injustices that they claimed to fight, and these were invariably sponsored by the American bogeyman.
Still, radical leftist parties (and non of them were involved in violence even if some among them romanticised it) never garnered more than 5-7% of the vote.
And if we had had a vote on our NATO membership (which was a standing demand with the left wing - our Swedish brethren were commendably, enviably neutral, Olof Palme criticised the US in harsh rhetoric), there would no doubt have been a decisive yes.
By now, some 10-15-20 years later, one can only wonder what all this fuss was about, and where it all went. Even if the USA is still used as a scare image when the welfare state is debated (often ill-advised, but there it is), there is little trace of that fierce hostility. It was a fad.
When Clinton was here in 1997 (pre-Monica), he was spontaneously celebrated in a way that would have been completely unthinkable for any other figure, whether in politics, rock, sports, arts, or what have you.
(cont.)
1) The USA shouldn't expect to be loved, not even by its allies. We often define ourselves as much by not being American as anything else, and commercialism which is often perceived as an insepid threat to cultural identity is often associated with America because 'commercial' is what America is about, and because the vehicles of this often are American, from Madonna to McDonald's.
2) Strong rhetoric, even concrete political and diplomatic reservations do not equal hostility, let alone militancy, or foreclose effective action against free-lancing terror bands.
3) Moods, even public and seemingly deep-seated moods can change. Especially when the US is seen as genuinely interested in engaging in dialogue, as I think was the case with Clinton. (Reagan was generally despised in Yurp due to his gun-slinging rhetoric. Take a moment to ponder why he was never credited with the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, something that I have almost only seen Americans do. It was Gorbachev who was the huge hero of the day in Germany).
I expect Musharraf suffered in the comparison. From what I know, it would not be all that easy for another Islamic leader to choose Atatürk as a model. You cannot just declare yourself the father of your country, or even the next Dwight Eisenhower.
No, but it makes sense to hold Atatürk up as an example and the Turkish situation as a goal to work towards. And after all, it's not like it's Sweden, is it?
<>Nor can a "nation" just declare that it intends to be the next Sweden and set about doing that.
Oh, there it was, Sweden... Of course not, that was in fact an idea I thought I was implicitly refuting. The issue is not whether to have democracy or socialism or autocracy or military regime or Sweden, or whatever. The real issue is how to create a reliable state which is predictable in its actions and actually upholds the law such as it is. Once this foundation is there, you can begin to debate which laws should actually be adopted, and how they should be decided. My point is: Most of the Muslim countries are a long way from this situation - as are many other third worlders in many respects, e.g. India (despite its democracy).
I notice that the U.S. has decided to let the rest of the world pay the lion's share of the money to help rebuild Afghanistan. I cannot think of a more short-sighted policy. The US should put up $1 billion immediately, and lead the peace and rebuilding as it has led the war. One source of additional funds could be those set aside for Egypt and Israel.
One should, of course, say the same thing about the US. Considering that the Taliban and Al Qaeda spawned from a bed of hatchlings nurtured by the US etc etc.
In any case, terrorist sponsorship has not been a regular tool of Indian government policy. Indira Gandhi did nurture Bhindranwale when it was convenient, but there was no armed struggle at that point.
I couldn't agree more. The US, for its own good, should be seen to leading the rebuilding of Afghanistan no less assiduously than it led the anti-Taliban coalition.
Shocking stuff, much of which was reported earlier (and posted by me here) while the conflict was still on. It's maddening as hell to hear about these inside deals, and even non-conspiracy-minded people like myself have to come to conclusion that something is up.
It doesn't bode well for any search for al-Qaeda in Pakistan (note how quiet the DD spokesmen are now about Bin Laden's whereabouts).
American intelligence officials and high-ranking military officers said that Pakistanis were indeed flown to safety, in a series of nighttime airlifts that were approved by the Bush Administration. The Americans also said that what was supposed to be a limited evacuation apparently slipped out of control, and, as an unintended consequence, an unknown number of Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters managed to join in the exodus. "Dirt got through the screen," a senior intelligence official told me. Last week, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld did not respond to a request for comment.
---
Musharraf won American support for the airlift by warning that the humiliation of losing hundreds—and perhaps thousands—of Pakistani Army men and intelligence operatives would jeopardize his political survival. "Clearly, there is a great willingness to help Musharraf," an American intelligence official told me. A C.I.A. analyst said that it was his understanding that the decision to permit the airlift was made by the White House and was indeed driven by a desire to protect the Pakistani leader. The airlift "made sense at the time," the C.I.A. analyst said. "Many of the people they spirited away were the Taliban leadership"—who Pakistan hoped could play a role in a postwar Afghan government. According to this person, "Musharraf wanted to have these people to put another card on the table" in future political negotiations. "We were supposed to have access to them," he said, but "it didn't happen," and the rescued Taliban remain unavailable to American intelligence.
India also sponsored Tamil separatists (LTTE), with results that--in terms of lives lost and failed aspirations--put 9/11 to shame.
we need to save our pennies for the next pummeling we dish out.
The Indian link to the genesis of the LTTE is tenuous at best. You can say that the organization got support from the Tamils (and to some small extent, Tamil Nadu state govt), but all of that pales in comparison to the support garnered from expat communities, particularly those in Canada.
Furthermore, India then went in at the behest of the Sri Lankan government and fought a tough war against the LTTE, before retreating in some disarray.
To cite India as a sponsor of the LTTE is disingenuous and ridiculous. In fact, I defy you to find any data anywhere on substantial Indian governmental ties to the LTTE, anything close to the US policies in Afghanistan which directly led to the mujahedeen rule and the rise of the global jihadis. You're massively overstating a very limited analogy.
As far as the US and being loved, not the first or last time that has been discussed here, but I've never felt the Danes were anti-American. And I can understand when our interests diverge from those of others and we disagree. For example, there's nothing "anti-American" about the Japanese looking one way at their trade surplus and our looking at it another.
It does irritate me when a nation criticizes us when we are trying to do "good"--whether or not such good is in our national interest--merely because of who is doing the acting. To use perennial whipping boy Saddam as an example, the choice between us and him is clear. Those who try to create an equivalency are letting an emotional anti-Americanism color their reaction, and that betrays to me that they fundamentally dislike my country (or at least have a chip on their shoulder against us).
I suggest you read back in the regional press in the 1980s (Far Eastern Economic Review, for example) on the role that the Tamil Nadu state government and RAW (Indian CIA equivalent) played in running training camps for Tamil separatists, providing safe haven and supply resources for Tamil separatists, and actively impeding Sri Lankan attempts to block LTTE movement across the Palk Straits to Jaffna and its environs.
Once on the ground in Sri Lanka, Indian forces discovered that LTTE goals were a bit different from "freedom" for the area around Jaffna. They wanted a good bit more of the island, and massacred non-Tamil inhabitants in the areas that they thought should make up the Tamil "state," as Indian "peacekeepers" looked on.
I still don't see why Indian experience in the past should invalidate its strong response to a different threat today, especially give the fine US example.
Not for nothing have I asked for references. Amomg other things, I know that you usually have a strong basis for your comments. Since your perception of this matter differs quite strongly from mine, I really would like to see some of the information you're basing your posts on.
There is a difference between a strong response and an utterly unreasonable one. You are quick to criticise Israel for its responses to Palestinian terrorism and its expectations of what the Palestinian authority should be doing (and I usually agree with your sentiments, if not your arguments), but seem slow to apply that yardstick to India and Pakistan.
Given India's (and any country's) experience, one cannot just turn terrorist groups on and off. Musharraf can impliment whatever steps he can, and arrest dozens (hundreds, thousands, etc.) of militants and organizers, but it only takes a few to mount an attack. Like Israel and the Palestinians, India seems to want to hold Pakistan to an impossible standard. I suspect deeper motives by the Indian government, given its propensity to play the nationalist card.
My source materials are buried somewhere with my dissertation research. A reading of FEER and Indian newsweekly magazines at the time of the intervention and Rajiv Gandhi's assassination should give you enough to go on.
One should note relatedly, that Hamas was courted and even sponsored by Israel at one time.
But in any case, the "deeper motivations" of the Indian government are not so deep. The vital Uttar Pradesh elections are coming up, in the so called "Cow Belt", the BJP stands (or stood) a strong chance of losing. This saber-rattling is one way of winning votes, outright war may be an even better way. The Kargil affair showed the tremendous electoral benefit of waging "just war".
IF YOU VOTE FOR THE DEMOCRATS IN 2002, THE TERRORISTS WIN...
I have been aware of the Israeli cultivation of Hamas as a possible alternative to the PLO since the 1980s.
That climate--its support for domestic terror groups, its anti-Americanism, its pro-Palestinianism--emerged in the context of Europeans' post-war Communist sympathies.
"Moods, even public and seemingly deep-seated moods can change."
Sure. But how long after the Berlin Wall fell and the Russians were defeated in Afghanistan did the mood in your neighborhood change? Not long, I bet. Tangible evidence of an ideology's failure tends to delegitimize it.
So, when Communism was "defeated", its exponents and their heirs lost a bit more of their liberationist cachet. (Of course Murcans should never have expected to enjoy much credit for that.) Now, radical Islam seems to have become the liberation ideology du jour. Whether or not it is discredited through defeat will play a significant role in where the world's sympathies fall, don't you think?
Anyhow, I imagine we can expect a minority in many countries to remain influenced by "Islamofascist" thinking for years, or decades, to come. In spite of US triumphalism, it's not even like the legacy of Communism is over yet.
That climate--its support for domestic terror groups, its anti-Americanism, its pro-Palestinianism--emerged in the context of Europeans' post-war Communist sympathies.
That's not true. Any general sympathy for the Soviet Union and its version of communism evaporated in the wake of the Prague coup in 1948 and in the then West Germany it was never there.
The anti-Americanism and anti-imperialism of the 1970's emerged in the aftermath of the student revolt in Paris in 1968 which had followers in most countries, also the US. It may indeed be argued that the anti-Vietnam war movement in Europe was inspired from the US. The mood then was marxist but had little to do with the petrified marxism-leninism of the Soviet Union.
I'm very interested in what you've learned about this subject (India, Sri Lanka, Tamil), Wombat, but I'm not sure it's right to assume that crackdowns on terrorist militants are necessarily futile, either in Pakistan/Kashmir/India or in Israel/Palestine, or elsewhere.
Sure, a few militants can always make trouble, but in the first place small orgs are more easily surveyed and deterred than large ones. Second, the degree to which a particular attack matters might depend on whether a democratic state under siege believes its opponents routinely employ terror/militancy, or have tried seriously to contain it in lieu of negotiation.
(The question of states supporting groups that eventually turn on their supporter is in my humble opinion a complete red herring. It happens; seems hard to avoid.)
I am not saying that crackdowns are futile. That is your interpretation. Crackdowns can be very effective in weakening a terrorist organization. However, to think that a crackdown can eradicate terrorism overnight--as the Indians seem to expect of Pakistan, and as the Israelis expect of the Palestinians--is so ludicrously unrealistic that one wonders whether or not it is sincere or hides an ulterior motive.
"Blowback" can be a red herring, particularly as it has been used in regard to the US and Bin Laden. However, when a country supports a group for short-term domestic political reasons, and it turns around and bites them on the ass, then I think that a critical reassessment of such expedient politics is in order.
I think Myrdal's notion of a 'hard state' means a thoroughly instututionlised state where policy directives from the political level are actually implemented on the ground without distorsions.
Pelle: "That's not true. Any general sympathy for the Soviet Union and its version of communism evaporated in the wake of the Prague coup in 1948"
I said nothing about "general" sympathy or about the Soviets.
"and in the then West Germany it was never there."
Are you kidding?
From Paul Berman's fascinating apologia in The New Republic (August of last year), The Passion of Joschka Fischer:
In 1970, Ulrike Meinhof staged an armed jailbreak to free an imprisoned comrade named Andreas Baader, who was serving three years for his own violent antics. (He had set fire to a Frankfurt department store.) Baader and Meinhof, together with Horst Mahler and a few other desperadoes of the revolutionary left, organized what became casually known as the Baader-Meinhof Gang, but was more formally and correctly called the Red Army Fraction. In American English, the German word Fraktion is usually rendered as "faction," which falls easily on the ear; but anyone who remembers the old Communist phrase book will recognize that "fraction," in English, used to be a perfectly legitimate and precise term, connoting a disciplined party unit akin to a cell--the opposite of a faction, which is a party unit that has escaped the party's discipline. A Marxist-Leninist party does not have factions, unless the party is in disarray. But a Marxist-Leninist party does have fractions, or party units that go out into the world and militate as best they can, according to plan.
cont.
Heheh. Well, radical Islam did not originate the modern international terrorist. For that we pretty much have the PLO to thank--and European revolutionaries were either slow to catch on to its fascist nature or in the case of some, slow to care.
Read the Berman TNR link above--all three installments. The piece is long, but worthwhile.
Have at it, guys.
You really have to distinguish between "post-war" and "post-1968" otherwise you will never understand.
Saddam Hussein was no threat to the USA.
Sadaam invaded an ally, threatened our oil supply, set Kuwaiti oil fields afire, developed biological and chemical weapons, and hatched a plot to kill an ex-President. You are being petulant.
If your "empire" was so cynical as you'd like it to be, it could have just sat back and let him take Saudi Arabia. Like you could have just sat back and let Hitler take Europe. Your "grotesquely high standard of living" would have suffered a dint, but not much more. Others would have suffered far worse.
I'm aware of no credible historian who posits that it would have been in the interest of the United States to let Europe fall to Hitler and/or let Sadaam occupy Saudi Arabia. You are glib at the expense of your intellect.
But your "empire" doesn't do such things. It's a Judeo-Christian democratic human rights morality touting kind of empire. (To think that a Yurpian has to argue such to an a-Murkin).
That it is. In fact, if you'll read back, you may have learned that fact from one of my posts. But when you feed from the trough of our good, understand that you've gotten at least partially fat on our sins.
Besides, if you didn't have all your "niceties", you wouldn't be able to run and operate an "empire" in the first place. "Niceties" begets "empire", not vice versa.
Please explain.
I'll give you two examples of would-be "empires" who arent' because of their lack of "niceties": China and India.
It's that simple. Why, if military strength was so crucial to a country's standard of living, you'd think the Soviet citizens (of the empire of yorn, the "evil" variety, remember) would have been leading luxurious lives.
Help me.
"Niceties"=Europe's post-war American sympathies.
If you think empires=military strength, you are mistaken. You are overrelying on simplicities in an effort to counterpoint. Please, breathe. And listen.
Caesar is your friend.
which didn't underpin your standard of living in any significant way
threatened our oil supply
actually not, he threatened mostly Japanese and European oil supplies
set Kuwaiti oil fields afire
so what?
developed biological and chemical weapons
to use against his enemies, which would hardly be the USA if it cynically kept to itself
and hatched a plot to kill an ex-President
but that was after the fact that he had routed Saddam from Kuwait, bombed Iraq into rabble, all but destroyed its army, and imposed crippling sanctions.
You are being petulant.
You are being stuffedshirted.
No need to continue. Your need to respond overwhelms your duty to respond with content. Caesar leaves you be.
I love this word!
Crackdowns can change the very nature of a terrorist org. See Egypt. And crackdowns can eliminate a terrorist organization altogether. See Syria. Of course, I recognize that Musharraf at this moment hasn't the sheer power of a Hosni Mubarak or a Hafiz al-Assad. Arafat arguably has (or could have).
"However, to think that a crackdown can eradicate terrorism overnight--as the Indians seem to expect of Pakistan, and as the Israelis expect of the Palestinians--is so ludicrously unrealistic that one wonders whether or not it is sincere or hides an ulterior motive."
We needn't wonder. Of course there are ulterior motives at work in both places! (Although I'm a little puzzled by your equation of Israeli expectations with Indian expectations; saber rattling aside, surely India has been rather more accommodating of Musharraf than Israel has been of Arafat.) But at the end of the day the domestic security issue remains--and remains an ironclad excuse--for most of what democratic states will and must do to be seen to be protecting their voting citizenry. That is, the issue is fundamentally political: the most tolerant, progressive citizen of a democracy under terrorist attack will re-evaluate his tolerance and instead tolerate his own country's worst land-grabbing partisans when his fellow citizens are being blown up at random. And radicals know this; it's their ace in the hole: disproportionate political power over their enemy.
"when a country supports a group for short-term domestic political reasons, and it turns around and bites them on the ass, then I think that a critical reassessment of such expedient politics is in order."
And I think I can agree with that. However, US support for Afghan mujaheddin and covert Israeli support for Hamas can't really be described as having been engaged in for "short-term domestic political reasons," as some here will claim.
Also, the Kashmir situation is ungodly complex. Makes the mideast look like pie in comparison.
If there are any experts on Muslim culture(s) around here--and I'm sure there is--I have a question. I don't know if this is the right word, but I've been thinking about the idea of "honor" in Muslim culture as it applies to the feeling of debt or gratitude.
I know in the west, if you, say, save someone's life, a sense of indebtness is typically created. Not so, apparently, with with some Muslim groups. When I heard about the Bosnian bombers' plans, I was surprised, especially since the U.S. bailed them out of a war of extermination recently. In Saudi Arabia, the U.S. has also spent a lot of time and money -- in this case, keeping Saddam out. So, the question is, I guess, what is it about some Muslim cultures that frees individuals from a sense of gratitude, allegiance, and/or debt toward the U.S.? I'm not a sociologist (obviously), so it's probably an exercise in ethnocentricity for me to think that these traits are part of what it means to be "civilized." Is it?
If you think empires=military strength, you are mistaken. You are overrelying on simplicities in an effort to counterpoint.
You are overrelying on vague, fluffy language in an effort to blur any points that might be countered.
When this proves to be irrelevant, Pelle coes up with:
"You really have to distinguish between "post-war" and "post-1968" otherwise you will never understand."
I'm pretty sure you're not the one who's going to make everything crystal clear for those of us who don't "understand". Maybe you should decide first whether it was the 1948 Prague Coup or the 1968 Prague Spring which is more pertinent to your argument.
Ots: "Uh-oh. I sense a fierce semantic debate pending on whether Baader-Meinhof was an example of Europe's "post-war Communist sympathies"..."
Sorry. No time, no inclination.
Yeah, I post things because I "like" them.
Did you read it? No. Do you have any idea from what vantage point Paul Berman writes? No.
Yes. So?
so, Pelle is right when he says 1968 marked a break with America. Euro leftist militancy was anti-American first, second and third, then, perhaps, and for lack of any other superpower to cling to, pro-Soviet.
invaded an ally--"which didn't underpin your standard of living in any significant way"
Actually, the Kuwaitis paid us good protection money. Would have been very bad precedent to blow them off when they didn't even have an army.
threatened our oil supply--"actually not, he threatened mostly Japanese and European oil supplies"
Disingenuous. What would have happened to the US economically had Europe and Japan been oil-fucked? Plenty of multinational corporate petroleum money at risk, plenty of threat for the US.
set Kuwaiti oil fields afire--"so what?"
So Globocop cannot afford to be seen abandoning our allies who have oil. European states have that luxury, but we're not you. Even a failure in peacekeeping such as was declared in Somalia has grave comnsequences for us, have you noticed?
developed biological and chemical weapons--"to use against his enemies, which would hardly be the USA if it cynically kept to itself"
Saddam had regional aspirations threatening or undermining not just SA and Kuwait but Syria and, a little detail, Israel. (The latter for purely self-legitimizing as opposed to strategic reasons, which would have come into play whether the US intervened or not.) The US would have been drawn into such a conflict out of both moral- and self-interest. Because the US has an interest in the mideast's most powerful countries not going at it, with bioweapons or burning oilfields or nukes. Because mideast instability means possible oil access instability.
not that he didn't know about--that he didn't acknowledge
Then you didn't read it.
I'm sorry, Ots, but this seems to me a very large oversimplification.
And I've gotta go.
After Bush took office, "[Army Lt. Gen. Donald Kerrick] noticed a difference on terrorism. Clinton's Cabinet advisers, burning with the urgency of their losses to bin Laden in the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the Cole attack in 2000, had met 'nearly weekly' to direct the fight, Kerrick said. Among Bush's first-line advisers, 'candidly speaking, I didn't detect that kind of focus.'"
"When the Senate Armed Services Committee tried to fill the gaps [between what military commanders said they needed to combat terrorists and what they got] with $600 million diverted from ballistic missile defense, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said he would recommend a veto. That threat came September 9."
But it's all Clinton's fault.
The war in Afghanistan begins, and all the nay-sayers and outright bad-mouthers start crying about how "it's gonna be another Vietnam - unwinnable...thousands of American boys dead...blabbedy-blah-blah-blah..."
In short order it becomes painfully (to them) apparent that nothing like this is going to happen - in fact, we're whupping ass in record time.
And merrily on they move to their next heartburn attack - the "humanitarian disaster - possibly the worst in recent history - as hundreds of thousands of Afghans....blabbedy-blah-blah-blah..."
When nothing like that happens, blithely on they move to the next cause - civilian casualties - "bound to be in the 10's - even 100's of thousands!"
When that proves to be a wash - and in fact the Afghan people are happier, better off, and freer than they've been since these fuckers stole their country, on they move without missing a step to the "horrific treatment of the poor Taliban/al-Qaeda prisoners - kidnapped from their cozy 3rd-world home (which most of them basically invaded and raped anyway), and dumped on some faraway desert isle, subjected to (GASP!) sensory deprivation!!!!! (for a few minutes). Why - it's no different than the Nazi concentration camps!"
Now this, of course, turns out to be another fucking lie.
I can put up with a bunch of assholes beiong wrong at every turn. But what is truly pathological is the way these frigging crybabies move from one "concern" to the next without ever admitting they were wrong about the last one.
How, for example, does a complete idiot like Fisk maintain a shred of credibility?
Is everyone in England (and many here in the US) that gullible?
Are they all retarded?
I basically agree with you, but I think you are obsessed with an tiny minority of completely irrelevant opinion-mongers. Why do you take them so seriously?
I was arguing a counterfactual with Jules who stated that the American standard of living depended critically on its being an "empire". My point is that America would be only a little worse off economically if it withdrew from military engagement with the rest of the world. America exports no more than 12% of its GDP. Its oil consumption amounts to maybe 4% of its GDP, of which only a fraction is covered by Middle Eastern oil.
Disruption of ME oil and perpetual instability in ME would be disadvantageous, but wouldn't knock more than maybe 5-10% off American GDP. That would bring the country back to the bad old days of, what?, 1997?
Your points aren't counterfactual, they are based on the premise that America is an established "empire" which it needs to maintain, not least your point about Kuwaiti "protection money" which obliged USA to act, lest its credibility suffer.
But, as I said, others would suffer much worse than America, and the world would probably be a worse place if America didn't function as a bad cop from time to time. Even if it's also somewhat likely that in such a counterfactual scenario, others would attempt to assume that role much more seriously than what seems to be called for given America's being America.
It is a simplification, but it is neither large, nor is it an oversimplification. I would add to it a large dose of Che Guevara and Mao Tse-Tung idolatry. But the USSR was definitely tired.
how long after the Berlin Wall fell and the Russians were defeated in Afghanistan did the mood in your neighborhood change? Not long, I bet. Tangible evidence of an ideology's failure tends to delegitimize it.
But -- what tangible evidence is there of the ObL/Islamo-fascist ideology breaking down if it never achieves power? So far, Iran is the only full-fledged example of this, and it doesn't serve as much of a model to Arabs and sunni muslims.
Saudi Arabia might actually be the closest thing to a fundamentalist Arab regime. Perhaps the USA should destroy it in order to produce tangible evidence of that ideology's failure...?
My point in all this is that, yes, Islamo-fascism does capture the imagination of a certain portion of the Muslim populace, and yes, many more share in its antipathy to America.
But this doesn't mean that allowing these countries to go democratic will turn them into Islamo-fascist regimes, in effect bin Laden with nukes and oil. In fact, that is very very unlikely.
On the other hand anti-American and anti-Western sentiment will surely manifest itself from time to time in the dealings of such countries in various ways.
There is an interesting question here: Should the USA only promote democracy in countries where this is expected to lead to governments that are unconditionally friendly to the USA?
I wouldn't take them seriously at all, except that people like Jack Straw do - and Amnesty Intl. - and Human Rights Watch, etc. Which, when you consider the effect these people's/groups' whining has on world opinion, makes these scabby little weasels much more than "irrelevant opinion-mongers". No?
And, to get back to the larger, tacit point behind my last post:
They can whine and piss and moan and wring their hands all they like - I don't care. What I'm complaining about is, once their little fantasies are exposed as such, they should have the decency (since, really, human decency is what they're all whining for) to come out and, if not (God forbid!) apologize, then simply say, "Ok - we were wrong - the US is not running amok."
And the news media share no small amount of blame here, because we all know that were the US gov't exposed for gilding the lily -misreporting body counts, peddling stories of ex-Talis living in virtual luxury in their new home on an exotic tropical isle, etc - CNN, BBC, NYT et al would be all over that like stink on shit, demanding investigations.
But no -here we get one paragraph reports about how prisoners are not being tortured. Period.
It ain't fair, it ain't right, and it is exactly the kind of shit that foments the attitudes/opinions that most certainly do aid the enemy.
This is widely assumed, but it is also definitely false, as Stostosto has ably demonstrated.
I doubt Europe and Japan would have been 'oil-fucked' by Saddam's takeover of Kuwait, either. After all, Saddam would have still sold the oil. At best Saddam could have engineered a temporary spike in the price of oil, which would have hurt the world economy somewhat, but even that spike would probably have been temporary.
All the same, I think the economic rationale for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait is a bit exaggerated. The political-strategic rationales work better.
To the extent "empire" remains undefined in the discussion, there can be no real resolution of the question.
For example, in Blowback, Chalmers Johnson defines American Empire as basically anything that smacks of preeminence and influence, from meddling with governments to maintaining aircraft in Italy that may cut a gondola cable, killing 20 people.
As I define it, American Empire is military, economic, and diplomatic engagement and preeminence, the combination of which makes the United States the de facto and de jure leader in all world affairs. American Empire also presumes that as the leader in world affairs, much like its veto on the United Nations Security Council, the United States retains the right and ability to waive moral standards and ideals it has pronounced as preferable. This is not to suggest that the United States is immoral (or, for that matter, any more hypocritical than smaller nations in its ambit). Rather, it suggests that the responsibilities of Empire require deals with the devil, and given the appetite of American Empire (and its responsibilities), when it is hypocritical, it will be hypocritical on a much larger scale than, say, Burundi.
So, using my definition, is American Empire necessary to American wealth? It doesn't take CellarDoor to say yes, and it is incongruous to reply that we could be just as wealthy as Sweden if we were less preeminent, engaged and hypocritical.
These are luxuries, and they must be paid for. It is no answer to offer the subsistence of Stockholm, which, in essence, states that American Empire need not be so imperial, if only we'd settle for the life of a Swede.
There is, undoubtedly, truth in these charges. Donald Rumsfeld the Defence Secretary, makes clear America will do this its way, whether the world likes it or not.
Equally, however, the complaints reflect a jealousy and resentment of America's sheer power. This emerged in the not-uncommon European view after 11 September that the US somehow "had it coming". It cropped up, more justifiably, in the denunciations of the civilian casualties caused by the bombing campaign.
---
The US is out to avenge 11 September, and this is a war of example. The world has seen how American military power has wrecked al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan. It is now seeing what happens to those who are taken prisoner. Rightly or wrongly, America calculates that others tempted to take up arms against it may have second thoughts.
In terms of diet and hygiene, the prisoners are not being treated especially badly. But as Mr Rumsfeld points out: "We are not running a country club." The question is where legitimate security requirements end and police state intimidation begins. Round-the-clock halogen lighting of cells may be defended as a sensible precaution. But sleep deprivation and constant light are also techniques of police states through the ages. The problem is less America taking the law into its own hands, more what law it chooses to behave by.
The Independent.
No.
When I initially answered no, I conceived of "empire" in the widest possible sense, and I still thought no.
I just can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power.
So far, Giulio Cesare has not named a single way in which American wealth depends critically on its "empire". He just assumes it and asserts that it is "incongruous" to suppose otherwise.
I am not closed to the idea. But given the tremendous lack of specifics and substantiation on the part of Giulio, I default to my own view.
"My point is that America would be only a little worse off economically if it withdrew from military engagement with the rest of the world."
We are presently not militarily disengaged in Afghanistan after an attack emanating from that country severely injured our economic health.
We did not militarily disengage from Iraq after Saddam invaded Kuwait, which, at a minimum, would have impacted markets (assuming, of course, that Saddam stopped there, and had we remained disengaged, why would he?)
We did not militarily disengage during the Cold War. Clearly, our engagement was lucrative.
For the most part, our military engagements had the goal (if not always the effect) of strengthing our security and protecting wealth transfer.
Is it being claimed that the wealth that poured into that state's coffers is irrelevant? That the vast booty that came to Spain from the adventurers abroad in the New World was irrelevant? That the concomittant projection of Spanish power (and rebuilt internal culture) was a "reflection" of indigenous Spanish wealth rather than a function of appropriated booty?
Well, some proof is required for this odd claim.
What an absurd notion.
I just can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power.
Look to Afghanistan, pseudo. From there, terror acts severely damaged the U.S. economy. Our military power has been effective thus far in killing many of the perpetrators of the acts, who, as you know, are recidivist in nature. Our diplomatic and political power brought in the world (Japan included) to assist, and it has brought the world in on financing the restructure of Afghanistan.
Address this patently obvious example, and I'll see if you can be educated further.
Iraq invaded Kuwait. Had we not stopped Iraq, as any student of Chamberlain will tell you, it would have continued, thereby amassing significant oil deposits.
And then, that oil would be under the purview of an unfriendly nation, as opposed to friendly nations.
But, pseudo can conceive of no ill economic effect there.
9-11 didn't "severely damage the U.S. economy". Do you really truly believe that?
Apart from the factual laughability of that claim, it gives ObL far more credit than he could ever hope for.
Watch the media turn him into the next Brad Pitt.
The Financial Effects of September 11th - New York Alone
Overall Economic Effects
Assume that the September 11th attacks had a negative effect on our economy.
What might have occurred to our economy had we insisted on maintaining your policy of military disengagement, not only in terms of credibility, but in terms of the calamitous effects of the next massive, unrebutted attack?
For all the Dems whining about the tax cut and how they'd rather spend it on prescription drug coverage, the reality is that a lot of programs will be cut or never implemented because there just isn't the money. Yes, some of that is due to the recession, but going forward the cost of the war will have quite a bit to do with it.
Also, tourism has taken a huge hit beyond that caused by the recession.
A second question (presuming your policy of military withdrawal from the rest of the world may allow retaliatory strikes to ensure security).
Where do you suggest we withdraw militarily today?
J.C. --
For example, in Blowback, Chalmers Johnson defines American Empire as basically anything that smacks of preeminence and influence, from meddling with governments to maintaining aircraft in Italy that may cut a gondola cable, killing 20 people.
Blowback is an insipid book by a scholar with a grudge. I hope you were smarter than me and didn't buy the book (I hate to think of Johnson collecting royalities off your generosity as he did mine). As a review in "Foreign Affairs" magazine says, it has all the value of a comic book.
After reading your comments on empires, however, I do fear that Johnson's book had its effect on you. You've recently began to parrot the worst rhetoric of the left on America's role in the world.
It is bizarre to suggest that the American Empire's accumulation of military, political, and diplomatic power is a mere lark, in no way connected to its economic health.
There is a connection. The connection is that "economic health" lays the possible foundation for empire. Empires cost money as often -- or more often --than they bring it in. The U.S. spends enormous funds to build and maintain a defense that can project power overseas. It spends enormous funds in other areas to facilitate this empire (not least of all in blood). The idea that empires are some kind of cash pumps for our economy's health is left-over Leninism. His idea was discredited when Europe lost their colonies and yet their economies preceded to chug right along, even picking up a bit in the years they were divesting themselves.
It has eliminated the terrorist playing fields that Afghanistan has unfortunately devolved into, and it has gone some distance (possibly) in eliminating the free flow of information between Al Qaeda recruits and cells and the leadership. Beyond that, none of the top Al Qaeda people have been captured, and the big money and leadership is in points unknown.
What has gone a long way to eliminate possible terrorist threat within the US is the internal mobilization of police and national guard, and the new vigilance in the American populace. It will be impossible now to hijack a plane, fly it hundreds of miles, and plunge it into a building. It will also be impossible for bands of unaccompanied Arab men (some on FBI watchlists) to board aircraft with weaponry of any sort. In this, the US has joined the rest of the world where vigilance and a certain level of paranoia about potential terrorism has long been a way of life.
The biggest thing the US has done may be in its message to the disaffected around the world - and those who were teetering on the verge of joining full-force with the likes of Al-Qaeda. The message is that this country will wreak an immense amount of violence in retribution, and that being a terrorist is not easy and glory-filled for many. You can wind up shaven and blindfolded in an orange jumpsuit, in a cage, in Guantanamo. Your entire family and village may pay a price, etc. This is not a subtle message, and it may be a worthwhile one to send at this point.
But it's a bit far-fetched to claim that the destruction of the Taliban, specifically, gone any distance to hamper terrorists. Remember please that there was no Afghan among the 9/11 hijackers, and that the Taliban has in no way ever been connected to terrorist activity in this country.
Blowback is an insipid book by a scholar with a grudge. I hope you were smarter than me and didn't buy the book (I hate to think of Johnson collecting royalities off your generosity as he did mine). As a review in "Foreign Affairs" magazine says, it has all the value of a comic book.
I agree. It was a Christmas gift, and it is both thin and shrill (and my printing had a typo, calling the United States the "Untied States"). That said, it serves as a compendium for all the fuzzy, mushy critics of Empire, and I like to use their sources.
After reading your comments on empires, however, I do fear that Johnson's book had its effect on you. You've recently began to parrot the worst rhetoric of the left on America's role in the world.
Johnson's poor scholarship, unfortunately, does not write out American prosecution of its interests, which, as we've discussed, is an inconsistent stew of the moral, the idealistic, and the nakedly self-interested.
The intervention has been a whopping success thus far, and in that the administration is prosecuting an ongoing campaign, give it time. We will suffer further terrorism, no doubt. But it is a long war.
There is a connection. The connection is that "economic health" lays the possible foundation for empire. Empires cost money as often --or more often -- than they bring it in. The U.S. spends enormous funds to build and maintain a defense that can project power overseas. It spends enormous funds in other areas to facilitate this empire (not least of all in blood). The idea that empires are some kind of cash pumps for our economy's health is left-over Leninism. His idea was discredited when Europe lost their colonies and yet their economies preceded to chug right along, even picking up a bit in the years they were divesting themselves.
This is womewhat chicken and egg. Empire begets wealth, wealth begets Empire.
Moreover, American Empire is not exactly synonymous with Roman or British Empire. Our military, political and diplomatic heft may not be a cash oump, but it keeps the cash flowing, and no one has disputed that American Empire, given the appetites of its citizens, is one big mother pig to feed.
As for defense spending, it is a pittance, and I think, the lowest percentage of GNP since WWII.
It has been a success in projecting American power, and in creating a perception that is related. It has been a moderate success in mobilizing world opinion to "the cause". It has been a success (minor, in the scheme of things) in toppling the Taliban hold on Afghanistan.
In terms of the rhetoric in Bush's speech to Congress it has been a possibly decent beginning, no more.
Your links on the financial effects of 9-11 don't prove your point; in fact, the first shows the opposite.
The research and analysis by the team of management consulting firms found that the city’s economy will sustain a gross loss of approximately $83 billion due to the attack, including $30 billion in capital losses, $14 billion in cleanup and related costs and $39 billion in loss of economic output to the economy.
While for New York City, this might be substantial funds, it is mere peanuts when matched against the ten-trillion pound gorilla called the U.S. economy. And, ironically, the reconstruction of part of the city will probably have the perverse effect of creating a local boom there.
Your second link are mostly general comments by analysts and traders (collected by a socialist) who were, quite naturally, expressing extreme pessimism in the wake of the attacks. But it is in the nature of those beasts to warn of the oncoming fiery hells of relevation when they have two bad weeks.
Yes. It has been a success for all the reasons you cite, a mere four months in. This instant gratification generation, I'll never understand.
I was thinking like a blood donor when I wrote that.
To prove the point that the September 11th attacks had a significant negative effect on the United States economy, name some economists or writers or policymakers upon whom you would rely?
I assume that you agree that the lack of a military response would have made any negative effects even worse.
No, productivity leads to wealth. Wealth can sometimes begat empire.
Moreover, American Empire is not exactly synonymous with Roman or British Empire. Our military, political and diplomatic heft may not be a cash pump, but it keeps the cash flowing, and no one has disputed that American Empire, given the appetites of its citizens, is one big mother pig to feed.
The vast majority of America's wealth is created internally. Something like 80%. Most of the rest comes from places the U.S. will never go to war with.
As for defense spending, it is a pittance, and I think, the lowest percentage of GNP since WWII.
I agree. But the amount we spend on defense is comparable to the amount Sto cites as what the U.S. imports in oil (about 3 to 4 percent of the U.S. GNP).
You have to wade through some rhetoric, but I don't believe these assertions are disputed:
Homeland Security and War Spending Used 19% of the Surplus: Immediately following the terrorist attacks, President Bush and Congress rightly passed significant spending increases for the war against terrorism, homeland security, airline security, and emergency response. This necessary spending accounted for approximately 19% of the surplus.
...
The events of September 11 weakened an already slowing economy:
"It's just like that stewardess on the airplane that time when the shoe man showed up," he said. "She saw something was odd. She thought something was different and she brought him in. That's what Americans must do now as a result of the evil ones hitting us. We've got to be on our toes."
Mullah Omar last seen laughing as he sped away in a Land Cruiser...
Aschroft hasn't got a fuckin clue about anthrax except that his boss doesn't have it..
Well at least we have Johnny Walker Black back and the faggots are fuckin again in Khandahar...
Allah be praised!
The vast majority of America's wealth is created internally. Something like 80%. Most of the rest comes from places the U.S. will never go to war with.
I'm not sure, given the interrelatedness of the global economy, that this statistic is verifiable. I'd be interested in the methodology behind it.
You have just told Marj that you don't understand this "instant gratification generation." I think your disagreement with Sto and PE centers around a similar misunderstanding.
You seem to argue that the U.S. empire (broadly defined) creates the basis for American wealth. PE and Sto disagree, saying that U.S. wealth is not founded on empire, and that beyond short-term problems, the U.S. would continue growing even if it no longer used force in the Middle East.
From the content of your links, I think that the disagreement is based more on the time frame you are using. If a noted economics expert says, "This attack will have severe consequences for the U.S. economy. We might not get out of recession for another six months," this doesn't contradict Sto's and PE's point.
"Six months" is a spike. Only to an instant gratification generation would it be otherwise. 9-11 is causing such a spike but it has not seriously hit at the basis for U.S. wealth.
continued ...
Yes. I think the takeover and control of all the oil in the Middle East under someone like Saddam Hussein would in all likelihood cause more than just a downward spike (six months to a year) in the U.S. economy. Depending upon the instability caused by the takeover, it would probably more resemble what happened to the U.S. during one of the two oil crises in the 1970s, but over a more extended period of time. But, even so, the U.S. would adjust, recover, and then continue to grow.
The real long-term concern for the U.S. (and its allies) in such a scenario would be military, not economic, as Saddam would, of course, be emboldened to push on further, and would now have the economic basis to do so.
You have just told Marj that you don't understand this "instant gratification generation." I think your disagreement with Sto and PE centers around a similar misunderstanding.
Well, marj wants victory by annihilation in four months, plus bin laden's head in Times Square.
You seem to argue that the U.S. empire (broadly defined) creates the basis for American wealth. PE and Sto disagree, saying that U.S. wealth is not founded on empire, and that beyond short-term problems, the U.S. would continue growing even if it no longer used force in the Middle East.
American Empire (as I've defined it) does not so much create the basis as it is instrumental in maintaining wealth. Sto suggests that we can have the wealth of American Empire with a murky military disengagement. As an example, I have been clear on the Iraq point that remaining disengaged while a regional foe (and madman) knocks over allies (with critical reources) like so many ten pins, the effect will be detrimental to American wealth. Moreover, the arm of American Empire (far-flung military presence abroad; a massive strike force) inhibits the economic damage.
Pseudo stated I just can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power, a level of precociousness that it calls for a spanking, not a response.
"Six months" is a spike. Only to an instant gratification generation would it be otherwise. 9-11 is causing such a spike but it has not seriously hit at the basis for U.S. wealth.
This is a fair point. My language was over hyped.
Hail Caesar!
Now let's do something about that prose style.
This ain't Castille..this is Amereeeeeeeeeeka you fuckin Argentine degenerate
Caesar is amused by his fool.
The economic impact of 9-11 on the tourist and airline industries has been significant (to say the least), but if nothing else happens, those sectors will probably soon recover.
Ihe economic impact of 9-11 on the Wall Street appears to have been very short-term. The markets closed for a week, but when they opened they still functioned much as they did. The value of the Dow Jones is currently in the range it was at prior to 9-11.
When the White House says 19 percent of the surplus has been spent on necessary spending in the aftermath of 9-11, keep in mind that the surplus is a small fraction of the value of the federal budget, and that the federal budget is a small fraction of the national economy.
Compared to the effect WWII had on the national economy, or even the Vietnam War, this is insignificant. A year from now, it's possible that even the worst-hit sectors of the economy (airline and tourist industries) will be functioning normally, turning profits for the strongest companies.
Something has happened. The time it takes to check in and get on a plane has increased astronomically. Thus far it hasn't caused that much of an impact because sales are slow in general.
But over time, it could cause airlines to reduce capacity--after all, they get a good chunk of their income from business travel, which will certainly pick up. Once it does, the long waits will start to be unbearable.
Airlines would have to make tough choices then, and they will certainly punt on the low or middle income vacationer first--they contribute a great deal of traffic and relatively little income per person. It may be in the airlines best financial interest to reduce capacity and get rid of inexpensive travel, which would certainly hurt tourism everywhere.
My hope is that we'll drop these idiotic precautions at that point. If we don't, then I can't see how that sector will be functioning normally. It's certainly at least possible that our air travel will start to look like we went back to the 70s.
J.C. and Cal, a couple of days ago, I didn't explain very well what I meant by the U.S. needing to influence Saudi domestic policy. What I'm looking for is something along the lines of what this article says Yemen is doing:
In recent weeks, Yemen has moved against not only its own citizens who are suspected of being allied with al Qaeda but also Arabs and other foreigners who study at the country's religious schools.
At the time of Burns's visit, Yemeni officials announced they would extradite about 100 foreigners, from countries such as Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Libya, Britain, France, Sudan and Somalia, who had been arrested for overstaying visas or other questionable activities. Many were students at Islamic religious institutes and colleges.
Among the students who passed through the religious schools was John Walker Lindh, the American captured in Afghanistan while fighting for the Taliban.
Yemen has also halted entrance of new foreign students unless they have the approval of their own countries or are part of Yemen's overseas cultural exchanges.
In addition, Yemen's cabinet has taken control of educational institutions and begun to review Islamic religious education within the country.
continued ...
One week before the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Salih told Qatar's al-Jazeera television network that Yemen had not allowed the FBI to interrogate suspects or to question high-ranking Yemeni officials and had refused to provide the United States with basing facilities.
That attitude has changed, officials said. Mueller praised "the effective cooperation of Yemeni security and investigative personnel," according to a U.S. Embassy statement. Mueller noted that "working as partners, we have uncovered a great deal of important information and many new leads."
*****
Policies affected by the cooperation with the U.S.: education policy, immigration policy and internal security policy -- all of which usally considered more domestic policy than foreign policy.
One week before the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Salih told Qatar's al-Jazeera television network that Yemen had not allowed the FBI to interrogate suspects or to question high-ranking Yemeni officials and had refused to provide the United States with basing facilities.
That attitude has changed, officials said. Mueller praised "the effective cooperation of Yemeni security and investigative personnel," according to a U.S. Embassy statement. Mueller noted that "working as partners, we have uncovered a great deal of important information and many new leads."
*****
Policies affected by the cooperation with the U.S.: education policy, immigration policy and internal security policy -- all of which usually considered more domestic policy than foreign policy.
My hope is that we'll drop these idiotic precautions at that point. If we don't, then I can't see how that sector will be functioning normally. It's certainly at least possible that our air travel will start to look like we went back to the 70s.
I don't think so. When I said the industry would return to normal, I meant the economics of it: it's profitability and its efficiency. The airlines clearly can't go back to doing things in the same way they did before 9-11.
But if people want to fly, and they will, our economy will figure out some way to put them on planes and get them to their destination in a timely and safe manner. Maybe not next week. And possibly not even next year. But eventually, sometime soon, it will happen. It may cost a little more money or require a different pre-flight routine that emphasizes safety, but I think that it won't be as costly, in either time or money, as you imagine. Already, people I've talked to who have flown back to the states (and within the states) don't even bother to mention the flight or the inconvenience until I ask them about it. And then they say it's not that big a deal.
"I will surely be given the relevant stats, but it seems (off the top of my head) that the US maintains significant markets abroad captive due precisely to its "military, political and diplomatic power". How else do you define the close economic relationship with Japan, with the EU...."
One could indeed argue that Western Europe and East Asia were kept from communism by US military power. But how significant are these regions as markets?
Today, the USA exports no more than 12% of GDP. However, before the 1980s, the USA exported about 5% of GDP. In other words, whatever external markets were held "captive" by US military power, they were not terribly significant until recently.
"with the NAFTA partners? What is the purpose of the MFN designation?"
What does US military power have to do with NAFTA or the MFN designation?
Message # 19053
"Let's look at a limited example - the Spanish monarchy of Isabella and Ferdinand. Is it being claimed that the wealth that poured into that state's coffers is irrelevant? That the vast booty that came to Spain from the adventurers abroad in the New World was irrelevant?"
I did not say it was irrelevant. But the power of Hapsburg Spain derives from the quadruple inheritance of Charles V, who inherited not only Spain, but also the Low Countries, Austria-Hungary and large parts of Italy.
Message # 19054
"The Elizabethans were in a position to exercise imperial power without the possession (and exploitation) of colonies overseas?"
???
I said that the British empire was caused by its wealth (i.e., the British were able to found an empire because they were economically dynamic), and the British empire was not the cause of British wealth.
This is not a particularly controversial point. There is an enormous body of economic history literature which finds again and again that the British empire was a net economic loss for the UK (in the sense that British GDP would have been higher without the red bits on the map than with them). One major economic historian has argued that Britain would have been (slightly) richer in the 18th century had it simply given away the West Indies rather than kept them.
Francis Uruqhart says:
"Look to Afghanistan, pseudo. From there, terror acts severely damaged the U.S. economy. Our military power has been effective thus far in killing many of the perpetrators of the acts, who, as you know, are recidivist in nature."
But this is a very new development. Terrorism hasn't had a serious impact on the US economy before, and 11 September doesn't show that US military power is crucial to maintaining its wealth.
Message # 19056
Francis Urquhart said: "It is bizarre to suggest that the American Empire's accumulation of military, political, and diplomatic power is a mere lark, in no way connected to its economic health."
They are connected. The USA has so much military power because it is so wealthy. I cannot think of significant ways in which US wealth depends critically on American foreign policy actions.
"Iraq invaded Kuwait. Had we not stopped Iraq, as any student of Chamberlain will tell you, it would have continued, thereby amassing significant oil deposits. And then, that oil would be under the purview of an unfriendly nation, as opposed to friendly nations. But, pseudo can conceive of no ill economic effect there."
Firstly, I said the opposite in Message # 19045, i.e., that Saddam Hussein's actions would have resulted in a temporary spike in oil prices, which would have had an impact on the world economy but NOT in the long term. Secondly, Saddam Hussein would have sold the oil anyway. Thirdly, SH was not hostile to the USA before the Gulf War.
The Clinton/Apsin Legacy
I agree. I would note that U.S. foreign policy in the nineteenth century was influenced by two seemingly contradictory concepts that centered on self-interest: manifest destiny and isolationism.
But this is a very new development. Terrorism hasn't had a serious impact on the US economy before, and 11 September doesn't show that US military power is crucial to maintaining its wealth.
Terrorism had its most serious impact on the economy on September 11th, and while we may not be able to agree as to the how serious the damage is or may be, you asked for an example, I gave it, and now, you plead that "recent" examples do not count.
They are connected. The USA has so much military power because it is so wealthy. I cannot think of significant ways in which US wealth depends critically on American foreign policy actions.
Try harder. See Iraq below. See Afghanistan (and the resultant offensive against terrorism) today. See South Korea, where our massive military presence allowed for the burgeoning of a critical Asian economy, closely related to our own. Remember, the military is used prohylactically as well.
Firstly, I said the opposite in Message # 19045, i.e., that Saddam Hussein's actions would have resulted in a temporary spike in oil prices, which would have had an impact on the world economy but NOT in the long term. Secondly, Saddam Hussein would have sold the oil anyway. Thirdly, SH was not hostile to the USA before the Gulf War.
So what? The point remains (unrebutted) that without our massive military intervention, Sadaam would have rolled through the region unimpeded, controlling vast oil sources, which may well have had serious long-term economic consequences.
Afdter all, what is the point of being under imperial protection if imperial muscle is not occasionally used on your behalf?
I really don't see why not. It won't noticeably affect security one way or the other. If they do stay with the silly stuff, then I suspect the industry will have to make major changes. Travel is still down significantly, is it not?
"Terrorism had its most serious impact on the economy on September 11th, and while we may not be able to agree as to the how serious the damage is or may be, you asked for an example, I gave it, and now, you plead that "recent" examples do not count."
Well, the only recent examples I would accept are the US protection of Japan and Western Europe since their emergence as major economic powers. No other recent examples are valid. The 11 September terrorist attacks do not show that US wealth depends significantly, or has depended significantly, on US military & foreign policy actions.
And I stress that the importance of Western Europe and Japan to the US economy is of quite recent vintage.
Even George Kennan, in the famous X article in the Foreign Affairs magazine from 1947 that outlined the strategy of containment, argued that the Soviet Union must not be allowed to take over Japan and Western Europe, not because they are important markets or because their economies per se are essential to the US economy, but because these regions had an enormous productive capacity with which the Soviet Union could construct an even more threatening military potential.
"See Iraq below. See Afghanistan (and the resultant offensive against terrorism) today. See South Korea, where our massive military presence allowed for the burgeoning of a critical Asian economy, closely related to our own."
South Korea is not critical to US prosperity and wealth at all. South Korea could disappear from the face of the earth and you'd barely notice, apart from the fact that the miserable Kia vehicle you are forced to drive by your miserable income, could no longer get serviced. South Korea is a nice bonus, but not at all critical. Still less critical are Iraq and Afghanistan.
"So what? The point remains (unrebutted) that without our massive military intervention, Sadaam would have rolled through the region unimpeded, controlling vast oil sources, which may well have had serious long-term economic consequences."
Like what? He would have still sold the oil. And even controlling Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would not have allowed him a long-term control over the price.
Message # 19105
"Moreover, American Empire, like the Roman Empire, is more than California to New York. We have our provinces, like Japan, and to the extent they are squeezed economically, the American Empire is squeezed economically."
Well, I agree that if Japan were incinerated out of existence tomorrow, that would seriously harm the US economy. But what threatens Japan today? China?
Okay, I acknowledge that if China were in a position of destabilising Japan (and that's a big IF), then the USA's guarantee of Japanese security would be significantly in the US national economic interest.
This is a convenient tactic. "What I will accept as valid is what I deem valid, which may change at any time, with variation." Regardless of your honor, the point is self-evident - September 11th caused us great economic harm; our military is in the process of dismantling that threat as best it can to avoid further harm; our diplomatic and political clout is also being expended (see Pincher's post on Yemen, as a minor example), all of which protect the interests and the wealth of American Empire; and, without military action, the economic repercussions could have been devastating, as the markets have never endured a massive attack - with the United States blithely responding "Eh, that wasn't so bad. perhaps if you knock down the Sears Tower, Disneyland, and the Golden Gate Bridge, we will employ military action."
And I stress that the importance of Western Europe and Japan to the US economy is of quite recent vintage.
And I repeat, so what? No one has been talking the Gadsden Purchase.
The incredibly shrinking argument. Now, South Korea is not "critical" and fields fallow for economic activity are but a "bonus". Iraq (and presumably Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and who knows what else, in that our military involvement would not have made a whit of difference in our economic stability) mean diddly. You're like Monty Python's knight as torso, screaming, "Come back and I'll bite you to death."
Like what? He would have still sold the oil. And even controlling Kuwait and Saudi Arabia would not have allowed him a long-term control over the price.
Who says Sadaam stops there? Given the toothlessness of presumed American response, why would he? his says his terms are reasonable? because Sadaam Hussein he is otherwise reasonable?
Well, I agree that if Japan were incinerated out of existence tomorrow, that would seriously harm the US economy. But what threatens Japan today? China? Okay, I acknowledge that if China were in a position of destabilising Japan (and that's a big IF), then the USA's guarantee of Japanese security would be significantly in the US national economic interest.
I suppose this is progress with such a focused theoretician.
The initial statement from you referred to American "military, political and diplomatic power."
Well, that hack, once Village Voice reporter and more recently the author of A Tale of Two Utopias (which I haven't read), personally knew the crowd he writes about back in the day. Berman also used to report from Central America in the 1980s and now writes for the New York Review of Books, the American Prospect, and Slate (liberal organs all), not to mention the unusually long TNR piece I linked. He comes from a long line of union activists, his leftist credentials are impeccable, and if he describes the psychology of a portion of left Euro radicals as having been influenced by aspects of fascism, Communism, or even Naziism, I see no reason to doubt him at all.
You are hopelessly incapable of thinking counterfactually.
You apparently view the 9-11 attack as something that would happen all the time if America didn't have the will and ability to project its power overseas. That's really peculiar. Do you deem it completely unrelated to America's throwing its weight around in the ME and elsewhere as it sees fit?
It's a bit weird to cite 9-11 as a benefit of having "empire", don't you think? It's far more logical to see it as a cost. Or perhaps you buy into Bush's naivist window-dressing rhetoric about "the terrorists hate us because we are free and democratic"? Funny line for a self-professed realist.
Get this, btw: I am not advocating that the US withdraw militarily from anywhere. All I am saying is that it wouldn't make much difference to the US standard of living if it did. I should probably say "if it never had an "empire" to begin with" to spell out the counterfactual nature of the argument, but in fact I have no doubt the US could absorb and adapt to any shocks that such a dramatic shift in its foreign policy would incur. It wouldn't lastingly damage its capacity for wealth creation. Pincher Martin put it well in his Message # 19082.
(And don't be so mystified as to how internal wealth creation can be measured, even in an interlinked global economy. It's called national income accounting).
I just can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power.
Later I stated that, relatively recently (say in the 1980s), European and Japanese economies became quite important to the US economy. Since the USA has guaranteed their security since 1945, I can concede that US security guarantees of Japan and Western Europe are in the US national economic interest.
However, since the late 1980s or early 1990s, I do not see what threats exist to European and Japanese security.
So how can you see that the US economy depends critically on its protection of Japan and Western Europe?
Message # 19112
"What does US military power have to do with NAFTA or the MFN designation?"
Okay. How does the US economy depent critically on NAFTA and MFN?
I'm aware that "counterfactual" is a new word for you, but please. Moderation in all things.
You apparently view the 9-11 attack as something that would happen all the time if America didn't have the will and ability to project its power overseas. That's really peculiar. Do you deem it completely unrelated to America's throwing its weight around in the ME and elsewhere as it sees fit?
More of September 11th would happen with impunity if there were no repercussions. If it occurred, and there were no military reaction, no hunting of Al Qaeda, no deposing of the Taliban, it would happen with even greater frequency.
It's a bit weird to cite 9-11 as a benefit of having "empire", don't you think?
I agree, and I'll let loose with all the counterfactualism I can muster if I read someone making that point.
It's far more logical to see it as a cost. Or perhaps you buy into Bush's naivist window-dressing rhetoric about "the terrorists hate us because we are free and democratic"? Funny line for a self-professed realist.
It may be a cost that Empire drives monied sons of Allah to take down our buildings, but it is a cost that increases ten-fold if you are not engaged militarily, and twenty-fold is you retard your foreign policy with a Berrigan's penchant for turning the other cheek.
Get this, btw: I am not advocating that the US withdraw militarily from anywhere.
Why not? Pursuant to your theory, what good does it do Empire?
All I am saying is that it wouldn't make much difference to the US standard of living if it did. I should probably say "if it never had an "empire" to begin with" to spell out the counterfactual nature of the argument, but in fact I have no doubt the US could absorb and adapt to any shocks that such a dramatic shift in its foreign policy would incur. It wouldn't lastingly damage its capacity for wealth creation. Pincher Martin put it well in his Message # 19082.
I've addressed this fallacy with pseudo. Most powerful economies thrive a little better on something besides the pseudo/sto "We can absorb the shocks" theorem.
Let me get this straight: You're saying that Berman is not a hack because his leftist credentials are impeccable?
I readily admit I was deliberately dismissive (I think you like that in a man), but you'll have to come up with something better than that.
"...and, without military action, the economic repercussions could have been devastating, as the markets have never endured a massive attack - with the United States blithely responding "Eh, that wasn't so bad. perhaps if you knock down the Sears Tower, Disneyland, and the Golden Gate Bridge, we will employ military action."
I see. So your point is that if the USA hadn't started bombing Afghanistan, Disneyland and the Sears Tower would have been blown up and therefore the USA would have suffered further grave economic consequences (such that the country might have been reduced to Kevin Costner's Waterworld or the Postman world?). Therefore, you argue, US military & diplomatic actions in hunting down terrorists are essentially propping up the US economy.
Whatever. I will give you that rather brittle bone.
Message # 19111
"The incredibly shrinking argument. Now, South Korea is not "critical" and fields fallow for economic activity are but a "bonus".
What's shrinking about the argument? The USA does trade with South Korea, so its impact on the USA is not zero. But the impact is quite quite small. Miniscule, in fact.
"Who says Sadaam stops there? Given the toothlessness of presumed American response, why would he? his says his terms are reasonable? because Sadaam Hussein he is otherwise reasonable?"
Look, I agree that it was good to stop Saddam Hussein from keeping Kuwait and gobbling up Saudi Arabia, but all I'm saying is that if nothing had been done, SH would still have had to sell oil and he would not have had the ability to control the price of oil in the long term.
If you take the various parts of what fuels the Empire's econcomy, and discard them as less than "critical", you end up with a distortion.
Sure, military, political and diplomatic power helped repel Iraq, but, pseudo ays Iraq is but a blip.
Add Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?
Not critical.
And any other nation an unimpeded Sadaam Hussein might have invaded?
Not critical.
And South Korea?
A pittance.
Japan?
Hmmm, only if it were incinerated.
Western Europe?
Maybe, but alone, not critical
International terrorism?
Too recent for pseudo to fathom.
The sum of all and more less than "critical" parts of Empire?
Er
To defend what upon reflection pseudo has admitted was an ill-though out declaration I just can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power.
Thankfully, your faculties have returned.
I've been saying this for a while. He certainly committed an expatriating act. So why not at least try to deny him citizenship?
Pursuant to your theory, what good does it do Empire? [to project power in the world]
What??? You're the one who argues that "Empire" is by necessity hypocritical about its purposes which you say consist in upholding its "grotesquely high" standard of living for its citizens
My argument is
a) with this premise which is false (The USA would suffer little economic harm by retreating from the world - some harm, but not much)
b) with the premise that this is, or should be, the motivation behind the USA's projection of power (militarily, diplomatically, economically).
I contend
1) The USA is actually morally motivated in its foreign policy much more than most other countries.
2) This is generally a Good Thing. For the world as a whole, mind you, because it mostly promotes global stability and security which in turn spurs investment, and international specialisation. (Of course, the US benefits from this, but it is large enough unto itself that it could easily do without it).
And
3) This doesn't necessarily make for hypocrisy.
Why are you so unsatisfied by this? You should be proud to be a righteous Murkin.
I'm happy to clean the slate. Caesar graciously offer pseudo the same terms.
My argument is
a) with this premise which is false (The USA would suffer little economic harm by retreating from the world -some harm, but not much)
Yet, you refuse to set forth any specifics of a hypothetical retreat, thereby immunizing your fanciful theory from any test.
b) with the premise that this is, or should be, the motivation behind the USA's projection of power (militarily, diplomatically, economically).
I contend
1) The USA is actually morally motivated in its foreign policy much more than most other countries.
2) This is generally a Good Thing. For the world as a whole, mind you, because it mostly promotes global stability and security which in turn spurs investment, and international specialisation. (Of course, the US benefits from this, but it is large enough unto itself that it could easily do without it).
I agree.
And
3) This doesn't necessarily make for hypocrisy.
Why are you so unsatisfied by this? You should be proud to be a righteous Murkin.
It makes for proclamations of morality, idealistic good intentions, and hypocrisy, and Caesar is proud of his Empire.
"If you take the various parts of what fuels the Empire's econcomy, and discard them as less than "critical", you end up with a distortion....The sum of all and more less than "critical" parts of Empire?"
I discard both the parts and the sum total of the parts. If the USA reduced its involvement in world affairs to Swedish levels (the hypothesis suggested earlier), then the US economy would barely feel a blip.
Today, Western Europe does not face any serious security threats. Therefore, even though Western Europe is important to the US economy, the US membership in NATO is irrelevant to the US economy.
It is doubtful Japan or the rest of East Asia faces a serious security threat.
I've already made my argument about the Middle East and oil.
What US foreign & military policy actually provides any critical support to the prosperity of the US economy?
Do I? What if I'm not as interested in impressing you with my earnestness as you are in impressing me with your dismissiveness?
You are too young to quarrel with Paul Berman about the character of European leftism since the sixties, which he witnessed first hand and you did not.
Isn't the pertinent question, How significant do we hope those markets will become?. Or more precisely, How significant did we believe those markets might become at the beginning of the Gulf War?
Also, in all the optimism about reassuring economic rebounds in the theoretical absence of the US going to war (wherever), market confidence seems to have gone unmentioned. Didn't anyone here notice the immediate pickup in the NYSE once the US started bombing Afghanistan? And perhaps I recall incorrectly, but didn't the US either not lose money on the Gulf War, or actually make money in its wake?
"1) The USA is actually morally motivated in its foreign policy much more than most other countries.
2) This is generally a Good Thing. For the world as a whole, mind you, because it mostly promotes global stability and security which in turn spurs investment, and international specialisation. (Of course, the US benefits from this, but it is large enough unto itself that it could easily do without it). "
But the problem with Sto's view is that it is static. Caesar's "empire" is a creature of the future, into which its economic power is projected by Murcans hoping to make money.
No one likes his long-range business plan interrupted by despots and suicide bombers.
Also, economics impinges on politics not a little. Think about what your motives must be if you are George Bush I, the "Read My Lips-No New Taxes" president (who raised taxes). Iraq invades Kuwait, the threat of economic dislocation--even a modest amount it--looms large. It is politically impossible to ignore Saddam: a 1970s style oil shortage (such as Pincher assumes)simply will not be accepted at home, by a population that voted Jimmy Carter out of office after one term.
"Isn't the pertinent question, How significant do we hope those markets will become?"
Easily answered question. Europe and Japan are very significant today economically to the USA. But so what? Given that there are no serious security threats to these regions today, in what way are the current US security guarantees of these countries critical to US prosperity?
"Or more precisely, How significant did we believe those markets might become at the beginning of the Gulf War?"
Irrelevant, for the reasons already stated.
"Also, in all the optimism about reassuring economic rebounds in the theoretical absence of the US going to war (wherever), market confidence seems to have gone unmentioned. Didn't anyone here notice the immediate pickup in the NYSE once the US started bombing Afghanistan? And perhaps I recall incorrectly, but didn't the US either not lose money on the Gulf War, or actually make money in its wake?"
All short-term issues and therefore pretty irrelevant to whether US foreign policies are critical to US prosperity.
"But the problem with Sto's view is that it is static. Caesar's "empire" is a creature of the future, into which its economic power is projected by Murcans hoping to make money."
The question is whether "empire" is critical to prosperity. The mere presence of extra money-making opportunities does not show criticalness.
By how much more does the USA open markets for its goods, services and investments, and ensure the supply of critical resources and capital, than it otherwise would in the absence of its throwing its weight around?
I don't think all that much.
"Also, economics impinges on politics not a little. Think about what your motives must be...."
But we haven't been discussing what the motivations have been. Only whether US foreign policies have been, or are, in fact critical to US prosperity.
Well, then maybe I am more interested in impressing you with my dismissiveness than you are in impressing me with your earnestness.
But right now, I'd call it a draw impressing-wise, since you don't seem particularly impressed by my dismissal, and I am not really all that impressed with your earnestness.
You are too young to quarrel with Paul Berman about the character of European leftism since the sixties, which he witnessed first hand and you did not.
You are wrong, I very much witnessed it first hand, having spent significant parts of childhood in various demonstrations protesting various evils, many emanating from the USA. I think it's hard to overestimate the Vietnam war's importance in fomenting the Euro "New Left"'s anti-Americanism and general world view, notably identifying with anti-colonial struggles of third world countries. The Palestinian cause came to be seen as one of those.
Of course, the brutal Soviet crushing of the 1968 Praguer Spring effectively did away with any attraction the USSR might exert on hip lefties.
Easily answered. Such longstanding official commitments to security guarantees are not very easily nor quickly broken and are generally accepted by others as showing that there exist cooperation among such countries in the continuum of international relationships ranging from the economic sphere to defense among the committed countries.
This incident did not only influence general opinion notably among leftist students, it was very directly influential in the development of the Baader-Meinhof gang.
(Ohnesorg means "without sorrow", as I remember my father telling me earnestly and meaningfully when I was a very impressionable seven or eight year old).
One can't easily turn security gaurantees on and off, this year being a protector of allies and next year yanking out bases and droping commitments. One makes one's investment in another country's security on the basis of what one hopes to accomplish at some point in the uncertain future. The US establishes strategic control over parts of the world it hopes to do business in, if not today then a decade from now.
I'm not arguing that we have no ideological or moral commitments. But I think you overlook that that these are intertwined with our objective of constantly bettering our own stndard of living--an objective which in some ideologies subtly underpins our notions of morality.
True. I may be a fool, but I belong to everyone.
Do I get dibs on what part of you I own?
You miss the point. The issue is not whether Pseudoerasmus has determined in 2002 that security over Europe and Japan is not "critical" to the US economy. The issue is whether a Republican pro-business, pro-free-trade US administration within harkening distance to the 1970s oil shocks came to the same conclusion, or could be expected to.
Empire does not have to be "critical" to prosperity for it to advance prosperity at a more satisfying pace than a different model.
I don't see why you say that. A blow to US security such as was manifested by 9-11 might have had lingering effects on confidence had we not responded demonstratively. There is simply no way you can demonstrate that such a possibility was not realistic; you can't pretend to model all the variables, because you don't have them.
I have introduced the issue by way of pointing out that the perception of economic risk is as important as the actual risk, which no one knows in advance of entering into (or avoiding) a conflict.
The USA is not the only country ever to have suffered terror attacks, albeit I believe 9-11 is unparallelled in scale.
Other countries have suffered regular terror threats and have managed to maintain business confidence fairly independent of this. Examples are Britain, Italy, Germany, even Israel and India.
People get used to it, they take precautions, they calculate with the risk. A nuisance it is, but seldom devastating to economic activity.
Message # 19135 is irrelevant to the disussion.
Message # 19140: "The issue is whether a Republican pro-business, pro-free-trade US administration within harkening distance to the 1970s oil shocks came to the same conclusion, or could be expected to."
That is a very interesting question, but completely different from what the topic had been. See above for the topic.
Message # 19137:
"I'm not arguing that we have no ideological or moral commitments."
I am not arguing those things at all.
"...The US establishes strategic control over parts of the world it hopes to do business in, if not today then a decade from now...."
Well, this sounds like something a leftie would say in criticism, but you say it in a kind of hard-nosed realistic-enthusiastic acceptance. It's still wrong. After all, does the USA have "strategic control" of Europe and Japan? No. What does the USA have strategic control of, anyway? The USA protected South Korea from extermination by North Korea for 50 years; yet still for the first 40 years or so, South Korea virtually banned foreign investment and severely restricted imports.
"Empire does not have to be "critical" to prosperity for it to advance prosperity at a more satisfying pace than a different model."
By way of response, I will simply repeat what I said before: if the USA reduced its involvement in world affairs to Swedish levels (the hypothesis suggested earlier), then the US economy would barely feel a blip.
That is, if the USA began acting like a small country, rather than as a powerful "empire", its economic prospects would not differ all that much, in my opinion, from what they are today.
Of your examples, three have not gone to war in response to terror and two have. I therefore don't see how you can compare all five economies' responses to the US's, or claim that "people get used to it" across the board. They don't in India. They don't in Israel. Not enough to forego a military response.
Obviously, every circumstance is different; and there is no universal rule that can be derived from looking at smaller, poorer countires and extrapolating to the US. (Furthermore, Israel's economy has been seriously affected by terror.)
Today isn't the issue. Tomorrow is. The only way to prove you are right is to look at the US economy 50 years hence under differing programs of "involvement in world afairs"--whatever you decide you mean by that--and discern that a minimalist approach produces no significantly different outcome from a maximalist or moderate approach.
You can't do that. You don't have the information to create such a model.
Yes.
To the list of ill economic effects of 9-11, add the coming insurance crisis. Which, of course, becomes a crisis for all of us.
Early estimates of insurance payouts from 9-11 are about $50b - over 10x the amount from the US's most catastrophic hurricane.
But even that is nothing compared to the prospects for securing insurance policies for future construction in major cities - or for current "Iconic" structures - or even for tiny shops within the shadows of those current and future buildings.
No less an alarmist than Warren Buffett (whose holdings include two insurance companies) predicts that construction in urban areas may virtually cease unless a system similar to the FDIC is put in place for insurance companies.
then the UNDP would be ecstatic at the prospect of a ten-fold multiplication of the American ODA.
And I am sure the USA would eventually be granted EU membership, perhaps even ahead of Romania (i.e. some time before 2080).
Message # 19147
"....it's not unusual for you to believe you can pull a single factor out of reality and a predictable alternative will emerge."
I am pretty sure I have much more experience in multivariate analysis than you do. At any rate I have no idea what "single factor" you might have in mind. I was thinking in terms of many different factors.
"How you can presume to assert [Message # 19146] I have no idea...."
Because after considering the ensemble of US foreign policies -- its security alliances, its military actions, its trade negotiations, the financial policies the US treasury department encourages the rest of the world, the US positions at UN conferences, etc. -- I reckon that the USA has derived very little economic benefit from "imperial" activism compared to the benefit it might have derived under political /military isolationism.
Message # 19149
"The only way to prove you are right is to look at the US economy 50 years hence under differing programs of "involvement in world afairs...."
Well, I am simply extrapolating from the past and the present.
I reckon that the USA has not derived much more economic benefit from "imperial" activism in the last 50 years than it might have derived under political / military isolationism.
The US protection of East Asia during the Cold War enabled East Asia to become economically important to the USA. Maybe the whole world will follow East Asia's footsteps under a global Pax Americana.
But will this be critical to the US standard of living? I don't think it has been in the past. It may well be in the future, but I don't think so.
"Compared to Bush, Clinton was practically Wyatt Earp."
They compare a full two-term, 8 year period - during which there were several major acts of terrorism perpetrated against the US - to GWB's first 8 months in office, during which no acts of terrorism were committed?
HoooooooooooHAAAWWWWWWW!
hardly assuaged by you reckoning that the question "Imperial Activism--Economically Fruitful or No?" can be informed with great assurance by multivariate analysis, which for some reason I doubt you've actually conducted seriously on this subject. (It would be a bloody long project.)
You like to redesign the past by claiming that this bit or that bit of it was unnecessary from some standpoint or other. So you come up with 'The US need not have been a military empire to have prospered as it has [and will]' or, '19th century Jews didn't need their own state, they could have emigrated to the US/Australia/the moon,' or 'The US should have known that moderate, pro-western mooj beneficiaries of its aid would just as readily have defeated the Soviets as did the drooling, driven madmen the US funded,' etc., etc.
'The aardvark needn't have fed on ants and termites to have survived and prospered as it has in Africa, it could have fed on termites alone.'
Well, maybe, maybe not. Simply pointing to other, smaller aardvark-like things (in Sweden) that eat termites exclusively doesn't prove the point. Things around the aardvark change when you change the aardvark; and the alternative histories you like to propose as certain are always well beyond the reach of verification.
That hardly speaks to all possible manifestations of empire the US might employ tomorrow, or twenty years hence. My skepticism is hardly assuaged by you reckoning that the question "Imperial Activism--Economically Fruitful or No?" can be informed with great assurance by some current events multivariate analysis, which for some reason I doubt you've actually conducted.
You like to retrospectively critique history by claiming that this or that crucial bit of it was unnecessary from some standpoint or other. So you come up with things like 'The US need not have been a military empire to have prospered as it has [and will]' or, '19th century Jews didn't need their own state, they could have emigrated to the US/Australia/the moon,' or 'The US should have known that moderate, pro-western mooj beneficiaries of its aid would just as readily have defeated the Soviets as did the drooling, driven madmen the US funded,' etc., etc.
'The aardvark needn't have fed on ants and termites to have survived and prospered as it has in Africa, it could have fed on termites alone.'
Well, maybe, maybe not. It's all very debatable, and most conclusions one draws must be equivocal. Simply pointing to other, smaller aardvark-like things (in Sweden) that eat termites exclusively doesn't prove the point. Things around the aardvark change when you change the aardvark; and the alternative histories you like to propose as preferable are always well beyond the reach of assessment.
Now that Pseudoerasmus has posted the admirably equivocal 19157, in which he at least acknowledges the long-range argument for "empire," I'm less inclined to quarrel.
'The US should have known that moderate, pro-western mooj beneficiaries of its aid would just as readily have defeated the Soviets as did the drooling, driven madmen the US funded,'"
You have my view quite buggered up. In the case of the Afghan war of the 1980s, I was not arguing counterfactuals. What actually happened was that although the USA mostly funded the fanatics during the Afghan jihad, the non-fanatics did most of the fighting that actually drove the Soviets out, but the fanatics led the way in the civil war.
"hardly assuaged by you reckoning that the question "Imperial Activism--Economically Fruitful or No?" can be informed with great assurance by multivariate analysis, which for some reason I doubt you've actually conducted seriously on this subject. (It would be a bloody long project.)"
Well, in the case of empires past, it's been done by economic historians already. In the case of the USA in the last 50 years, there is no need to. It is pretty much indisputable that US economic growth in the last half century had overwhelmingly internal sources and very few external sources if at all. So obviously "imperial activism" can't have been that much more beneficial, if at all, to the US economy than political / military isolationism or a less intense activism.
As for the future, as I've said, I am willing to entertain certain hypotheses. But you can't even come up with a scenario in which plausible acts of "imperial activism" would benefit the USA more than diplomatic / military isolationism or less intense activism.
Well who cares if they are beyond the reach of verification. We're all just babbling in an internet forum and nothing we say here has any real-world consequence. I don't know why you have this hang up about being "admirably equivocal" and "noble incertitude" (or was that someone else's phrase) and so. It's more interesting when people argue headstrongly an unequivocal or extreme position, than when constantly equivocating and hedging. I certainly don't believe fully most of the things I argue forcefully. In fact I've argued passionately two altogether contradictory theses during one afternoon in the same forum. Of course there are a few, certain topics on which I am never that way.
A woman who set off a frantic and fruitless search for survivors by falsely claiming her husband had called her on his cell phone from beneath the rubble of the World Trade Center was sentenced Wednesday to three years in prison.
Sugeil Mejia, 24, earlier pleaded guilty to reckless endangerment, admitting she had concocted the story and lied about being married. She had faced up to seven years if convicted, but now will be eligible for parole after serving one year.
Assistant District Attorney Richard White said Mejia claimed three days after the Sept. 11 attacks that her husband was a Port Authority police officer trapped in the rubble with 10 other officers. Hundreds of police and firefighters were killed by the towers' collapse.
...
Mejia's lawyer, Eugene Byrne, said his client had asked him "to extend her sincerest apologies to the firefighters and police officers who perished, and also to the civilians."
Outside court, Byrne said Mejia had lost a friend in the terrorist attack on the twin towers, and the hoax resulted from her distress.
Mejia, of Union City, N.J., the mother of two children, told her story to a police officer who then drove her to the trade center area, authorities said.
I have demonstrated exactly how American Empire's post World War II military power has increased American wealth through security compacts with enormous markets (Japan, Western Europe) and those smaller (SEATO nations). I have demonstrated that the threat to Middle East oil, which may have been a sole threat to Kuwait, but without response, may have also resulted in a regional domination of the resource by Sadaam Hussein, contributed to Empire's wealth. I have also demonstrated that the uses of American Empire's military in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the war on terrorism helps secure our economic prosperity. It is of no use to bicker as to whether September 11th created "significant" economic damage to American Empire; we can agree that it damaged the economy. Moreover, no one has rebutted the fact that without retaliation (in the form of military action), the markets may have been further damaged. It is no answer at all to blithely claim, "Empire could absorb it" without taking into consideration the message sent (without military ability to inflict reprisal) and the effects of additional, unrebutted attacks.
None of this takes into consideration the more difficult gauging of deterrence by maintenance of a massive imperial military force.
This analysis is one only-third of the pie. It does not address diplomatic and political power (which are inextricably intertwined with military capability).
Oh heavens, what can this mean? Neatly divided "internal" vs. "external" sources. Nothing overlapping, nothing impinging on anything else.
"So obviously "imperial activism" can't have been that much more beneficial, if at all, to the US economy than political / military isolationism or a less intense activism."
It isn't obvious at all, except to someone who believes the interaction of politics and economics (and fifty other factors) is nonexistent, which as you admitted in 19157, it isn't. Or nicely predictable, which it surely doesn't seem to be.
Oh, yeah: I forgot about your contention that US interference in Colombia is not significantly about oil but more an extension of domestic drug policy. And of course it is about domestic drug policy. But that's hardly to say no one in Washington has calculated that stability in Colombia and a strongly US-allied government there will eventually tend to favor US oil interests. Our Colombian drug policy sure seems to have the scent of long-range venture capital investment about it, whatever else it's designed to accomplish.
I don't have your view buggered up at all. You have indeed argued a counterfactual: you have claimed that had the US funded the non-fanatics instead of the fanatics, our goals would still have been achieved and there would have been no civil war. (You explicity held the US accountable for that civil war.) But in so claiming you simply assume that changing a single variable (who's getting US goods) wouldn't have changed the political situation in such a way that there was a civil war anyway. Or, extrapolating further, that some other dire (from the US's perspective) consequence resulted.
That's not to say I disagree that it seems generally a bad idea to back anti-west psychos when there's an ostensibly better alternative; but you do not know that your alternative history would have worked out the way you say it would--that the alternative necessarily was better from all relevant standpoints.
It's not that I reject your claims out of hand, PE. I just find them too tenuous and too unqualified. Reality is usually messier than your model of it.
Today I read that the CBO estimates US surpluses will drop 71% over the course of the next decade; White House estimates are slightly happier, but admit to a return to deficits ($106 bn this year, $80 bn next year). All of which marks, according to the FT, "one of the sharpest deteriorations ever in the government's fiscal condition".
Much of this surely has to do with a recession that would have occurred if Osama bin Laden had never been born, and with Bush's excessive tax cuts. But I find it difficult to believe the Republians are wrong to say the repercussions of 9-11 have contributed to the forecast.
I don't know, would a Swede consider such setback critical?
Why is it so hard for you to accept that US production and consumption is largely independent on the world outside?
88% of US produce is consumed in the US. Of the remaining 12% some goes to Canada, some to Latin America, and then some to overseas "imperially influenced" Europe, Japan and SE Asia.
The 88% figure is a historic low. Only a couple decades ago it stood at 95%.
This is inarguable.
I used to assume this of you more often than I have over the past year or so.
Funny, Yl Nonda, I have the exact opposite experience.
Not that anyone else should care one way or the other, but I do prefer discussing matters these days with people who believe what they're saying. All else bores me.
"Hahahahaha!
"They compare a full two-term, 8 year period - during which there were several major acts of terrorism perpetrated against the US - to GWB's first 8 months in office, during which no acts of terrorism were committed?"
What is your point, Joe? Are you saying that it was reasonable for President Bush to be unconcerned about possible terrorist attack, and to pull back on existing anti-terrorist efforts, simply because no Americans had been killed (yet) during his term?
Much of this surely has to do with a recession that would have occurred if Osama bin Laden had never been born, and with Bush's excessive tax cuts. But I find it difficult to believe the Republians are wrong to say the repercussions of 9-11 have contributed to the forecast.
I don't know, would a Swede consider such setback critical?
First, 9-11 would hardly have occurred at all if the US hadn't been all over the Middle East for the last 15 years. Hence, whatever cost it has incurred should be counted as a cost of "empire". The fact that "empire" seems capable of striking back is irrelevant to this, since it's the very striking capability and "imperial" will to use it that has made the US a target at all. It could also be argued that even absent "empire" there were still potential "evildoers" out to crash into WTC , the US security could have been much more focused on and effective in preventing exactly such attacks on home turf instead of busying itself so much with being "empire" elsewhere.
Second, there is no doubt that 9-11 has meant a tangible economic setback which is no fun for anybody, not even Swedes. But this is akin to an admittedly unpleasant short term business cycle fluctuation, not any structural problem. After eight economically happy Clinton years, something like this was bound to occur anyway. 9-11 has probably just meant a different timing of a slump and rebound that was already in store.
American Empire consumes what it produces, and ferries out a significant amount to other nations.
But it also consumes what the world produces. And it also uses its military, political and diplomatic powers to make sure such transfers are routinized and predictable, and that what the world produces is not disrupted.
And its Empire is of a far-reach. Thus, its responsibilities extend beyond California to New York.
Your isolationist and homey sense of American domestic barter notwithstanding.
It's not that I can't, it's that I don't, because spinnning alternative history scenarios is usually pretty pointless, even in this sort of venue (which is the thrust of my argument, of course). Especially since, the longer away in time you want to project your scenario, the more unreliable the scenario becomes. In the wake of 9-11 and its media lava flow I'm especially bored with such pronouncements. How many times have I read some idiot claiming unequivocally that had the US not funded Afghan radicals in 1989, alQaeda would not have blown up the world Trade Center in 2002.
****
As I see it, the whole matter of making dough off of imperial "activism" is a heavy gamble, like any business enterprise, only more so owing to the scale of "empire".
But if you want a good real-world opportunity to speculate about the economic future of "empire" (or not-empire), take a look at the debate over whether the US should now turn its military attention on Iraq. (As I recall, Caesar was for it, but I may have convinced him we at least require an obvious provocation.)
I think one can't actually set aside political and strategic issues to examine in isolation the probability that the US would profit or not profit, soon or later, depending on whether we now act like an empire or don't with regard to Iraq.
"As American Empire is now defined as American military, diplomatic and political power (not, as pseudo might understandably mutate later in the discussion, hegemonic control), the issue is Has the military, diplomatic, and political power of the American Empire contributed [significantly] to American wealth, or, could we disengage, and maintain the same level of wealth?"
No, I have mutated nothing. The "military, diplomatic, and political power of the American Empire" is my verbiage, after all. (The word hegemony was used in a different thread of argument with Andonly.)
"I have demonstrated exactly how American Empire's post World War II military power has increased American wealth through security compacts with enormous markets (Japan, Western Europe) and those smaller (SEATO nations)."
Actually I did that for you. But I also pointed out that Western Europe and Japan did not really become economically important to the USA until the 1980s.
"I have demonstrated that the threat to Middle East oil, which may have been a sole threat to Kuwait, but without response, may have also resulted in a regional domination of the resource by Sadaam Hussein, contributed to Empire's wealth"
You have done nothing of the kind.
" Neatly divided "internal" vs. "external" sources."
Yes.
"So obviously "imperial activism" can't have been that much more beneficial, if at all, to the US economy than political / military isolationism or a less intense activism."
"It isn't obvious at all, except to someone who believes the interaction of politics and economics (and fifty other factors) is nonexistent..."
I certainly do not believe the interaction of politics and economics, and other factors, is nonexistent. In fact, I find the interaction of politics & economics terribly fascinating.
But the indisputable fact of the matter is, the USA's post war wealth is derived overwhelmingly from internal sources. Until the 1980s, the USA didn't trade much, didn't invest much abroad, didn't receive much investment from abroad. So please explain what are some of the wonderfully complex and interlocking avenues through which the USA benefited from its "empire". You can keep mouthing multifactorial pieties but you can't even begin to suggest anything.
"Oh, yeah: I forgot about your contention that US interference in Colombia is not significantly about oil but more an extension of domestic drug policy."
Yes.
At any rate, what does this have to do with our discussion?
"But in so claiming you simply assume that changing a single variable (who's getting US goods) wouldn't have changed the political situation in such a way that there was a civil war anyway... but you do not know that your alternative history would have worked out the way you say it would--that the alternative necessarily was better from all relevant standpoints....Reality is usually messier than your model of it."
I remember a few years ago you were babbling about complexity theory etc. I guess you've read too many airport books on chaos & complexity or something.
Sure, the US consumes foreign goods, what other reason would there be for selling its own goods to foreigners?
And, yes, its military and such probably contributes to a stable trading environment (policing trading routes has always been good for trade).
But it's not like others wouldn't want to trade anything with the US if it didn't strut its fire power all the time. Trade is in general mutually beneficial.
Yes, I am for the immediate invasion of Iraq, and I believe the provocation is either committed or can be manufactured.
Why the Democrats Won't Get Sadaam Now
Why We Need to Get Sadaam Now
Actually I did that for you. But I also pointed out that Western Europe and Japan did not really become economically important to the USA until the 1980s.
I keep forgetting the late-enacted "This was recent" rule. But in that it is difficult to tell in this discussion whether you are arguing as you believe, what you say and how you say it become even less reliable.
"American Empire consumes what it produces, and ferries out a significant amount to other nations. But it also consumes what the world produces."
How would this differ significantly, in your opinion, if the USA did not act "imperially" and turned isolationist today? Would the USA stop importing and exporting?
"And it also uses its military, political and diplomatic powers to make sure such transfers are routinized and predictable, and that what the world produces is not disrupted.
"
Does it? What does Yankistan do to ensure smooth transfers of Chilean produce that's different from what Sweden does to ensure that the transfer of Greek olives is smooth and unhindered?
Do you mean, if in 1947, the United States reduced its military, diplomatic and political capability to that of present-day Sweden?
Why don't we use that as a template for purposes of the discussion?
Well, one might assume that US politics and ideology being what it is, some part of that 12% would wind up funding US farm subsidies.
I don't think answering your question from the perpective of the present would fairly estimate your earlier pronouncement that you couldn't think of one way in which American Empire's military, political and diplomatic power has contributed significantly to its wealth.
Unless, what you were really saying was that you can think of many such ways, but now that they have all been enacted post-WWII, as of this moment in time, on one particular date, you could not think of one one way in which American Empire's military, political and diplomatic power was at that moment contributing significantly to its wealth.
Of course, given your desire to focus in on one moment, or write off perfectly valid examples as "too recent", I'm not really sure what you are advocating anymore.
What I do know is that you have tacitly conceded that American Empire's post-World War II military, political and diplomatic power has contributed significantly to its wealth. Otherwise, the template of a 1947 United States, with all its resources for domestic consumption, but bereft of its military, political and diplomatic clout, would not cause you such consternation.
It's too bad, because it allows you to look back, and hindsight is your strongest attribute in argument.
"I don't think answering your question from the perpective of the present would fairly estimate your earlier pronouncement that you couldn't think of one way in which American Empire's military, political and diplomatic power has contributed significantly to its wealth."
Well, as I said, we can go backward from the present to the past. I say this largely as a methodological matter, not to restrict the discussion to the present.
"Of course, given your desire to focus in on one moment, or write off perfectly valid examples as "too recent"..."
Recall that I was the one who provided evidence against my own view and in support of my opponents' view, by instancing the US security guarantees
"....I'm not really sure what you are advocating anymore."
That America's "imperial activism" (the use of military, political, and diplomatic power beyond that which is exercised by "normal" states) does not confer significant economic benefits on the USA in the present, has not conferred significant economic benefits in the past, and has never been crucial to maintaining its standard of living.
I will concede, however, that the "imperial activism" in the past has generated dividends later and in the present. (See below.)
"What I do know is that you have tacitly conceded that American Empire's post-World War II military, political and diplomatic power has contributed significantly to its wealth."
In the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, one can say with some resolution that the USA derived very little economic benefit from its "imperial activism". The US security guarantees provided to East Asia and Western Europe allowed these regions to prosper, but their importance to the US economy in those decades was trivial.
By the 1980s, these regions achieved a significance they hadn't had earlier, as multinational trade & investment expanded. However, since the USA runs a trade deficit with both East Asia and Western Europe, trade with these regions is not really adding directly to American GDP. Benefits of trade are more indirect and less obvious, in the form of (presumed) productivity benefits due to specialisation, competition, etc. Whether the size of these benefits is particularly large, is hard to say but there is no reason to assume that they are.
More immediately important is that the USA's sizeable current account deficits starting in the 1980s have been financed by capital from abroad, mainly Japanese and European. In essence, what this means is that the USA has consistently consumed & invested more than it saved domestically, while Japan and Europe have consistently saved more than it consumed & invested domestically, and therefore the US savings shortfall is being made up by foreign surplus savings. This foreign financing relationship continues to the present day. So perhaps these "benefits" of the 1980s & 1990s could be called dividends of the "imperial activism" of the 1940s-70s.
But not of today's imperial activism. Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the point of the USA's security guarantees in Western Europe and East Asia is a bit obscure. So how can you say today's imperial activism has significant economic benefits? Whatever benefits East Asia and Western Europe provide to the USA, these are dividends from the early years of the Cold War when the USA made sure they were protected from communism and the Soviet Union.
Debating "War's" Impact on Voters - LAT
To S. Stoots: Last time I checked, input-output accounting was not a means of measuring complex geopolitical or domestic political effects on a country's long term economic well-being.
When asking questions like, "Would a retreat from imperialism harm the US economically?", not only must one take into account a long-range projection of the costs and benefits of, shall we say, Swedish vs. non-Swedish style engagement with the world; one must consider that the US is not the world's only would-be empire. In the absence of the execution of US power, there would be a vacuum, and it would eventually be filled by one or more aspirants to regional or global leadership (or dictatorship, or kleptocracy, or socialist democratic hegemony, whatever). There's no reason to assume such developments would have no effect on American prosperity; or to assume any particular effect, either, the open-endedness of my proposition making it impossible.
Even if investment in "empire" is a gamble, even if its payoff in the immediate term is small or nonexistent, if you are America (and certainly if it's the second half of the twentieth century) you take the risk: arguably, there hasn't been any politically realistic post-WWII alternative.
I don't see why it isn't obvious to you that proposing a political act which violates political realism could have economic consequences that can't be revealed through standard accounting practices. You and Pseudoerasmus have not even gone to the trouble to imagine under which circumstances, exactly, the US would plausibly opt to detach itself from world affairs. So how can anyone take your balance sheet speculations seriously, or bother to propose alternative scenarios?
"Since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the point of the USA's security guarantees in Western Europe and East Asia is a bit obscure."
At the moment it is obscure. As to:
"So how can you say today's imperial activism has significant economic benefits?"
Gee, that's a bit like asking how one can claim car insurance confers economic benefit on the purchaser. After all, if one never has an accident, it costs much more than it's worth.
Maybe if everyone opted out of auto insurance the world would be a better place and the net economic impact on drivers would be negligible or positive.
"Last time I checked, input-output accounting was not a means of measuring complex geopolitical or domestic political effects on a country's long term economic well-being. When asking questions like, "Would a retreat from imperialism harm the US economically?", not only must one take into account a long-range projection of the costs and benefits of, shall we say, Swedish vs. non-Swedish style engagement with the world; one must consider that the US is not the world's only would-be empire. In the absence of the execution of US power, there would be a vacuum, and it would eventually be filled by one or more aspirants to regional or global leadership (or dictatorship, or kleptocracy, or socialist democratic hegemony, whatever)."
Well, finally, you elaborate on what some of these "complex...effects" might be. I've asked for such repeatedly and only now you put out.
What are some of the world's would-be empires? And how is the USA's "imperial activism" currently preventing them from emerging? And how would a vacuum left by the withdrawl of US "imperial activism" get filled? Your rhetoric assumes the existence of an international Pax Americana which I don't think even exists!
The obvious counter-counter-argument to my own hypothetical counter-argument (in Message # 19157) to my own argument is also that Pax Americana does not exist, and cannot exist, on a global scale; and if anything American power & influence will be waning in the future. Yankistan has been able to impose peace or protect from external threats, certain regions but not the whole world.
"Gee, that's a bit like asking how one can claim car insurance confers economic benefit on the purchaser. After all, if one never has an accident, it costs much more than it's worth. Maybe if everyone opted out of auto insurance the world would be a better place and the net economic impact on drivers would be negligible or positive."
Well, your attempt at cleverness falls flat because the actuarial analogy is incomplete: insurance premia are calculated according to estimated risks. Are the "premia" the USA pays commensurate with the risks? Who knows, maybe Yankistan is hideously overpaying.
There may well be a negative economic benefit from low deductible or first dollar coverage for health or other insurance due to its tendency to increase the cost of health care.
That America's "imperial activism" (the use of military, political, and diplomatic power beyond that which is exercised by "normal" states) does not confer significant economic benefits on the USA in the present, has not conferred significant economic benefits in the past, and has never been crucial to maintaining its standard of living.
I will concede, however, that the "imperial activism" in the past has generated dividends later and in the present.
I'm happy to continue forward with this as your new postulate, even with the added burden of allowing you the substitution of "significant" for "crucial".
The dispute nows ssems to be whether American post-World war II imperialism has contributed significantly to its economic wealth, or whether that imperialism had merely contributed your proposed alternative - dividends.
In order to assess the distinction, three questions:
Do you at a minimum agree that American military, diplomatic, and political action against Sadaam Hussein in the Gulf War produced economic dividends contributing to its wealth?
Do you agree that American military, diplomatic, and political actions vis-a-vis post-World War II Europe and Japan contributed and continue to contribute significantly to American wealth?
Message # 19205
"I'm happy to continue forward with this as your new postulate, even with the added burden of allowing you the substitution of "significant" for "crucial".
The only thing 'new' about my postulate is the substitution of 'significant' for 'crucial', which I think makes the burden of argument easier for you.
"Do you at a minimum agree that American military, diplomatic, and political action against Sadaam Hussein in the Gulf War produced economic dividends contributing to its wealth?"
No, if by 'wealth' you mean the long-term growth potential of the USA. It is possible to answer 'yes' if you mean only a short-term, one-time increase in GDP.
"Do you agree that American military, diplomatic, and political actions vis-a-vis post-World War II Europe and Japan contributed and continue to contribute significantly to American wealth?"
I believe I have already elaborately answered this question in Message # 19196.
May be. But it hardly says anything reliable about whether the US is overpaying to compare it to Sweden, which might be actuarially like comparing a teenager to a 40-year-old married father of three. Or might not; but who can say?
It'd clearly have been much more honest to have compared the antiterrorism efforts of GWB's first eight months in office to that of, say, a comparable time period in x42's first term.
But it's hard to ignore the implied compliment to GWB's presidency, in that some people expect an order of magnitude more effectiveness from him than they are willing to accept from a Democrat administration.
How does this counter your admission that the US has in te past benefitted from its investment in "empire"?
"and if anything American power & influence will be waning in the future."
Yes, and the sun will burn out someday. Not that I expect the American "empire" (which you acknowledge is built at least on "power and influence", though why you wouldn't go so far as to call it hegemony I'm not sure) will last as long as the solar system, but the issue is how long our influence and relatively enormous power will last, whether it will benefit us in the long run or not, under what circumstances our power will wane, and whether it would profit us to go ahead and witdraw from the world now.
"Yankistan has been able to impose peace or protect from external threats, certain regions but not the whole world."
I don't understand how this observation contributes to your claim.
Joe Bob invests in some stocks but not the entire stock market. Paxton Bothwaite invests in nearly the entire stock market. Susanne Binckle-Knobbs doesn't invest at all. Who gets rich? I dunno.
Mm, no, that was not putting out, that was merely a glancing cock tease.
Contrary to your assertion about 19135, the economic evolution of both the United States and Japan, for example, has been strongly affected by the special defense relationship between the two countries since WWII which, as you seem to be ignorant of, affects diplomatic, financial and economic considerations.
Would Japanese corporate lobbyists have been allowed to influence US trade legislation to the extent that they have during the '60's through '90's if the US hadn't felt it necessary to be on very good terms with each succeeding Japanese govt. in order to support the ongoing defensive agreements?
But, OTOH, I wouldn't expect a pighead with more ego than brains to acknowledge anything of the sort.
He meant it was a burden on his penchant for civility.
It would also be refreshingly honest for the Bush Administration (and yourself) to admit that horribly underfunded and allegedly unprepared US military of the Clinton years did a superb job in Afghanistan. I am sure that hell will freeze over before Bush allows the Clinton Administration any credit for this. How about you?
Of course not. The linked article and I are just asking why Bush didn't maintain the SAME amount of anti-terrorist readiness as the Clinton administration.
In fact, it's the opposite: The right wing's strident denunciation of Clinton's failure to exterminate bin Laden before Bush took office is an implied admission that the world needed to be moron-proofed.
No, it wouldn't. First of all, I categorically deny that the 'political constraints' (you pull out as if it were some excuse) which rendered x42's efforts void if not worse, should have constrained any adminstration, even such a corrupt one. Whining about hypothetical lack of support from Republicans is just ridiculous.
Unprepared US military? No. Improperly utilized during x42's reign. Clearly. Face it, Cruise Missile Clowntoon didn't give a flying fuck about national security, or, indeed about much except covering his sorry impeached ass.
I don't see the relevance of this point to our discussion. Besides, you have things backward. The USA gave preferential access to Japanese goods in the late 1940s in order to bolster Japan's economy as part of the USA's Cold War strategy. The same was applied to South Korea and Taiwan. This arrangement only came under threat in the late 1970s & early 1980s.
"How does this counter your admission that the US has in te past benefitted from its investment in "empire"?
I said that since the 1980s, the USA has been reaping the benefits of having taken the decision in the 1940s of protecting Western Europe and East Asia. But since Western Europe and East Asia have not been faced with any serious threats since the collapse of the USSR, it's hard to say that there are economic benefits to the security guarantees that the USA has continued to provide since 1989-91.
Furthermore, I don't see how the USA, whose relative power is much less today than in the 1950s or 1960s, can really duplicate on a global scale what they did in East Asia and Western Europe: create a Pax Yankiana in which these regions could prosper. Regional PaxY, sure, but global is doubtful.
"Not that I expect the American "empire" (which you acknowledge is built at least on "power and influence", though why you wouldn't go so far as to call it hegemony I'm not sure)..."
Because the USA is powerful and influential but not controlling. The USA cannot just will others to do its bidding.
"...the issue is how long our influence and relatively enormous power will last, whether it will benefit us in the long run or not, under what circumstances our power will wane, and whether it would profit us to go ahead and witdraw from the world now."
I thought those are the issues I was raising. But the USA already has less relative power than it did the mid-XX century, and it seems to me that the sudden spike in US power since the collapse of the Soviet Union is temporary and aberrant. What Paul Kennedy said in the late 1980s is right: American power can only diminish and, relative to the immediate post-war period, already significantly diminished.
Ah, so now "wealth" is "long-term growth potential" only?
This is a Mad Tea Party, in line with your 19196, which predictably views history in snapshots, as if policy was devoid of future implication.
Again, it appears we agree, save for your persistence in minutiae and definitional game-playing, that post-World War II, American Empire's military, political and diplomatic power contributed something of economic value to something having to do with American prosperity. 
"Ah, so now "wealth" is "long-term growth potential" only?"
growth = change in GDP
GDP = a country's "income"
savings = unconsumed part of income = investment
accumulated savings = accumulated investment = productive capacity
productive capacity = wealth
National wealth is nothing more than the country's current productive capacity. Long-term growth potential is simply a country's future productive capacity.
"This is a Mad Tea Party, in line with your 19196, which predictably views history in snapshots, as if policy was devoid of future implication."
What is "history in snapshots"? As for "future implication", isn't this what I have been talking about, at least in part?
"Again, it appears we agree, save for your persistence in minutiae and definitional game-playing, that post-World War II, American Empire's military, political and diplomatic power contributed something of economic value to something having to do with American prosperity."
I think you're confusing me with Catgut. I have not gone "definitional" on you at all. Minutiae, yes, I love those.
I can only refer you back to my Message # 19196. And just to persist in minutiae, you started this whole thing by claiming that "American empire is critical to American prosperity" (or something like that), however it is that you define critical. And you've come much closer to my position than I to yours, since nothing the USA has done empire-wise since 1945 has been "critical" to US prosperity.
Actually, no, and the strength of my argument lies in the fact that even as you attempt to rephrase, and even as you modulate your own words, and even as you impose yet anothe restriction in terms of acceptable data, I have no need to quibble over words.
So, let's take it one step at a time.
American Empire, which we have consensually defined as its military, diplomatic and political power post-World War II, has contributed to American prosperity (I have purposefully left out the adjective).
Yes or no?
? Did someone bring up global pax-Murcastania?
I suppose I must also reiterate, in light of the last sentence of your Message # 19219, that I have no doubt American power will diminish in relative terms compared to 1950. But so what? Why should that affect a judgment as to whether the US should on any given day seek to maintain or expand what global power it has, or abdicate from power altogether?
But the USA already has less relative power than it did the mid-XX century, and it seems to me that the sudden spike in US power since the collapse of the Soviet Union is temporary and aberrant.
If it's fair to call U.S. power since the end of the Cold War "temporary and aberrant" than the same is even more true for U.S. power following the end of WWII. It's a common trick for polemicists to use the U.S. post-war period and compare it to a more modern one, to show the latter in an unfavorable light, and so suggest that decline has set in. But has there ever been a period in U.S. history (when measuring the country's economic, military, and diplomatic power relative to the rest of the world) more abherrant than post-WWII?
What Paul Kennedy said in the late 1980s is right: American power can only diminish and, relative to the immediate post-war period, already significantly diminished.
What Paul Kennedy said in The Rise and Fall of Great Powers was wrong, and grossly so. He said the U.S. was suffering from imperial overreach (due to large defense expenditures), and suggested that Japan would overtake it. (One of the ways he supported his argument was by comparing U.S. power in the immediate post WWII era to the present day, something you have just done.) He has been proved wrong by subsequent events.
The U.S. has managed its "empire" extremely well. If it has not been of great economic benefit to America, it's also true that it has not been a great economic drain either. The U.S. has used diplomacy and shared goals to convince its allies to share in the burden, and at the present state, I'm not sure the U.S. couldn't go on for several more decades with its empire as presently constituted.
How does the United States project military (as opposed to diplomatic and political) power in an imperial way?
"Actually, no, and the strength of my argument lies in the fact that even as you attempt to rephrase, and even as you modulate your own words, and even as you impose yet anothe restriction in terms of acceptable data, I have no need to quibble over words."
(1) You began by saying "American empire is critical to American prosperity". There is a big difference in meaning between saying something is profitable and something is critical to one's standard of living.
(2) I have used different words but have not changed my position. Empire has not been critical. I did concede that imperial activism in the 1940s-70s generated benefits in the 1980s-90s-00s.
(3) I have not imposed any restriction of data.
"American Empire, which we have consensually defined as its military, diplomatic and political power post-World War II, has contributed to American prosperity (I have purposefully left out the adjective). Yes or no?"
I would say, "not significantly added to US GDP".
Message # 19226: "But so what? Why should that affect a judgment as to whether the US should on any given day seek to maintain or expand what global power it has, or abdicate from power altogether?"
I'm not arguing shoulds or shoulds-not. I was merely assessing the impact of current and future "imperial activism" on future prosperity.
Do you really believe that the US would be where it is economically (more or less) if it had withdrawn from world trade after WWII?
If so, it might be helpful to construct a model of American prosperity if, hupothetically, the actions were not taken?
Even then, the result would be incomplete, for, as anyone knows who actually acts outside the theoretical, one's ability to project power is often more influential than one's actual use of power.
I guess what I am saying is that the US was good for the world even if it could have afforded to retreat to its own shores.
And I repeat: it all started with a remark from Jules that US "empire" was motivated by the need for maintaining a "grotesquely high" standard of living. Thankfully it's not.
Hence Tom Cruise.
Good question, Julio, I have been wondering about that as well. You know what else I have been wondering: Where in the world is Diego Garcia?
Caesar says Empire is and has been and will be a critical contributor to American prosperity.
Well, you said I can't imagine why it would do so just because it stopped projecting military power in an "imperial" way.
I naturally assumed you had some projection of military power in an "imperial" way in mind, but I see I was overly ambitious. Apparently, your intellectual efforts were expended on nicknames and such.
I also was lured into this debate because I thought Caesar believed the U.S. was dependent on its "empire" to support its high standard of living. I think this is not only wrong, but also a dangerous viewpoint for Americans to hold (especially for those Americans with pretensions to call themselves "Caesar").
Again, I didn't say world trade, but still, yes, I do believe that (given no screw up in its internal affairs). But it had to counter the Soviet thread against its own territory, of course.
"If it's fair to call U.S. power since the end of the Cold War "temporary and aberrant" than the same is even more true for U.S. power following the end of WWII. It's a common trick for polemicists to use the U.S. post-war period and compare it to a more modern one, to show the latter in an unfavorable light, and so suggest that decline has set in. But has there ever been a period in U.S. history (when measuring the country's economic, military, and diplomatic power relative to the rest of the world) more abherrant than post-WWII?"
Firstly, I was not putting the USA in an unfavourable light by calling attention to its relative decline. Secondly, you are like someone who just read one of the many books about "lying with statistics" and is now bursting with the delight of the novice to point out elementary fallacies at every opportunity.
Nonetheless, my comparison of the post-war period with the current period is perfectly apt. For the subject was whether US "imperial activism" has contributed "criticallly" or "significantly" to US prosperity. And as far as I know, the USA was not imperially active on a global scale before the Second World War. So the appropriate comparison in terms of gauging American ability to project its power & influence is between now and the post-war period, the apex of American power (largely due to the devastation of the previous great powers).
"What Paul Kennedy said in The Rise and Fall of Great Powers was wrong, and grossly so..."
You over-respond. All I seized on was one point of Kennedy's, which is that the USA definitely experienced relative decline after the 1940s. That seems reasonable. Even Kissinger used that as one of the several rationales for détente. I certainly did not mean to argue that "imperial activism" has a been a great drain on the US economy and that the US generally suffers from "imperial overstretch".
"The U.S. has managed its "empire" extremely well."
I have not been grading the USA on its management.
"...it's also true that it has not been a great economic drain either."
Well, perhaps Vietnam is one instance; and possibly the military buildup of the 1980s (which were ultimately financed by the Japanese and the Europeans through their financing of the US current account deficits)!
Apparently, your intellectual efforts were expended on nicknames and such.
I apologise most profusely if I have in any way been a cause of offense. I was being grossly inconsiderate of your sensibilities. Please forgive me.
I also was lured into this debate because I thought Caesar believed the U.S. was dependent on its "empire" to support its high standard of living. I think this is not only wrong, but also a dangerous viewpoint for Americans to hold (especially for those Americans with pretensions to call themselves "Caesar").
Empire, as defined here for purposes of this discussion, is nothing more than the United States' military, political and diplomatic power. The former, however, is often used with every bit of the indiscriminate and vicious manner of a Caesar.
Caesar allows pardon. Please continue.
P: "Because the USA is powerful and influential but not controlling. The USA cannot just will others to do its bidding."
Well its obvious there are constraints on US power, but hegemony is defined in my OED as "leadership or predominant authority of one state of a confederacy or union over others".
Does the US not lead NATO? Does the US not exert substantial control over the UN? Is Washington's economic theoretical influence not felt at the IMF?
Has the US not exerted authority and control over Iraq? Had it been judged in the US's interests to disregard the wishes of our allies the Saudis and the Turks, do you think we wouldn't have destroyed Saddam? Did the US not exert authority and control over Serbia? Had it been domestically politically feasible, would we not have exerted as much in Somalia? Has the US not exerted authority and control, via negotiations and expenditures, over Pakistan? Over Afghanistan? Over Israel and Palestine?
It's as though you would define a hegemon merely by the degree to which its methods of exacting authority and influence identically resembled ancient Rome's, or were applicable around the entire globe.
"....obviously US policy has been aimed at establishing a stable framework for trade and investment in the world...And this framework has been to immense benefit for all the countries in the so-called "free-world" camp -- including the USA itself. Thus, I favour much of US "imperial" policy, especially in post-war Europe, and especially when it used its position wisely in a multilateral and principled free trade based institution building approach. Bretton-Woods exchange rate system, World Bank, IMF, GATT (WTO), OECD, UN."
Well, I certainly agree that the world has benefited from the USA more than the USA has benefited from the world. But let's not exaggerate.
Between 1945 and today, world trade has expanded largely as a result of regional or bilateral movements, not as a result of the USA creating and maintaining some stable framework. Yes, there have been GATT meetings since the 1940s, with the Kennedy Round, the Tokyo Round, the Faeroe Island Round, etc. Rich countries as a group have unilaterally cut tariffs from the Third World, at the request of Third World delegates at UNCTAD. But most of the expansion in international trade in the last 50 years has come from regional or bilateral agreements such as the EEC, Mercosur, etc., not from a global multilateral framework envisioned at Bretton Woods.
As for investment, the expansion of FDI in the world, particularly flows to the Third World, came not because of any multilateral framework for investment, but because of the collapse of the Soviet Union, which of course the USA helped cause. See Message # 19157.
The World Bank, long controlled by the USA, has been unmitigated disaster, in my opinion (I am critiquing from a right-wing perspective) so I certainly don't think this was a good US contribution even though it was well-intentioned.
The same with the "Washington Consensus" which has saddled too many countries premature capital account liberalisation.
The US contribution to world prosperity is primarily to be found in the recovery and development of Western Europe and East Asia. In East Asia particularly, the USA was willing to run large trade deficits (large for the other countries) in order to subsidise their industrialisation.
"I also was lured into this debate because I thought Caesar believed the U.S. was dependent on its "empire" to support its high standard of living. I think this is not only wrong, but also a dangerous viewpoint..."
Not to mention fucking leftist. It's a version of the Chomskyite neocolonialist rhetoric.
Caesar leftist? For shame.
Chomsky gives Caesar the royal heebie-jeebies as much as the next guy, but it is certainly not Chomskyite to state that American military, political, and diplomatic power is crucial to its primacy and wealth.
That's just the way of the world. Power is not the air freshener, gentlemen. It's the engine.
Which of course demonstrates that the Soviet Union's outrageously disproportionate use of its scarce resources for military purposes was eminently well-considered.
--Bismarck
"Hence Tom Cruise."
Is this an EST reference? God I hate Tom Crews.
I have always detested Tom Crews, especially his physical appearance.
"Pseudo says Empire is and has been and will be a contributor to American prosperity.
Caesar says Empire is and has been and will be a critical contributor to American prosperity."
Well, if that's so then on balance I agree with Pseudo.
However, you must be right that empire has been critical to US prosperity under some circumstances, and I'm not sure it won't be again.
Pseudo and sto proferred that without the post-World War II military, diplomatic and political clout, the American Empire would be as rich as it is today because we have Dairy Queens, and 80% of our people eat at those Dairy Queens.
I've offered to take them through the Looking Glass by repealing five imperialist actions -
1. Marshall Plan/MacArthur's stewardship of Japan
2. NATO
3. Troops in South Korea
4. Defeat of Iraq
5. Present-day Afghanistan/anti-terror ops
And these regional and bilateral movements in trade, being magical free-floating economic events, would have come about in the absence of any particular beliefs about the possibility of US military power being put to use after 1945, huh?
Like corporations, empires blunder. Particular failures don't argue for abandoning empire on the asumption that it will never (again) be profitable (enough).
I fear to tread the economic waters stirred here, and shall leave those depths to Psuedo, Ceasar, and the usual suspects. I do wish to take issue with Psuedo's point here regarding imperialism in American foreign policy. Imperialism was probably at its most direct and strident in American policy towards the end of the 19th C. and early 20th C. The US actually acquired overseas possession of Cuba (temporarily), the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Panama Canal (after creation of the state with generouss assistence of the US, planning the revolution in the Plaza Hotel) Hawaii, and Alaska. Trade missions opened Japan, carved spheres of influence in China, TR sent US naval power on a world tour to project our international ambition and status, and TR sought to increase our Pacific influence.
Some would see manifest destiny writ large in these actions, and some would time them to the later Empire, but in either event, US imperialism was at its height before WWI and not after WWII. However, if one sees empire not only in direct control or effective control indirectly, but merely as the raw ability to project power, I would conceed that post WWII is a high point in US empire.
You know, I do regret the demise of Dairy Queen. It isn't all fast food I believe is the work of the Devil, it's mainly just White Castle and MacDonalds.
Had Popeye's taken over the PRC and infiltrated Egypt, the world would have forgotten its envy of the US and embraced us joyously, in gratitude for the biscuits and spicy fried chicken. Dairy Queen soft-serve could plausibly advance the cause of democracy.
And 51% of our people are obese.
Message # 19258
"And these regional and bilateral movements in trade, being magical free-floating economic events, would have come about in the absence of any particular beliefs about the possibility of US military power being put to use after 1945, huh?"
You're hard to please. I've already stated that the American security umbrella enabled Western Europe and East Asia to experience economic development, one cause of which was the regional & bilateral trade agreements.
But I can't think what on earth US military power has to do with Mercosur or a common market in southern Africa.
By the way, trade agreements are generally not economic events, free-floating or otherwise.
"Like corporations, empires blunder. Particular failures don't argue for abandoning empire..."
I'm not arguing for continuing or abandoning empire.
Why are you always transforming my descriptive remarks into normative ones? Is this a woman's thing?
"However, you must be right that empire has been critical to US prosperity under some circumstances..."
Such as?
Message # 19257
I've offered to take them through the Looking Glass by repealing five imperialist actions -
1. Marshall Plan / MacArthur's stewardship of Japan
2. NATO
3. Troops in South Korea
4. Defeat of Iraq
5. Present-day Afghanistan/anti-terror ops
1. 3. 4. 5. virtually zero impact
I don't know about #2. Depends on whether (a) the USSR would have rolled over Western Europe, or (b) Western Europe would still have been able to cobble together an effective common defence. France and the UK would have had their own nuclear deterrent. Europeans on their own might have spent more on defence and possibly reduced their economic growth.
All the same, I speculate: (a), the US annual growth rate in the 1980s and 1990s would have been 1% lower than it actually was; and (b) virtually no impact.
"I do wish to take issue with Psuedo's point here regarding imperialism in American foreign policy. Imperialism was probably at its most direct and strident in American policy towards the end of the 19th C. and early 20th C. The US actually acquired overseas possession of Cuba (temporarily), the Phillipines, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Panama Canal (after creation of the state with generouss assistence of the US....."
Yes, but here you are talking about real imperialism. We're talking about "imperialism", what you call the "raw ability to project power" and influence.
Good evening.
For a while, it almost seemed as though Sullivan's analysis was becoming conventional wisdom. Yet the serial reviews have rolled on, in their methodical way, so that finally the latest front-page Washington Post installment examines the Bush administration's own anti-terror accomplishments in 2001. And it turns out that compared to Bush, Clinton was practically Wyatt Earp.
"
For a while, it almost seemed as though Sullivan's analysis was becoming conventional wisdom. Yet the serial reviews have rolled on, in their methodical way, so that finally the latest front-page Washington Post installment examines the Bush administration's own anti-terror accomplishments in 2001. And it turns out that compared to Bush, Clinton was practically Wyatt Earp.
"
He noticed a difference on terrorism. Clinton's Cabinet advisers, burning with the urgency of their losses to bin Laden in the African embassy bombings in 1998 and the [U.S.S.] Cole attack in 2000, had met "nearly weekly" to direct the fight, Kerrick said. Among Bush's first-line advisers, "candidly speaking, I didn't detect" that kind of focus, he said.
If Bush's advisers hadn't been so instinctively dismissive of all things Clinton, they might have had a policy within a month or two of Bush's inauguration, maximum.
...you are like someone who just read one of the many books about "lying with statistics" and is now bursting with the delight of the novice to point out elementary fallacies at every opportunity.
I've never read a book about "lying with statistics," but I have read two of Kennedy's books, including The Rise and Fall of Great Powers, the book for which he is most famous for, and to which you were obviously referring when you wrote "Kennedy is right." I've also read some critiques of that work, which take Kennedy to task for the same thing you do: compare U.S. power of any period to that it possessed just after 1945.
If your point was to say that 'America is in relative decline, and the upwards spike it experienced afterward the end of the Cold War is temporary and aberrant,' why mention Kennedy at all? There are probably hundreds of scholars and opinion-makers who have said the same thing. But this is what you posted (the italics are mine): But the USA already has less relative power than it did the mid-XX century, and it seems to me that the sudden spike in US power since the collapse of the Soviet Union is temporary and aberrant. What Paul Kennedy said in the late 1980s is right: American power can only diminish and, relative to the immediate post-war period, already significantly diminished.
continued ...
Nonetheless, my comparison of the post-war period with the current period is perfectly apt. For the subject was whether US "imperial activism" has contributed "critically" or "significantly" to US prosperity. And as far as I know, the USA was not imperially active on a global scale before the Second World War. So the appropriate comparison in terms of gauging American ability to project its power & influence is between now and the post-war period, the apex of American power (largely due to the devastation of the previous great powers).
Quite part from the fact the U.S. had already been engaged in several regions of the world before the 1940s, the question you brought up in the post to which I responded had to do with "relative power." Yes, the U.S. has been in relative decline since 1945, but that is because the situation at that time was so abnormal, aberrant, and likely never to be repeated that it is misleading to compare them when dicussing what you believe is the current aberration of the 1990s.
Exactly - they were dismissive of all things Clinton. And as far as fighting terrorism was concerned, what idiot would argue that they shouldn't have scrapped the whole kit-n-kaboodle?
The Clinton "response plan" was misdirected, ineffective in the extreme - indeed, it was counterproductive to any plans any administration may have developed to promote cooperation between the US and any Muslim country in efforts to thwart future attacks, or to respond to them.
The plan the GWB admin put together in the first few weeks following the 9-11 attack was more successful than the rinky-dink little minimal response plan the Clinton admin jury-rigged over 8 years.
My God - if this were Clintons war, we'd still be in Northern Afghanistan with our thumbs up our asses, floating trial balloons about what to do next.
Can't argue with that, I guess. We haven't had thousands of Americans killed in their fucking OFFICES for almost four and a half months now.
How about Bush's plan BEFORE 9-11?
WTF - in Clinton's plan - even if it were followed up by Bush - would have prevented these guys - all of whom got into the country, planned the attacks for years, flying back and forth between the US and the rest of the fucking world, receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars...ALL ON CLINTON'S WATCH - what, Ohio, in this brilliant plan of Clinton's, devised in "weekly strategy sessions", would have done a single fucking thing to prevent the attacks?
What fucking balls for this moron to come out and criticize anything the Bush admin has or hasn't done wrt terrorism, when everything except the actual deed was done on Clinton's watch.
And what kind of moron buys into that crap?
What could GWB - with no prior info that these fuckers were even in the country - thanks to Fatboy - have done to prevent the attacks?
Arky:
You obviously have no idea what you're talking about, because this whole discussion centers around a former Clinton admin official's criticism of the Bush administration.
"I have read two of Kennedy's books, including The Rise and Fall of Great Powers..."
I've read Rise & Fall, plus a collection of essays whose title escapes me but it contains a really good essay called "Strategy and Finance".
"...why mention Kennedy at all? There are probably hundreds of scholars and opinion-makers who have said the same thing."
Because Kennedy is the only person whom I have personally read, who has made that observation. I know others have made that observation too, but unlike you I don't read every trendy new popular zeitgeist book on IR & poli sci. (In fact, I'm pretty sure I've read no new book of this genre at all since 1988 or 1989. I haven't read Fukuyama I haven't read Huntington etc.) So I thought of Kennedy when I aired the relative decline point. It was just a throwaway reference you're really blowing out of all proportion.
Message # 19277
"First, if you are going to compare the relative power of the United States then it is misleading to call the 1990s aberrant and not mention that the post WWII era was even more so."
I think you're being a bit neurotic about this. For my purpose, which was to assess the economic benefits of America's global imperial activism, the pre-war period is simply irrelevant because the USA did not then practise "imperial activism" on a global scale. If I had been talking about the historical trajectory of US power relative to other great powers, then, yes, it would be misleading not to mention that the post-war period was aberrant and artificial.
The "relative" power of the U.S. was so high in 1945 for the simple reason that almost every other advanced country in the world was in political and economic chaos. There was no way the same power balance of 1945 would continue...Yes, the U.S. has been in relative decline since 1945, but that is because the situation at that time was so abnormal...."
Yes, yes, yes, you don't have to keep reiterating the obvious with the air of Revelation.
"Quite part from the fact the U.S. had already been engaged in several regions of the world before the 1940s...."
Yes, but you can't compare the US involvement in world affairs before 1941 with US involvement after 1941. The USA was largely a regional power in the Western Hemisphere, plus a real (not metaphorical) imperialist in the Philippines, with whatever perceived interests it had in the Pacific as a result of holding the Ph.
Maybe Bush could have succeeded, maybe not. If successful, maybe that would have stopped 9/11, maybe not. But (apparently) little or no effort was made to do so.
At least three acts of war are committed against the US, beginning 7 years before Bush even takes office.
In this 7 year period, Bill Clinton misses (according to Clinton himself) several opportunities to capture/kill ObL. Then, despite the fact that we had enough evidence against him that it was ok to send tomahawks over there to blow up some tents, Clinton resists doing what really needs to be done - sending troops over to take care of the regime that's attacking us, because we lacked evidence.
Now, years later when Bush takes office, he's supposed to...what? Invent an Osama-Seeking missile?
Given the foaming from people of your ilk about Clinton "Wagging the Dog," your ex post facto criticism of not sending troops in after Bin Laden is laughable (just as almost everything else you have written in this thread)
Apparently Bin Laden was in those tents several hours before the missiles hit. With a little more luck, you'd be singing a different tune.
I do not see how anyone can dispute that until 9/11, the threat of terrorism was not making many appearances on the Bush Administration's radar screen.
You have claimed that four major acts of post-World War II American imperialism have had virtually zero impact on American prosperity/wealth. It will be easier to address them one at a time.
The Marshall Plan
Perhaps the weakest of the five acts of imperial power (a mere $13 billion at the time - $90 billion today), still, a $90 billion dollar infusion today would be considered massive. The aid rendered to Europe during the life of the Marshall Plan amounted to 1.2 percent to 1.5 percent of GNP of the United States (all foreign aid is now 1/10 of 1 percent of our GNP) (for contrast, we have pledged only a couple hundred million for Afghanistan).
From the State Department's website --"The Marshall Plan provided a critical margin to the Europeans' own economic efforts, as per capita GNP grew 33.5% in Western Europe from 1948 through 1951. This recovery set the stage for Europe's remarkable economic growth in the following years. The U.S. economy also benefitted from the Marshall Plan as the U.S. preserved and improved its trading relationship with Europe. By stimulating European productivity and accepting a greater volume of imports, the U.S. saw its own exports increase several-fold in the decades that followed. The Marshall Plan left a legacy of U.S.-European friendship, transatlantic cooperation, U.S. engagement in Europe, and bipartisan U.S. support for that engagement. That legacy has guided U.S.-European relations ever since, and it serves as a beacon for the Euro-Atlantic Community today."
See alsoThe Impact of the Marshall Plan
In the words of another analyst, "In formulating and funding the European Recovery Program, the United States responded not only to humanitarian concerns, but to considerations of self-interest as well. First, an economically healthy Europe would be, as it had been prior to World War II, America's best customer. Second, as long as Europe's economy remained disorganized and anemic, the Continent could not act as an effective bulwark against Soviet imperialism and communist subversion, but would constitute a continuing drain on the financial and material reserves of North America. In creating and implementing the Marshall Plan, its architects encountered two major obstacles; isolationism and economic nationalism in the United States, and parochialsim in Europe. An appeal to humanitarian hopes and anti-Communist fears were sufficient to overcome the first, while the leverage of American aid and the political benefits that would accrue to those European leaders who obtained it were enough to overwhelm the second. By raising living standards and increasing productivity in Western Europe, the Marshall Plan curbed Communism, stimulated trade and economic growth, helped preserve political stability, and made possible a vigorous and enduring North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Given its objectives, it was the most successful foreign aid program in American history."
The Marshall Plan had great benefits ot American wealth/prosperity. In the words of former USAID Administrator Brian Atwood, "All now agree that the Marshall Plan was a stunning, unprecedented example of enlightened leadership. The United States understood that the benefits to the United States of economic recovery in Europe and Japan, and the threats in terms of crisis and instability that would result from economic stagnation in those regions."
As Catherine McArdle Kelleher, Director of the Aspen Institute Berlin states, "The cost of post-war European reconstruction was high; but from this perspective the Marshall Plan was imply the dwon payment on a future of common benefit and continuing American growth".
Today, we export $150 billion to the EC, and import $200 billion. The claim that it had virtually no impact on American wealth/prosperity is insupportable.
"Clinton resists doing what really needs to be done -sending troops over to take care of the regime that's attacking us."
If that was what needed to be done, why didn't Bush do it when he took office? You can't fairly criticize Clinton for not doing what Bush also did not do.
It's very captivating to read the comments posted by everyone here because they offer a glimpse into the real situation. It's too bad that we don't get the same thing over here in the states. People apparently like to believe that Americans are a godless, imperialist, child-killing citizenry, but that is far from the truth. Sure there are some who are like that, but I doubt all those African-American and Latino sailors who got blasted to bits on the USS Cole were that way. They were just trying to scratch out a better life for themselves, and could only hope to understand what their officers told them. It's the same here. I just get up every day and bust my butt trying to save a few dollars. I don't have much time to learn about the Middle-East, or Korea, or Taiwan, or the Balkans, or any other place that America is involved in. I feel pretty much powerless when it comes to changing the policy of the nation. I am one voter out of millions. And yet I have to fear that one day someone will commit a terrorist act on U.S. soil that may harm my family or friends, or women and children (or American Muslims and Jews). It seems so unjust that people apparently would like to kill Americans even though most of us don't even understand what the problem is. Or is that the point? Kill enough innocent people and the guilty will understand? (Obviously I am not expecting an answer...it's just a philosophical question) Heck, it seems like the U.S. hasn't been nearly as imposing as the British and French were. But then again, like I said, we don't hear too much about that stuff over here.
In creating and implementing the Marshall Plan, its architects encountered two major obstacles; isolationism and economic nationalism in the United States, and parochialism in Europe.
"Parochialism in Europe?" There was and is no doubt lots of that, but it's odd to cite it as a reason for any European reluctance to accept aid. I suspect the only reluctance that could be registered would be voiced by European communists who were at the high point of their power after having been one of the most powerful elements in national resistance to Nazi occupation.
the economic effects of the Marshall Plan has been extensively studied. I believe the scholarly consensus is that its significance to Europe lay not so much in its infusion of raw purchasing power, though that was certainly felt too in war-demolished Europe (and 1.5% of the US GDP would at the time equal perhaps 5% of Euro GDP, possibly more). The primary positive benefits of the plan derived from
1) The tangible American commitment to Europe that it signalled which buttressed business and consumer confidence significantly
2) The Plan's "contingencies", first and foremost demanding that receptors committed to opening their markets and free trade in order that European trade could be restored.
3) Some arrangement for currency clearance providing for trade lubricating credits, the technical details of which I am blissfully unaware of (this arrangement was probably also primarily functioning as a confidence booster).
The Plan ended after 45 months, and during the time, Europe's GNP rose from $119.6 billion in 1947 to almost $159 billion in 1951. Industrial production increased 40 percent over 1938 levels and agricultural output exceeded the prewar figure by 11 percent. In 1950, the volume of intra-European trade stood at 24 percent above the 1938 level and by 1953, it had topped 40 percent.
These numbers are all well and good, the Euro GDP growth amounting to some 33% over 45 months, i.e. 7-8% p.a. growth on average. Impressive, if not wildly so, especially in light of Europe's enormous reconstruction needs.
But note that when 1938 is used as a reference year for trade growth it must be remembered that international trade was extremely severely depressed during the 1930s.
the U.S. saw its own exports increase several-fold in the decades that followed
a somewhat vague quantification. In any case, it was from a very low base, and even if the growth has been consistent and uninterrupted through today, US-Euro trade now amounts to no more than perhaps 6% of each region's GDP.
This is a sizeable chunk, yes, but hardly dizzying.
I said 1.5% of the US GDP would at the time equal perhaps 5% of Euro GDP, possibly more when I actually have been furnushed with that information by the noble JC, namely American aid of $13bn to a Europe whose GDP grew from $119.6bn
to $159bn, over four years amounting to $bn139 on average, i.e. it amounted to some 2-3% of Euro GDP in a given year.
There was a long bloody civil war in Greece. French communists were well-armed and well-organised; they reportedly only waited for a signal from Moscow, but Stalin told them to turn in their arms peacefully in order to secure prizes more directly advantageous to the USSR.
More from the unhinged Robert Fisk, where he starts out by calling Noam Chomsky "...one of America's greatest philosophers..."
I'd really like to see either of these clowns explain their implicit defense (due to their lack of all criticism) of the total rejection of human rights among Islamic cultures.
Excluding Great Britain, that is.
I hesitate to link this because of the egregious insult offered to Samuel Clemen's 'sappy women' by the author's comparison.
Not only does he never answer this perfectly reasonable query, he goes on to imply in Message # 19285 that had Bush followed the brilliant Clinton "strategy", perhaps 9-11 would have been prevented!
How, you (and I) ask?
Well, "Track down and capture or kill the murderers, including Osama bin Laden, who conspired to commit the attack on the USS Cole", suggests Col. Ohio (with a dumb nod from Sgt. Wombat).
Now - forget all about the fact that Clinton, despite "weekly strategy sessions", could not accomplish this feat in 7 years, but Ohio expects the infinitely dumber Dubya to do this in his first 8 months in office -pay no attention to that.
Instead, let's say GWB put a Herculean effort into tracking down ObL. And after, oh, six months or so, he managed to blow up ObL and several of his buddies.
How in the hell would that have prevented 9-11?
No one in the Clinton admin, despite years of "weekly strategy sessions" had the slightest idea the guys who did it were even in this country.
Wag that, moron.
Given the foaming from people of your ilk about Clinton "Wagging the Dog,..."
Three points (beside the one on your head):
1) I never accused Clinton of "wagging the dog". You are dishonest, and hope to cover this rank inuendo with your idiotic "people of your ilk".
Low life.
2) This discussion started with a link to an article quoting someone from the Clinton admin who criticizes Bush for not following the vaunted "Clinton Strategy". Which strategy, over the course of two days, no one can even define - unless Ohio's "Track down and capture or kill the murderers, including Osama bin Laden, who conspired to commit the attack on the USS Cole" can be counted as a strategy. Perhaps in the Clinton WH it was. Personally, I'd hope for a little better after years of "weekly strategy sessions".
3) Seeing as the extent of your input here has consisted of little but dishonest critiques of other people's posts, you'd do well to keep your mouth shut about my contributions.
Which strategy, over the course of two days, no one can even define - unless Ohio's "Track down and capture or kill the murderers, including Osama bin Laden, who conspired to commit the attack on the USS Cole" can be counted as a strategy.
That differs from "hunt terror wherever it exists" exactly how?
The fact is, Clinton couldn't fart without at least ten Republicans criticizing it in its minutest detail. His actual efforts to deal with anything were stymied by a constant barrage of ridiculous criticism. If I read "aspirin factory" one more time I'm gonna hurl.
And you look downright silly trying to slam someone like Wombat who's demonstrated repeatedly that he knows what he's talking about. Lack of content in his input is not a criticism that will fly.
Ooooh, that's a tough one, Arky.
Uh -lessee here....
Ummmm....
...
...
...Oh - I've got it!
Execution of said policy, for beginners.
Then, of course, you've got to admit that despite its plain-spoken, in-your-face simplicity, "hunt terror wherever it exists" ain't bad for a strategy devised in two days, especially when compared with "Track down and capture or kill the murderers, including Osama bin Laden, who
conspired to commit the attack on the USS Cole", which took the better part of after 7 years, after 3 attacks on Americans abroad.
My comments about the Bush administration's lame anti-terrorism efforts were made in contrast to the Clinton administration's record and the harsh criticism of that record by Bush supporters who want to say 9-11 was Clinton's fault. Whether one thinks Clinton's efforts were inadequate, the record is clear that Bush did not even equal them, or even try to. Furthermore, the criticism of Clinton largely consists of criticizing him for not taking steps that Bush also did not take - for example, your indignation yesterday that Clinton did not send ground forces into Afghanistan after the attack on the USS Cole. Bush could have done this too, but didn't.
(By the way, I don't understand why you say Clinton had 7 years to track down the conspirators behind the Cole attack. That happened in mid-2000.)
Even if Bush had tried to prevent the possibility of a terrorist attack on U.S. soil, I think it's probable 9-11 would have happened anyway. But he could have tried, instead of shelving anti-terrorism efforts in favor of missile defense. And for you to say out of one side of your mouth that Bush had no chance of stopping 9-11 while out of the other side that Clinton should have stopped it is intellectually dishonest.
If you're saying that Clinton's INS should have taken administrative actions such as closer tracking of toursist and student visa holders, please describe how the Bush administration was doing anything different before 9-11.
A successful attack on bin Laden's terrorist camps would likely have reaped information about his network and its plans, either from captured henchman or physical evidence like bank records. As you should know, our successful attack on the Taliban is right now reaping information about terrorism.
In any event, it couldn't have hurt.
(By the way, I don't understand why you say Clinton had 7 years to track down the conspirators behind the Cole attack. That happened in mid-2000.)
Either it is you who are not paying attention, or you are being as wretchedly dishonest as Sgt. Wombat:
Way back in Message # 19288 I said At least three acts of war are committed against the US, beginning 7 years before Bush even takes office...
...you may recall, Ohio, the original WTC attack - and that those attackers and conspirators have now been positively traced back to the ObL network. Perhaps you also recall the embassy bombings 5 years later - ditto for them.
I'll pick you apart a bit more later - right now I'm off to Winterfest.
Have a lovely day.
This whole Bush vs. Clinton vs. terrorism conversation had its start when the Washington Post ran a series of articles on the Clinton efforts against terrorism and Bin Laden. If it doesn't strain your brain too much, go back and look at it. Some Clinton foamers tried to portray the articles as showing that Clinton did very little, when in fact the articles showed that Clinton did a great deal (more than I knew) within the political constraints that he operated under. Subsequent articles showed that the Bush administration continued the policies that Clinton put in place, and did not give terrorism a particularly high priority. I fail to see how you can criticise the Clinton administration's policies and then get infuriated when the same criticism is applied to Bush.
Counterterrorism was not the top priority in the Clinton Administration's foreign policy. It was not in Bush's either.
Ex post facto criticism from yahoos such as yourself, whose most constructive comments in this thread have generally involved nuclear genocide against religions and regions that you are utterly unfamiliar with and bigoted about deserve the ridicule that they receive.
So in Message # 19307, when you said "USS Cole" you meant "1993 World Trade Center bombing." How stupid of me not to realize that.
Even with that substitution, starting Clinton's "get Osama" clock in 1993 is unfair since bin Laden's involvement in that crime - still unproven, I think - was not suspected until several years later.
And again I ask: Once President Bush took over Clinton's failed hunt for Osama, Bush did . . . . ?? What did the "Don't worry, servicemen - help is on the way!" candidate do to avenge the deaths of the USS Cole sailors once he took office?
that article was more of a polemic letter-to-the-editor than a serious contribution. Some of its points are valid though. To use the apparent success of the Marshall plan as an argument for throwing money at various problems without understanding the context and background to the Marshall Plan's success can lead to a lot of waste.
Here is an interesting paper which, though written by two academic economists, is fairly accessible and quite well thought out.
The Marshall Plan: History's Most Successful Structural Adjustment Programme
It's by J. Bradford DeLong and Barry Eichengreen. The online version is in PDF, so it's not possible to copy-paste, but the seven page introduction can be recommended; it also has a sumamry of conclusions.
Their argument is (you probably guessed it) along the lines I mentioned above. The Marshall Plan worked mainly through establishing economic stability and confidence, and by eviscerating the clamour for continuing and strengthening bureaucratic interference in the economy.
DeLong and Eichengreen adds to their analysis the cunning act of comparing post WWII Europe with post-WWII Argentina, using the latter as an example of what might have happened in Europe in the absence of a Marshall Plan and the following greater presence of control economy.
Anyway, the paper isn't directly pertinent to the discussion of the importance of Europe's recovery to the American economy. But interesting nonetheless.
GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba (AP) -- The Taliban fighters who wouldn't allow women to study in Afghanistan and punished them if a veil slipped or ankle showed now are getting orders from women guards and care from female doctors at this U.S. detention camp.
``In their culture they get to tell their females what to do,'' said Pfc. Courtney Sletter, 21, from Waconia, Minn. ``Well, they are now in a new culture, and I get to tell them what to do.''
You're the moron.
I never said Clinton could've done what you imply I said. I was replying to idiotic suggestions that GWB somehow blew this by not following up on Clinton's "weekly strategy sessions". My point since this idiotic dscussion started has been, if you're going to go around trying to smear Bush - who was in office 8 months by 9-11 - with that kind of shit, then you'd better go ask yourself why Clinton could not prevent ObL from doing anything he wanted despite these fabled "weekly strategy sessions" he held ever since the WTC bombings.
And imo, the fact that he refused to accept ObL's head on a platter from foreign gov'ts on three separate occasions after he had proof positive he was directly responsible for the embassy bombings, makes this entire argument academic.
Oh - and once again, fucknut, you are a liar:
Ex post facto criticism from yahoos such as yourself, whose most constructive comments in this thread have generally involved nuclear genocide...
But at least this time it's just a flat-out lie, instead of one of your moronic people of your ilk obfuscations.
Now get lost, wanker.
So in Message # 19307, when you said "USS Cole" you meant "1993 World Trade Center bombing." How stupid of me not to realize that.
Here's your first clue, from
Now - forget all about the fact that Clinton, despite "weekly strategy sessions", could not accomplish this feat in 7 years, but Ohio expects
the infinitely dumber Dubya to do this in his first 8 months in office - pay no attention to that.
See, moron? 7 years - as in 1993, as in the first WTC attack, as in when the famous "weekly strategy sessions" began.
Is 'fucknut' a regular usage in your parts?
Is there a code to decipher this statement too?
IMO, exactly the right move and what I've been strongly recommending all along.
Damn, I'm good.
Now, to Sto's comments. I don't really buy the Eichengreen/De Long thesis that in the absence of the Marshall Plan, Western Europe would have followed the "Argentine model" of populist economics. I do agree with them, however, that financial stabilisation might have been delayed without the MP.
De Long and Eichengreen reason that the MP funds lowered the short-term costs of stabilisation and reduced the intensity of domestic political distributional conflicts which otherwise might have resulted in excessive expansion of aggregate demand over a long period of time. But I think they completely ignore the political-strategic dimension of what the USA was doing in those years.
In my opinion, the way the USA really helped Europe stabilise was by preventing communist takeovers in Western Europe through assistance to non-communist political parties (France, Italy & elsewhere) and through proxy wars (Greece). Through these means, the USA kept the communists out of power and made sure that parties of the right, the centre-right and the centre-left would would lead Europe. After all, it's people like Erhard, Mendès-France, etc. who founded the social market economy and laid the foundations of European commercial integration. They weren't induced by some Marshall Plan funds.
I vaugely recall a story in the Washington Post about that. Anyone have the time to dig it out and link it?
FWIW, if these Al Qaeda members are given other than death sentences, I'm all for them serving them out in European prisons. Then, the Euroweenies can be sure that they're being taken care of by their so-called 'precepts' (and take all the backlash from Muslim militants during the interim).
This evening, I read this.
Such hypocrisy from those Gitmo whiners. What's British or EU citizenship coming to these days?
I do not see how anyone can dispute that until 9/11, the threat of terrorism was not making many appearances on the Bush Administration's radar screen.
To the contrary. I recall having seen several news items before 9/11 regarding early Bush administration efforts to retool the military to be more effective handling conflicts with smaller countries and terrorist groups. Looks like enough progress was made to wind up looking good....real good in their first major test.
You claimed that four major acts of post-World War II American imperialism had virtually zero impact on American prosperity/wealth, one of which the Marshall Plan. Sto's posts concede that this is not the case, and while there is debate as to the significance of impact, for you to rely on Sto's defense is a nimble surrender, but a surrender nonetheless. Re-read Sto's posts. There is no solace for you there:
The primary positive benefits of the plan derived from
1) The tangible American commitment to Europe that it signalled which buttressed business and consumer confidence significantly
2) The Plan's "contingencies", first and foremost demanding that receptors committed to opening their markets and free trade in order that European trade could be restored.
3) Some arrangement for currency clearance providing for trade lubricating credits, the technical details of which I am blissfully unaware of (this arrangement was probably also primarily functioning as a confidence booster) . . . .
even if the growth has been consistent and uninterrupted through today, US-Euro trade now amounts to no more than perhaps 6% of each region's GDP. This is a sizeable chunk, yes, but hardly dizzying . . . .
Also, and I hesitate to say this, but possibly, just possibly, Europe would have seen revolutionary communists in government if the Marshall plan hadn't been enacted. There is no doubt that "confidence" at the time was not merely a question of pessimism wrt the next few months' business climate. It was a question of confidence in capitalism as a system which had seen the miserable 1930s and a devastating war which, furthermore, had put plenty of bureaucratic meddling mechanisms into place, such as price controls and rationing of all kinds of consumer goods. There was no recent prosperous capitalist free-market age to want to turn back to.
While there is little evidence of Taliban-style Islamic militancy on the streets of Sokoto, in other northern states churches have been burned and Christian women have been attacked for not covering their heads. Separate buses and taxis have been allocated for women, and the streets are now patrolled by quasi-official Islamic enforcers, the Hisbah, who do not always distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims. Non-Muslims, in theory, are exempt from sharia law.
In recent months, several people in northern Nigeria have been lashed in public for petty theft, drinking alcohol or sexual offenses that did not involve adultery. In July, a young man in Sokoto had his right hand amputated for stealing a goat. (The amputation was carried out under anesthesia by a qualified surgeon, and the man was given 50,000 Naira -- $450 -- by the state government ''to start a new life.'') There have been two other amputations and numerous lashings elsewhere in the northern states. In one well-publicized case, a 17-year-old girl in Zamfara State was given 100 lashes in public with a leather whip for having premarital sex. In Katsina State, a man has been sentenced to have his right eye removed in retribution for blinding another man in an assault.
Moderate Muslims in the region, along with international human rights monitors, worry that strict sharia law will become more widespread as politicians compete to exploit public enthusiasm for law and order. The prospect of swift and harsh punishment appeals to many in the north, where the police are seen as ineffective and corrupt.
New York Times
That could be wishful thinking. ''For a political leader to advocate its abolition would be political suicide,'' says Prof. Ruud Peters of the University of Amsterdam, who just completed a study on the implementation of sharia in Nigeria. He points out that in Pakistan and Libya, which have each made sharia the national law, amputations and stonings are never imposed, even though they are carried on the statute books. In northern Nigeria, he says, sharia law has been drafted differently, and sloppily, for each state. He urges the drafting of laws that would not only make the law consistent from state to state but would also emphasize restrictions and limitations that make the application of severe Koranic punishments more difficult.
"You claimed that four major acts of post-World War II American imperialism had virtually zero impact on American prosperity/wealth, one of which the Marshall Plan. Sto's posts concede that this is not the case, and while there is debate as to the significance of impact, for you to rely on Sto's defense is a nimble surrender...."
Firstly, Sto's disagreement with you was more basic. He disagreed with you on what the Marshall Plan was and did! He easily dispatched the folk-mythology you had adduced with respect to the Marshall Plan and in its place presented the standard perspective of the economist on the MP.
Secondly, I did not "rely" on Stostosto's "defence" at all. I simply dismissed your posts on the MP as pathetic and focused on arguing against Sto's views. Message # 19334 was the argument against Sto's views.
You retreat elegantly. I look forward to your continued ill-considered historical observations.
Not only has he conveniently dismissed 19th century imperialism (which he recognizes as such) from the discussion of whether its post-WWII extension, "imperialsm" (which he doesn't), has had an appreciable impact on the US economy, he has not yet even specified what he thinks a "critical" impact on the US economy might represent (nor have you, for that matter).
He assumes, moreover, that decisions concerning American interventionism abroad--the wielding of the US's post-war military, political, or economic power, which he considers only "influential" but non-hegemonic--would have arisen in a vitrine, as it were, or perhaps Deus ex machina, having no particular origin in political trends, pressures, or even personalities any different from those that actually existed in the real world. Behind all his speculations is the spectacularly unrealistic caveat: caeteris paribus.
Only, all things in comparative histories cannot be equal, otherwise why, realistically, would they diverge from one another?
If one genuinely wants to speculate on how things might have turned out economically had the US decided at numerous turning points in history to pursue a non-interventionist approach to foreign affairs, one must include in his consideration WHY the US might have chosen non-interventionism at any point. And so one must consider that whatever the reasons, they, too, could have affected the US economy, for better or worse.
But in the real world one would have to ask, Why would the lions have vanished? What if they were killed off by something that also decimated hyenas? What if they were hauled away to national parks by someone who wanted to make a quick killing in zebra hides?
Likewise, a non-imperialist (or non-"imperialist") US would not have arisen in a causal vacuum.
Naturally, Pseudo will be unable to believe any causal factor behind a plausible scenario of US non-interventionism would have had an effect on GDP.
"You retreat elegantly."
I don't retreat at all. Your argument relies entirely and exclusively on the fact that Europe became economically healthy and vibrant, without even providing a shred of a scintilla of a shadow of serious argument that the Marshall Plan is what caused this economic renaissance.
Stostosto made a more sophisticated (albeit standard among economists) argument. That is what I addressed.
Message # 19345
"Pseudoerasmus has thus far declared that 19th century American imperialism was real, while what you describe as imperialism in the post WWII era is merely "imperialism".
I thought we were unanimously agreed on this point. Before the second world war, the USA actually had colonies. That's imperialism in the classical sense. After the war, imperialism for the USA has been metaphorical -- a metaphor for its superpower status.
If you object to that, just say so.
"Not only has he conveniently dismissed 19th century imperialism...from the discussion of whether its post-WWII extension...has had an appreciable impact on the US economy..."
No one has raised the relevance of 19th century imperialism to post-war "imperialism", so, no, I haven't dismissed it.
Of course you do. You retreat with panache, but with regularity. After making an insupportable and sweeping pronouncement, that pronouncement is conveniently forgotten as you wend your way to new and greater minutiae. Sto suffices to make your rebuttal, when, in fact, Sto's rebuttal was more of an independent response with original thoughts. Moreover, Sto and I may disagree as to effect, but Sto's own posts dispute your virtually zero impact foolishness. I provided you Sto's words.
No one forces you to say silly things, pseudo. You should take some personal responsibility.
"He assumes, moreover, that decisions concerning American interventionism abroad...would have arisen in a vitrine, as it were, or perhaps Deus ex machina, having no particular origin in political trends, pressures, or even personalities any different from those that actually existed in the real world."
I assume no such thing.
"Behind all his speculations is the spectacularly unrealistic caveat: caeteris paribus."
You obviously have no idea what "ceteris paribas" means. If you are asking what would have happened in Europe if the USA hadn't enacted the Marshall Plan, that question implies that all other non-MP variables are held constant. If the Marshall Plan is not independent of other variables, then those other variables are obviously not held constant. And Giulio Cesare's question was, essentially, what would have happened if the USA had not enacted the Marshall Plan but had still done everything else it actually did in the post-war period?
"If one genuinely wants to speculate on how things might have turned out economically had the US decided at numerous turning points in history to pursue a non-interventionist approach to foreign affairs, one must include in his consideration WHY the US might have chosen non-interventionism at any point."
Maybe, maybe not. You'd have to come up with an example to illustrate what you mean.
"...I might as well claim that if all lions vanished from the Serengeti..., there would be essentially no long-term impact on the population of zebras, since without the competition form lions hyenas would then flourish and take up the gap in zebra predation. But in the real world one would have to ask, Why would the lions have vanished? What if they were killed off by something that also decimated hyenas?"
Well, then, you're just violating the ceteris paribas condition inherent in your initial question, which is "what would happen to the population of zebras, all else equal, if all lions disappeared?" This question assesses the impact of lions on the zebra population, as distinct from the impact of hyenas on the zebra population.
In asking such a question, you would construct your model in such a way that that the population of zebras is a function of both the population of lions and the population of hyenas. Of course the lion and hyena populations are not independent of each other, i.e., the population of lions is a function of the population of hyenas (and vice-versa). It's just a question of figuring out the functional form of the model. Once you derive the functional form, you can get your partial derivative with respect to lions.....
"Likewise, a non-imperialist (or non-"imperialist") US would not have arisen in a causal vacuum."
Of course not. But what you in your attempted cleverness don't understand is that in order to understand the impact of B on C, you don't necessarily need to understand the impact of A on B. In fact, examining the latter could be counterproductive to clarifying the former (as it is the case with you).
"Caesar, why do you bother with this argument?"
We are afflicted by the same folly.
"Sto suffices to make your rebuttal, when, in fact, Sto's rebuttal was more of an independent response with original thoughts. Moreover, Sto and I may disagree as to effect..."
You obviously don't even understand the difference between your argument and Sto's.
Your argument essentially amounted to saying that the USA injected raw dollars into reconstruction and that this reconstruction effort created the economically vibrant Europe of today.
Sto said no, the impact of raw dollars was fairly trivial. What was more important, in his view, was that the MP bolstered confidence in Europe.
Your posts could be dismissed summarily because, just as Sto argued, the raw purchasing power involved in the Marshall Plan was trivial.
"but Sto's own posts dispute your virtually zero impact foolishness."
And I disputed his argument in Message # 19334. I disputed his argument on its own terms.
"Of course you do. You retreat with panache, but with regularity. After making an insupportable and sweeping pronouncement, that pronouncement is conveniently forgotten as you wend your way to new and greater minutiae. No one forces you to say silly things, pseudo. You should take some personal responsibility."
I don't understand why you don't consider my Message # 19334 a reply. You may consider it wrong, but why don't you consider it a reply? Why is it a retreat? What sort of reply would satisfy you?
This time its detainees...Warriour King said he was reconsidering the question of whether detainees held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, should be protected under the Geneva Convention
Not only do I understand what it means, I can usually decipher what you'd like it to mean after you've been twisting on about something for a few days.
Only in bloodless, useless models of the world.
You obviously don't even understand the difference between your argument and Sto's. Your argument essentially amounted to saying that the USA injected raw dollars into reconstruction and that this reconstruction effort created the economically vibrant Europe of today.
Actually, we were discussing your argument that the Marshall plan had virtually zero impact on American wealth/prosperity. Any evidence I offered was to counter that assertion, and that assertion only. I took Sto's advice and proceeded counterfactually.
I don't understand why you don't consider my Message # 19334 a reply. You may consider it wrong, but why don't you consider it a reply? Why is it a retreat? What sort of reply would satisfy you?
Your 19334 addresses Sto's arguments. It does not, however, support what is now known as the virtually zero impact argument. Moreover, it begs the question. Without the United States offering 1.5% of its GNP to Europe at this critical juncture, what might have happened? Some of the eventualities were discussed in my own posts, but as you simply dismiss contrary evidence as "folk mythology", your own arguments merit the same short shrift (i.e., your observations are ass-covering for an imprudent claim).
No, there is no "inherent" condition in my question. That condition, and it makes this entire discussion nearly pointless, is your own implicit insertion.
"Only in bloodless, useless models of the world."
On the contrary, in modelling complex phenomena (whether economics or population biology), reasoning that implies the ceteris paribas condition is crucial to understanding. You're just not informed enough to know this.
No longer.
No, there is no "inherent" condition in my question.
If you're asking what would happen to the population of zebras if all lions disappeared, then, yes, the question implies that all other variables impacting the population of zebras is held constant.
"That condition, and it makes this entire discussion nearly pointless, is your own implicit insertion."
That condition gives the discussion all its meaning. After all, if you want to know the impact of lions on the population of zebras, why wouldn't you hold other variables constant?
"Any evidence I offered was to counter [your] assertion..."
And I'm saying you didn't offer any. You cited three things: the amount the USA contributed, the modern prosperity of Europe, and the US-Euro trading relationship However, the cause-and-effect relationship between those things was not even argued, let alone proved.
"Your 19334 addresses Sto's arguments. It does not, however, support what is now known as the virtually zero impact argument. Moreover, it begs the question. Without the United States offering 1.5% of its GNP to Europe at this critical juncture, what might have happened?
I answered this question in my Message # 19334. The Marshall Plan worked very much like what the IMF does in the Third World. In exchange for fiscal and market reforms, the IMF provides money to Third World countries which are then spared the full burden and pain of balancing their international balance of payments. They need not balance their government budgets in one fell swoop, and they don't need to drastically reduce their imports in order to control their trade deficits. The same with Europe in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The Marshall Plan allowed Western Europe to achieve financial stabilisation more gradually, less painfully and thereby avoided alienating the populace with financial austerity which would have been more drastic in the absence of the MP. I agree with this view so far.
However, I disagree that in the absence of the MP, the populace would have turned to socialist parties and others espousing anti-market measures. The reason I dispute this is (1) because the USA intervened directly to prevent the empowerment of communist parties in France, Italy, Greece and elsewhere, through CIA funding of centre-right parties / groups; and (2) because the pro-market orientation was adopted in Europe not as a result of the conditions set forth by the Marshall Plan, but because of home-grown neoliberals in Europe such as Ludwig Erhard and Pierre Mendès France.
On the one hand, you find no linkage with American prosperity and the extension of 1.5% of its GNP to Europe, which you have admitted was a stabilizing force for the European economy and European governments. You also posit that European pro-market orientation was homegrown and not an outgrowth of the Marshall Plan, an interesting if irrelevant fact to which I don't disagree.
Yet, in the next breath, you state that the Marshall Plan was of no value because even if the stabilization of the European economies did not occur, and even if the dollars were not there at a critical watershed in determining the future of Europe, the United States could have still saved its future beneficial trading partner by way of direct intervention through the CIA.
You leap to the uncertainties of what you presume might have happened in an effort to avoid the certainty that the Marshall Plan greatly assisted Europe, and thereby, greatly contributed to American wealth/prosperity.
All in the context of your larger argument that American post-World War II imperialism was of no benefit to American wealth/prosperity.
With the exception, it would appear, of the CIA.
"On the one hand, you find no linkage with American prosperity and the extension of 1.5% of its GNP to Europe, which you have admitted was a stabilizing force for the European economy and European governments."
Well, the linkage would exist only if the Marshall Plan was critical to Europe's emergence as the prosperous and stable economy that it is today. I argued that the MP was not critical in this respect.
"Yet, in the next breath, you state that the Marshall Plan was of no value because even if the stabilization of the European economies did not occur...."
The value of the Marshall Plan was that it made financial stabilisation of post-war Europe more gradual and less painful than it might have had to be in the absence of the MP. I did not argue and do not believe that the absence of a Marshall Plan would have prevented financial stabilisation in Europe.
"You also posit that European pro-market orientation was homegrown and not an outgrowth of the Marshall Plan, an interesting if irrelevant fact to which I don't disagree."
This is an all relevant fact, because it is the preservation of the pro-market orientation that made Europe prosperous. So the question reduces whether the Marshall Fund was responsible for this.
"...the United States could have still saved its future beneficial trading partner by way of direct intervention through the CIA."
and the Truman Doctrine (military assistance to Greece, which was fighting a civil war against the communists). My point is that the most important contribution the USA made to Europe's future prosperity was not the Marshall Fund, but that it saved Europe from communism and helped install centre-right governments (through meddling in elections).
"You leap to the uncertainties of what you presume might have happened in an effort to avoid the certainty that the Marshall Plan greatly assisted Europe...."
Actually, the assertion that the Marshall Plan was crucial or critical to European prosperity is not a "certainty" but a hypothesis and is just as hypothetical as saying that it was not.
In comparison with your reliance on presumed CIA involvement, the effects of the Marshall Plan is certainly more measurable.
That said. I'm not sure you could have devalued your then-certain virtually zero impact argument any further than by 19366.
I have come where Andonly was earlier. I am afflicted no longer.
"In comparison with your reliance on presumed CIA involvement, the effects of the Marshall Plan is certainly more measurable."
The fact of the matter is, Europe had home-grown pro-market elements. Another fact of the matter is that they came to power because the USA made sure their anti-market opponents, particularly the communists, were kept out of power.
"I'm not sure you could have devalued your then-certain virtually zero impact argument any further than by Message # 19366."
I'm not sure why. It is just as hypothetical to say that the MP was crucial to European prosperity as to say it was not. The cause-and-effect relationship is not self-evident, except to the idiot. The fact that there was a Marshall Plan and the fact that there was European prosperity do not prove that the one was an important cause of the latter.
"I'm not sure why."
An inability to differentiate the effects of something that occurred as opposed to something that did not occur is a problem. For example, World War II happened. We can debate its reprecussions, but it occurred. Conversely, the 7 year war between Zorkon and Monomomoia has not occurred. Thus, any discussion as to repercussions would be tenuous as best.
You confuse hypotheticals with analysis, which is necessary, I suppose, for someone who makes statements such as yours.
The fact of the matter is, Europe had home-grown pro-market elements. Another fact of the matter is that they came to power because the USA made sure their anti-market opponents, particularly the communists, were kept out of power.
The French resistance had some homegrown ability to combat the Nazis. However, you would not parlay that fact to a conclusion that the Allied invasion of Normandy had virtually zero impact on the fall of Berlin.
1. In general, do you understand the CIA's policy and actions to be driven more by ideological or economic forces? Or are the two in balance?
2. Do you think that the CIA has been successful in creating democratic regimes in other nations solely by the provision of money and or material to political parties. If so, please cite an example.
3. Do you agree with the propostion that stable democracies are at their core dependent upon an educated middle class of sufficient size in relationship to the lower and upper extremes of economic and social class to temper political and economic extremism?
and finally,
4. Which would have had the most effect on the fortunes of the middle classes of post WWII Europe, the economic impact of the MP, or the political contributions and projection of military power by the CIA and other arms of the US government?
Compare and contrast the social and economic conditions in Europe and the US in each period. Also consider that post WWI the political and military dominance of the victors over the defeated was far greater and more unified than the developing bipolar world of post WWII.
Now tell me about virtually no impact of the MP.
"An inability to differentiate the effects of something that occurred as opposed to something that did not occur is a problem. For example, World War II happened. We can debate its reprecussions, but it occurred. Conversely, the 7 year war between Zorkon and Monomomoia has not occurred. Thus, any discussion as to repercussions would be tenuous as best."
You're missing the point. That the Second World War happened is not hypothetical, but discussing its repercussions is speculative. Cause-and-effect relationships cannot necessarily be inferred from a mere chronology of things which happened. It does not follow that just because the Marshall Plan happened, it was the cause or an important cause of European prosperity.
Cause-and-effect relationships can be teased out in two ways: (1) you repeat the event while eliminating all other events you're not interested in; or (2) since you can't repeat events outside the laboratory sciences, you generate a range of plausible estimates of what might have happened if the event did not take place and compare them with what actually happened.
Anyone discussing the "repercussions" of an event does this implicitly or explicitly.
"You confuse hypotheticals with analysis...."
No, it's just that you and Andonly do not realise that there is no causal knowledge in history & social science without counterfactual reasoning.
I said: "The fact of the matter is, Europe had home-grown pro-market elements. Another fact of the matter is that they came to power because the USA made sure their anti-market opponents, particularly the communists, were kept out of power."
Giulio relied: "The French resistance had some homegrown ability to combat the Nazis. However, you would not parlay that fact to a conclusion that the Allied invasion of Normandy had virtually zero impact on the fall of Berlin."
You could demonstrate, rather easily, that the French resistance was insufficient to cause the fall of Nazi Germany. By contrast, it is easier to argue that Europe's home-grown liberals were necessary and suffiicient to explain Europe's pro-market orientation.
I can't quite grasp the way your reasoning goes. You say the economic effects of the Marshall Plan can't be evaluated because if there was no Marshall Plan, then that must have been because there was some reason for that which might also have other causes and effects that would then have to be considered in a comprehensive analysis.
Perhaps you don't recall that the Marshall Plan was quite a daring political decision, it is (rightly, I think) still hailed as such, indeed, it would probably have been easier not to make it. One of the links JC provided quoted Truman as saying "can you imagine calling the plan "the Truman plan"? In an election year, with a Republican Congress, with Robert Taft as majority leader?"
The Congress could have said no, for no other reason than that it wouldn't agree to using such an outrageous amount of money on something as uncertain as European reconstruction.
So, in this particular case, we're actually presented with a pretty clear binary choice. The USA could have decided against the Marshall Plan.
But, more generally, is it really your firm contention that it is fruitless to argue what might have happened because any divergence from a given historic path might impact other things which might eventually lead to a completely different solar system?
I think "ceteris paribus" reasoning is essential for any reasoning, that is, if you are explicit of all the factors you hold constant, then it is permissable to proceed. You can always go back and examine those other factors as well as the model you base your choice of important factors upon plus their supposed relationship with each other.
I think what you're arguing here is nothing more than that the model is (or at least may be) more complicated, and that therefore it is fruitless to speculate. But then you seem, all the same, to come out in favour of the US Marshall Plan as a boost to American prosperity.
I am saying that the USA, through its overt and covert interventions in the Greek civil war, in the occupation administration of Germany and Austria, and post-war general elections throughout Europe, made sure that pro-market elements would triumph over anti-market ones. For example, in Italy, the USA gave massive financial backing to the coalition led by Alcide de Gasperi and the Christian Democratic party during the parliamentary elections of 1948. Such aid continued well past the 1948 elections, and laid the foundation for the political dominance of the Christian Democrats for the next 20 years and the exclusion of the communists and the socialists (until the latter broke off the commie alliance and joined the centre).
Your questions 1-3, while interesting, are totally irrelevant to our discussion so I will not address them. #4,
"Which would have had the most effect on the fortunes of the middle classes of post WWII Europe, the economic impact of the MP, or the political contributions and projection of military power by the CIA and other arms of the US government?"
Latter, in the particular case of the post-war elections in a number of European countries -- because American intervention entrenched the centre-right in power.
American intervention entrenched the centre-right in power
Did it really, though?
You're missing the point. That the Second World War happened is not hypothetical, but discussing its repercussions is speculative. Cause-and-effect relationships cannot necessarily be inferred from a mere chronology of things which happened. It does not follow that just because the Marshall Plan happened, it was the cause or an important cause of European prosperity.
Agreed. But the Marshall Plan did happen. And the real repercussions of a factual occurrence are easier to measure, even with disagreement, than the hypothetical repercussions of a hypothetical occurrence.
Cause-and-effect relationships can be teased out in two ways: (1) you repeat the event while eliminating all other events you're not interested in; or (2) since you can't repeat events outside the laboratory sciences, you generate a range of plausible estimates of what might have happened if the event did not take place and compare them with what actually happened.
Or, you simply study all of the ways the cause (the Marshall Plan) contributed to the effect (American prosperity), which I have done (and what Sto has done as well, with differing results, but certainly, not results that add yp to virtually zero impact. Even you have admitted that the Marshall Plan had much more than virtually zero impact on American prosperity/wealth, but when your concession is pointed out, you instinctually recoil from admission of intemperance and declare No! This would have happened if the Marshall Plan had not. And this would have happened as well. And the CIA, it too might have done something.
You started out in a rhetorical trench and you are now nearing China.
By contrast, it is easier to argue that Europe's home-grown liberals were necessary and suffiicient to explain Europe's pro-market orientation.
Ah, but this is not your burden, as this was not your absurd predicate.
"Or to put it more succinctly- Compare and contrast the recovery of Europe post WWI and WWII. One bears the effect of a market recovery without mercy, large burdens of public debt and austerity programs and one with intervention and a smoothing of the burdens of recovery over time."
Actually, the only countries not to recover quickly after the First World War were the UK and Germany. The UK, because it had an overvalued exchange rate based on the gold standard; and Germany, because it had enormous reparations to meet.
We have attempted, largely without success, to do so for many years in Central and South America. The recent success in democracy in the region has as much to do with the relative prosperity of the 80's-90's and the effect of education and investment on the creation of a growing middle class in the region, as the projection of power both political and military whether overt or covert.
I would expect the same would have been true of Europe if the sort of program implemented post WWI would have been implemented post WWII, holding the political and military intervention as a constant.
I'd like to say that in my previous post I didn't necessarily agree with DeLong/Eichengreen's Argentina/Euro parallel. I just reported it because I thought it was interesting.
Their analysis rests on the assumption that the only thing that separated Argentina's experience from the European one was its self-inflicted anti-market bias. (Something which the Marshall Plan helped Europe to avoid in their reasoning).
But, without having looked at the numbers, I'd surmise that Argentina was affected by at least one other very serious factor that Europe was not: The fact that its wealth had relied heavily on producing and exporting beef. Since the advent of railways and steamship its distant location from the importing markets wasn't as important as its factor endowment as a meat producer. But, arguably, industrialisation relies much more heavily on an intense exchange of not just capital and raw materials, but also on information and human relations given a more differentiated and faster changing market place.
Post WWII type industrialisation might have made proximity to core markets more important. Call it the New Zealand factor.
The crucial question is would Europe have snapped? That is, absent MP would we Euros have gone communist, or, in a milder scenario "Peronist"? A further possibility might be Greek civil war all over the place, i.e. breakdown of central authority and perpetual political instability. These are unknowable factors, although you might consider some outcomes more likely than others.
---
In any event, I don't think either would have had much impact on American prosperity. Why? Well, simply because today, only around 5% (give or take) of American GDP is exchanged with Europe. And that is actually an historical high point, only achieved very recently.
"Ando (ocnt.) I think what you're arguing...that therefore it is fruitless to speculate. But then you seem, all the same, to come out in favour of the US Marshall Plan as a boost to American prosperity."
It is a common fallacy among people that positing the effects of an actual historical event is somehow not speculative
Message # 19378
Did it really, though?
What do you call de Gasperi, Erhard, and the Fourth Republic? These were all either centre-right or centre-left. The hard left was marginalised in goverment after the war, despite the fact that they were probably more popular than before the war.
Do you really believe that the European Steel and Coal Community would not have been formed without the Marshall Plan?
"But the Marshall Plan did happen. And the real repercussions of a factual occurrence are easier to measure, even with disagreement, than the hypothetical repercussions of a hypothetical occurrence."
Actually, the comparison is between the factual occurrence of the Marshall Plan and the hypothetical non-ocurrence of the Marshall Plan. So the data you're working with are the same.
"Or, you simply study all of the ways the cause (the Marshall Plan) contributed to the effect (American prosperity)...."
Which would involve counterfactual reasoning.
"....which I have done (and what Sto has done as well..."
You haven't done anything. You have merely asserted, speculatively, that the Marshall Plan was responsible for the high rates of post-war European growth and paved the road to El Dorado to boot.
By contrast, Sto actually made an argument, which I argued against earlier.
"Even you have admitted that the Marshall Plan had much more than virtually zero impact on American prosperity/wealth, but when your concession...."
Just where and how did I do that?
"Ah, but this is not your burden, as this was not your absurd predicate."
My argument is that the Marshall Fund had little or no impact on American prosperity because (1) it was not critical to European recovery and prosperity; and (2) what the MP accomplished (financial stabilisation of Europe) could have been acomplished, albeit with more difficulty, without it; and (3) what was critical to European recovery and prosperity was the entrenchment in power of centrist or centre-right parties in post war period; (4) which was made possible by direct American intervention and not by the Marshall Fund.
"I do not think that it is possible to project political power into the creation of a democracy (absent naked military aggression) for any sustained period without co-ordinating that policy with effective economic intervention or engagement."
My point is that the effective economic policies were implemented by European governments which came to power partly as a result of American interventions to keep communists and hard-core socialists at bay.
"We have attempted, largely without success, to do so for many years in Central and South America."
I think this is a ridiculous comparison.
"The recent success in democracy in the region has as much to do with the relative prosperity of the 80's-90's and the effect of education and investment on the creation of a growing middle class in the region, as the projection of power both political and military whether overt or covert."
I disagree. First of all, what "relative prosperity" of the 1980s and 1990s? Latin America of the 1980s was all hyperinflation, stagnant or falling output, and capital flight. In the 1990s, it was austerity austerity austerity.
The recent flowering of democracy in Latin America comes on the heels of the complete failure of military governments to manage the economy competently.
"I would expect the same would have been true of Europe if the sort of program implemented post WWI would have been implemented post WWII, holding the political and military intervention as a constant."
I repeat: European economies were quick to recover after the First World War, except for the UK and Germany. The UK inflicted upon itself an overvalued currency and Germany was afflicted with massive war reparations.
Here are some stats on EU-USA economic relationship.
In 1999, the USA imported goods and services from the EU to the tune of 268 bn euro. Its exports to the EU amounted to 252 bn euro. The American GDP in 1999 was 8,729 bn euro. Hence US imports from the EU came to 3.1% of GDP, and its exports to 2.9% of GDP.
That is, US reliance on Europe for its wealth is around 3% of the total.
19389. stostosto - 1/29/2002 6:20:16 PM
Furthermore:
In terms of imports, the main trading partners of the US (1999) are, EU 19%, Canada 19%, Japan 12.8%, Mexico 10.4%, and China 8.2%. Main imports consist of commodities such as, crude oil and refined petroleum products, machinery, automobiles, consumer goods, industrial raw materials, and food and beverages.
In terms of exports, the US main trading partners (1999) are, Canada 23.6%, EU 22%, Mexico 12.5%, Japan 8.4%, and S. Korea 3.2%. Exported commodities include, capital goods, automobiles, industrial supplies and raw materials, consumer goods, and agricultural products.
Notice how Canada and Mexico make up around a third of US trade.
3 percent!
Then there are all kinds of transatlantic financial flows, of course. Europe may contribute to financing the US trade deficit over and above its FDI surplus. But that's it.
In that you have posited the benefits of the Marshall Plan upon Europe, and I have argued that as Europe is benefited, so has American prosperity, pseudo's claim of virtually zero impact, I trust, is dispensed with.
Now, we can break the shackles of pseudo's need to defend his initial idiocy, he can fence with you about the Argentine model, and we can discuss the next phase of the argument.
Given: The Marshall Plan benefited Europe and thus, it benefited American prosperity.
How much?
You suggest in recent posts that I have made the argument that the Marshall Plan, and the Marshall Plan alone, has created America's high standard of living.
Of course, that is a caricature of what I said, but I'll allow it. I have discussed many imperial actions - including the Marshall Plan; the post-war oversight of Japan; NATO; SEATO; troop deployment in South Korea; the defeat of Iraq; and the present efforts against terrorism. There are, of course, many more, some of which you have underscroed in this discussion.
In fact, if you'll go back to my first post on the matter at hand (the four acts of American post-World War II imperialism I offered to pseudo), you will see that I ranked the Marshall Plan as the least influential of imperial actions.
Perhaps a valuable comparison would be American economic benefit derived from Western Europe from 1946 until the 1992, and that derived from Eastern Europe-Soviet bloc nations during that same period of time, as we agree that a Europe without a Marshall Plan risked communist domination?
We can discuss this avenue later, if you deem it a valid comparison.
Speu: "It is a common fallacy among people that positing the effects of an actual historical event is somehow not speculative"
I don't know why Ots thinks I've "come out in favour of the US Marshall Plan as a boost to American prosperity", or why I would disapprove of a sufficiently qualified speculation that it had had such an affect. And I have no idea either why Eups imagines I believe that positing the effects of an historical event is "somehow not speculative."
I simply have not said anything about the Marshall Plan at all.
For the record, however, my unspoken and thoroughly speculative assumption, which I opt not advance as some sort of brilliantly counterintuitive exercise in historical iconoclasm, has been that the points in the following remarks by Sto are probably relevant to the question of American prosperity, to what degree it's impossible to know.
(cont.)
Recap of Otsotsots:
The Marshall Plan worked mainly through establishing economic stability and confidence, and by eviscerating the clamour for continuing and strengthening bureaucratic interference in the economy. ...
The primary positive benefits of the plan derived from
1) The tangible American commitment to Europe that it signalled which buttressed business and consumer confidence significantly
2) The Plan's "contingencies", first and foremost demanding that receptors committed to opening their markets and free trade in order that European trade could be restored.
3) ...currency clearances ... lubricating credits...
[E]ven if the growth has been consistent and uninterrupted through today, US-Euro trade now amounts to no more than perhaps 6% of each region's GDP. This is a sizeable chunk, yes, but hardly dizzying . . . .
[P]ossibly... Europe would have seen revolutionary communists in government if the Marshall plan hadn't been enacted. There is no doubt that "confidence" at the time was not merely a question of pessimism wrt the next few months' business climate. It was a question of confidence in capitalism as a system which had seen the miserable 1930s and a devastating war which, furthermore, had put plenty of bureaucratic meddling mechanisms into place, such as price controls and rationing of all kinds of consumer goods. There was no recent prosperous capitalist free-market age to want to turn back to. And who, after all, had crushed Hitler? Didn't the Soviet Union suffer infinitely much more from the Nazis and also inflict more suffering on them than anyone else?
There was a long bloody civil war in Greece. French communists were well-armed and well-organised; they reportedly only waited for a signal from Moscow, but Stalin told them to turn in their arms peacefully in order to secure prizes more directly advantageous to the USSR."
Ando, JC.
Can you agree that 3% of GDP is not the world to America? Nor is 6-7% which would be the figure if you add Japan, South East Asia and China to the list.
And, can you comprehend the fact that absent Marshall Plan and all the other American plans, military, or non-military, imperial or "imperial", there would still be extra-hemispheric countries willing to trade with the USA. Why? Because trade is advantageous to the trading parties, no need to posit that imperial fiat is somehow required in order to keep trade flows (yes, and investment and financing flows) flowing.
China is a case in point among the countries listed above. Which imperial or "imperial" actions on the part of the USA compel the Chinese to trade with America? To wit, the Soviet Union in its heyday was eager to sell all it could to its western adversaries which meant among other things building huge gas pipelines from Siberia to Western Europe in the 1970s/80s.
And even if the USA was an island unto itself with no links to other countries whatsoever, by how much would its GDP be lower? It would not be a full 10 or 12% lower corresponding to the trade share in its GDP. It would only be lower by the amount that this part of its produce was less valuable when used nationally than when exchanged for foreign goodies.
All in all, I think it's a fairly safe statement that the USA would not be significantly worse off economically if it wasn't because of its empire.
Hey, it might even be better off in some andolian counter-scenarios! (Say, Euro doesn't go communist, assumes the full burden of defending against USSR, the US can divert "imperial" Euro spending for other more economically beneficial purposes).
He is a very impressive fellow, and just the right person to represent his country abroad -perhaps especially in this country. Urbane yet forthright, hopeful and optimistic, very matter-of-fact but still solicitous.
It is clear he faces huge problems in Afghanistan, and his hold on the territory itself is tenuous. There will be warlordism and a certain amount of blackmail in the days ahead. But Afghanistan needs a face that sells abroad right now, a person who can persuade the international community that it is worth it to pour billions into the country even in a time of recession. And for that purpose I don't think you could get a person better than Karzai.
Here's what the NYTimes has to say about this "star of diplomacy".
Well, in my opinion the man has better media presence than Ronald Reagan and John F. Kennedy combined. He comes across as tremendously pragmatic and competent. But I've thought sometimes that maybe there's a danger in Afghanistan to his being so convincing to westerners. A lot depends, I think, on whether his claims of Pashtun support for US military action are as accurate or overwhelming as we'd like to believe.
At the moment, though, I can't help wanting to take such a persuasive leader at his word.
From OpinionJournal.com
The London Evening Standard reports the Bush administration has come up with a clever way of muting British criticism of the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay: "America is threatening to return up to 40 alleged al Qaeda fighters to Britain, presenting the Government with a security, legal and diplomatic nightmare." Three of the Britons are in Gitmo, the remainder still in Afghanistan.
It's a beautiful thing to expose liberals for the hypocrites that they are. As long as the liberals/elitists/socialists don't have it in their back yark, they're full of ideological furor. But once they have to actually suffer the repercussions of their stupidity, suddenly they shut up. May all socialists eat shit and die.
And that depends, in part, on whether the USA keeps keeping killing civilians in jackass-like blunders:
Pashtun Ire Toward USA Grows
A few months ago I was mocked by Andonly and Loar for suggesting that since the US bombing campaign was alienating Pashtuns.
"Now, we can break the shackles of pseudo's need to defend his initial idiocy, he can fence with you about the Argentine model, and we can discuss the next phase of the argument."
Actually, Giulia, you've been fucked from from front & rear. Not only have I presented an argument that the Marshall Plan wasn't what resulted in European recovery & prosperity, but Sto has demonstrated pretty much that even if the MP were responsible for this, it doesn't really matter since Europe's prosperity barely makes any difference to American prosperity.
Message # 19398
"And I have no idea either why Eups imagines I believe that positing the effects of an historical event is "somehow not speculative."
No, I said that positing the effects of an event which actually occured is just as speculative as positing the effects of that event not having occurred. You have been disagreeing all along. And where that disagreement represents a popular fallacy.
Can you agree that 3% of GDP is not the world to America? Nor is 6-7% which would be the figure if you add Japan, South East Asia and China to the list.
It is important. It is not the world
And, can you comprehend the fact that absent Marshall Plan and all the other American plans, military, or non-military, imperial or "imperial", there would still be extra-hemispheric countries willing to trade with the USA.
Yes.
Why? Because trade is advantageous to the trading parties, no need to posit that imperial fiat is somehow required in order to keep trade flows (yes, and investment and financing flows) flowing.
Then the immutability of trade makes comparison of United States trade with Eastern bloc countries from 1946 to 1992 vis-a-vis Western Europe an even more compelling discussion. After, all, boiled down, the gist of your view is that no matter the governmental structure, no matter the infused capital, no matter the strategic alliances, no matter the deterrence of war, no matter the use of one's military, and no matter the relative strengths and weaknesses of the parties, we will all meet in the international marketplace to barter at about the same rate. Like a Coca-Cola commercial.
China is a case in point among the countries listed above. Which imperial or "imperial" actions on the part of the USA compel the Chinese to trade with America? To wit, the Soviet Union in its heyday was eager to sell all it could to its western adversaries which meant among other things building huge gas pipelines from Siberia to Western Europe in the 1970s/80s.
Is it your contention that trade with China and the Soviet Union would have been of the same vintage if those nations were not under communist domination?
GDP is not all. You are excessively binary in your calculations, as if an Empire's wealth is merely a matter of subtracting imports from exports, and divvying up the proceeds. Obviously, what you can buy and what you can sell contributes to wealth in various manners.
All in all, I think it's a fairly safe statement that the USA would not be significantly worse off economically if it wasn't because of its empire.
Then, again, I'd ask you to list the ten foremost "imperial" actions commited by the United States post World War II so we can test your claim.
The argument has passed you by. I suggest you find an irrelevant side-issue to discuss (I can't imagine you've exhausted all the nuances of the Argentine model) and let the adults carry it forward.
I quoted you accurately and I have never disagreed. I would assume you've conflated my view with someone else's, except that as far as I can tell no one here believes the connection between particular historical events and their apparent outcomes is anything but theoretical.
Pretty much. What does the USA actually do to ensure the security of the international trading system? Very little. Its greatest contribution is participation in multilateral talks, yet its role is hardly indispensable.
"Is it your contention that trade with China and the Soviet Union would have been of the same vintage if those nations were not under communist domination?"
China is under communist domination; and Russian exports to the West are comprised mainly of natural resources like oil, gas & timber which the Soviets had also been selling abroad. Even before the Soviet Union collapsed, Gorbachev was inviting western investment to increase the country's capacity to export those resources.
Message # 19409: ....as if an Empire's wealth is merely a matter of subtracting imports from exports, and divvying up the proceeds. Obviously, what you can buy and what you can sell contributes to wealth in various manners."
About which you do not know the first thing.
The USA is affected by Ausland in terms of three things: foreign trade, investment, and portfolio flows, the absence of which can have a more complicated, dynamic impact on GDP than Sto allows for, but nonetheless, it must be admitted that their aggregate impact is not enormous and the USA would adjust fairly easily to their absence.
But even if it were otherwise, in what way does American "empire" really ensure the security of international flows of trade, investment and capital?
True, but you know, we may have killed 3,000 already. Yet Hamid Karzai has told reporters that Pashtun leaders are eager for continued US military assistance. In particular, he described a meeting which he expected would involve his having to answer Pashtun complaints about US bombing. To his surprise, southern tribal leaders presented him with detailed maps of where the Taliban and al Qaeda were hiding near their villages, and said to Karzai, "Can you ask the Americans to bomb here?"
"A few months ago I was mocked by Andonly and Loar for suggesting that since the US bombing campaign was alienating Pashtuns."
No, what was mocked was your precipitous contention that alienation over bombing would surely make a Pashtun-US alliance impossible. It hasn't so far.
That's not to say the danger doesn't still exist, merely that the future isn't already neatly predetermined to be awful so that Pseudoerasmus's impassioned claims about the universally bad effects of US military intervention can be triumphantly vindicated.
1) I haven't followed this conversation from the beginning, so why are we referring to an American "empire" and actions to the Marshall Plan as "imperialism"? Is this simply rhetorical shorthand?
2) Pseudo's argument against the impact of the Marshall Plan seems weak: Arguing that electoral interventions would have solved the problem doesn't address the extent to which monetary stabilization enabled those results. Truman (I think) described economic and military aid as "two halves of the same walnut". I don't think it makes any more sense to argue that military intervention would have made up for the lack of the Marshall plan than it would to argue the converse. Following Pseudo's logic, I could argue that given the ineffectiveness of subsequent military interventions, we don't know what the impact of military intervention would have been in the absence of the Marshall Plan. Imagine a victim who is stabbed by one man and simultaneously poisoned by another. Pseudo's logic would say that the man would have died if he hadn't been stabbed, so the stabbing didn't kill him, and that he would have also died if he hadn't been poisoned, so the poisoning didn't kill him. Therefore neither the stabbing or the poisoning killed him, and the man must still be alive. I somehow imagine that if JC had raised CIA intervention as an argument for the impact of American policy on Europe, Pseudo would now be arguing that we can't say that, because it doesn't control for the impact of the Marshall Plan.
3) I think the much stronger argument is that the benefits of stabilized and non-Communist Europe were not worth the cost, given the trillions of dollars spent on the cold war. But there are a couple of problems with this argument as well. A) If there had been a Communist takeover in Europe, we possibly would have had to spend even more on defense, as the increased Red scientific/industrial capacity would have made for a pricier arms race. B) The value of Europe to the US cannot simply be measured by trade as a percent of GDP. I am not necessarily saying that it is much more, but you would have to at least take a stab at what productivity growth would have been like in absence (or severe reduction) of knowledge, technological developments, and competition from Europe.
Pretty much. What does the USA actually do to ensure the security of the international trading system? Very little. Its greatest contribution is participation in multilateral talks, yet its role is hardly indispensable.
I wonder how a nuclear conflagration might have impacted trade? The marketplace might have been a little withered, but I suppose we could have exchanged cockroaches.
China is under communist domination; and Russian exports to the West are comprised mainly of natural resources like oil, gas & timber which the Soviets had also been selling abroad. Even before the Soviet Union collapsed, Gorbachev was inviting western investment to increase the country's capacity to export those resources.
This is a pleasant response. Try again, this time answering the question.
About which you do not know the first thing.
You serve as a testament that excess knowledge in an area can keep one very focused on one particular tree. Kudos.
But even if it were otherwise, in what way does American "empire" really ensure the security of international flows of trade, investment and capital?
When I explain the broader American policy and its implications over time, you crap your short pants and say "That was then, and even had we not done A, Zorkon may have gotten us to B."
I'm not sure I can unfasten you from the tree.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/index.html
>Dare Call It Treason
It is rhetorical shorthand.
Pseudo claimed that American post-World War II political, diplomatic, and military power (what we have shorthanded to "Empire") has had virtually zero impact on American prosperity. We started with five examples: The Marshall Plan/reconstruction and oversight of Japan; NATO; South Korea; Iraq; and the present war on terrorism, though this list of exertions of American post-World War II military, diplomatic and political power is by no means exhaustive.
We got to the Marshall Plan.
"...this argument demolishes his broader point. If it was military intervention that stabilized Europe instead of the Marshall Plan, then US "imperialism" still had an impact on European stability."
But I haven't disputed that.
"Pseudo claimed that American post-World War II political, diplomatic, and military power (what we have shorthanded to "Empire") has had virtually zero impact on American prosperity."
With the exception of the fact that the USA saved Western Europe and East Asia from communism.
Allright, I missed that caveat. Ignore observation #2.
He DID???
Glad I've been spending time talkin Svenska to Pelle
Sheesh!
None.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Oh, okay.
Re Message # 19386
I concede that I am straying beyond my ken when I address the economics of these comparisons in anything but the broadest and simplest understanding. I also must confess that the comparison that I made with respect to the relative wealth of the 80-90's is weak, and that the real effect was probably more to weaken support of the military governments amoungst the economic elites so influential in the region, and unite a sufficient portion of them with the middle classes in support of the democratic movements. This is not what I had in mind in my earlier post.
However- I think the comparison between US policies and intervention between Central America and post WWII Europe is instructive. Central American policy has been driven by US economic interests, but is characteristically more military and political than economic. Europe, (and Germany in particular) was the target of a coordinated program of "social work" and economic intervention integrated with the political and military intervention.
All communists are liars.
CD is a _____________
(1) Giulio Cesare claimed that "empire" was critical to the US standard of living. Sto disagreed. I also disagreed. My position is summarised here: Message # 19116
(2) Then the discussion moved to the Marshall Plan. I said that the MP's impact on American prosperity was close to zero, because I don't think the MP was necessary to saving Europe from communism.
Further, the comparison has the advantage of occurring in the same time frame and within the same historical context. Thus, we have extraneous variables rendered relatively constant in as much their effects should shape the outcomes with a similar distortion, while our questioned variable is the central factor.
Why then does Europe emerge from WWII with stable democracies with popular support, and healthy economies; and Central America at least 4 decades later is only now approaching that goal?
I'm not surprised the President doesn't want an examination of the 9/11 attack. Isn't it enough that he shut the barn door with an impressive slam? No point in examining how it was left open.
As such, I prefer to think of US "imperialism" as an investment with potentially huge long term payoffs.
It's all Clinton's fault.
You've made two claims. You've only revealed the first, which is mercifully qualified by the limits of your own faculties --
I just can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power.
The bulk of ths discussion, however, has been on your second claim in 1927 that the Marshall Plan / MacArthur's stewardship of Japan; American military presence in South Korea, the defeat of Iraq, and present-day Afghanistan/anti-terror operations have had virtually zero impact on American prosperity.
We've gotten as far as The Marshall Plan.
"Arguing that electoral interventions would have solved the problem doesn't address the extent to which monetary stabilization enabled those results."
Monetary stabilisation was achieved in Europe because the centre-right parties elected in Europe in 1946-8 placed hard-nosed central bankers in place.
"Following Pseudo's logic, I could argue that given the ineffectiveness of subsequent military interventions, we don't know what the impact of military intervention would have been in the absence of the Marshall Plan."
As I said before, the MP made financial stabilisation easier; it was by no means the enabling or the determinative factor.
"I think the much stronger argument is that the benefits of stabilized and non-Communist Europe were not worth the cost, given the trillions of dollars spent on the cold war. But there are a couple of problems with this argument as well."
No one has made this argument. I think everyone has acknowledged that saving Western Europe and East Asia from communism was a key American interest. But the interest lay, as Kennan hinmself said in his famous X article, not in the economic benefits to the USA that a prosperous Europe & Japan would imply, but in preventing the communists from gaining access to the economic potential of these regions with which they might have posed a more powerful military threat to the USA.
"B) The value of Europe to the US cannot simply be measured by trade as a percent of GDP. I am not necessarily saying that it is much more, but you would have to at least take a stab at what productivity growth would have been like in absence (or severe reduction) of knowledge, technological developments, and competition from Europe.
I agree. I addressed this in Message # 19196. Of course, the USA might actually have gained MORE scientific & technological knowledge if Western Europe had been seized by the Soviets -- because of the brain drain that would surely have ensued. American post-war scientific & technological prowess, it could be argued, was overwhelmingly due to the European scientists who fled the Nazis and the war in the 1930s and 1940s. (The USA built the atomic bomb because of European brains; relatively few natives were involved.) Perhaps something similar would have happened with a communist takeover of Europe.
I almost posted a long reply to Sto which alluded to this point, but in the meantime Julius posted a response which covered nearly every other objection I would have made, including:
"The value of Europe to the US cannot simply be measured by trade as a percent of GDP."
The following is at the crux of what I think both Julius and I believe Pseudoerasmus is avoiding:
"I am not necessarily saying that it is much more, but you would have to at least take a stab at what productivity growth would have been like in absence (or severe reduction) of knowledge, technological developments, and competition from Europe."
I've wondered whether a Soviet Union in possession of much of Europe would have bothered with a Cold War space race. But perhaps it would have; perhaps the USSR might have plundered European resources to finance an even more ambitious space program than it did.
Would the US even have engaged in a space race with the Soviets, or would we have targetted our own resources more squarely on missile defense? What would a shift in the nature of research have portended for those space-related advances that later were applied in medicine, computers, electronics? How would a shift in the development of technologies in the 1950s and '60s have affected our standard of living today? Etc.
A military threat which would have decreased American prosperity, a point which Julius has already drolly alluded to.
But now we gain almost all of the productivity benefits of European brainpower *without* having a good share of them working for the enemy, or dead in a camp somewhere.
No, it's all one discussion, no one has "conflated" anything. The Marshall Plan sidetrack began as a single point of debate within the "US Empire is not critical to its prosperity" discussion, which JC has repeatedly attempted to keep you from abandoning in favor of delving into minutiae concerning the Marshall Plan. He has at least sought a concession that your initial statement was overblown, and failing that he has asked repeatedly that you address his other three contentions that "empire" positively affects US prosperity.
[Rask] "The value of Europe to the US cannot simply be measured by trade as a percent of GDP." [Andonly] The following is at the crux of what I think both Julius and I believe Pseudoerasmus is avoiding: [Rask] "I am not necessarily saying that it is much more, but you would have to at least take a stab at what productivity growth would have been like in absence (or severe reduction) of knowledge, technological developments, and competition from Europe."
No, Andonly, you just lack the subtle mind which would enable you to differentiate Sto's arguments from mine. Unlike Sto, I have not relied on volume of trade as the metric of the importance of Western Europe and East Asia. In fact, I explicitly differentiated myself on this point from Sto in Message # 19127 and more elaborately in Message # 191916, where I discuss why the volume of trade is not the driver of the present economic importance of the European/Japanese relationship to the USA.
Moreover, in the same post, I explicitly allude to the very thing whose crux you believe I am avoiding: productivity and other spillover effects of trade.
The very idea that I, whose primary professional interest is the relationship between international trade and long-term growth, could be avoiding the issue of productivity enhancements and technological transfers due to international trade, while Andonly and Cesare consider them, is comical.
But there are already many academic estimates, and they just haven't been very large.
I made the same point at the beginning of this discussion, and I think JC said something analogous as well.
JC: "If you take the various parts of what fuels the Empire's econcomy, and discard them as less than "critical", you end up with a distortion....The sum of all and more less than "critical" parts of Empire?"
P: "I discard both the parts and the sum total of the parts. If the USA reduced its involvement in world affairs to Swedish levels (the hypothesis suggested earlier), then the US economy would barely feel a blip."
"I discard both the parts and the sum total of the parts. If the USA reduced its involvement in world affairs to Swedish levels (the hypothesis suggested earlier), then the US economy would barely feel a blip. "
I still stand by this assessment.
But I suspect someone must have raised this objection earlier. If I have the time, I'll browse through and see what the response was.
"I wonder how a nuclear conflagration might have impacted trade? The marketplace might have been a little withered, but I suppose we could have exchanged cockroaches."
Well, that depends on whether you think the US policy made a nuclear war more or less likely, doesn't it?
You asked whether "...trade with China and the Soviet Union would have been of the same vintage if those nations were not under communist domination?"
Could you explain your question? Or maybe you should just answer Sto's question more properly: "Which imperial or "imperial" actions on the part of the USA compel the Chinese to trade with America? To wit, the Soviet Union in its heyday was eager to sell all it could to its western adversaries which meant among other things building huge gas pipelines from Siberia to Western Europe in the 1970s/80s."
I ask again: even if Western European and East Asian prosperity were crucial to US prosperity, in what way does American "empire" really ensure the security of international flows of trade, investment and capital?
I don't even agree with the premiss of this passage. I do not agree that the USA did very much to "weaken support of the military" or even that military rule in Latin America was based on support from "economic elites".
Message # 19433: "Why then does Europe emerge from WWII with stable democracies with popular support, and healthy economies; and Central America at least 4 decades later is only now approaching that goal?"
Is this a serious question? The answer: the Enlightenment? The core countries of Western Europe all had had experience of democracy dating to the 19th century. I can't believe you're attributing the presence of democracy in Europe and the absence thereof in Central America to American intervention!!!
Firstly, I haven't based my arguments on the volume of trade at all, as Stostosto has done.
Secondly, I suppose anything is possible in the future, including "huge long term payoffs" in the future, but that's not indicated in the present by past US "investments". What are the "huge" payoffs of past US investments in post-war Japan?
One example of a payoff is -- Japanese surplus savings were financing the US savings shortfall during most of the 1980s and 1990s. Without them, Americans would have been able to consume or invest less if those Japanese surplus savings were not available. I agree this is a significant benefit of past "imperial" investment, but whether this benefit is "huge" and "critical", is another matter.
"Also, given that instability in Europe in this century has gotten us into two major wars, I don't think trade and FDI adequately sum up the impact a stable Europe potentially has had on the US economy."
Well, it seems to me the USA was eager to enter both wars for reasons which may have exceeded considerations of sheer self-interest. Why had the USA to enter the First World War at al? I don't think it would have been such a big deal if Imperial Germany had won. As for the Second World War, Nazi-occupied Europe would have been bad, but not necessarily bad for the USA.
Well, I can't think of any US foreign policy today which is "critical" to the US standard of living.
"You seem to be referring to security guarantees in Europe and East Asia. But these strike me as fairly minor at the moment."
That's my point.
Still, I would see it as a hedge in case China or Russia decide to turn nasty on us. I doubt it has any positive current impact on the economy, but 20 years from now?"
Well, I had thought someone would bring up China as a threat to East Asian security and was surprised that no one had done until now. But would Chinese hegemony in East Asia have serious economic consequences for the USA? Why must it?
As for Russia "turning nasty", that depends on what "turning nasty" means. Do you mean returning to communism?
Getting bases in Germany and Japan might be difficult to get again if we give them up now."
So what? (But I was not advocating giving them up. I am NOT advocating any policy course.)
Pretty much.
Earlier, in the 19th century, British capital might have been reckoned an important part of overall US investment, but in that relationship the USA was hardly exercising an imperial posture.
"It is in our long term economic interests not to have a world governed by liberal democracies rather than apocalyptic nuke-wielding nazis, or luddite fundamentalist zealots. Current trade and investment levels simply don't reflect this."
I agree, but the issue is whether "apocalyptic nuke-wielding nazis" or "luddite fundamentalist zealots" constitute a serious long-term economic threat, other than Giulio's scenario in which Islamist radicals keep crashing jumbo jets in the USA and creating a Postman- or Waterworld-style economic-social-total apocalypse.
security of international flows of trade, investment and capital?"
Presently? It is an insurance premium in case China or Russia experience another revolution and get uppity. Today, I doubt it matters a jot, but it might matter in the future.
Unlike Sto, I have not relied on volume of trade as the metric of the importance of Western Europe and East Asia. In fact, I explicitly differentiated myself on this point from Sto in Message # 19127 and more elaborately in
"No, it's all one discussion, no one has "conflated" anything."
Well, the discussion has had two phases: (1) whether "imperialism" is/has been/will be critical to the US standard of living; and (2) whether the Marshall Plan benefited the USA economically.
"....sidetrack began as a single point of debate within the "US Empire is not critical to its prosperity" discussion, which JC has repeatedly attempted to keep you from abandoning in favor of delving into minutiae concerning the Marshall Plan."
You're an idiot. I have not abandoned point #1 at all. It was JC who asked me to evaluate the impact of the Marshall Plan on the economy of Yankistan, and that's how phase #2 came into being.
"He has at least sought a concession that your initial statement was overblown, and failing that he has asked repeatedly that you address his other three contentions that "empire" positively affects US prosperity."
Where has he asked for this?
by past US "investments". What are the "huge" payoffs of past US investments in post-war Japan?"
A stable Japan isn't attacking Pearl Harbor and getting us in a major war? or conquering future trading partners in eastern asia? I know that current trade with these nations is only in the hundred billions, but a hundred billion here and a hundred billion there, and soon we are talking real money. Even if you don't think these sums are consequential, they represent a pretty big payoff based on the modest costs of stabilizing Japan.
You keep *saying* that you aren't making a simplistic association between trade volume and economic benefit to the US, but in practice you keep ignoring the economic benefits of avoiding another great power war.
"Well, it seems to me the USA was eager to enter both wars for reasons which may have exceeded considerations of sheer self-interest. Why had the USA to enter the First World War at al? I don't think it would have been such a big deal if Imperial Germany had won. As for the Second World War, Nazi-occupied Europe would have been bad, but not necessarily bad for the USA."
On WWI I can agree, but I think you are wrong with regard to WWII. War might just have been put off until Germany developed nukes, and decided to eliminate America's "miscegenated" culture once and for all. But are you really arguing that it was not in America's economic interests to enter WWII, or you just engaging in sophistry for your own amusement? I don't have the time for the latter.
Well, that depends on whether you think the US policy made a nuclear war more or less likely, doesn't it?
Yes. What is your view?
Could you explain your question? Or maybe you should just answer Sto's question more properly: "Which imperial or "imperial" actions on the part of the USA compel the Chinese to trade with America? To wit, the Soviet Union in its heyday was eager to sell all it could to its western adversaries which meant among other things building huge gas pipelines from Siberia to Western Europe in the 1970s/80s."
You misunderstand. In discounting post WWII American imperialism as having virtually zero impact on present American prosperity, you suggest a static world, wherein no matter the policy, trade remains constant.
Thus, I asked (and ask again) "Do you think trade and economic relations between the United States and China/the Soviet Union would have had the same impact on American prosperity if the Soviet Union had not been communist and China was not communist?"
I ask again: even if Western European and East Asian prosperity were crucial to US prosperity, in what way does American "empire" really ensure the security of international flows of trade, investment and capital?
Presently, Rask has answered the question. Historically, I have answered as well.
This was largely irrelevant to US economic prosperity because (1) his economic reforms were largely reversed, except for land reform; and (2) the political reforms, namely the "peace" constitution he wrote, are largely still in effect but it's hard to say what's their importance to Japanese prosperity. Some people might argue that the very fact that Japan has become a peaceful nation is due to MacArthur's stewardship, but I would say it is due to the totalness of Japanese defeat. (Besides, unlike in Nazi Germany, Japan was never thorougly "de-Nazified".)
No, once again, far more important to post-war Japanese prosperity than MacArthur was (1) that the USA prevented a Soviet takeover of Japan; and (2) that the pre-war relationship between Japanese Big Business and the establishment political parties, which MacArthur tried to undermine, was preserved, and this blocked the socialists and communists from influencing Japanese political economy; and (3) the USA gave Japanese goods preferential access to its market.
"luddite fundamentalist zealots" constitute a serious long-term economic threat, other than Giulio's scenario in which Islamist radicals
keep crashing jumbo jets in the USA and creating a Postman- or Waterworld-style economic-social-total apocalypse."
I think I am seeing the crux of our disagreement here, and I want to get directly to this before engaging in any side discussions on US interests in WWII.
You agree that it is in our long term economic interest to have liberal democracries, but you question whether having a large number of fundie or nazi regimes constitutes an economic threat? You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
My take is that you are drawing some sort of line between national security and economic interests -that a nuclear threat *isn't* an economic threat, but a different type of threat. Am I correct in this?
I don't think the economic impact of terrorism has to make us all extras in the Road Warrior for it to be an economic threat.
This is very funny stuff.
Better yet, Rask is a gentleman, and is less likely to make you his bitch after you make silly pronouncements.
would Chinese hegemony in East Asia have serious economic consequences for the USA? Why must it?"
It depends on what sort of China we are looking at. If they just want to throw their weight around and push for friendlier neighboring regimes, without upsetting economic relationships, I doubt this would have much of an impact on the US except for a loss of prestige. But nascent great powers occasionally get taken over by some expansionist bastard or another. A Chinese Hitler or Napoleon could lead to a war with the US, which could get very pricey. If the US has security guarantees and troops located in Japan, Taiwan, etc. This would make a convincing case that expansionism could not occur in that direction without butting heads with the US. How likely is this? I don't know, but security guarantees are presently very cheap, and I see them as a worthwhile insurance policy.
A consistent thread I read in your posts is that, on the margin, no country is particularly important to the US and we can live without them. While this is probably correct, there is no guarantee that losses, once begun, would stay on the margin. Since our allies and trading partners are *collectively* important, our long term interests are lined up with making sure there are more liberal capitalistic democracies in the world, as that is the way toward continued peace and prosperity.
The best we can do is look around and see that political and economic instability worldwide has produced lots of massive tragedies with huge economic costs, while stability and prosperity have generated substantial benefits for both the US and the rest of the world. As such, it makes sense to assume that absent certain actions which seem to have created stability, there would have been a lot more tragedy, even if we don't know exactly what was averted.
The bulk of the post-war (pre-1973) productivity growth in the USA that is attributable to the acquisition of scientific & technological competence, was probably home-grown, i.e., encompassed the foreign brains that arrived in the USA in the 1930s and 1940s.
Message # 19448: "Heisenberg and Sakharov, for instance, stayed in their homelands"
Heisenberg ended up in West Germany after the war and he would surely become a refugee in North America if all of Germany had been swallowed up by the Soviet maw.
I don't see the relevance of Sakharov since we're talking what would have happened if Western Europe had gone communist.
"I think you are just being cheeky.
Well, I'm not opposed to reckless polemicism and impudent iconoclasm for the sake of reckless polemicism and impudent iconoclasm.
Get a room.
Well, I said that if the USA reduced its international involvement to Swedish levels, that would not amount to more than a blip on long-term US growth.
I am not one of those who believe that the terrorists attack the USA because they hate your "way of life" and your "liberties". Their alleged grievances are not legitimate, but they do have them. An end to US involvement in the Middle East and/or the Muslim world would probably end the anti-US terrorism. Again, I am not advocating this. I merely stating this as what I think would be true.
Message # 19467: "It is an insurance premium in case China or Russia experience another revolution and get uppity. Today, I doubt it matters a jot, but it might matter in the future."
Again, what does "uppity" mean? Everything depends on what "uppity" means.
Paying insurance premia may be a good investment, but how are you sure that you are assessing risks adequately?
Of course you also ignore that the now combined Western and Eastern Europe might very well be able to defend themselves, without the USA, against any revanchist but economically weakend Russia.
Firstly, I was asking about the long-term impact of post-war US "investments" in Japan. What does Pearl Harbour have to do with that? Perhaps you are saying that post-war US involvement prevented a recurrence of the earlier Japanese bellicosity. But perhaps it was just Japan's total military defeat & destruction that did it. As I said, Japan was never "de-Nazified" like Germany was thoroughly deNazified.
Secondly, who says that a Japanese "East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere" would have been necessarily bad for the US economy?
"You keep *saying* that you aren't making a simplistic association between trade volume and economic benefit to the US, but in practice you keep ignoring the economic benefits of avoiding another great power war. "
I don't think so.
What were the benefits of avoiding another great power war? They were that East Asia and Western Europe remained free of communism, physically intact and economically prosperous. I have agreed from the beginning that these are significant US benefits, but not "critical" or "crucial" to US prosperity as Giulio Cesare has been alleging.
Plus, when he brings up concepts like insurance policies on the future, or the difficulty in speculating meaningfully on alternative histories, it sounds so much more manly than when a girl like me does it.
Excuse me please Julius, I must go put on my Idiot Powder and my Unsubtle Mind Lipstick so that when the academics who have done all the relevant studies arrive I will be kissing sweet.
Plus, when he brings up concepts like insurance policies on the future, or the difficulty in speculating meaningfully on alternative histories, it sounds so much more manly than when a girl like me does it."
No, it's Giulio who's the scatterbrain. You think soundly enough, but your prose, filled with lions who take out life insurance in zebra-meat before murdering their hyenas wives, can cause a headache.
Message # 19470:"War might just have been put off until Germany developed nukes, and decided to eliminate America's "miscegenated" culture once and for all."
And the USA might have developed nuclear weapons simultaneously. After all, Einstein wrote his famous letter to Roosevelt in 1939 and the USA began the Manhattan Project in mid 1940.
"But are you really arguing that it was not in America's economic interests to enter WWII..."
I do not believe strongly either way, but I'm not sure why one must assume automatically that a Nazi-controlled Europe would have been economically injurious to the USA. Of course there might not have been a Nazi-occupied Europe even if the USA had not entered the war. The USSR and Germany might have fought each other to a bloody stalement.
I'm not sure.
"You misunderstand. In discounting post WWII American imperialism as having virtually zero impact on present American prosperity..."
Unbelievable. After all this time, you are still blind to what I've said. I haven't said that post WWII American imperialism has had virtually zero impact on present American prosperity. (See, for example, Message # 19196.) Rather, I said that the Marshall Plan and MacArthur's stewardship of Japan have had virtually zero impact. Unless you want to reduce post-war US foreign policy to the MP and Macarthur....
Thus, I asked (and ask again) "Do you think trade and economic relations between the United States and China/the Soviet Union would have had the same impact on American prosperity if the Soviet Union had not been communist and China was not communist?"
I don't understand the question. You are asking what if the USA had somehow managed to prevent the communist takeover of China in 1949 and somehow destroyed Soviet communism in 1945-6?
I didn't get the answer the first time, so I ask again: even if Western European and East Asian prosperity were crucial to US prosperity, in what way does American "empire" really ensure the security of international flows of trade, investment and capital?
"You agree that it is in our long term economic interest to have liberal democracries..."
No, I do not agree with this necessarily.
"My take is that you are drawing some sort of line between national security and economic interests - that a nuclear threat *isn't* an economic threat, but a different type of threat. Am I correct in this?"
No. I agree that wars have economic costs and preventing war has economic costs & benefits.
competence, was probably home-grown, i.e., encompassed the foreign brains that arrived in the USA in the 1930s and 1940s."
But now we are back to the counterfactual. Would US productivity growth had been less if those minds had stayed in a stable and democratic Europe and made their discoveries there? And what would productivity have been if those minds had not been diverted toward the war effort?
I also think that the argument is subtly shifting. This line of discussion began when you raised the possibility that the US might have benefited from the flight of scientific minds from Europe if there had been broad Communist takeover. My point was that we also would have benefited if Einstein, Bohr, et al had remained in a Europe where the Nazis never came to power. And my point with Heisenberg and Sakharov was that not all great minds fled Communism or Nazism - many of them worked for American enemies or rivals. Given this, It seems unlikely to me that the net effect of a Soviet takeover of Europe would have been a boost to economic productivity in the US from a subsequent brain drain. But this is admittedly unprovable either way.
or if minds remaining in Eastern Europe had not been stuck behind the iron curtain and hamstrung by Communist dogma and planning?
Insurance against what? Contrary to what Andonly said, I didn't dismiss the actuarial case for US "imperialism", but the question is, what is being insured? I do not believe that a Chinese invasion and conquest of Taiwan would significantly affect the US economy (even though Taiwan is a major manfacturer and exporter of computer-related parts, including microchips), because it's extremely unlikely that such trade would end in the event of a Taiwan's "reunification" with the mainland.
"A consistent thread I read in your posts is that, on the margin, no country is particularly important to the US and we can live without them. While this is probably correct, there is no guarantee that losses, once begun, would stay on the margin. Since our allies and trading partners are *collectively* important, our long term interests are lined up with making sure there are more liberal capitalistic democracies in the world, as that is the way toward continued peace and prosperity."
I disagree in two ways:
(1) Yes, US allies & trading partners are economically important, but not "crucial" or "critical" to the US standard of living, which is the verbiage that has been used here. Their disappearance would harm and disrupt the US economy, and probably lower long-term growth rates by some fraction of a percent, but the USA would also adjust. You, Raskolnikov, will still be able to acquire ever more trivial upgrades to the home-entertainment technology that you find so important.
(2) Moreover, the collective importance of US allies and trading partners is specious unless you can think of any plausible threat which would threaten them collectively.
"The problem, however, is that it is very difficult to measure the prophylactic impacts of action are almost impossible to quantify, while the detrimental impacts of the same are easy to see."
Well, that's why I keep asking people for various scenarios of "detrimental impacts".
grievances are not legitimate, but they do have them. An end to US involvement in the Middle East and/or the Muslim world would probably end the anti-US terrorism."
I found Bernard Lewis' arguments on the sources of Muslim grievances very persuasive, and counter to your conclusions. Example: US actions where less pernicious than Soviet actions, but the US takes all the heat. As such, I am skeptical that withdrawing all military forces from the middle east and axing support for Israel would really stop terrorism, as the grievances seem to merely be a cover for other motives.
"Again, what does "uppity" mean? Everything depends on what "uppity" means."
expansionist and combative. (although "uppity" actually means "not knowing your place" - I chose the word with an intent on humor)
"Paying insurance premia may be a good investment, but how are you sure that you are assessing risks adequately?"
I'm not, but how are sure of the same when you *don't* pay the premiums? My hunch is that the small premiums we presently pay are worth it.
"Of course you also ignore that the now combined Western and Eastern Europe might very well be able to defend themselves, without the USA, against any revanchist but economically weakend Russia."
...still armed with nukes. But I am all in favor of Europe and Japan shouldering an increasing share of the military burden. However, I think their efforts may be emasculated by peacenik contingents that have grown up without having to consider the real consequences of pacifism. I would be happy to be proven wrong.
"Firstly, I was asking about the long-term impact of post-war US "investments" in Japan. What does Pearl Harbour have to do with that? Perhaps you are saying that post-war US involvement prevented
a recurrence of the earlier Japanese bellicosity."
Yes.
"But perhaps it was just Japan's total military defeat & destruction that did it. As I said,
Japan was never "de-Nazified" like Germany was thoroughly deNazified."
Well, thanks to the stabilization substantially aided by American actions, we never had to find out if Japan would have been an imperial recidivist. But it should be noted that imperial recidivism was pretty common until after WWII, the first major war in which the victors *rebuilt* the vanquished. "Total" defeat and destruction (on the scale that Japan faced - when I think total destruction, I think Carthage, not Japan) had never previously stopped recidivism by a great power. Why do you think this time would have been different?
"What were the benefits of avoiding another great power war? They were that East Asia and Western Europe remained free of communism, physically intact and economically prosperous. I have
agreed from the beginning that these are significant US benefits, but not "critical" or "crucial" to US prosperity as Giulio Cesare has been alleging."
If the debate is over the fine points of where benefits become critical or crucial, I will retire. No, the US probably would not have been an irradiated pile of rocks, or a Finlandized province of the Russian Empire (although I can't rule those out), but a couple great power wars averted, a hundred thousand American lives saved (from tech advance as well as war), and a few trillion more in national wealth? Seems possible to me. When you are talking about insurance policies, all you can do is make your best guess in assessing risk.
I disagree. That is, I believe the USA benefited more because they emigrated to the USA than if they hadn't done. There are barriers to international technological transfer. Also, those European brains played a pivotal role in modernising the faculties and establishing the scientific & technological competence of US universities, without which it's hard to believe American universities would have become the leaders in research that they did become.
"And what would productivity have been if those minds had not been diverted toward the war effort?"
It would have been smaller. So much of US technological progress represents spillovers from military innovations.
You assume that I ascribe this to Yankee intervention. This I can excuse, because I was less than clear in what I was ascribing it to. My intention was to attribute the weakening support for the military juntas to was your comment- they had generally botched the handling of the economies, and the region looked at the general success other economies were having.
On South American and Central American democracies you stated: Is this a serious question? The answer: the Enlightenment? The core countries of Western Europe all had had experience of democracy
dating to the 19th century. I can't believe you're attributing the presence of democracy in Europe and the absence thereof in Central America to American intervention!!!
No, obviously European democracy developed in a period where the US influence was small. The greatest effect of US democracy was as an ideological example and incubator for some of those leaders who lead the democratic movements in Europe which followed. Even so, US influence was rapidly eclipsed by France. Similarly, the reconquest of democracy in Europe following the war was more than an imposition of a social and political order by a victor over the vanquished.
That being said, the Enlightenment is hardly the answer to the problem of South America's difficulty in developing democracies. At the opening of the 19th C. Bolivar led a democratic revolution against monarchial colonial powers from Europe, and American democracies outnumbered European ones. It is true that these democracies did degenerate into a period dominated by the Caudillos, but for a significant portion of the time since the Enlightenment, the Americas are more democratic in political structure and ideology than Europe.
"I found Bernard Lewis' arguments on the sources of Muslim grievances very persuasive, and counter to your conclusions."
I don't think Bernard Lewis has written anything decent since before 1990. His analysis of Arab discontent leaves out many many factors & determinants. Not once does he mention, for example, the rapid economic growth of the 1950-73 period and its sudden end after 1980 and its impact on relations with the West. He also does not mention one of the major causes cited by many political scientists for the increasing militancy of the Arab world: the huge demographic spike in the number of people 14-35, relative to what was before 1980.
Historians, particularly those not equipped with some social science, are often retarded analysts of modern social phenomena.
"Example: US actions where less pernicious than Soviet actions, but the US takes all the heat."
Bad example.
Lewis conveniently forgets to note that the Soviet Union was a major supporter of the PLO and the Palestinian cause in general, and a major critic of Israel, and the principal benefactor of Egypt (until 1975), Algeria, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iraq and other Arab countries. The Arabs haven't been harmed by the Soviet Union at all. Certainly not to any degree that Iraq and Palestinians perceived themselves to have been harmed by the USA.
In a radio interview, Lewis has also stated an outright falsehood. He's said that the Arab world reacted only mildly to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, conveniently forgetting that about half of the total financial aid given to the Afghan resistance came from the Arab countries, not to mention the large international brigade of Muslims (perhaps numbering 20 000) who fought among the resistance.
Besides, the Soviet Union is no more, and radical Muslims claim credit for this. Still, Lewis conveniently neglects, or he just doensn't know (because the Middle East is what he knows best), how much Arab radicals have attempted to infect and victimise the former Soviet Union -- Central Asia, the Caucasus, and even the Volga region of Russia where millions of Muslims live -- with Islamic radicalism. His is just an Americo-centric view. A Russian writing of Islamic radicalism would say quite a few things about anti-Russianism (and the Russian press already does) in the Muslim world, and the Muslim world certainly sees Russia as a prison with millions of Muslims.
Lewis also conveniently neglects the place of Kashmir among Islamic radicals, already a kind of second Afghanistan for the international bridges of radical Muslims.
I never had my lions taking out life insurance in zebra-meat before murdering their hyena wives, Rain Man. You're the one who, contra my perfectly sensible analogy between the strivings of "empire" and the purchasing of auto insurance, anounced that car insurance is worthwhile for someone because there are actuarial tables on distributions of car accidents, but superpower insurance is a complete tossup because no one has determined what it's worth.
So much for venture capital, I guess.
I'll be twelve next month.
"As such, I am skeptical that withdrawing all military forces from the middle east and axing support for Israel would really stop terrorism, as the grievances seem to merely be a cover for other motives."
Well, once again, I am not advocating the retreat of the USA at all. But I think the thesis that terrorism is a "cover for other motives" (i.e., "they hate our way of life", "they have our freedoms", etc.) is self-serving Americocentric hogwash propagated by Yankistan's poodle press and military-educational complex. (I am more and more convinced that the USA engages in wars primarily to educate its populace about geography and foreign cultures.)
liberal democracries..."
Pseudo: No, I do not agree with this necessarily.
You responded "I agree" to the paragraph where I first made this claim. You must have only been agreeing with part of the paragraph.
"Insurance against what? Contrary to what Andonly said, I didn't dismiss the actuarial case for US "imperialism", but the question is, what is being insured? I do not believe that a Chinese invasion and conquest of Taiwan would significantly affect the US economy (even though Taiwan is a major manfacturer and exporter of computer-related parts, including microchips), because it's extremely unlikely that such trade would end in the event of a Taiwan's "reunification" with the mainland."
Under the present government, I agree. But why do you rule out an ideological revolution? You know world history at least as well as I do, but you seem to be assuming that despite several radical economic and political shifts over the past 100 years, China will remain the essentially the same entity it is today. You want scenarios? How about a reactionary Communist revolution? Or an ultranationalist/populist takeover by a demagogue who wants to make sure China is given her due on the world stage? Both these types of governments have been common in the past 100 years, so I don't think they are necessarily unlikely. Low-cost security guarantees are cheap in comparison to the likelihood of a hostile regime coming to power.
Nor do I think the ramifications of such a government would necessarily stop at Taiwan. Many expansionist regimes have continued beyond nationalist land-grabs (Tibet anyone?). My main point is that given the frequency with which expansionist governments have popped up in countries without a stable democratic tradition, it is a very real possibility.
Eel alert! Eel alert!
I have not said that US post-war "imperialism" had virtually zero impact. Never did. You can see this in Message # 19116 which is dated 23 January.
"I never had my lions taking out life insurance in zebra-meat before murdering their hyena wives..."
That was a joke.
"So much for venture capital, I guess."
Well, you're the one who used insurance as an analogy. Annuities are very staid investments. Venture capital is a bit more tarzanic.
Do you like lollies? What's your favorite mall?
As for pseudo's pronouncements, he said two things.
First, I just can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power.
Second, that the Marshall Plan/MacArthur's stewardship of Japan; American military presence in South Korea, the defeat of Iraq, and present-day Afghanistan/anti-terror operations have had virtually zero impact on American prosperity.
while the detrimental impacts of the same are easy to see."
Pseudo: "Well, that's why I keep asking people for various scenarios of "detrimental impacts"".
Detrimental impacts of US actions are easy to spot. But I think you are really asking for the potential deterimental impacts that were avoided as a result of US actions. I think it is very easy to speculate, but impossible to prove. But some examples of what *might* have happened without US active involvement.
1) US isolationism and Japanese caution avoids American entry in WWII, and Manhattan project is scrapped as too expensive. Stalemate on eastern front in WWII suddenly resolved by German use of Nukes atop V2 rockets in 1948. Moscow and Leningrad are craters. Britain surrenders amidst threat of Germans doing the same to London. Germany completely victorios. US never escapes Depression, and Roosevelt's deficits prove unsustainable. Charles Lindbergh is elected President on a platform of emulating the German model. American Jews flee to Canada.
2) US withdraws back into isolationism after WWII, with Japan left to its own devices after disarmament. Japanese economy is a mess. US actions are Chamberlainish after a subsequent Japanese military coup by officers who claim Japanese honor was betrayed. Japan acquires nukes. Expansionism begins again. Japanese reason that US will not commit suicide by using nukes first, but will fear that Japanese will do so. As such, they are not deterred by US sabre-rattling as they re-conquer all of eastern Asia. No war between US and Japan ensues, but US spends itself silly on a two-front arms race with USSR and Japan, doubling defense expenditures vs what happened in reality. Cost = roughly 5% of US GDP for 50 years.
3) US decides Kuwait is not in US interests, and lets Iraqi invasion go unpunished. Iraq continues germ warfare exploration. They acquire smallpox from the former USSR as a just-in-case against Israel. It leaks to Islamists, who decide to use it against the US instead. It is simultaneously released in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington. The plague spreads worldwide. Health organizations move to re-develop vaccine, and manage to contain it, but not before 1 million are dead in the US alone.
I just can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power.
Later I stated that, relatively recently (say in the 1980s), European and Japanese economies became quite important to the US economy. Since the USA has guaranteed their security since 1945, I can concede that US security guarantees of Japan and Western Europe are in the US national economic interest.
So I have not said that post-war "imperialism" has had virtually zero impact on the US standard of living.
I don't know why you're so fixated on this administration's embarrassing jingoism. No one with a college education takes it seriously, and half the rest don't either. In any case, I don't think Bernard Lewis (whose assessment of whether Islam is capable of producing a liberal democracy I do disagree with, if we're talking about the long run) has advanced the thesis that 'terrorism is a "cover for other motives"'.
I don't know. Do they have hair on their backs or are they smooth and dusky?
"What's your favorite mall?"
The Mall of Hell. Have you been?
I said: "I've offered to take them through the Looking Glass by repealing five imperialist actions -
1. Marshall Plan/MacArthur's stewardship of Japan
2. NATO
3. Troops in South Korea
4. Defeat of Iraq
5. Present-day Afghanistan/anti-terror ops
Pseudo said
1. 3. 4. 5. virtually zero impact
Pseudo now says So I have not said that post-war "imperialism" has had virtually zero impact on the US standard of living.
Duh.
What you did say was
First, I just can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power.
Second, that four acts of American post World War II imperialism - the Marshall Plan/MacArthur's stewardship of Japan; American military presence in South Korea, the defeat of Iraq, and present-day Afghanistan/anti-terror operations - have had virtually zero impact on American prosperity. See post 19267.
I have been to the Mall of Hell and back. I am a veteran of the Battle of Filene's Basement.
I don't like to talk about it.
"I don't know why you're so fixated on this administration's embarrassing jingoism."
I hadn't once had the Bush administration in mind.
"No one with a college education takes it seriously, and half the rest don't either."
I doubt that.
Lewis's "cover for other motives" is just a version of "they hate our freedoms" with a more erudite veneer.
All this depends on what would have happened if the US hadn't used its power. Given that the post-war world has been a peaceful and prosperous place (compared to any other 55 year period you care to mention), I think it is hard to argue that the world would be a much *better* place, except for Southeast Asians. More likely, based on patterns that existed before WWII, more nasty events would have happened. Would any of them been "critical" for the US economy? It is unprovable. IMO, all you can do is extrapolate from patterns that existed before the implementation of US post-war policies. And I don't think those patterns give Pseudo's argument much support.
Oh, no. Snap goes the trap, as the eel prepares to discard his opponents' speculations one after another by offering equally unprovable counterspeculations, or merely by announcing, "I disagree".
Pseudoerasmus is like a puppy snarling and nipping at your hands, begging you to throw the ball. But when you throw it, he eats it.
I have said, and I still believe, that the Marshall Plan, MacArthur's "stewardship" of Japan, the US protection of South Korea, the Gulf War, and the operation in Afghanistan have had virtually zero impact on the US standard of living.
And I still can't think of a single major way in which the US economy depends critically on its military, political and diplomatic power. I did make an exception on 23 January for the US protection of Western Europe and East Asia from communism, which, I grant, have had non-trivial benefits for the USA.
Oh, we've atempted to deal with that, with no success. What does "critical" mean? Who the hell knows?
Well, that's what I said you said in 19507, making your clarification in 19511 even more confusing, prompting my 19515.
Rask
I thought it was an issue of degree as well, but pseudo keeps going back to virtually zero impact which we hashed about on The Marshall Plan.
He has since opened on MacArthur's stewardship of Japan.
No, you've just absorbed uncritically a few pundits' regurgitations of George Bush's speechwriters as they've splattered onto the pages of the US press.
That should have been, "attributed uncritically the Murcan public a few pundits' regurgitations..."
I was not the one who used the word "critically". Giulio was.
Surely there is a difference albeit subjective between critical/vital/essential and substantial/significant/non-trivial and trivial/"virtually zero".
Have post-war "imperialism" have had "virtually zero" impact on the US standard of living? No.
Did the Marshall Fund have "virtually zero" impact? Yes, I think so.
Vital: we all become extras in The Sands of Iwo Jima.
Essential: we all become extras in Grapes of Wrath.
Substantial:we all become extras in Norma Rae.
significant: we all become extras in Easy Rider.
Non-Trivial: I can't buy a new DVD player.
The Marshall Plan
pseudoerasmas,
< Did the Marshall Fund have "virtually zero" impact? Yes, I think so.>
What exactly does 'think' mean in this context. On a quantitative scale of 0 to 100 where would you place it? And please quantify your reasoning.
BY THE WAY
It has been argued that the Marshall Plan allowed US industry to change from wartime production to peacetime production with an economic discontinuity. In other words, there was not "virtually zero" impact.
For "with" read -- "without" an economic disconuity.
" On a quantitative scale of 0 to 100 where would you place it?"
Zero is a good number.
"And please quantify your reasoning."
I have already provided my reasoning and I won't repeat it.
Well, that's obviously nonsense since the MP had little to do with the MP.
In other words, there was not "virtually zero" impact.
Even if that were true, it does not prove that the MP was necessary to this phantom effect you're suggesting.
...since the MP had little to do with industrial conversion in the USA.
Defeated Taliban prisoners plead to be taken to U.S. lockup
BY BRIAN MURPHY
Associated Press Writer
SHIBERGAN, Afghanistan (AP) -- Jailed fighters of the fallen Taliban shout the name of their former foe, but no longer in anger. ``We want to go to an American prison,'' many plead.
Anything, they say, to leave Shibergan prison in northern Afghanistan, now jammed to more than 10 times its capacity with about 3,500 men. But unlike the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, this has been a prison largely out of the spotlight.
``I can't lie and say it's fine. The problems are clearly visible,'' said the head warden, Gen. Jurabeg, ``We are struggling.''
While human rights advocates and some U.S. allies have complained about the conditions at the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo, Cuba, the situation in Shibergan is much more dire.
In addition to overcrowding, prisoners have to deal with shortages of medical supplies and care, water, food and there is little to protect them from the elements. Facing bitter cold outside and inside, they have just the clothes they were wearing when they were captured. Many don't have shoes.
The mud-walled compound provides a lesson of sorts: with local militiamen in charge in much of Afghanistan, there's an ad hoc approach toward rank-and-file Taliban prisoners.
``From region to region, there are different ways Afghan authorities are dealing with Taliban prisoners,'' said Samuel Emonet, who heads the Red Cross team inspecting detention facilities in the region. ``Shibergan stands out because of its size and the uncertainty of what will happen to the prisoners.''
But Dostum still apparently answers to no one about many aspects of his fiefdom.
Prison doctors have begged for medicine from Dostum's military hospital in Shibergan. Only a few boxes of antibiotics and rehydration salts have been sent to Shibergan, one of the largest detention camps in the country.
An official at the hospital, speaking on condition of anonymity, said supplies are critically low and there is little money to buy more. ``The Taliban prisoners are not a priority,'' he said.
Nearly a third of the prisoners at Shibergan are suffering from chronic dysentery and other gastric problems, doctors said.
``We have no medicine. It couldn't be worse,'' said Dr. Abdul Bashir, one of four prison physicians. ``No, let me correct that. I will get worse when the weather gets warmer. We could be seeing things as bad as cholera.''
``This is not a crisis?'' asked Bashir. ``We just can't take care of the prisoners.''
The worst cases -- mostly bronchitis and tuberculosis -- are sent to the military hospital. Others are placed on feces-stained beds or on straw mats in the prison clinic. One inmate carried another who had blacked out from high blood pressure. He was put on the floor, but there was no way to treat him.
Many prisoners see their former enemy as a possible savior.
``The United States should help us. How can the world ignore us?'' pleaded Maqsoud Khan, 26, who is among about 1,100 Pakistani prisoners in Shibergan.
Khan wrapped himself in a blue blanket donated by the Red Cross. But it offered little warmth against a bitter cold wind, which froze the puddles and hardened the mud in the prison yard. There are no prison uniforms -- only the clothes the men wore when they were captured as U.S.-backed forces retook northern Afghanistan in November.
The fortunate ones have black plastic slippers supplied by the Red Cross. Others are barefoot.
After an hour in the prison yard, the prisoners are herded back to their quarters: bare six-by-nine foot rooms where up to 60 men try to sleep on icy cold concrete floors. Latrines empty into fetid swamps.
Hundreds of Taliban fighters have been freed around Afghanistan under an ill-defined amnesty encouraged by the interim government. But there have been no such releases from Shibergan.
``Will we be held here forever? No one can tell us,'' said an Afghan prisoner, Qari Habib Rahman. ``We were simple fighters. We know nothing about the Taliban leaders.''
U.S. interrogators, seeking Taliban leaders and members of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida terror network, moved several dozen prisoners from Shibergan last month, the warden said.
A commander for Dostum's forces said all the other prisoners would remain at Shibergan until the American investigations are complete. In Washington, Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem confirmed this week that ``initial interrogations'' were being conducted in Shibergan and elsewhere.
Some say the conditions at Shibergan is the United States' business.
``The United States cannot wash its hands of responsibility for prisoners whose fate from the start it has been in a position to influence or determine,'' said a report by a delegation for the Physicians for Human Rights, who visited Shibergan earlier this month.
This is pathetic. Why aren't the Euroweenies who were puling about Gitmo pitching in to help out these Al Qaeda?
Sit on an Axis of Evil and rotate
I'm sure your "guess" would have something to do with the US Military being guilty of (GASP!) racial/cultural insensitivity, or some equally dastardly crime.
But the reason it's called Gitmo is because it is abbreviated in Military documents as - are you ready for this?........
GTMO.
Interesting Brill op-ed piece.
I would say Brill has a firm grasp of the obvious. Always beware of one who gives you two choices, as if that's all there is. Perhaps they are exactly what they are being called and might eventually be best tried in their own country.
(i) I will henceforth only use 'trivial' and 'non-trivial' to modify 'benefits', so that we needn't dwell on such terms as critical / significant / substantial / "virtually zero" / etc.
(ii) "imperialism" = level of international activism and interventionism above and beyond that of "normal" states, such as Sweden -- this is the definition we'd been working with and the Swedish analogy was suggested by someone else earlier
(iii) "benefits" = things which increase, or do not reduce, the long-term growth potential of the USA
(1) US imperial actions in protecting West. Eur. and E. Asia from communism after the Second World War, generated non-trivial benefits to the US economy in the form of commercial & financial integration with those regions, but mainly after (approx.) 1980.
[ This is not a new view, but one which I expresed on 23 January, the very day this discussion began. ]
(a) If, however, the Soviet Union had conquered/controlled West. Eur. included & E. Asia in the absence of the US security guarantee and had used the economic potential of those regions to pose a greater military threat to the USA, then I would concede that the US security guarantee of those regions generated non-trivial benefits even before 1980, in the form of savings from a smaller military expenditure than might have been necessary.
[ This is a recent concession. ]
But (b) the Marshall Plan generated trivial benefits for the USA. The key US imperial actions vis-a-vis West. Eur. included NATO (i.e., protection from the Soviet Union); and the prevention of the hard left from assuming power in West. Eur. included and the entrenchment of more centrist political parties (i.e., protection from communism and hard-core socialism).
And (c) MacArthur's "stewardship" of Japan also generated trivial benefits for the USA. The key imperial actions were the US security guarantee of Japan (i.e., protection from the Soviet Union); and giving Japanese goods preferential access to the US market. Most EA countries benefitted from the US willingness to absorb East Asian imports without demanding reciprocity from those countries (at least until the 1980s). Only the USA could do this so casually.
(2) All other imperial actions by the USA, whether from the past or in the present, have generated or are generating trivial benefits.
Well, that is an admirably circular argument, since the dispute is whether US imperial actions are what prevented Japan's "recidivism".
I also still think that Japan's "East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere" would not necessarily have harmed the USA economically.
But it should be noted that imperial recidivism was pretty common until after WWII...."Total" defeat and destruction...had never previously stopped recidivism by a great power."
Really? Can you think of many pre-WWII examples of "total destruction"? Which great power experienced total destruction before the Second World War and became a "recividist"? Germany in WWI experienced almost no physical destruction.
"the first major war in which the victors *rebuilt* the vanquished."
But this is largely a folk mythology.
Because Japan was totally destroyed and abjectly defeated. It was the shock of defeat, and the discrediting of the army as a political institution, that transformed Japan politically and psychologically. The Cold War helped: because the world had become bipolar, Japan's political-business elites understandably chose the American side.
I'm not even sure what US actions during the occupation you believe helped change Japan so fundamentally. Democratic institutions were set up in Japan under MacArthur, but after the occupation ended, what prevented Japan from slipping back into military rule? We know from the South Korean experience that despite its massive presence in the country, the USA did not prevent the military from taking power in Korea and staying there until 1989. There was no eradication of Japan's pre-war business-political elites. (The purges primarily affected military leaders.) The Japanese themselves asked for the "peace" clause in the US-draughted constitution.
Democratisation was likely not necessary to post-war Japanese recovery & growth; witness, once again, East Asian countries, mostly ruled by dictatorships until the late 1980s/early 1990s.
The greatest services rendered by the USA to Japan were that it was saved from the clutches of the Soviets (in various ways -- the atomic bombing was one); that it was essentially spared the task of defending itself against potential threats; and that Japanese goods were given preferential access to the US market.
But the war against Japan was not what motivated the Manhattan Project.
"US never escapes Depression..."
This economics is a bit old-fashioned. There was already substantial recovery before the war. Not return to full employment, but every sign of eventually getting there. The war just speeded up the process.
"Charles Lindbergh is elected President on a platform of emulating the German model...."
Then why should the USA not have escaped the Great Depression. Hitler was a model Keynesian.
Message # 19510: "US decides Kuwait is not in US interests, and lets Iraqi invasion go unpunished. Iraq continues germ warfare exploration....The plague spreads worldwide. [millions are dead]
What I like about this scenario is that according to its logic, the prevention of apocalypse depends totally and inexorably on the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. If Iraq hadn't invaded Kuwait, the USA would not have been stirred to action and Saddam Hussein would have continued on his merry way to develop biological weaons and eventually caused your apocalypse. Pretty frightening. I guess we have Saddam to thank for his greed and lust for power.
Well, naive or straightforward extrapolation from the past is just as speculative as counterfactual extrapolation.
Message # 19519: "...the eel prepares to discard his opponents' speculations one after another by offering equally unprovable counterspeculations, or merely by announcing, "I disagree"."
So? When one posits a speculation, the only possible reply is counterspeculation.
"Pseudoerasmus is like a puppy snarling and nipping at your hands, begging you to throw the ball. But when you throw it, he eats it."
I might be insulted if I understood what you were talking about. Andonly, in order to be effectively mordant, you need to make your bons mots comprehensible.
I agree if you're talking about puny countries like El Salvador or Guatemala, but not if you're talking about more complex societies like Argentina or Peru or Mexico or Brazil. The idea that the military intervened to rule on behalf of the socioeconomic elites is simplistic left-wing bilge.
The greatest effect of US democracy was as an ideological example and incubator for some of those leaders who lead the democratic movements in Europe which followed."
Sounds like more jingo patriot swill.
"That being said, the Enlightenment is hardly the answer to the problem of South America's difficulty in developing democracies."
I merely used the "Enlightenment" as a shorthand for the absence of any democratic tradition in the Ibero-Catholic culture.
"At the opening of the 19th C. Bolivar led a democratic revolution ...for a significant portion of the time since the Enlightenment, the Americas are more democratic in political structure and ideology than Europe."
What bollocks. Most of the newly independent Latin American countries degenerated in caudillismo or various hues of plutocracy fairly immediately. Bolívar died in grief over the failure of democracy in LA. There are few exceptions, such as Chile.
I think you're being a bit neurotic about this. For my purpose, which was to assess the economic benefits of America's global imperial activism, the pre-war period is simply irrelevant because the USA did not then practise "imperial activism" on a global scale. If I had been talking about the historical trajectory of US power relative to other great powers, then, yes, it would be misleading not to mention that the post-war period was aberrant and artificial.
You must be reaching the terminal stages of some obscure disease of vanity if you believe it is "neurotic" to point out your errors.
The part of your post about Paul Kennedy and the U.S.'s decreasing relative power since mid-century are not critical to your overall argument about the importance of the U.S.'s empire to its economy. I agree with that general argument. They were more a sidebar in response to a comment made by someone else. Still, you posted them and should have the grace to admit you were wrong.
Yes, yes, yes, you don't have to keep reiterating the obvious with the air of Revelation.
I wouldn't have to be so redundant if you would stop being so mule-headed and admit to the obvious.
*****
And as to your earlier point about the decline of America's relative power, I think I was too hasty in agreeing with it.
continued ...
1913 --19.1%
1950 -- 27.3%
1973 -- 22.0%
1998 -- 21.9%
(Source: The World Economy: A Millenial Perspective by Angus Maddison)
Militarily, the U.S. is far stronger compared to its rivals than at any other time in its history, with the exception perhaps of the immediate post-World War II period, when the Soviets had not yet developed their own nuclear weapons.
It seems you have an uphill argument if you believe the U.S. is in decline, relative or otherwise.
Here is the context:
Andonly responds in Message # 19209 to a comment PE made about U.S. power declining in the future with this. Yes, and the sun will burn out someday. Not that I expect the American "empire" (which you acknowledge is built at least on "power and influence", though why you wouldn't go so far as to call it hegemony I'm not sure) will last as long as the solar system, but the issue is how long our influence and relatively enormous power will last, whether it will benefit us in the long run or not, under what circumstances our power will wane, and whether it would profit us to go ahead and witdraw from the world now.[my emphasis]
P.E. responds to part of Andonly's comments, which I put in bold, with Message # 19219 I thought those are the issues I was raising. But the USA already has less relative power than it did the mid-XX century, and it seems to me that the sudden spike in US power since the collapse of the Soviet Union is temporary and aberrant. What Paul Kennedy said in the late 1980s is right: American power can only diminish and, relative to the immediate post-war period, already significantly diminished.
continued ...
It was PE's comments that were "fair game."
You have a noble hope, and I'm sure it will eventually come to pass. But the interesting question is when it will happen. I think most Americans who bother to think about the issue at all are surprised it hasn't happened already.
I'm certainly surprised to discover the U.S. economy takes up about the same size of the world economy as it did thirty years ago, and, except for a sharp spike up in the post-WWII era, has been pretty stable for the last hundred years at about a fifth of world production.
And, of course, Japan's impressive expansion came to an abrupt end in 1990.
I hope the poor can keep up the pace like China and India has done for a couple of decades now; at the same time I would have no regrets if the USA could keep its own pace as high or higher, I just don't think it likely.
Did you notice the announcement a couple of days ago that the U.S. posted growth in the fourth quarter, surprising most analysts.
That is, in the three months after 9-11, the U.S. came out of recession despite the worst attack on its soil in history, and despite the fact that the airline and tourism industries were still in turmoil. What's more, it seems that most expect the U.S. to continue to grow, even if somewhat anemically, for the immediate future.
Yes, Pincher, I will not deny I would have expected a more marked relative decline. But actually the US did expand quite fast during both the Reagan and Clinton terms.
I anticipated this argument. What it doesn't take into account is that the U.S. also grew remarkably well in the years preceding 1973, even more than it did in the Reagan and Clinton years. The years from 1950 to 1973 were the America's economic golden years, and yet in that period the U.S. share of the world economy went from 27% to 22%.
By contrast the years of Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton are not thought to be comparable. There are periods of stagnation and other periods of -- depending on your view -- bubble economy or a resurgence in productivity. And yet the share of the world economy by the American economy during this so-so period of nearly thirty years stayed constant when compared to the world economy.
I don't understand the relative decline of the US in that, if it's due to the rise of other economies, that's a good thing for the US too. (Sto's point above).
But the question to me seems to be whether the economic benefits of things such as free trade, free market economies, availability of capital, protection of property rights, etc. are so self-evident that, at this stage of the game, the presence or absence of an "imperial" role by the US is largely irrelevant to the continued growth of the world economy.
Under ordinary circumstances, in 50 years' time I would be almost 92 years old. However, having seen the results of protracted adolescence in Pseudoerasmus and found them adorable, I have decided that once I reach the age of fifty I will age in reverse.
Chances are everyone I expected to understand, undersands.
But the question to me seems to be whether the economic benefits of things such as free trade, free market economies, availability of capital, protection of property rights, etc. are so self-evident that, at this stage of the game, the presence or absence of an "imperial" role by the US is largely irrelevant to the continued growth of the world economy.
A excellent, well-phrased point
"You cannot crush the will of an entire people," she added. "No one should know that better than the Jews. And the Palestinians have to understand that Israel is never going to be erased from the face of the earth.
"Both sides have to make compromises, and they know it," she insisted. "And if both know that they are going to end up at the negotiating table in the end, why not stop the killing, the assassinations, and the humiliation—not to mention the terrorist attacks.
Naomi Harman Chazan.
PM, I don't find your characterization of "constant share" when by your own numbers it has moved from 19 to 27%. Shares are difficult numbers to move and as such I would judge them by a finer gauge.
I was comparing the years 1913, 1973 and 1998, when by most any gauge comparing 19.1%, 22.0% and 21.9% must be thought fairly constant over a hundred year period.
Borrowing a description used by PE for the post-Cold War period, I did earlier describe the surge of the U.S. share after World War II as aberrant and temporary.
Western Europe (consists of twelve countires, including France, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom)
1913 - 31.1%
1950 - 24.1%
1973 - 22.8%
1998 - 17.9%
China
1913 - 8.9%
1950 - 4.5%
1973 - 4.6%
1998 - 11.5%
During the last ninety years, Western Europe's share of the world economy has dropped nearly 50%. Meanwhile, China's share first dropped by half and then more than doubled over the last thirty years. The U.S. share has been relatively stable by comparison.
. The years from 1950 to 1973 were the America's economic golden years, and yet in that period the U.S. share of the world economy went from 27% to 22%.
Well, they were even more spectacular in Europe; the Germans speak of the Witschaftswunder, the French of les trente glorieuses, the Italians speak of prosciutto di Parma (ok, that was lame). Of course, the English speak of the good old days, and who won the bloody war anyway?!
Im not trying to paint some dumb jingoistic picture of glorious America's unrivaled economy. (I'll do that some other time.) I'm honestly surprised to discover that the U.S. share of the world economy hasn't changed all that much over the last one hundred years (again post-WWII excepted). I would have guessed that during the last thirty years it would have mirrored what happened in Western Europe between 1913 and 1950.
Instead, I would have guessed the U.S. economy would have tracked Western Europe's over the last thirty years, for the most part.
The 80s and 90s have been very good for American growth. In the 1989 version of Maddison's ongoing effort to track global economic growth (a recent update of which you are using as a source for you posts here), the USA was ranked #26 out of the 32 countries reported on in GDP per capita growth 1950-87.
Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and China topped the list followed by Austria, Germany, Italy and Finland. The USA had an average of 1.9% p.a. growth in GDP per cap. Germany had exactly double that at 3.8%. France stood at 3.2%; the UK, ranking #21, only managed 2.1%.
--
An interesting feature regarding the UK and pertaining to the Marshall Plan debate is that this country actually received the most Marshall aid of any European country. The common explanation for its measly performance relative to other Euro countries is that it came with fewer tough conditions on free market policies attached than was the case in, say, Germany. The UK, after all, was on the winning side...
Well, if American imperialism happens to be one of the possible means by which the economic dislocation of nuclear war is averted, why should it be beyond the scope of such a discussion?
PE's argument has been that eschewing imperialism altogether would have had more or less the same effect on US prosperity as not. But we have no serious means of assessing what the outcome of other courses of action (non-imperialist ones, quasi-imperialist ones) might have been, not least because we have no way of knowing which courses of action could plausibly have been taken or avoided from a political standpoint, at various junctures.
Moreover, PE, your routine discounting of the likelihood of events' causative factors including anything to do with personalities, cultures, or ideologies undermines the plausibility of your assessments of what actually causes anything. I'm sure it's fine for macroeconomic trends analyses, but in projecting the possibility of wars and other political developments over a short term? It's not rigorous.
Yes, I did notice it. I also noticed that it was driven by consumer spending, primarily on new cars. That doesn't give me a lot of hope.
I'd like to state for the record that the debate on the relationship between American prosperity and American "Empire" started with this statement of JC Message # 18881
you are free to complain in any number of fora about all the nasty byproducts American Empire must inflict in order to give you good medical, dental, heat, air conditioning, running water, frozen pizzas and a vacation that could feed an Afghan village for two years.
I said: Message # 18942
You are actually saying that America is so rich because it has used its military to grab wealth for itself thus denying it to others? Sounds like a page right out of a bin Laden text book. Or out of an extremist anti-globalist leftist campaign flyer.
JC complained that this was an "uncharitable" presentation of his views (maybe it was, he posted myriad words). But then he said:
Message # 18955
Do you imagine the American Empire could keep its present grotesquely high standard of living for its citizens with mere "economic activity, investment, technological advance and trade?" Would such niceties have repelled Sadaam Hussein or served to hopefully separate bin Laden from dialysis?
And I said that it is in fact these "niceties" more than anything that makes it possible for America to pursue such valiant goals, while achieving those goals are not in any way crucial to the Murkin standard of living, even if they do make the world a better place.
As for my postulate, that the difficulty in developing democracy in Central and South America was that US policy and intervention in the region was qualitatively different than that used in Europe post WWII, and failed to address the dominance of cohesive social and economic elites by the intervention of the military forces, you previously acribed the differing course of history in the comparison to "the Enlightenment" which you now characterize as a shorthand for the absence of any democratic tradition in the Ibero-Catholic culture. and blithely dismiss Bolivar with What bollocks. Most of the newly independent Latin American countries degenerated in caudillismo or various hues of plutocracy fairly immediately. Bolívar died in grief over the failure of democracy in LA. There are few exceptions, such as Chile.
This is despite my previous acknowledgement that the first democratic revolutions in Latin America were not lasting, and without any recognition on your part that at that time democratic governments were rather few in Europe at the time.
And if that's so, then the US might gradually be able to reduce its imperial role, which may mean less expenditures on empire's trappings and a consequently higher standard of living for Murcans. Should this work out to be the case, earlier decades' imperial activities arguably will have produced a measureable payoff.
On the other hand, if our chief expenditure on empire is presently military, reductions in that expenditure may be a long time coming.
I also noticed that it [American economic rebound in fourth quarte] was driven by consumer spending, primarily on new cars. That doesn't give me a lot of hope.
Nothing wrong with consumer spending as such; in fact the long Clinton boom (1992-2000) was in large part driven by it.
However, much of that was debt financed -- as was the other part, the business investment expansion which means American indebtedness is at an historic high. This will hamper recovery, much more than any 9-11 effects.
I will grant that Brazil's course is not in step with the rest of Latin America. I would attribute this to the different separation from Portugal that it took than the others took from Spain, and the early and profound difference in racial, and thus social, composition of the relative populations. As for Mexico- I see little difference other than degree and a greater familiarity by the public with the bumps along the road in the elites rule until the end of Diaz's rule. The rest you are merely reaching for.
This will hamper recovery, much more than any 9-11 effects.
I think 9/11 will hamper recovery, but I never disputed that there were other factors that contributed as much if not more. I was just responding to Pincher's post. I don't think this is over. I'll be delighted to be wrong.
I am merely reminding you that the benefits of prevention are speculative, and thus harder to prove.
"I also still think that Japan's "East Asia Co Prosperity Sphere" would not necessarily have harmed the USA economically."
"not necessarily" is a fairly low threshold. Think of my argument in terms of probabilities and expected value. What is the probability of various alternative histories for post-WWII Japan, what is the cost of those probabilities for the US, and were cheap US security guarantees for Japan worth the expected value of avoided costs?
Let's start with the basics - what is the probability of a military coup absent the US role in post-war Japan?
I can't answer for all Europe, but my feeling is that Americans tend to overestimate their role as a role model for the world. It's very common to hear Americans venture things about their being a "beacon of freedom and democracy" and such, but to most of us Europeans that sounds strangely and utterly parochial. It does furnish you people with a folksy exoticism that we hold very dear.
First, let us define "total destruction". Given what happened to Carthage, and what Alexander did to Thebes, I have trouble calling what happened to Japan "total destruction". No, there is no pre-WWII power that had its industrial capacity capacity destroyed, so in that sense Japan is unique (but you know this, as massive aerial bombardment of industry before WWII was non-existent). I also have trouble believing that the destruction of industrial capacity does more to change the fighting spirit of the populace than massive civilian dislocation, starvation, and disease. What I was referring to were countries that suffered abject military defeat, massive civilian deaths, and economic disaster, yet came back as Imperialist v 2.0. Best examples: Germany and Russia after WWI. I know you will claim that since Germany wasn't bombed like Japan, it doesn't qualify. But Germany had its own civilian disasters precipitated by the war, such as the influenza epidemic and starvation, on a scale that never hit Japan. I have trouble seeing what makes the Japanese experience so different. Why couldn't the post-war Japanese government been another Weimar? Unlikely? Maybe, but what is the probability?
I didn't say it was. I was speculating that if the US had succeeded in avoiding the war for several years, the Manhattan project would have been less urgent, and not gotten the massive funding that it received during war time. The mere start date of the Project before US entry into the war surely does not mean it would have been finished at the same time in the absence of a war.
"This economics is a bit old-fashioned. There was already substantial recovery before the war. Not return to full employment, but every sign of eventually getting there. The war just speeded up the process."
My speculation explicitly involved the unsustainability of FDR's deficits. It also doesn't take much to assume that in the absence of the war, and American lend-lease aid, the recovery would have been slow enough to cause some drastic political consequence. Again, it isn't that this was necessarily likely, but that it was possible enough to be worth avoiding.
"Then why should the USA not have escaped the Great Depression. Hitler was a model Keynesian."
You are overly focused on the direct economic consequences. I would put it to you that despite any impact on American growth, having a pro-Hitler government would not be seen by most Americans now as having been in our long term interests.
Let's get at what I see to be the root difficulty in the establishment of LA democracy by comparison to a previous model of democratic revolution and the establishment of stable democracy. Imagine the US revolution if the only rebels were those in the southern colonies, and that the New England colonies and middle colonies did not exist. Now project the future of the revolution once the separation with England is complete. Do you see it as following the same arc as it has with the influence of the middle and New England colonies? (I am hoping that your backround is not so myopically economic that you can anticipate some difference.)
It makes up the bulk of the US GDP at about 2/3 of the total.
I think, however, that this administration will not back away from that role anytime soon as the pump to the Pres' approval ratings from the "war" as well as the $$ flowing to the friends of the pres in the defense industry are far too tempting. And I mistrust this admin, drenched in the energy industry, isn't also eyeing big oil when it talks about the evil iraq, iran nations.
Interesting to speculate how much of the us "imperial" moves this century have been oil related.
Sto's levity is a mirror image of something I've noticed lately. I think Europe has lost a great deal of it exotocism for Americans in the last forty-odd years.
Am I alone in this impression?
I think perhaps you read the Bush admin wrong. If you recall, it was also preparing to spend ungodly amounts of money on space-based missile defense (about which I haven't heard much lately, but I've been inattentive). Do you think that, were such a weapon ever developed and proven usable, there would not be political jockeying to obtain shelter under its shield?
I should point out that one capability of such a weapon is in fact conducive to hegemonic (or even, let's say 'subhegemonic') objectives. If you can disable an enemy's response to a first strike, then you (or your allies) can do whatever you like to him in on the ground and he can't answer militarily.
For instance, if the US possessed capable space-based defensive weaponry, we could probably impose our will on Iraq slightly more easily than we can now.
Sto has also adopted my view that American Empire is important/critical/substantial contributing/blah blah blah to American prosperity/standard of living, as he observes to Pincher:
I think the USA will decline relatively, and I certainly hope so. Because implicit in this is the prospect that the world's poor and miserable will see their fortunes better faster than the rich and comfortable. And I think they need it the most. (Not that I would think of denying Murkins their legal counselling, plastic surgery and weekly therapy sessions).
I'm happy for him.
...lost a great deal of its exoticism...
Well, I surrender to your wisdom that nuclear annihilation would reduce GDP by at least 99%. The question is, did US policy make nuclear war more or less likely? I really have no idea.
"PE's argument has been that eschewing imperialism altogether would have had more or less the same effect on US prosperity as not."
I reread the summary of my own views in Message # 19548, and your representation is a bit distorted.
"But we have no serious means of assessing what the outcome of other courses of action (non-imperialist ones, quasi-imperialist ones) might have been, not least because we have no way of knowing which courses of action could plausibly have been taken or avoided from a political standpoint, at various junctures."
And I'm saying that's neither here nor there, since our assessment of what the effects of actual events are/were, depends on assessing what the outcome of other courses of action might have been. You keep claiming you understand that the essence of causal analysis of non-repeatable phenomena is counterfactual reasoning, but you never seem to show such an understanding.
"...your routine discounting of the likelihood of events' causative factors including anything to do with personalities, cultures, or ideologies...."
I don't routinely discount those things. You're just hallucinating.
What is the point of keep asking this question since I have expounded from Day 1 that Yankistan's guarantee of Japanese security generated non-trivial benefits.
"Let's start with the basics - what is the probability of a military coup absent the US role in post-war Japan?"
Very low, given the way the army was discredited by total defeat and disaster. By contrast, the comparable US role in South Korea after the Korean War did not prevent a military coup in SK in 1960 -- presumably because the army in SK was still a credible institution.
Message # 19593: "I have trouble seeing what makes the Japanese experience so different. Why couldn't the post-war Japanese government been another Weimar? Unlikely? Maybe, but what is the probability?"
Because what happened to Japan in the Second World War was unprecedented in Japanese history: millions of deaths, total physical destruction, foreign military occupation (the first one in Japanese history), and unconditional surrender to an alien power. They were viewed as the penalty of reckless militarism. I don't think anything in German or Russian experience can compare with this, since Germany and Russia had known terrible wars so many times.
Message # 19589: "The military did not intervene on behalf of some outside segment of society-the military leadership was thoroughly integrated with the elites it served. Conquistador to caudillo, or hacendos to corporate plantations, that was the progression...."
And that's precisely what I was disputing. Your remarks are more accurate with respect to the pre-1930s period in Latin America, but after the 1930s they largely lose any validity.
Message # 19595: "As far as examples of LA democracy, I'd think Costa Rica first, not Chile."
Chile is distinguished in Latin America by the longest total number of years as a democracy. Between 1830 (end of independence war and civil war) and 2002, there have been only two interruptions in Chile's status as a constitutional, electoral, representative republic: 1925-32 and 1973-88. Costa Rica's democracy is a post-1945 development.
I don't understand the rest of your remarks on democracy & Latin America. What are you trying to say?
Obviously Giulio never heard that that monopoly was broken.
It was? This is outrageous!
I don't have a clear opinion about its viability, but I don't think the Bush admin is as cynical as you believe. That is, they're not just subsidizing the defense industry, they believe SDI will eventually work, they believe it will make America more powerful, and they intend that American preeminence should not end. Not only that, they're convinced enough of the US's current power role that they feel confortable engaging in unilateralisms such as withdrawing from Kyoto and scoffing at UN human rights demands uncongenial to immediate US interests...
?? I'm not advancing an argument that Bush isn't a right-wing goper (love that), I'm simply saying that US unilateralism in a Republican admin hardly signals an interest in not dominating the world.
***
By the way, I'm curious what people here think of the Shrub's SOU address mentioning Iran in the same breath with Iraq and North Korea?
(Shouldn't weekly therapy sessions count as consumer spending? How does that affect the total?)
The technical term used by economists is "automatic stabiliser". When the economy slumps and people lose their jobs, more people seek therapy which boosts the income of the therapists who can afford more plastic surgery which makes the plastic surgeons able to afford the legal counselling they need in order to stave off the rising number of malpractice lawsuits. All in all a virtuous cycle is created in which also the services of gardeners, pool cleansers, pizza delivery boys and other Mexicans are experiencing a surging demand.
The market is largely self-correcting, see?
It's true, had 9-11 or something similar not occurred, we might be seeing more of a withdrawal of overt American influence in some spheres now. We might be less engaged in the mideast, for instance.
I'm curious as well as to what people think of it. I largely agree with Safire on the subject.
I am glad Bush takes the nuclear threat to U.S. cities as seriously as he does.
Did it? Bush could have been more oblique, couldn't he?
My theory is that the SOU remarks were a bone to Israel. I can't decide whether they would have been especially helpful to reform-minded Iranians. I also doubt the US plans to bomb Tehran any time soon. But by acknowledging Iran's terror connections, we've clarified that we don't believe Hizbullah and Palestinian militants are not terrorists.
But are we going after them militarily? I sort of don't think so...
Then again, maybe such talk starts to pave the way for NATO forces to enter the WB and Gaza at some point.
Other Mexicans! Hahahahahaha!
William Safire believes Iranian clerics plan to nuke Americans sometime soon?
The 80s and 90s have been very good for American growth. In the 1989 version of Maddison's ongoing effort to track global economic growth (a recent update of which you are using as a source for you posts here), the USA was ranked #26 out of the 32 countries reported on in GDP per capita growth 1950-87.
The eighties and nineties have been good for American growth, but they still trail the fifties, sixties and seventies. According to Maddison's recent work, the rate of GDP growth per capita for the U.S. from 1950 to 1973 is 2.45%; its rate of growth per capita from 1973 to 1998 is 1.99%.
Of course, Western Europe's was 3.93% during the 1950 to 1973 time frame and dropped to 1.75% in the later period, a much steeper drop-off.
Yes, I did notice it. I also noticed that it was driven by consumer spending, primarily on new cars. That doesn't give me a lot of hope.
Cal, if the apocalypse ever comes, the first creature to crawl out of the rubble after the cockroachs will be the American consumer, loaded with credit and desperately searching for the nearest retail outlet.
American consumer spending drives the economy, and not just the U.S. economy. This is not some unique post 9-11 phenomenon. Here in Asia, after all these years, and even with a far greater diversification of their export markets than two to three decades ago, some local businessmen still speak of the American consumer as if he were some kind of God. The American consumer giveth; the American consumer taketh away; Blessed be the American consumer.
Bush's remarks put Iran on notice, and may serve to highlight a perceived dichotomy between Iran's parliament and its increasingly urbanized citizens on one side and the mullahs and security services on the other; one side seeking a more democratic and tolerant society (with a foreign policy to match) while the other wishes to retain the power it has.
Yes indeed, Bush called attention to the divide between the clerics and a public that wants perestoika. But there's a qustion as to whether his remarks were likely to be taken as hostile to Iran across the board--I mean, how does your average Iranian who loves America and wants a new Pahlevi in office take it when Bush seems to be lining his country up for reactor strikes and special operations a la Afghanistan?
I'm guessing it depends on how ready the country's youth are for another violent revolution. If they're not especially, then Bush's plain talk may now have them second-guessing their US affinities. If they are, Bush's rearks may have been a much needed encouragement.
There is a interesting little volume on how a military coup was attempted just prior to the release of the Emperor's recorded announcement to the nation concerning the surrender. (I read it twenty years ago, so the title may be off a bit.) Japan's Longest Day was the title. Hirohito was to be placed in protective custody and the broadcast stopped. Surrender was to be prevented, and the war pursued until a favorable peace could be obtained at least, if not victory.
I mention CIA once and you are going CIA CIA CIA CIA. The USA helped ensure the victory of centrist (centre-right or centre-left) parties against the hard left in Western Europe through a variety of means, such as financial subsidies to political parties in elections, and the direct arming and backing of the government side in the Greek civil war, the first major manifestation of the so-called Truman Doctrine.
"The differing outcomes [in Western Europe and Central America] is due at least in part to the differing policies that the US carried out."
And that idea is preposterous, and requires no further refutation than an imperious dismissal and a spanking.
"I will grant that the the overall social and economic development of the two areas is not equal at the begining of the post WWII period, but the level of destruction in Europe as the result of the war narrows the economic gap considerably."
No, it doesn't.
This is not some obscure, little known event. It is part of every recounting of the last fews days before the Japanese surrender.
And that idea is preposterous, and requires no further refutation than an imperious dismissal and a spanking
In other words you have nothing to say.
for reading comprehension. Japan's Longest Day is a little volume, the event is not.
See 19639.
This, of course, ignores the fact that my arguments about the Marshall Plan, far from discounting personalities and ideologies, had made them central. Last week and earlier this week, I had argued that Europe's market orientation was preserved, not by the MP, but by centrist political leaders such as Alcide de Gasperi, Ludwig Erhart (the ideologue of the "social market economy") and others whose rise to power was assured by US interventions not related to the MP. I had also adverted to the Truman Doctrine, which no doubt owes a great deal to President Truman's personality. Regarding Japan, I argued for a major cultural & psychological change in Japan following the experience of total defeat and foreign occupation.
So, obviously, I have not discounted personalities, cultures, or ideologies at all. You just think otherwise only because you don't pay much attention to what I actually say and assume that my arguments are biased toward impersonal deterministic economic explanations.
You are of course not obliged to pay close attention to what I say. But then you really shouldn't be flapping your pudenda that you try to pass off as a speech organ, either.
The puppy is fastidious about what he plays with. I don't argue with cranks or other people who say things which are prime facie stupid.
Puppy regurgitates on carpet in effort to direct greater attentiveness to the profound subtleties of his ball eating. Effort is of course misguided.
No such thing as a fastidious puppy. You're nothing like a dog. You're more like a bird of prey.
where you formerly a Mongolian warrior given to calling sweet innocent girls monkeys?
Sgt. Matt Lampert of Montana says the other day one of the prisoners was caught "with a piece of cloth stuffed with rocks that was tied off at the end." Sgt. Rodney Davis says that during chowtime, he sees them through his scope "making terrain models out of their food." And unlike say, Afghan
prisons, where starving detainees are reportedly begging to be sent to Gitmo, there's plenty of food to play with. "They get fed better than us, sir," says Lampert. When I ask the Marines if they've seen anything weird, they laugh sheepishly, looking at each other. Finally, Sgt. Josh Westbrook, who sports a forearm tattoo of flaming baby heads, steps up. "They know they're being watched," he explains, "so they'll stare at you, and while they stare at you, they'll, uh, masturbate."
According to these Marines, they don't just pleasure themselves to freak out the snipers, but also to embarrass the female Army guards in the camp's interior. The weirdness doesn't end there. They've also eaten their toiletries and urinated on equipment. "The other day," says Westbrook,"one of the guys tried to do a naked cartwheel." In the most bizarre twist, Lance Corporal Devin Klebaur says a few have also been known to "put toothpaste in their ass." "What's the purpose?" I ask. "I'm not sure," he says, puzzled.
Words such as this gives me a mental image of Stostosto as some Grinchlike creature.
I haven't followed this meandering, redundant debate closely, but I pick this out as PE's acknowledgement of the point I made several days back.
What's with this Lefty fixation with oil, anyway?
Maybe 'Colgate' means 'asswipe' in Afghan?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright on Friday criticized the Bush administration's foreign policy and took aim at the president's labeling of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an "axis of evil."
"When we left office, we left the potential of a verifiable agreement to stop the export of missile technology abroad on the table. I think it's a mistake to walk away from that. We know that North Korea is dangerous but lumping those three countries together is dangerous," she said.
Bad edit - link in #19660 should read "Albright Criticizes Bush Foreign Policy".
Judging by this picture, it's not just the Al Qaeda who deploy toothpaste anally. 
I think it's that minty, sprucey, tingley feeling they're after.
Hey...did you get that soldier's reference to the detainees' aversion to using toilet paper?
Obviously, these guys need some sensitivity training. Don't they realize Islamic law prohibits wiping of the ass?
(Not kidding, btw).
My concern is not really for the Taliban and Al-Qeda prisoners as much as it is for our combatants in the future. I do not want to establish a precedent that some warlord or rogue government may use in the future against our soldiers, sailors and airmen, where they blithely declare our captured service people as "terrorists" etc. and refuse to provide them with the protection of the Convention. It does not have to be truly legitimate, just close enough for those sympathetic to our opponant's viewpoint to tolerate and have some justification for outrageous behavior.
Well, for a few things:
Prisoners would be allowed "electronic devices" from home.
They could not be punished for attempting to escape.
They would be allowed un-censored mail and phone privileges.
..etc, etc, etc.
Joe - where'd you get this about the Islamic ass-wipe prohibition? I never heard of it.
After reading that article I asked somewhat vaguely (so as not to give my intentions away) in a Muslim chatroom.
No one denied it, though several got very defensive - one guy named (something)JIHADI! suggested I was the dirty one for wondering about the personal habits of Muslims.
The asswiping prohibition is from the Haddith.
I'm pretty sure I would've heard about something like that if it were true, living where I do.
Actually, there IS a provision made in Labor which backs up what you said.
You know--water, cloth, or paper, not flesh.
I'm told in Ethiopea, one eats with the right hand only, because the left is used for... yes, you guessed it.
Shahih Muslim, Book 2, Number 0511: Abu Qatada reported it from his father: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: None of you should hold penis with his right hand while urinating, or wipe himself with his right hand in privy and should not breathe into the vessel (from which he drinks).
See? Wiping is obviously expected and permitted. It's just not a right-hand thing.
Book 2, Number 0504: Salman reported that it was said to him: Your Apostle (may peace be upon him) teaches you about everything, even about excrement. He replied: Yes, he has forbidden us to face the Qibla at the time of excretion or urination, or cleansing with right hand or with less than three pebbles, or with dung or bone.
The Muslims of Mohammed's time had little access to water and had to wipe themselves with whatever was lying about; camel dung, bones, and stones seem to have been the seventh century's answer to Charmin. But Muslims, being governed by rules requiring them to keep clean and well groomed, were prohibited from using bones or turds to scour their butts, and a butt could not be considered properly wiped if the wiper used fewer than three stones.
I've also found ahadith counseling that after urinating, it's good if a man washes his hands and wipes off his socks. If a dog licks a utensil, it must be washed seven times. It's forbidden to piss on the ground where people walk, or in the shade where they might rest. If you have a wet dream and get semen on your clothes, you can wash the spot off with water, or, if it's dried, scrape it off with your nails. Menstrual blood must be scraped and washed; and unlike semen, it confers impurity and so you have to say a prayer to fix that.
All very much like Orthodox Judaism.
'A'isha reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be npon him) said: Ten are the acts according to fitra : clipping the moustache, letting the beard grow, using the tooth-stick, snuffing water in the nose, cutting the nails, washing the finger joints, plucking the hair under the armpits, shaving the pubes and cleaning one's private parts with water. The narrator said : I have forgotten the tenth, but it may have been rinsing the mouth.
But hey - maybe this explains the guy found with a bunch of stones tied in a cloth. It wasn't a weapon - he was merely saving up asswipe.
They're wiping their asses with the toothpaste - Pike was right!
Al-Jazeera:Interview Done Under Duress
By Tarek Al-Issawi
Associated Press Writer
Saturday, February 2, 2002; 12:02 PM
DUBAI, United Arab Emirates –– An influential Arab television station said Saturday that it never aired an October interview with Osama bin Laden because the interview was conducted under duress and the questions were dictated to its correspondent.
The statement from Al-Jazeera was the latest round in a rift between the satellite outfit and CNN over the bin Laden interview. Al-Jazeera objected when CNN began airing the video Thursday, and a CNN official fired back, saying the cable network had done nothing illegal and Al-Jazeera should explain why it hadn't made the tape public in the first place.
Oh, and also, if you eat onions or garlic, you're not permitted in a mosque until the smell wears off because if you stink you'll distract others from prayer.
Another Joezanian Islamic prohibition:
Farting during prayers - even when done silently and with a minimum of stench - automatically negates the prayer.
And what's this I hear about drinking camel pee?
Why, so you can stalk me there, plying me with promises of endless streams of Mountain Dew?
No WAY, babay!
But speaking of endless streams...that last bit about the camel pee (and the Mosque farting as well) I actually did read in the Haddith.
If you think I am stalking you, then there was some LSD in your camel pee.
One thing surprises me...you know some people here are Muslims...why don't you ask them...I thought the Muslim-ridicule times were finished.
The first thing I did was turn all 20 of us over in my mind, and couldn't think of one authentic Muslim (except Khabees, and he's never around).
And there are lots of Muslim chatrooms, actually. They're all pretty inane, far as I can tell. The one I visited this a.m. I had visited once before - not long after 9-11, and is the only one I've ever posted in -exactly twice, including today.
The first time I asked, very politely, some pretty straight-forward questions about Islam. I actually got some thoughtful responses, but - and I swear this is true - at least 30 of them IM'ed me, asking me all sorts of personal questions, leaving me to think my unassuming, gender-less moniker must translate as "loose woman" in Arabic or something.
Anyway, it was a hoot, but I don't think I'll be going back anytime soon unless another pressing question comes to mind.
I take back what I said about the War on Terror, I think. I was angry because of the pussyfooting on the Karin A affair but you guys have come clean on that one.
The theological debate on asswiping is fascinating. Where do you get this hadith stuff, Ando?
Here's a collection of ahadith called the "Book of Purification," by Shahih Muslim, one of the guys all Muslims think was a legitimate chronicler of the customs of Mohammed (something like an apostle):
http://www.iiu.edu.my/deed/hadith/muslim/002_smt.html
Yeah, I had the very same thought this morning.
As Afghanistan and Kosovo showed, to fight a modern war today you need four key assets: many large transport aircraft to deploy troops to far-flung battlefields; precision-guided bombs and missiles that can hit enemy targets with a high degree of certitude, thereby shortening the war and reducing civilian casualties; large numbers of Special Operations teams that can operate at night using night-vision equipment; and secure, encrypted communications so ground and air units can be knit together in a high-tech war without the enemy listening in.
No other NATO country has all four of these. Britain comes closest. Germany, France and Italy are barely in the ballgame, and the others are a joke.
In part this is because European defense industries are not as sophisticated as America's today. But in part it's because the Europeans, deep down, don't feel threatened by America's enemies, particularly by the "axis of evil" (Iran, Iraq and North Korea) that Mr. Bush identified. Therefore, they don't want to spend much on defense. If President Bush gets the defense budget increase he asked for in his State of the Union address, U.S. defense spending will equal the defense budgets of the next 15 highest countries — combined.
As a result, we are increasingly headed for a military apartheid within NATO: America will be the chef who decides the menu and cooks all the great meals, and the NATO allies will be the busboys who stay around and clean up the mess and keep the peace — indefinitely. As one French diplomat put it to me bluntly, "That is not going to be sustainable."
He's right. Brussels, we have a problem.
War and bin Laden's Kidneys
On the "legs" of the kidney story.
A possibility I suggested likely a while ago.
End this useless thread.
So, what do you call what happened in Afghanistan?
The end of Euroselfrighteousness, as all of their nanny-state illusions - how little they need the US; how much better their socialized systems are than ours; how hard it is to have to go running willy-nilly around the continent to put down petulant little dictatorships and break up infantile ethnic conflicts...as all these and more vaporize in a big, stinky cloud of revenue reapportionment...once they are faced with the prospect of kicking everyone off the gravytrain in order to fund armed forces which are not "jokes".
EuroTrash Ain't Buyin Moronic Axis of Evil
It's our war anyway.
A European country going it alone is like the little kid who can't run away because his mother won't let him cross the street.
above is a paraphrase.
POW's can communicate homein writing through censors much like our foreign correspondents these days.
IOW, your parade of horribles is mostly composed of what is left on the street after a cavalry parade.
Haaretz: Belief is widespread in defense quarters that President George Bush's recent comments signal that Iraq will be the next target in the American war on terrorism. Israel believes the Americans will step up pressure on the regime of Saddam Hussein with an aim of toppling him.
In such a scenario - which could evolve around May - it is highly likely Iraqi would fire missiles at Israel, especially if Saddam felt a real threat to the survival of his regime.
Yediot ran a similar assessment yesterday, with the same target date - May - which prolly means it's a senior defense source who said this in a briefing to reporters.
I admit to taking liberties wrt US soldiers not being able to shoot escaping prisoners - but I did hear some retired officer or other make that point on one of the news shows...he said the doubt in such an incident, should it happen, would fall on the US, partly because everyone out there wants to zing us (including our "allies"), but also because of past incidents where prisoners have been shot ostensibly for attempting to escape, but the evidence seemed to suggest otherwise - don't remember if he mentioned a specific country. But right off the bat, the Mazar incident comes to mind. There, as you know, we have first-hand reports from journalists on the scene - of prisoners attacking guards, chucking grenades around, breaking into the armory, taking over the whole blasted place, etc, before airstrikes are finally called in. You will recall the first reactions of many (including some here) that it was a set-up. And in fact the incident is still being investigated by many human rights groups for evidence of a set-up. That is what I mean when I say we "can't shoot at them". But I should have made my larger point to begin with.
As far as the mail goes, the Convention does not spell out the particulars - mainly, that there are defined classes of people and organizations with whom prisoners may communicate freely and with no restrictions - no censoring at all. You'd have to be pretty naive to believe this means anything other than they can communicate with whomever they want...they just have to be a little careful.
While Clinton Fiddled
A story of fecklessness in the face of terror.
BY DICK MORRIS
As the elections of 1996 loomed, a sense of crisis pervaded America. We seemed under attack from all directions by terrorists, foreign and domestic. A bomb exploded amid the Summer Olympic Games. TWA flight 800 vaporized over the Atlantic and many suspected terror. Nineteen American soldiers died and hundreds were wounded as a bomb ripped through their barracks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. A year before, the federal office building in Oklahoma City was destroyed, killing hundreds more. In 1993, a bomb ripped through the World Trade Center hospitalizing a thousand people and killing six.
At the White House, we held hurried meetings as we watched with worry the growth of terrorism. We polled and speculated about its possible impact on President Clinton's re-election only a few months later.
Some of the president's staff and his consultants pressed the case for aggressive action to contain terror at home and attack it abroad. But at the center of the storm, Bill Clinton sat with an unusual imperturbability. Even as he fretted about whether to sign the welfare reform act and brooded about the FBI file, Paula Jones and Whitewater scandals, he seemed curiously uninvolved in the battle against terror.
Advised that his place in history rested on eliminating the deficit, making welfare reform work, and smashing the international network of terrorists militarily and economically, he remained unusually passive. Around him, his foreign-policy advisers--particularly former trade lawyer Sandy Berger, then serving as deputy national security adviser--seemed to work overtime at opposing tough measures against terror.
When Mr. Clinton was advised to pass a law requiring that driver's licenses for aliens expire when their visas do (so that a routine traffic stop could trigger the deportation process), Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes and White House adviser George Stephanopoulos worked hard to kill the idea. They derided the proposal, which called for the interface of FBI and Immigration and Naturalization Service data about illegal aliens, visa expirations and terrorist watch lists with state motor vehicle records, as racial profiling and warned that it might alienate Mr. Clinton's political base. Had the idea been adopted, suicide bomber Mohamed Atta would have been subject to deportation when he was stopped for driving without a license, three months before Sept. 11, 2001.
Despite staff and consultant recommendations that he require baggage X-ray screening, federalization of air security checkpoints, and restoration of air marshals to commercial flights, Mr. Clinton did nothing to implement any of these proposals. Vice President Al Gore also failed to embrace them when his Commission on Air Safety made its recommendations in 1997. It required Sept. 11 to get these common-sense initiatives adopted.
After the February 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, President Clinton never visited the site and only alluded to it once in his regular Saturday radio address right after the bombing. Visiting New Jersey shortly after the attack, he urged Americans not to "overreact."
After the 1993 bombing--the first attack by foreign terrorists on U.S. soil--Mr. Clinton never met privately with the head of the CIA for the ensuing two years! Because of this lack of presidential focus, the investigation proceeded so slowly that we did not know of Osama bin Laden's involvement until 1996. As a result, the U.S. turned down Sudan's offer to give us the terrorist mastermind on a silver platter because we said that we lacked evidence on which to hold him.
Even when the Saudis stonewalled our investigation of the Riyadh bombing and handicapped the FBI by beheading those it suspected of involvement without permitting their interrogation, Mr. Clinton never criticized the kingdom publicly or, in my presence, privately.
When advisers proposed an oil embargo against Iran, the president did nothing, despite evidence that the Riyadh bombers had Iranian backing. At the time, Iran's daily oil production of three million barrels could have been offset by an expected increase of 1.5 million barrels in world-wide production (which proved conservative). In addition, the Saudis repeatedly and publicly indicated their commitment to "price stability," signaling their willingness to increase production to help fill the shortfall and avoid a price runup.
Republicans deserve their share of the blame as well. After the Oklahoma City attack, President Clinton made an eminently sensible, if somewhat limited, set of recommendations to the GOP-dominated Congress. But, because the Oklahoma City terrorists were right-wing extremists, Republicans looked askance at reasonable ideas like permitting roving wiretaps on terror suspects--subsequently adopted when Mr. Bush proposed it--and attaching tagents to identify the origin of explosives.
Bill Clinton revealed himself as a man of the 20th century while Mr. Bush has understood that Sept. 11, 2001, marked the beginning of a new era. In Bill Clinton's epoch, terror was primarily a criminal justice problem which must not be allowed to get in the way of the "real" foreign-policy issues--relations with Russia and China and the dynamics of the Western alliance. Indeed, if Mr. Clinton had any personal stamp on foreign policy, it was the subordination of military and security issues to economic concerns.
Terrorists fit into the scheme about the same way drug traffickers did--they were deplored, to be sure, and, where possible without undue inconvenience or loss of life, even attacked. But they hardly occupied center stage in our foreign policy.
Now, we all know better.
But in any event, compare President Clinton's anti-terrorist efforts, allegedly too "tentative", with President Bush's efforts before 9/11. Then explain why Bush "fiddled" even more.
thanks in advance.
19671. judithathome - 2/2/02 5:35:05 PM
Hmmmm...I haven't read the entire link, which is very long, but thus far, I haven't come across what you've mentioned, Joe.
19672. joezan - 2/2/02 5:36:07 PM
Your point being?
Let's see. Clowntoon did squat for eight years and GWB was already working with the Pentagon to revamp the military to better respond to rogue nation and terrorist threats in the relatively few months he was in office before 9/11.
There's just no comparison. GWB has basically been on the job from the start, compared to that shiftless fuck of a loser that you voted for, probably twice, Ohio.
Read.
Clinton: "shiftless"
Heeheehee. How many month-long vacations did Clinton take?
An aside, we are in the throes of designing our new home and I wanted to see if they make residential urinals...
A little coinkidink...
A good friend of mine just built a house. He and his wife agreed on one luxury each for the kitchen, livingroom, and master bath. For the bath, the wife opted for an outside shower, and he went for the urinal. Said it cost less than $200. Maybe just talk to your plumbing contractor, as they did?
I'd suggest you go back and read where judith said she'd found the support for my claims, but I know you already did and are just being your usual moronic self.
I was merely amused that when Judith first indicated that the Geneva Convention itself didn't seem to confirm what you said about it, you answered, in effect, "So what?"
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned the United States on Thursday Iran would make it regret any attack on the Islamic Republic.
``The Iranian nation will not initiate an attack because we believe that seeking hegemony is as bad as accepting it,'' Khamenei, whose powers include that of commander-in-chief of Iran's armed forces, told an assembly of air force officers.
``But whoever threatens the interests of the Iranian nation or attacks this nation, the answer of the Iranian nation will be harsh and make them regret,'' he said in comments broadcast on state television.
Iraq is next, I think.
I've also noticed a lot of attention given to the subject in the Friedman column I linked in: NATO, and the US's ability to do all the heavy lifting by themselves. It will be interesting to see what other countries do in the months ahead--increase their defense budget? Training, equipment? And would they buy it from us, therefore helping the economy? (g)
Several people are believed to have been killed in the Monday attack, but U.S. officials said they cannot confirm who they were.
"It would be nice if one was Osama bin Laden," said one U.S. official Wednesday, speaking on condition of anonymity, "but we don't know."
It would also be nice if the guys we killed were the enemy. But I'm sure we don't know that either.
Rumsfeld's philosophy: "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
Here is an article about it.
I would say, with 20-20 hindsight, that if we are going to kill people while they are asleep we should be especially certain that they are bad guys. I can understand shooting at people who are shooting at you even if you started the fight with the wrong people.
Simplistic...simpleton...
I like it
The Phony War of Crony Capital (Sheer - LAT)
"Yes, but I can also understand admitting to a mistake when you make one."
Certainly.
The article says no-one has yet been punished for the mistakes. It seems to me that killing people on purpose who turn out to be allies rather than the enemy should end the careers of those responsible at the command level. And if someone is feeding us bad information, we should be going after them, too.
My earlier point was, at the grunt level, why not take a sleeping guy prisoner? On the other hand (again at the grunt level), if someone is shooting at you, then you must shoot back, even if its a mistake that put you in that position.
Darn! We agree. That's no fun.
i hadn't heard that, but i did see that RJB (on top of things as usual) posted it in Message # 21709 in thread 33.
too bad they didn't use the sharp side ...
Well, you certainly don't want to do that. At least, not until sufficient provocation, like a good gassing.
NYC: Simply Screwed by a Simple Shit
Krugman -
It's true that the administration is using the terrorist threat to justify a huge military buildup. But there are a couple of funny things about that buildup. First, if we really have to give up butter in order to pay for all those guns, shouldn't we reconsider future tax cuts that were conceived in a time of abundance? "Not over my dead body" isn't really an answer. And it's particularly hard to take all the grim war talk seriously when the administration is, at the very same time, proposing an additional $600 billion in tax cuts.
Second, the military buildup seems to have little to do with the actual threat, unless you think that Al Qaeda's next move will be a frontal assault by several heavy armored divisions. We non-defense experts are a bit puzzled about why an attack by maniacs armed with box cutters justifies spending $15 billion on 70-ton artillery pieces, or developing three different advanced fighters (before Sept. 11 even administration officials suggested that this was too many). No politician hoping for re- election will dare to say it, but the administration's new motto seems to be "Leave no defense contractor behind."
And here we go - the minimizing of the 911 attacks has begun.
Krugman is despicable.
Obviously, Krugman's point is that having more military hardware wouldn't have prevented the hijackings. There's no "minimizing" involved.
No - that is not Krugman's point at all.
His point is that al-Qaeda lacks the wherewithal to do the US any real harm. His point is that they shot their wad on 911, afterwhich we drove them out of Afghanistan, and now there's nothing to worry about.
Anyone who thinks (or pretends to think in order to make the point that that we do not need an increase in military spending) that these bastards used box cutters because that was the extent of their offensive technology - even when he is being facetious - exposes himself as a rank, partisan, demobot hack.
We sane non-defense experts are a bit puzzled as to how people like Krugman don't see that if 19 lunatics with boxcutters could knock down two of the world's tallest buildings, destroy a large chunk of the US military's headquarters, and kill 3,000 people in the process, then imagine what they could do if they got their hands on, say, a sawzall.
I see no point in debating someone who compares antique dealing to military spending.
It's embarassing enough arguing with Ohio.
Hey, Joe....business is business. Mine is still going and GW ran a couple of his into the ground. That you think my comparison is about antiques and the military shows you don't understand what my basic point was but that's not surprising. And if you're embarrassed by arguing with OHIO, imagine how he feels to be arguing with YOU.
Yea - in his first 8 months in office GWB should have reformed the CIA, re-establishing lines of communication (and espionage) the world over that had been destroyed during the previous 8 years. And, in case you hadn't heard judith, reforming the US's intelligence gathering resources has been a top priority for quite a while in the Bush admin, and efforts are proceeding apace in that regard.
I love the way you pre-judge what Ohio and I will have to say...why should we even bother to engage you in conversation? Just write the little script in your head; you've already done it, anyhow, so I needn't bother to suggest it.
Put down the drink and read the last few posts.
1) Ohio did not have a nickel in this larger discussion you're imagining about businesses - I don't know whether he even owns a business, and in any case he never opined on that aspect of the discussion.
2) My response to judith's business/military analogy did not speak to - did not even whisper about - her business acumen. She could be getting $50 for beanies she paid $1, for all I know - and God bless her if she is. What was clearly implied was it was hardly an apt analogy.
3) You scorn them, saying they don't understand the facts.
??????
Again - put down the drink. I scorned Krugman's blatant misrepresentation and outright oversimplification of the issue at hand: namely, whether or not the proposed military spending increase is warranted.
At least you are an equal opportunity scorner; you don't reserve it for one sex or the other.
Why should you bother?
Oh, I don't know - maybe because I let pass your silly swipes attributing to me things I never said. To wit: I was making the point that you guys were the ones who rah rahed GW's mighty MBA...."NOW we'll have a business man in there! NOW we'll see the government run as a business!"
...or your defense of Sgt. Wombat's claims of my thread-spoiling calls for nuclear annihilation of Muslims.
BTW - you could take a lesson from the good Sgt.: It never hurts to sneak a "people of your ilk" in your misattributions.
Are you daft or do you have cataracts?
Quote me the exact passage on which you base this ludicrous statement.
The obvious point of the article is that the 9-1-1 attacks are being taken as a blank check for unchecked military spending.
Rumsfeld admitted as much last week when he said that he was basing DoD's budget on a threat that was "unclear, uncertain, unforseeable etc."
That would be like you buying earthquake insurance for your home in Michigan
Best go back to smear....
Meanwhile, as the Network formerly known as Clinton News features daily sermons from Mullah Moron (right now preaching to a choir decked out in 10 gallon hats I kid you not!), state medical services to the poor are on the verge of collapse...
At Least Poppy and Carlyle Cronies Get their Crusader
And Grand Rapids, an M1A1 brigade..
Krugman, further shucking and jiving all around the point of having a frigging military in the first place, pretends first of all that al-Qaeda is the only reason put forth for the military build-up.
After reading through the first few thousand posts of this thread, I did indeed misattribute "nuking" statements that were made. You merely applauded them, and raved about beating up "peace-freaks." I apologize to the people of your ilk who actually spent time writing paragraphs advocating the use of nuclear weapons, when all you did was be an Ace-lite: ranting and raving without the intelligence that Ace was occasionally able to bring to a discussion.
administration is using the terrorist threat to justify a huge military buildup. But there are a couple of funny things about that buildup. First, if we really have to give up butter in order to pay for all those guns, shouldn't we reconsider future tax cuts that were conceived in a time of abundance? "Not over my dead body" isn't really an answer Krugman 
Crusader 155mm Self Propelled Howitzer Kurtesy the Krony Kapitalist who would be King
After?
BOOM BOOM!
You should visit the War Museum in Warsaw. Great display of tanks and artillery pieces.
Excerpts:
Frustration with President George W. Bush's world view burst into the open here Wednesday as Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine openly criticized Washington's approach to terrorism as "simplistic."
Taking a specific example of U.S.- European differences, Mr. Vedrine lashed out at that way the White House was putting pressure on the Palestinian leader, Yasser Arafat, calling the isolation of Mr. Arafat "another error" that Europe could not go along with.
Even Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, Washington's leading partner in the war in Afghanistan, has cautioned against any military strike against Iraq unless a clear connection is found between Baghdad and the Sept. 11 attacks.
.
On visit to Washington last week, the British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, dismissed Mr. Bush's speech as political grandstanding. He said the speech was "best understood by the fact that there are midterm congressional elections in November."
I also must commend Bush for comming around to my point of view re the detainees in Gitmo. It's good for American troops, its good for allied relations, its good public relations and its good international legal precendent.
The Crusader, able weapon though it is, hardly seems the be what we need to put our resources into at the moment. As I recall, the damn thing is very capable, but very heavy and difficult to deploy rapidly. Speed to the battlefield and flexibility are to be more highly prized in our current enviroment. The place where we need to pour our dollars, IMHO are mostly not very glamorous. Heavy airlift capacity, brown water navy, integrated battle teams of a regiment or smaller, the Marine Corps amphibious ops and the Green Berets. The last two are the only two that have glamour to them, and they are heavily resented by the remainder of the services, in my experience.
Simplistic policies of a Simpleton
I want to become an EU citizen. Marry a cute Dutch boi...
Call me Johnny Walker 2
Apology accepted, but how can that be?
Judith "distinctly remembers" my calling for the nuking of Muslims - in fact, she was "shocked" by my statements.
Hmmmmnnnnn.....
Hubert Védrine dénonce le "simplisme" et
l'unilatéralisme "utilitaire" des Américains
Les fortes phrases du président américain George Bush dans son discours solennel du mardi 29 janvier à Washington ont relancé la grogne européenne contre l'unilatéralisme américain, débat qui avait été mis entre parenthèses après les attentats du 11 septembre.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
To place the stiffing of New York in context, you need to realize that when it comes to tax cuts and military spending, the Bush administration's budget is an exercise in unrestrained self-indulgence. There is a lot of stirring rhetoric, warning the nation that this is a time of war, in which everyone must make sacrifices — but this austerity does not extend to the wealthiest few percent of the population, who will not only get the lion's share of the future tax cuts already written into law, but would get most of the additional $600 billion in tax cuts the administration now proposes. (Actually it's about $1 trillion without the accounting tricks, but who's counting?)
And while there is much talk of hard choices, the administration seems loath to make any choices at all when it comes to defense spending. Does a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group have a 70-ton artillery piece that made sense, if it ever did, only in the cold-war era? We'll buy it. Do two competing contractors offer advanced fighters designed to fight a nonexistent next generation of MIG's? We'll take both.
But there are big cuts elsewhere, and big diversions of resources that will force future cuts. You know about the diversion of the Social Security surplus to cover deficits in the rest of the government — deficits that would be much smaller if the administration would forgo some of those tax cuts, and would vanish if it also exercised some restraint in its weapons purchases. But did you know that the administration has budgeted $300 billion less for Medicare than the Congressional Budget Office says is needed to maintain current benefits — never mind add-ons like prescription drug insurance? It's unclear whether the administration actually intends to deny medical care to retirees, or is simply trying to hide the sheer scale of the looming fiscal disaster.
The broken promise to New York is actually small change compared with all of this...
Billions for Poppy and his Cronies...not one thin dime for transportation, medicare, prescription drugs....
Truly, your talents are wasted on such a dinky audience.
In any case, wouldn't American Politics be a much more appropriate thread in which to waste the above?
Be gentle with jexster; he has had a mental breakdown since Bush has become so popular. He kain't hep hisself. He has a Bush poll up his ass and he kain't git it out.
Why Paul Krugman should be fired. (It’s not the reason you think.)
By the Editors
From the February 11, 2002, issue of National Review
Back when economist Paul Krugman was on an advisory board of Enron's, he wrote an article for Fortune that lauded the company — and mentioned that he was on the board, though not that he got $50,000 for his services. When he became a columnist for the New York Times, Krugman left the board. He now flays Enron for practicing a corrupt "crony capitalism" and the Bush administration for "dissembling" about its ties to Enron. Should the Times can Krugman because he lacks journalistic ethics?
No. These sins — failure to disclose relevant information, hypocrisy — seem fairly petty. The Times should end his column for other reasons. It's repetitive and predictable: Krugman seems to have only three or four column ideas (tax cuts are bad, private accounts in Social Security are bad, Republicans are bad). It's intellectually thuggish: Krugman caricatures opponents, falsely presents his opinions as "cold, hard fact" accepted by all his fellow economists, and attributes all disagreement with him to crankiness and dishonesty. He has become, to some extent, a partisan hack, willing to make abrupt 180-degree turns if necessary to criticize President Bush. Finally, he's a mediocre writer at best, even making allowances for his being an economist. That companies like Enron go bankrupt is a sign that markets work. The canning of a lousy columnist would be another.
I suspect Krugman's Jesuitical intellectual thuggery is the main attraction to those who cite him so zealously.
Joezan: "despicable"
Krugman must be doing something right.
Joezan, your enthusiastic rah rahing for Ace's proposal clouded my otherwise excellent memory. ;-) And yes, I was shocked at the vehemence of your response to the war and all it entailed and at the way you savaged those who had the gall to suggest we at least wait until we'd identified the enemy before blasting countries off the face of the erath.
And I wasn't the only one who felt this way, either...I think it was because I'd grown so used to interacting with you in other threads; I was taken aback to see the "political you" up close, I suppose.
You are beating this to death. I apologized for it. As you guys keep saying to those of us who never voted for Bush, get over it.
King of Krony Kapital Declares FARM SUBSIDIES Vital to National Security
Yes all of these posts about military spending, tax policy, the Bu$h fiscal debacle, rape of the lock box, farm subsidies *do* belong in the domestic thread and would be there but for the fact that we are fighting not one Evil Empire but three Axes of Evil.
Blame the king of moronia
Thank you.
It has been some time since if heard lock box.
Of course, I'm pretty lucky with the dames, but still, with Gore auditioning as the next Dan Hagerty, I was afraid I would never hear it again.
Again, thank you.
Adios
JoeZ...see what I mean!
SALT LAKE CITY (Reuters) - The White House on Friday denounced an editorial cartoon in a New Hampshire newspaper depicting President Bush (news -web sites)'s budget for next year as an airplane veering into twin towers like those destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks.
“However mighty you are, even if you’re the greatest superpower in the world, you cannot do it all on your own,” he was quoted as saying.
Patten, like Jospin before him, took particular exception to Bush’s labeling of Iran, Iraq and North Korea as an “axis of evil.”
“I find it hard to believe that’s a thought-through policy,” he said.
Or is it "Ola Caesare"???
Whatever...
FY your damnable dearth of fact...
- Contrary to the president's promise in the 2000 campaign, the budget uses all of the Social Security surpluses to fund various government programs through 2013. A year ago, the administration projected it could slash the amount of federal debt outstanding to $1.6 trillion by 2007. Instead, the debt will rise to $3.4 trillion by 2007.
- Bu$h budget provides $300 billion less for Medicare than CBO estimates is required to maintain financial integrity of system
Glad you still have it with the dames, Cllr, included....you ain't got shit outside
G.O.P. GLIMMER TWINS AT IT AGAIN
Falwell: God Loves Taliban
Robertson: Look Out for Dearborn Fifth Column
Hate Americans Firsters Spread Weird Word
In their latest strange musings on religion and foreign policy, Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson have continued to offend just about everybody in sight.
Falwell, speaking in Miami, announced that God "loves the Taliban." Falwell, in the hours after the September 11 butchery, blamed the Taliban-Al Qaeda attack on feminists, homosexuals, liberals, and People for the American Way for their alleged despoiling of American culture.
But God loves the Taliban.
Robertson, prattling away on Faux, prophesied that Al Qaeda would strike next with a nuclear device smuggled into an American port. He said Detroit would be a likely place for the terror network to strike.
"If you look at Detroit, there's a tremendous number of Muslim people living in [nearby] Dearborn, Michigan," he told "Hannity & Colmes." "The head of the Hezbollah used to live in Dearborn - I don't know if you're aware of that."
Robertson did not clarify why he thought Muslim terrorists would target a heavily Arab-American city -- or whether he was simply referring to Detroit and Dearborn as hotbeds of a possible fifth column, in an effort to raise fear against Arab-Americans.
So: Will we continue to see Falwell and Robertson delivering benedictions to Republican candidates, as they have for a quarter-century? Whores: Ask Karl Rove, who used Enron as a favor bank to buy off Robertson's Christian Coalition, what he thinks of Rev. Pat's latest prophecies and whether the Bush Administration shares Robertson's view of Dearborn, Michigan.
Maybe I'll move to Idaho.
I knew as soon as I posted the above that you would mention that movie.
Pat Buchanan
I also suspect that the unatainability of individual self-respect in our teleological corporate-culture is another factor in the popular chauvinism that Team Bush™ exploits so well.
Hamed Karzai, the chairman of Afghanistan's interim government, is every inch the leader the West invariably celebrates. He's only 44 years old, a veritable babe in this geriatric, uncouth world of patriarchs and cynical leaders; he's smooth and suave, his English is impeccable, and he enunciates every syllable in the manner of a citizen of the globe. Karzai is the kind of person who can hold his own anywhere, as a guest of honour during US President George W. Bush's state of the Union address, in his speech to the British cabinet. His elegant sartorial style leaves the haughty fashion houses breathless and gushing, and even inspires the normally phlegmatic Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, to compliment him on his wardrobe.
Karzai could easily be voted as the most surprising—and unusual—fashion icon of the new century. He is also, without doubt, the West's hope of restoring sanity to the beleaguered, war-ravaged landscape of Afghanistan, in rooting out terrorism and rendering the country safe
again for footloose backpackers. Karzai seems just the man who can get the stoutest of hearts to flutter, the most unreasonable to see reason, the most obstinate to become amenable. You could call all these nature's gift, or the virtues the West wants to bestow on the man whose task it is to refashion Afghanistan, as some would say, in America's image.
Unfortunately for Karzai, a non-entity only two months back, his own countrymen don't seem to be listening to him.
WHAT??? - THIS CAN'T BE!!!!!!
Review: Afghan Civilian Deaths Lower
One factor contributing to inflated estimates was the distortion of casualty reports by the Taliban regime. Afghan journalists have told AP that Taliban officials systematically doctored reports of civilian deaths to push their estimate to 1,500 in the first three weeks of the war in an attempt to galvanize opposition to the bombing.
"Our chief was from the Taliban. His deputy from the Taliban. The information minister was from the Taliban," said one journalist, Mohammed Ismail. "We could not do our jobs. We could not tell the truth."...
...In the course of the air assault, every major Afghan city was targeted – Kabul, with its population of 1.2 million; the Taliban
stronghold of Kandahar in the south; Herat in the west; Mazar-e-Sharif in the north; Jalalabad in the east – as well as large swaths of rugged countryside where bin Laden and his lieutenants might have been hiding.
AP reporters visited these areas during the course of the war and gathered data on civilian casualties. Their reporting and other
reliable counts – by no means complete – in the months since then suggest a civilian death toll ranging from 500 to 600.
In some of Afghanistan's main cities, where the bombing ceased months ago, the toll may be nearly final. In Kabul, the capital, an independent aid group put the total at 67, and the AP's count was 70...
...While an agony for the families involved, deaths in Kabul were fewer than might have been feared in five weeks of fierce and
concerted airstrikes. By contrast, the Red Cross has said that during ferocious factional fighting in 1992-96, an estimated 50,000 civilians died in Kabul alone.
I mean, how many hits can one take? First, the humanitarian catastrophe doesn't pan out - the war didn't starve anyone...no one was left out in the cold while the war raged all around. Then of course there was the reason for no humanitarian catastrophe - the war was over in weeks...which was a totally unfair blow to Fisk-Banksian hand-wringing about "another Vietnam...the only army to defeat the mighty Soviets...CAVES, and...and...TUNNELS, and...and..LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BRITISH IN THE LAST CENTUREEHEEE-HEEEEEE!!!!!
...............
WAAAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!
WE WILL NEVER FORGET GUANTANAMO - THEY'RE BEATING THEM - I JUST KNOW IT!!!
One difference, of course, is the data collection methods used - asking a few Afghan peasants, if you're the NYT, vs checking hospital and burial records, interviewing the Afghani newsmen who covered the war for the Taliban regime, comparing your notes with independent aid agencies, etc., if you're the Associated Press.
Oh - then of course, there is the other difference: Agendas.
AP has none.
Some in congress question whether the world's most famous criminal is still on the loose.
Your sharp, quick reactions to my perceptive comments only convince me I'm on to something.
I have no idea what you're trying to say, judith.
Did you read the article I linked?
Even notoriously leftist human rights groups - the same people who joined the wailing a few months ago about the "virtual certainty of tens - perhaps hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties" - even these seem to concur with the AP's findings.
Now having said that, the article does say the counts are by no means complete. But use your head: they have, for example, completed the count in Kabul - the largest city in the country, and come up with 70 civilian deaths. Only 81 in Kandahar, another heavily populated city where some of the fiercest fighting of the war took place. 55 in Jalalabad, 10 in Mazar-e-Sharif, and only 18 in Herat.
Not only are these THE largest cities in the country, they are also the areas where most of the bombs were dropped.
So - yea. I guess the actual number could be higher. Let's say for the sake of argument it is actually triple that.
Every one of those civilian deaths is a shame. But why don't all the whiners who predicted tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths (while also admitting the war was indeed necessary)...why can't these shits now say, "Hey - I guess we were wrong."
I mean, if they agree the war was necessary, did they think it possible to prosecute it without civilian casualties?
Of course they didn't. So, if they agreed the war was necessary, but that "tens of thousands" (or more) civilian deaths was unacceptable, what did they think was acceptable?
Do you think that, if asked at the time, "Well, what is an acceptable number of civilian deaths?", these people/groups would have said, "Oh - less than a thousand"?
I don't think that anyone who hoped to retain a shred of credibility would have claimed to believe that the Taliban could have been defeated without at least a few thousand civilian deaths.
This is but one example of the shameless hypocrisy too many in this country allow themselves to get caught up in wrt this war.
My God! - we just won a war - a nearly universally acknowledged just war - in our own interests... but which also happened to free an entire country from the grips of a brutal, oppressive regime, with in all probability fewer than 1,000 casualties!
I'm not asking that people go out and celebrate this fact -although our performance makes me extremely proud.
But acknowledge this unprecedented accomplishment, instead of constantly looking for reasons to criticize it's prosecution.
Don't know if this will come to much, but it'd be a bargain indeed if a few words from the president catalyzes this accomplishment.
There are still those Leftists who revere 'Uncle Joe' Stalin, the worlds greatest mass murderer, while bitterly caviling at the US's freeing of Afghanistan from perhaps the most repressive regime in the world today, all because George W. Bush doesn't suck on the Hammer and Sickle.
Crazier Than Thou
THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
LONDON -- Reading Europe's press, it is really reassuring to see how warmly Europeans have embraced President Bush's formulation that an "axis of evil" threatens world peace. There's only one small problem. President Bush thinks the axis of evil is Iran, Iraq and North Korea, and the Europeans think it's Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Condi Rice.
I'm not kidding. Chris Patten, the European Union's foreign policy czar, told The Guardian that the Bush axis-of-evil idea was dangerously "absolutist and simplistic," not "thought through" and "unhelpful," and that the Europeans needed to stop Washington before it went into "unilateralist overdrive."
So what do I think? I think these critics are right that the countries Mr. Bush identified as an axis of evil really are not an "axis," and we shouldn't drive them together. And the critics are right that each of these countries poses a different kind of threat and requires a different, nuanced response. And the critics are right that America can't fight everywhere alone. And the critics are right that America needs to launch a serious effort to end Israeli-Palestinian violence, because it's undermining any hope of U.S.-Arab cooperation.
The critics are right on all these counts — but I'm still glad President Bush said what he said.
So our enemies took us less and less seriously and became more and more emboldened. Indeed, they became so emboldened that a group of individuals — think about that for a second: not a state but a group of individuals — attacked America in its own backyard. Why not? The terrorists and the states that harbor them thought we were soft, and they were right. They thought that they could always "out-crazy" us, and they were right. They thought we would always listen to the Europeans and opt for "constructive engagement" with rogues, not a fist in the face, and they were right.
America's enemies smelled weakness all over us, and we paid a huge price for that. There is an old bedouin legend that goes like this: An elderly Bedouin leader thought that by eating turkey he could restore his virility. So he bought a turkey, kept it by his tent and stuffed it with food every day. One day someone stole his turkey. The Bedouin elder called his sons together and told them: "Boys, we are in great danger. Someone has stolen my turkey." "Father," the sons answered, "what do you need a turkey for?"
America is that Bedouin elder, and for 20 years people have been taking our turkey. The Europeans don't favor any military action against Iraq, Iran or North Korea. Neither do I. But what is their alternative? To wait until Saddam Hussein's son, Uday, who's even a bigger psychopath than his father, has bio-weapons and missiles that can hit Paris?
No, the axis-of-evil idea isn't thought through — but that's what I like about it. It says to these countries and their terrorist pals: "We know what you're cooking in your bathtubs. We don't know exactly what we're going to do about it, but if you think we are going to just sit back and take another dose from you, you're wrong. Meet Don Rumsfeld — he's even crazier than you are."
There is a lot about the Bush team's foreign policy I don't like, but their willingness to restore our deterrence, and to be as crazy as some of our enemies, is one thing they have right. It is the only way we're going to get our turkey back.
If, because the US response against international terrorism fails to prevent a major terrorist incident in one of the European countries whose 'elites' have no greater delight than to snigger at the US, I'm not sure that I'll be able to avoid becoming uncontrollably nauseous when the self same Eurotrash instantly resort to extreme, puerile and hypocritical shrieking and howls for bloody revenge.
I love it.
But feel free to wail away on this one: you say we have won a war. I disagree...I think we have won a battle in a war and I'm very pleased with that accomplishment and think we did a superlative job but like our President, I think this war is far from over.
I liked your nonpartisan rumination on perceived US weakness vis-a-vis terrorism.
However, I wouldn't call the battleship New Jersey shelling Beirut or the air strikes launched at targets in Lebanon "nothing." Perhaps "ineffective" or "counterproductive."
The interception of the Achille Lauro hijackers as they fled Egypt was not "nothing." The air strike on Qaddafi's residential compound is now credited with diminishing Qaddafi's taste for supporting terrorism. I believe one of those involved with the TWA hijacking was lured to a yacht in the Mediterranean, and is currently in a US prison.
Bin Laden is of a different generation than those who participated in the attacks of the 1980s and has different goals. The attacks in the 1980s concerned US involvment in regional issues (Israel, Lebanon).
Bin Laden is attacking the US because it is geopolitically strong, (and by his analysis morally corrupt) not because it is weak. That said, he and his operatives very successfully found areas of US vulnerability.
This sort of sentiment is why in the time right after 911 when we lacked the means to make an effective, immediate response I thought nothing--including nuclear weapons--should be taken off the table rhetorically. It served no useful purpose to assuage anyone's fears.
Psychologically I think the unknown makes a more effective deterrent than the known. When your enemy thinks he understands you and can calculate your response, he is much freer to act than when he must consider all possible responses. For too long before 911, America had become entirely too predictable.
However, at an incident-based level, the opposite may hold true. States that took a consistent and predictable hard line on barricade-hostage incidents, tended not to be victimized as much as those that didn't.
1) Doesn't Israel take a consistent and predictable hard line? Don't they tend to be victimized more than most? (Playing devil's advocate here.)
2) What I mean isn't so much as being unpredictable in that the response will be harsh, but rather that the exact form of the response be unpredictable. Of course it should be clear that our response will be "over-whelming." But an over-whelming vagueness can be more fear-inspiring than just about any over-whelming specificity--especially given that we almost certainly would not, for example, use nuclear weapons. (Though it appears we would have used them against Iraq under requisite conditions.)
pulled this from indy media...thought this was good for either a laugh or a rant which ever each of you is given to.
Hey, how come that schmo doesn't have the guy who brought this all on: Mr. 'It's the economy, stupid.' on his hateboard? No wonder he's afraid to show his face.
Sounds like a very good idea.
I hope it catches on.
The grenade exploded in his hand, killing him instantly, but it was still unclear whether it was a suicidal move or an accident. Senior U.S. officials told NBC News they suspected it was suicide, but that they couldn’t discount the possibility it was simply a “bad throw.”
The FBI has issued an alert to 350 law enforcement agencies in the southwest and Salt Lake City for potential Valentine teddy bear bombs after a suspicious transaction at a Wal-Mart last month.
ASSOCIATED PRESS
KARACHI, Pakistan, Feb. 14 — The key suspect in the abduction of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl told a court Thursday that the journalist is dead. Officials said they would reserve judgment until a body was found, and the newspaper said it remained confident Pearl was alive.
...
Steven Goldstein, spokesman for Dow Jones & Co., The Wall Street Journal’s parent organization, said he had not heard about Saeed’s statement. “We continue to remain hopeful,” Goldstein said. “We remain confident that Danny is still alive.”
Goldstein said no representatives from the Wall Street Journal were present at the court proceedings.
Pearl’s wife, Mariane, who is pregnant with the couple’s first child, also did not attend but in a statement Thursday again appealed for his release.
“Our child is a living soul,” she said. “Since his father’s disappearance, he is now breathing into his being the worry and apprehension I have about my husband’s well being. My husband and I are looking forward to creating a family that will help make this world a better place through better dialogue and understanding between civilizations.”
Saeed, who was brought to the courtroom in an armored personnel carrier under heavy security, said he carried out the kidnapping under “my own free will.”
“Right or wrong I had my reasons,” he told the judge in a quiet voice. “I think that our country shouldn’t be catering to America’s needs.”
Great link and one that all Moties will enjoy, I feel sure. Had Gore become President, the scene might well have been much like this. Not that some here would have been displeased.
Yes, it would have been used as a pretext for an orgy of Leftist anomie and self loathing orchestrated from the WH.
Everyone knows that when cornered, the French are a ruthless, blood-thirsty people.
Don't you remember what they did to the Greenpeace Armada?
Here are two more laugh-out-loud pieces.
Old Funny Larry Miller Piece
Another
Taking action against Sadaam will complete the message. Not only are our targets a loose conglomeration of international terrorists, and their third-world sponsors, but a modern, aggressive military state in the region.
On September 11 we learned there is a moral obligation to act in advance against those who plan to do mass murder. If ever a preemptive attack were justified by such obligation, it is against Saddam's Iraq. The target should be weapons facilities, not the country as a whole. The means should be the new technology and tactics of air war. And the time should be before it is too late.
We start bombing Iraq now, with the memory of "A million starving Iraqi children" still fresh in the FiskBanksian imaginations of the world, and we're done.
We've lost a bit of our edge, and the crybabies have regrouped nicely.
Let's do Somalia, get a little more mo going, and then bomb Iraq - maybe right in the middle of the Somali campaign.
Leadership requires expending your 80% approval rating for something more good and right than maintaining your 80% apporval rating, even if you have to live with a more realistic 52%. Bush I never understood this, and Clinton made the numbers the primary aim of his administration.
There's nothing more to do in Somalia but limited covert ops. From my reading of this month's New Yorker, suburbs in Germany are as much of a threat as Somalia.
I don't really care what our "allies think", and I don't much care what the homegrown Fiskites think, either.
But the next time we do Iraq, the only thing that's gonna shut everyone up and accomplish the only thing that makes sense - the complete eradication of the Saddam regime, roots and all, replaced by a new gov't of our liking - this is going to take much more than the targeting of weapons facilities Easterbrook advocates.
I have noticed that speculation on the hows and whens of such is all over the American media, including "liberal" outlets like Slate and NYT.
The recent issue of Foreign Affairs runs a piece called Next stop Baghadad? by one Kenneth M. Pollack the summary of which concludes: "The United States has no choice left but to invade Iraq itself and eliminate the current regime."
I can report that all this is strikingly absent in Europe. Prolly we just don't "get it", right?
It seems many American commentators are worried that the US should be soft on Iraq in the form of actually demanding a resumption of weapon inspections. The mood favours "shoot first, ask later", it seems.
Is that right, my Transatlantic cyber friends? Are you all clamouring for nuking Iraq, or is it just the dominant voice in the establishment at the moment?
The Council on Foreign Relations and the Pew Research Center found in January that 73% of Americans support using force to oust Saddam, with 56% in support even if it means incurring thousands of U.S. casualties.
Cheney's upcoming trip to about ten countries is almost certainly to feel out the allies in the region on this matter. My guess is that he will come away with a new appreciation of how much antipathy there is to the plan, but that he will convince you (them) to support a beefed-up sanctions program that Saddam must buckle under to in exchange for the U.S. not attacking. If he doesn't, then the U.S. will have the go-ahead to attack.
Important that we have the Turks on our side and that our Special Services/Airborne attack first along Jordan's border of Iraq to keep the vermins' rockets from hitting Israel.
Like Afghan, it will be over within a month. God willing...
I knew you were going to say something like that, I just wondered how representative of the general American mood you are. You'd be considered an extremist in these parts, that's for certain.
I'm the bloodthirstiest of Yanks, wildly advocating military action that will consign many of my fellow citizens to death all to check a peaceful nation that is only constructing biological, chemical and perhaps nuclear weapons (all of which will be used on people in its own region, as opposed to on my block) for nothing more than entertainment.
I'm guessing Churchill would have been an extremist in your parts.
Cellar
The Scalia Mandate, of course.
You always bring up WWII analogies. Always.
Actually, on Iraq, it's a vision thing. Easterbook is right (If ever a preemptive attack were justified by such obligation, it is against Saddam's Iraq and you are wrong.
But I've been advocating deposing Saddam since he kicked out the inspectors. I'm a real war lover.
I'd prefer we do it before he instigates another environmental calamity, gasses another province, or takes his localized atrocities and exports them a little further out than the nearest Kurd.
Feel free to disagree and keep your moderation intact.
And you are free to snipe at Caesar's words. You're in my pocket. When you're up to it, you can stop chucking pebbles and try and regain your manhood.
You know what? I think you are.
I've no doubt about it.
You keep waiting. Whatever you do, don't risk an extreme reaction. What's the worst Saddam could do, if unchecked?
In answer to your question about how representative JC is, I would say he is fairly representative of the center right/center left. The New Republic, who published the Easterbrook piece, is to the left, although they have always been hawkish on military issues. The Weekly Standard is probably the most moderate of the conservative mags, and you won't find a whole lot of difference between TNR and Weekly Standard, as far as their views on Iraq and the war are concerned.
If so, I can only say there is a massive gap between public discourse in Europe and America.
You say this as if it is a new state of affairs. Yet I have been telling you for years that most Americans really could care less about the pansy-assed Europeans and their hyperventilating hypocrisies. When exactly will you begin to believe me?
I assure you, btw, that we couldn't care less about American triggeritis and self-aggrandising posturing if it wasn't for the fact that you have a hell of lot of muscle to back it up.
There has been a great deal written in the US press lately about the dangers of unilateralism--not so much for the US, but for Europe. That they have been neglecting their military spending and that except for Britain, they really aren't in the game as far as ability to offer military value. This means the US is doing all the fun stuff and we send in NATO and UN troops when the danger's over and their rather limited equipment won't put them in harm's way.
You mean "ceases" here. If it was just one of those auditory glitches no big. But in case you honestly thought this was the right word I wanted to set you straight.
Your English is, of course, superlative and no wretched monolingual such as myself would ever mock you for making a mistake, so please don't think I am mocking your error.
Although lord knows you PAEs have to learn English, so it's not like it's all that laudable.
Please note that I wasn't saying anything about that America had to care what Europeans thought of this and that, let alone complaining about it. I merely observed a huge difference not just in opinion, but in the very perception of what is on the agenda. I think that is very interesting.
seize should be cease, of course. Thank you.
What's a PAE?
It'd be nice if America cared about creating some international legitimacy for whatever unilateral global police work you were contemplating. It would be wise too. You think Europeans are hypocritical, and I agree in many cases. But I am not sure America comes in second in that discipline.
If you haven't read the most recent Thomas Friedman, here it is. It says a lot about U.S. attitudes today.
20 years ago, "unilateralism" in US foreign policy was indeed a dangerous prospect and a legitimate concern for Euros, what with nukes pointed at all of western Europe and all.
But in 2002, I'm afraid that concern has morphed into a continent-wide pandemic of Little Man's Disease. Luckily, President Bush isn't into massaging the fragile Euro-ego, and he's not about to be pushed around by them.
I thought the V.P. was due to visit ten states in Europe and the Middle East but according to this article, Cheney will visit ten states in the Middle East only. It also says, Cheney is claiming the allies will back strikes against Iraq.
I applaud the sentiment, but hope for the sake of my bet with Indy that it takes place at the very end of the year (after November 22nd). That way, I can collect an extra hundred bucks, and still enjoy the spectacle of Saddam losing power.
The article also backs up what I've said recently: "A European diplomat said yesterday that between now and May, when the UN Security Council meets to renew economic sanctions against Iraq, the Bush administration would press for nuclear inspectors to be allowed back into the country. If, as expected, Saddam refused, the White House would use this as a pretext for military action."
If Bush succeeds in pushing Saddam out of power, I will have to take back all the nasty things I said about him after his tepid, initial response to 9-11. There is no horrified intake of breath when the question of war against Iraq comes up in the Washington thinktanks that both service and criticise American administrations. Some are against, some in favour, and some in favour only if certain conditions are met. But the mere idea of military action does not cause fainting fits on Massachusetts Avenue or in the other places where these policy intellectuals are based.
Some Europeans would charge that this is the morally blunted response of men and women mentally corrupted by America's great power. But it may be that beneath the persistent transatlantic clashes over such issues, beneath the accusations and counter accusations of "cowboys" and "appeasers", there are deeper differences that should be brought to the surface. One American analyst, himself of European birth, suggested that Europeans had ceased to think of war as acceptable under almost any circumstances except in the constrained form of humanitarian intervention.
Exactly.
This is an attitude that can only be born of having one's fat pulled from the fire two or three too many times.
You know all this whining Pat Buchanan is doing about the imminent demise of the (White) European race?
He's right.
They're de-escalating themselves into oblivion, and trying their best to drag us along.
I agree that Europeans probably have been cosseted for so long they have forgotten a few basic fundamentals about how the greater wide world of international politics works, but how you go from there to "oblivion" and "demise" is more than a bit of a stretch.
Hitler was pretty close to demising and oblivionating Europe, was he not? Did the French move in and crush him in 1937, when all he had was his bluster and a few territorial guards?
Yes, there will be angry words in the European press; yes, there will be demonstrations in the European streets over the arrogant use of American power. They will pick up in intensity. But we have seen it before and we will see it again.
I am more worried about finding Muslim allies and about what happens in the Islamic street if the Pal-Israeli situation continues to deteriorate and we attack Saddam. In the end, I don't care; it still needs to be done. But it is certainly a more important issue to U.S. success in the Middle East than what goes on in Europe.
What does Hitler have to do with anything?
Even after WW2, with Europe destroyed, it quickly regained strength. Short of several dozen nuclear weapons, Europe (and the white man) isn't going anywhere. It will continue to be a major force in the world for the rest of your life, your children's lives, and their children's lives.
If anything, Europe's recent critical comments towards the U.S. may be seen more as a sign of Europe's resurgence than of its demise.
Of course it's a stretch. The inevitable demise of the west (or more accurately the peoples of the west) is/will be due more to simple mathematics than to its failure to properly defend itself.
This does not mean, however, that we should not do everything we can to preserve Western Civilization.
But it's almost as if - at least in Europe - a particularly sick sort of fatalism has set in. They all seem to have bought in to this idea that Western Civilization is not worth preserving.
As institution after institution fades away, very soon only the shell of what was once Western Civilization will remain.
This bothers me.
I know - what's one night after sitting here posting for 48 years? What can I say - I'm tired, and I have to get the kids up and off to church tomorrow.
Have a good night.
You've swallowed too much of that "declinist" nonsense. Declinist literature has two problems: it's racist and it's untrue. (No, I'm not accusing you of being a racist.)
The literature of the Decline of the West has a long history. Ever since Europe broke off of its peninsula and went into the greater reaches of the world, and became the power, people have been talking about the decline of the West. Like the more recent talk of the decline of the United States, it is more reported on than it is witnessed.
Some events have triggered a growing belief in the idea. World War One, the loss of Europe's colonies, Communist gains in the seventies -- all sparked talk of the decline of the West.
The U.S., thank God, has been largely immune from this type of pseudo-scholarly babble with a couple of small exceptions: the loss of Vietnam and, to a far lesser extant, Japan's growing economic power. In most cases, American policy-makers and thinkers seem to think that these kind of failures don't suggest a long-term decline, as much as the need for a short-term change.
continued ...
Despite all the talk about countries from other civilizations picking up the ball on these matters and running ahead of us, the truth is, that, with the sole exception of Japan and some fringes of Chinese folks, none of them are even close, and many of them (Muslims, Africans) show signs of never getting it at all.
But the irony is that the West shouldn't fear those that try because to the extant they succeed, they need to tame impulses and to integrate with us in a way that undermines whatever threat they may represent to us.
That may be what he believes, but his most recent book stresses common cultural values within America. I think he hits a chord, here--and surely America isn't the only country that is deeply fed up with immigrants coming over here, keeping their language, their values, using our economic freedom and our money and shrugging off everything else.
I don't think that has much to do with race and religion, except that invariably the immigrants that refuse to adopt our culture are either not white or not Christian.
His argument is that America is becoming increasingly...unAmerican. So we see Muslims over here building businesses while selling their daughters in marriage at the age of 14 and all the women wearing veils*, or Indian engineers with a startup run back home to the motherland to pick up a wife.
I always agree with Buchanan at the edges; he loses me when he declares that the fundamental American values are "Christian", but I do agree that we have them, and I think we have gone too far in allowing others not to take them on. The funny thing is that we're far superior to this than Europe is.
* The notion that hey, we're Americans, but we wear veils, should be roundly and regularly excoriated. If you want to wear a veil, leave society like the damn Amish. Instead we've got some clueless Muslim yutz demanding that she be allowed to take a driver's license picture with her veil on, and we scratch our heads and try to figure out if we should accomodate her. Where is the mockery this bimbo deserves?
That may be what he believes, but his most recent book stresses common cultural values within America. I think he hits a chord, here--and surely America isn't the only country that is deeply fed up with immigrants coming over here, keeping their language, their values, using our economic freedom and our money and shrugging off everything else.
Buchanan use to have a question he asked audiences when he was on the Presidential hustings: would you rather have 20,000 people of English ancestory immigrate to the U.S. or 20,000 Zulus? Francis Fukuyama responded in an essay he wrote, saying 20,000 Taiwanese would probably be preferable to both, at least if you were looking for a positive contribution to U.S. society. Quiet, hard-working, not given to criminal tendencies or to outdated European ideas about U.S. power.
And what proof do you have that Buchanan's book is striking a chord with people?
I don't think that has much to do with race and religion, except that invariably the immigrants that refuse to adopt our culture are either not white or not Christian.
Buchanan writes a book that doesn't have to do with race or religion? I haven't read the book, but doubt that's true. You probably mean that the book's main theme isn't ostensibly about race or religion. Right From the Beginning wasn't ostensibly about race or religion either, but the book is filled with those racial and religious comments, like the one I paraphrased above, to buttress his arguments.
continued ...
What is American to Pat Buchanan? It is basically a fifties-version of the U.S. He doesn't mind non-white people, and he has adjusted to the fact that blacks will always be here. But he basically believes in stasis for this country, in some sort of traditional U.S. Is America's distinctive culture of freedom in danger from immigrants selling their young daughters into bondage or the habit of young immigrant men running back home for an arranged marriage? No, of course not. The idea is ludricious. It is they, not us, who will have to change, and (if they decide to stay here) they will. People like Pat Buchanan have never understood why America is great and they never will.
Patrick J. Buchanan's contentious premise in The Death of the West is that the United States is no longer a healthy melting pot, but instead a confused, tottering "conglomeration of peoples with almost nothing in common." Relying on United Nations population statistics, and citing such diverse sources as Yogi Berra and Rhett Butler, Buchanan sees for America four "clear and present dangers": declining birth rates; uncontrolled immigration of peoples of "different colors, creed, and cultures"; a rise of "anti-Western" culture antithetical to established religious, cultural, and moral norms; and a "defection of ruling elites" to the idea of world government. His solutions include higher wages and tax breaks for parents than for singles, a dramatic rollback of immigration quotas, and a National History Bee. Buchanan's volatile, adamant book eschews any middle ground. Readers will either applaud his ideas or be repulsed by them.
Declining birthrates? How is that a threat? Is a culture's success tied up in a numbers game with birth rates? And how is that not racist and a sign, as I said earlier, that Buchanan thinks the genes of white men are tied up with the destiny of the West's greatness?
Many people consider the extremely high Arab and Black birth rates to be a sign of unhealth, not a demonstration of the success of their culture. And Japanese birthrates are lower than probably any European country, with the possible exception of Italy.
Hey, I have an idea! We can start giving government medals (and tax breaks) to the women who have the largest families. If you have six or more kids, we'll give you "The National Womb Award" to go along with a lifetime exemption from sales tax. And fine Christian women who perform this feat will also get a 2,000 square foot home, courtesy of a grateful government that is thankful that our birthrates are keeping up with the Muslims.
Actually, I imagine most people if they thought honestly about it would say the English ancestry. On IQ alone, it'd be the wise choice. But in any event, I wasn't objecting to your characterization of him as a racist, I was just pointing out that his current book wasn't explicit about it.
I didn't say "his current book" is striking a chord; all of Buchanan's rants on this subject have always struck a chord.
Oh, and in the real world, the one that uses all sales rather than the people who buy on Amazon, his book is 9th on the NY Times Bestseller list, and only one of Lewis books is ahead of his--none of the others you mention make the cut. We'll check again in a few weeks; my gut says that Buchanan will be on the list longer than Lewis. But I could be wrong, and it will be interesting to follow.
If you don't think that Buchanan's position on immigration strikes a chord with many, many white Americans then you haven't been paying attention--or you only check among the people who, like you, buy off of Amazon.
Summary of Zogby polls on immigration
It's funny, in another thread we are discussing campaign finance reform. It is my position that CFR doesn't buy much that wouldn't happen anyway, whereas Jay and others contend that CFR purchases results that go against the will of the majority of the voters. I think that's nonsense. However, immigration reform, or lack thereof, is most assuredly an area where elected officials follow the will of businesses (with or without CFR) against consistent priorities of the voters against immigration.
I'm not claiming conspiracy; I think most people's opposition is weak, if consistent. I just thought it was amusing that I'm pointing this out, given my argument in the other thread.
Buchanan is indeed driven by his religious views. They animate his particular hostility to gay people, for example.
I think Buchanan gets a little extra mileage out of many Americans' disaste for the U.S. Left's (such as it is) embrace of multiculturalism, "gorgeous mosaics," and that sort of stuff, in place of the traditional idea of an American melting-pot. But Buchanan remains a marginal figure in the U.S., ultimately. Look at his run for president last time. His campaign collapsed.
Religious views aren't what causes hostility to gay people, Ronski.
Finally, I just want to be clear that I am not claiming Buchanan is riding a trend, only that his views about immigration are shared by many. There are relatively few voters who are single issue about it--although Californians get close.
He is reflective of that portion of the American Catholic church that fights to keep gays out of the Saint Patrick's Day parades, that fights to keep sodomy laws being taken off the books, that supports the Conservative Party in New York State, etc.
Though I suspect part of Buchanan's anti-gay stance is also enhanced by his tough-guy persona and his less noticed erotophobia.
But this is getting off topic.
Actually, I imagine most people if they thought honestly about it would say the English ancestry. On IQ alone, it'd be the wise choice.
So blacks are inherently dumber than whites?
In Zulu, it would be translated as Uwe . gi bee U wee fet narr uwe . gi bee U wee fet narr.
Pelle--what JC said.
I read that Friedman piece a while ago, and it's the first time I have found myself thinking Friedman had lost it completely, having had an overdose of Sharonistic rhetoric somewhere on his itinerary. The USA gone soft? No ability to deter? After Ghaddafi, Kuwait, Bosnia, Kosovo? I dare say I would have found a different target were I a terrorist looking for undeterring victims. Of course, the fellas that banged into WTC didn't shy from sacrificing their lives, and don't really strike one as being deterrable. Better intelligence might have done the trick, though.
joezan #19912
Luckily, President Bush isn't into massaging the fragile Euro-ego, and he's not about to be pushed around by them.
For Americans it's apparently a question of ego. How about giving a little thought to the precedent that unilateral attacks on states that America unilaterally deem dangerous is setting? It's a precedent that says might is right. The Russians and the Chinese are taking note of that in places like Chechnya and Tibet, the Indians and Pakistanis in Kashmir, etc. etc. I am wondering whether the hyper-legalistic society that Americans have developed within their borders have created a huge psychological urge to behave extra-legally that can only find a socially permissible outlet beyond these borders.
Cal #19113
Friedman's NATO insight isn't exactly news. It became horrifyingly obvious in the Gulf war and Yugoslavia, and has more than anything spurred the EU's (bumbling, feeble, inconsistent, and highly politically sensitive) efforts at building common foreign policy and defense structures.
As much the Europeans here like to think they are the center of attention
Apparently the American party line is that foreigners commenting on America's foreign policy are just wanting some attention. I think you're projecting your own psychology into this. That, plus it's easier to dismiss objectors than objections.
I am less worried about Europe than I am about finding any Muslim allies, at least enough for us to have bases close to Iraq
I didn't say you have to worry about Europe. What I am saying is you ought to worry about whether it's a good idea to set a precedent whereby countries are free to attack other countries and oust their leaders without having some international approval based in international law.
But I already commented on Friedman's column the last time you mentioned it, so I actually figured you bringing it up again was based in a perception that it was noteworthy as more than just an example of a generally held view in the US.
I generally agree with it, and it reflects and articulates the same observation of the difference of opinion in the USA and Europe that I had done.
This point is well-made, I think:
[T]he Bush administration is close to the point where a failure to bring down Saddam would damage its credibility. It has let slip so many hints that America will, if necessary, go to war to achieve "regime change" in Iraq that it can be argued that Saddam's survival beyond a certain point would now be humiliating, rather than merely embarrassing, to the US.
I too think it seems like Bush has reached the point of no return on Iraq, and the American opinion seems to go along, thinking it's an eminently sensible proposition. The rest of the world does not.
Another observation is this:
The possibility existed then, as now, of a confrontation with Iraq over inspections that might then be settled militarily. After all, President Bush had already said that if Saddam was discovered to be producing weapons of mass destruction he "would take him out", and Dick Cheney had added that if there were such evidence: "We would have to give very serious consideration to military action to stop that activity."
"if Saddam was discovered..." "if there were such evidence"
When did the US obtain such evidence? And why haven't the American publicised it?
Actually, I imagine most people if they thought honestly about it would say the English ancestry. On IQ alone, it'd be the wise choice. But in any event, I wasn't objecting to your characterization of him as a racist, I was just pointing out that his current book wasn't explicit about it.
He's never explicit about it. But time after time, Buchanan emphasizes the kinds of issues, in the kinds of ways, that give comfort to those whose inclinations are racist. I mean what is the fucking point of writing a book, as Buchanan did, that (among other points) argues FDR didn't have to go to war with Hitler.
So it isn't one particular point with Buchanan, or two or three. It isn't one question about Zulus that makes me shout out racist. It's an entire pattern of rhetorical questions he has asked, issues he has raised, and causes he has taken up over the years.
I didn't say "his current book" is striking a chord; all of Buchanan's rants on this subject have always struck a chord.
Then you will have to forgive me because that is exactly what it seemed like you were saying when you wrote in Message # 19928: "That may be what he believes, but his most recent book stresses common cultural values within America. I think he hits a chord, here..."
continued ... Oh, and in the real world, the one that uses all sales rather than the people who buy on Amazon, his book is 9th on the NY Times Bestseller list, and only one of Lewis books is ahead of his--none of the others you mention make the cut.
CalGal, the unreal world of Amazon measures both nonfiction and fiction, while the real world of The New York Times, where Buchanan is ninth on the list, puts him up only against other nonfiction works. On the latter list, Buchanan's book is being outsold by a biography of John Adams that has been out for several months, for Christ sakes. We'll check again in a few weeks; my gut says that Buchanan will be on the list longer than Lewis. But I could be wrong, and it will be interesting to follow.
The fact that a tome by a scholar (Bernand Lewis, a man most in the general public have probably never heard of) could outsell Buchanan's latest work, at any time, speaks pretty well of that public.
If you don't think that Buchanan's position on immigration strikes a chord with many, many white Americans then you haven't been paying attention--or you only check among the people who, like you, buy off of Amazon.
Even without having read it, it's pretty obvious Buchanan's book goes much further than just immigration policy. It was you, not I, who chose to focus on immigration. I have nothing against people who want to slow down the flow of legal and illegal immigrants to this country. In fact, I would agree with them. But they don't have to beef up the public credentials of Patrick Buchanan to do so.
Please, Sto, for the love of God, please do not bring up "International Law." I've been watching Milosevic run roughshod over your prosecutors in the Hague the last few days and it's making me sick; especially, since this is just a show trial, and Milosevic has a snowflake's chance in hell of beating the rap.
Instead, enjoy this Washington Post article. U.S. allies in Europe are deeply fearful that the Bush administration is moving inexorably toward a military clash with Iraq, and while they are being blunt in their opposition, they also are beginning to wonder if Washington cares what they think.
One very interesting detail. The Europeans say they will not deny overflight rights to Americans in any conflict.
Europe has a long-standing pattern of hesitating in the face of U.S. determination to act militarily, followed by unifying with the Americans as hostilities loom and then begin. But this time, the Europeans insist, they are firmly opposed to expanding the war on terrorism to Iraq.
I think Friedman, in referring to deterrence, was thinking primarily of the failure to prevent 9/11. And I suspect he is also moved by the fear which some Americans have, myself among them, of the threat of something far, far worse, namely a nuclear terrorist act sometime down the line.
Think about it: When the Iranians openly talk of annihilating the Israelis with a few nuclear bombs, and propose that the Islamic world is virtually immune from any response from the West, wouldn't it serve some strategic purpose to remind the Islamofascists that the West could incinerate every Moslem country in a flash if it wanted to (even though few sane people would actually recommend doing so)? The fear factor is a potent weapon.
"if Saddam was discovered..." "if there were such evidence"
When did the US obtain such evidence? And why haven't the American publicised it?
The evidence that Saddam has broken international law is so clear on so many counts that either you are completely ignorant of the situation there or you are being disingenious. Which is it?
The most relevant point, and the one which will provide the pretext for the U.S. taking action, is Saddam's responsibility under "international" agreements he signed, to allow arms inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction. He is in violation of that.
I agree. But if you note, I said as much, and said it quite specifically. You then queried me as if I had challenged your position, which I hadn't.
But they don't have to beef up the public credentials of Patrick Buchanan to do so.
I didn't. There's no need to beef up the public credentials of Buchanan; he's a well-known pundit and could work as often in television as he chose to do.
I only pointed out that his most recent book has to do with the failure of immigrants to adopt American values and behaviors. Stated in that broad fashion, it is an idea that many Americans agree with.
As for your quote of of mine, it is correct, but your interpretation is not. But it may have been my carelessness. In the first sentence, I was pointing out that his current book wasn't focusing on race and religion so much as immigration and acculturation. In the second, I was pointing out that when I think he strikes a chord when he focuses on this--which he does, often.
You might wish to remember that I often am not advancing an opposing viewpoint, but rather correcting something I thought was misstated. In this case, your comment about Buchanan was slightly offbase, so I corrected what I thought was a misrepresentation.
On the latter list, Buchanan's book is being outsold by a biography of John Adams that has been out for several months, for Christ sakes.
The anomaly there is the biography that's been out for several months, or haven't you been paying attention to the fuss about that?
Has Amazon's bestseller list recently been declared a sales source of record? I hadn't heard. Because if it hasn't, then it's certainly not anything I would use as a valid cite; the selection bias in its sales is pretty significant.
Just because Bush 43 is committed to undoing his father's two big mistakes -- raising taxes and leaving Saddam in place -- doesn't mean that lowering taxes and removing Saddam are bad ideas. 
George W. Bush, Shinto priest - separated at birth?
I think Friedman, in referring to deterrence, was thinking primarily of the failure to prevent 9/11.
That's exactly my understanding and what I was addressing. You mean to say the brainwashed desperate fanatics that flew jumbos into WTC and Pentagon should have been deterred? As in not daring to do what they did for fear of the consequences? How exactly might such a deterrence look like, I wonder. I can't see any. Better intelligence and global policing, that's another matter.
Think about it: When the Iranians openly talk of annihilating the Israelis with a few nuclear bombs, and propose that the Islamic world is virtually immune from any response from the West,
Did you take note of who actually made that statement which has been played over and over again in American media? Former President Rafsanjani. Rafsanjani suffered a humiliating defeat in parliamentary elections two years ago. See this.
In a stunning victory, reformists belonging to the Islamic Iran Participation Front (pro-Khatami factions) have swept Tehran, Mashad, Esfehan and Shiraz and other major cities. Following in second place are independent candidates, and coming in last with a small minority are the conservatives.
cont. Displaying a suprisingly poor performance is Chairman of the Expediency Council and former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. Conservatives hoped that he would return as the Speaker of the Majlis and hold back the reformists. In fact, Rafsanjani's bottom ranking after the vote count was a huge embarrassment. He was the only candidate given special permission by the conservative-dominated Majles to keep his position while running on the conservative ticket for Tehran. All other candidate were required to resign from their official postions.
It is still not clear whether Rafsanjani will squeeze in enough votes to guarantee him a seat in the Majles, but as far as the public is concerened, he is history. Rafsanjani is highly unpopular among Tehran's residents, who went to the polls in massive numbers to keep him out of the Majles. "I am voting to keep the likes of Rafsanjani out!" a shop owner exclaimed. "This is my main reason for voting."
Just because Bush 43 is committed to undoing his father's two big mistakes -- raising taxes and leaving Saddam in place -- doesn't mean that lowering taxes and removing Saddam are bad ideas.
I haven't said anything about that whatsover, but here are some thoughts: Lowering taxes can be a bad idea if it is unmatched by spending cuts, settling the economy with structural budgetary deficits and future generations with the bill in the form of debts and economic instability. Selling tax cuts as a panacea for everything (boom, recession, terrorism), and consistently papering over or outright disregarding and dismissing the adjustments that this necessitates is dishonest.
As for Saddam's staying in power. It's become an entrenched myth with the American public that the Kuwaiti war was a failure because Saddam wasn't ousted. I don't think that was necessarily so. The one major Bush Sr. calamity was inciting the Shia Muslims to rebellion, then passively watch as Saddam's Republican Guard quashed it. But there were good reasons for not marching on Baghdad, and nobody knows what the alternative to Saddam would have been. If you argue that the UN shouldn't have accepted Saddam's kicking out the weapon inspectors, I am all in favour. And any military action must be tied to demands that effective inspections be resumed. Demands, mind you, that aren't just a "pretext" for an invasion which has already been decided upon.
Please, Sto, for the love of God, please do not bring up "International Law." I've been watching Milosevic run roughshod over your prosecutors in the Hague the last few days and it's making me sick;
Oh, dear, international law makes poor Pincherman sick. We can't have that.
especially, since this is just a show trial, and Milosevic has a snowflake's chance in hell of beating the rap.
Oh, so the case against Milosevic is just "rap", there is no evidence to "beat", just "the rap"?
The most relevant point [where Saddam has violated international law], and the one which will provide the pretext for the U.S. taking action, is Saddam's responsibility under "international" agreements he signed, to allow arms inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction. He is in violation of that.
He certainly is. But that's not the same as evidence that he is pursuing a program of WMD. Anyway, why isn't the remedy then to demand that Saddam gives unlimited access for effective UN weapons inspections? Why painting yourself into a corner where anything short of invasion and ousting of Saddam is tantamount to defeat? The main objective must be to ensure non-proliferation of WMD.
Regarding European attitudes to war, I have a correction to the Guardian article: There was actually solid popular and political backing in Europe for the 1999 bombing campaign in Kosovo. The same was true in the case of Kuwait and in the case of Bosnia. If anything the experience 1990s have renewed, or even revived, European attitudes to war as a legitimate means. Why even Joschka Fischer, German foreign minister and leader of the arch pacifist Green Party is strongly in favour of war as a means to prevent atrocities.
As for your quote of of mine, it is correct, but your interpretation is not. But it may have been my carelessness. In the first sentence, I was pointing out that his current book wasn't focusing on race and religion so much as immigration and acculturation.
Then you may want to address your arguments towards Joe Zan, who brought up Buchanan's latest book (I assume he did; he never named it), saying perhaps the pundit was right about the decline of the West. His point was made in the context of a post complaining about Europe's pacifist policies, not its immigration policies. I simply replied that Buchanan was a theocratic fascist and that decline literature was racist and untrue. In the second, I was pointing out that when I think he strikes a chord when he focuses on this--which he does, often.
If he does strike a chord, it's had remarkably little effect on policy. Since Buchanan first ran for President, there have been numerous amnesties for illegal aliens and a fairly wide-open gate for those who choose to migrate legally. You might wish to remember that I often am not advancing an opposing viewpoint, but rather correcting something I thought was misstated. In this case, your comment about Buchanan was slightly offbase, so I corrected what I thought was a misrepresentation.
continued...
Read his first post at Message # 19918 and my reply in the next post to see what I mean.
Oh, dear, international law makes poor Pincherman sick. We can't have that.
It has been said so many times here that international law is so unevenly applied and enforced, so grotesquely unformed, that I would think you would be have the sense not to bring it up as something needed for U.S. action. Was NATO's action, circumventing the U.N., that led to the fall of Milosevic legal?
Of course, you hedge your bets a bit by adding the words "or international approval." I suppose that means the U.S. ought to try and do it legally, and if we can't do it that way, then at least do it in a popular way.
I agree, but how about expending some effort to apply it more evenly and make it less unformed? It would make a huge difference if America took the initiative and started thinking seriously about international institutions. But the American instinct is to distance itself from anything that might impede its own freedom of action, be it nuclear test bans, anti-proliferation measures, international courts of justice, Kyoto treaty, or simply paying its dues to the UN. And all the while nobody speaks more indignantly of "rogue states" than the Americans.
Has Amazon's bestseller list recently been declared a sales source of record? I hadn't heard. Because if it hasn't, then it's certainly not anything I would use as a valid cite; the selection bias in its sales is pretty significant.
I have no idea how the different bestseller lists collect their information. But in our particular case, it hardly matters. Amazon and The New York Times list probably come out to about the same rank on the Buchanan book, once you take into consideration that one ranking includes nonfiction and fiction and the other does not. And neither ranking -- to me, anyway -- suggests Buchanan struck a nerve with the book.
No, it wasn't, and I actually think that was a big problem. Was it big enough that the action should have been avoided? I don't think so on the basis of human rights considerations -- if you have the power to stop atrocities, aren't you complicit if you don't use that power?
I think the Hague tribunal is a necessary and sensible attempt at establishing some legal precedent for humanitarianly motivated intervention.
I agree, but how about expending some effort to apply it more evenly and make it less unformed?
In all seriousness, if your priority is having an evenly applied system of international law, then Europe should back the U.S. in plotting how to take over the world. Because short of some sort of Leviathan to act as the enforcer for that law, no international system will ever remotely reach the point where the different cultures, standards of living, and value systems found around the globe will ever fit into any consistent legal system that doesn't make a mockery of itself.
In fact, many countries are having enough trouble even applying their own outdated national laws to their countries. The entire idea of law, in the sense you are thinking of it, is a Western development.
continued ...
Try to keep separate the conception of "international law" from "going along with the international crowd." Some of these examples you give, the U.S. is under no obligation -- not even under international law -- to follow through on. The United States is not breaking any international law by not signing the Kyoto Treaty; it is not breaking any international law, when it removes itself legally from a treaty, to develop missile defense; I have no idea whether the nonpayment of U.N. dues breaks any international laws, but I doubt it. The U.S. has and does break international laws, but not in many of the examples you give.
I am not a lawyer, but I do know that international law gives a great deal of leeway for a nation's sovereignity. You seem to equate some gooey idea of the United States going along with the international crowd as respect for international law. It is not. Try to keep a distinction between the two.
Then we are complicit in Tibet, Sierra Leone, Kashmir, and a hundred other places around the globe, where the U.S. had (or has) the power to go in and stop atrocities.
And if you believe in what you are saying then the U.S. and Europe were complicit in the Taliban's rule over Afghanistan for several years as well as the chaos that preceded it. We are also complicit in Saddam Hussein's rule in Iraq (both before and after the Gulf War) that has led (in some people's estimates, anyway) to the death of millions. I mean the list is just endless.
I think the Hague tribunal is a necessary and sensible attempt at establishing some legal precedent for humanitarianly motivated intervention.
Why? It hasn't changed a thing except to give international justice a bad name. Milosevic fell for two reasons: 1) the advanced nations of the world developed a moral loathing for what he was doing and 2) they had and were willing to use force to make him stop. Pretending there was some abstract notion of justice that Milosevic violated is dishonest. Perhaps it is one of those good lies we tell ourselves to make the world seem right, but it is a lie nevertheless.
My point is also that the USA should work to strengthen international law and international institutions. After all, if the USA doesn't, who will?
Instead it seems that the USA is prepared to break any international agreement that it unilaterally deems inconvenient. That doesn't go a long way to strengthen international law or institutions.
I knew you were going to say something like that. And I agree, it's never going to be easy. You have to take into consideration the price you'd have to pay to intervene. For example, I don't think the price of intervening in Tibet and picking a fight with China or intervening in Chechnya and picking a fight with Russia compares with the price of intervening in Kosovo and picking a fight with Serbia, or even in Kashmir and picking a fight with India or Pakistan.
For Americans it's apparently a question of ego. How about giving a little thought to the precedent that unilateral attacks on states that America unilaterally deem dangerous is setting?
America unilaterally deems them dangerous?
You mean these guys are friends of yours?
When do we start bombing Europe?, in that case.
A bad name where? Not here. The Hague tribunal has resulted in the amassing of huge documentary material on atrocities committed on the Balkans by all parties involved, in bringing some of the personally responsible thugs to justice and in forcing people like Karadzic and Mladic in permanent hiding.
Pretending there was some abstract notion of justice that Milosevic violated is dishonest.
I don't understand that sentence.
Then you may want to address your arguments towards Joe Zan, who brought up Buchanan's latest book (I assume he did; he never named it), saying perhaps the pundit was right about the decline of the West. His point was made in the context of a post complaining about Europe's pacifist policies, not its immigration policies.
and...
Up to then, I was referring to Buchanan, generally, and to the "Decline of the West" literature, generally, because that was obviously the type of book Zan was talking about. If Buchanan's book is specifically about immigration policy, then Zan was simply taking Buchanan out of context.
Pincher, Buchanan's been whining about this since well before his latest book came out - in fact, since his <>Crossfire days on CNN. I'm really surprised you weren't aware of this.
And no - I wasn't speaking only of Europe's pacifistic policies. More broadly, I was referring to its tendency lately to oppose (or obstruct) the US on just about everything, including and especially our dealings with terrorist states, which only, in the end, empowers and increases the influence of these entirely non-western, anti-western governments.
We can argue that forever, with you claiming it's in the Euros' national interests to oppose us on some of these issues, and me claiming it's because of envy and spite (especially since Kyoto), but there it is.
Pincher, my point isn't that the US breaks international law in those instances, but that it seems to disregard and dismiss any value of international commitments.
The U.S. is probably party to thousands of treaties and international agreements, and a member of dozens of international organizations. In many cases, it pushes other countries to join in them.
But because of the U.S.'s special status as what is effectively the Global Leviathan, creating by its very presence and force, the very possibility that any sort of international legal system could work at all, it has to be able to do some things differently from most other countries.
In some cases, this unique status is enshrined in international law. The U.S., for example, is legally entitled by international treaty to hold nuclear weapons while the vast majority of other countries are not. Those countries have agreed to this and the matter is not even controversial anymore except for a few cases like India and Egypt.
So why wasn't this special status recognized as a possible compromise in the case of landmines? The U.S. is the de facto defender of South Korea. North Korea is armed to the teeth and wedged in tightly along a difficult-to-defend border. But the proponents of the landmine treaty didn't want any exceptions. They could afford to take this high moral stance because they don't have to worry about defending any borders. So rather than working with President Clinton (who was hardly an isolationist and wanted to find some sort of compromise) to come up with a workable solution, they choose to try and embarrass the United States.
continued ...
No, the point is that a strong U.S. does strengthen the international system through its very nature. A weak U.S. does not. With a weak U.S., constrained by international agreements, Milosevic woulld not be in the docket today. You don't seem to appreciate the irony.
I fail to see what would cause you to ask such a dumb question.
Our deeming these countries terrorist states is "unilateral" only to the extent that GWB actually named them.
Internationally, they have been deemed to be harboring and aiding terrorists.
It's just that we're big enough to actually point this out. The Euros realize this, and should at least keep their mouths shut.
short of some sort of Leviathan to act as the enforcer for that law, no international system will ever remotely reach the point where the different cultures, standards of living, and value systems found around the globe will ever fit into any consistent legal system that doesn't make a mockery of itself.
This is a valid comment. But I think the first imperative to Western countries (any countries) should be to act consistently with their own principles instead of breaking them whenever they feel inconvenient.
And in fact there are some important notions of international law that are universally recognised.
The nation state has been wildly successful as a form of political organisation and is now universally entrenched as the basis for international law rooted in principles of self-determination, mutual recognition of sovereignty and non-intervention in internal affairs.
Likewise, human rights principles are also universally recognised by states. Even though many routinely violate them, they rarely denounce them, but prefer to either deny any misbehaviour or cite concern for the state’s security. (Sounds familiar?)
I think there is some basis for vigorously pursuing a global strengthening of adherence to such principles. And, again, if America (who has been instrumental in founding and formulating these very principles) is indifferent to them, they are weakened.
Sto, try this little exercise. Ask any non-Europeans (and non-Americans and non-Antipodeans) you meet whether Milosevic's charges -- specifically that NATO broke international law and committed war crimes -- has a strong basis. And then ask whether they believe NATO should be put on trial at the Hague for its crimes. I think you'll be surprised at what you hear.
Few people defend Milosevic. But many people outside Europe (and the West) question the entire international apparatus that toppled him from power and then brought him before the World Court. They don't see it as an abstract justice at work (that Milosevic is being tried because he committed special crimes against humanity, or whatever you want to call it) They believe the reason Milosevic is on trial, and NATO is not, is because of power, not justice.
I'll get back to your Message # 19981 later; I'm about to retire.
Sorry, Joe, same excuse.
Well, they are right.
But NATO countries didn't have to go through the trouble of organising an international court of justice if it wasn't for their own principles of rule of law. The fact that these can't be applied evenly doesn't mean that they shouldn't be when possible. Milosevic gets a hearing in the Hague, that's way more than all the victims of Serbian ethnic cleansing pursuits ever got. And that's good.
I also happen to think the ICTY is good for the process of reconciliation in the former Yugoslavia. I do think it has dampened the typical Balkan impulse of one-sided self-victimisation there and held up a mirror to the peoples of Croatia, Serbia and Bosnia which makes it more difficult to avoid confronting their own side's complicity in the tragedies. As for the "axis of evil" and reports of a possible U.S. military strike against Iraq, the Saudi leader said: "Any attack on Iraq or Iran should not be contemplated at all because it would not serve the interests of America, the region or the world, as there is no clear evidence of a present danger. Iraq is contemplating the return of the inspectors, and the U.S. should pursue this because inspectors can determine if Iraq is complying with the U.N. resolutions."
Makes sense to me.
Re: Message # 19958 --
What I am saying is that threatening the Islamofascists of the world with more force (or "craziness") than they are threatening us with may have the valuable effect of dampening the dreams of states that support terrorism to develop nuclear weapons and slip them into the hand of terrorists. Does anyone really think that Israel's bombing of Iraq in the early '80s to shortcircuit their building nuclear weapons was a bad idea?
Rebuilding the intelligence apparatus is of course a good idea. And using international agreements to prevent Iraq's developing nukes is a better idea than going in and bombing the place to smithereens, assuming we have the luxury of time to do the former (and which we probably do).
I am talking here about the strategic use of threats to get the terrorist networks and those in governments around the world to understand that the U.S. means business and will do whatever is necessary to defend itself from terrorist use of weapons of mass destruction. No one is saying we should start shooting immediately and ask questions later.
I know full well who made the remarks about nuking Israel, and how there are ample signs the Iranian people are fed up with clerical crackpots. But there are most certainly others who share the view that Israel can be destroyed without the Islamic world suffering too great a loss, and some of those people would also like to ship a nuke to Houston's harbor if it could be arranged, and some of those people may someday get access to a bomb or two if we do not act to prevent it.
(And I am all for lowering spending when you lower taxes.)
It may also turn out that Saddam jerks everybody around once again, and that force will ultimately be necessary.
"Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the 'Axis Of Evil', Libya, China and Syria today announced they had formed the 'Axis Of Just As Evil', which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis . . ."
More . . .
Oh, come now. You're saying that you Europeans are hopelessly backwards not because you are inept, lazy and willing to let the Americans do everything while you bitch, moan and secretly fear having your inferiority revealed, but because you truly don't want to succeed, can't do any better than you've managed thus far, and don't really care if everyone knows it?
Or is that just my mongo 'murrican hypercompetitiveness coming to the fore?
You seem to have had quite a revelation yourself after reading Friedman's article, but considering that Europe has been using less than half as much of its GDP on defense as USA during the last five decades; that this has been used ineffectively because every country has tended to built everything for itself uncoordinated with other countries; that Europe's economic powerhouse Germany has been constitutionally and psychologically constrained from developing offensive weapons and long-range deployment capability; that Europe in general has been retreating from the world since WWII and the loss of colonies; given all this, which has been well known to any observer, it's hardly surprising that Europe is far behind the USA militarily. Nor is it a secret.
Even so, I am told that especially the French and, to some extent, the British were shocked at the demonstration of just how insignificant European fire power had become - in the Gulf war, i.e. in 1991. That's eleven years ago, FYI. Then came Croatia (1991-2), Bosnia (1993-5), and Kosovo (1999). Same story. Why you think Europeans harbour illusions of military grandeur is beyond me. And why you think Europeans in general would be embarrassed by this is equally inexplicable. (Allowing for a portion of the French).
Maybe. In what way do you mean, specifically? Colonialist withdrawal mainly affects France and Britain, although Netherlands, Belgium and Portugal are definitely also very much marked by that history. Spain, perhaps too, but that's a far more distant thing and largely just lingers diffusely in the national psyche.
I didn't say this at all. But in any event, I was goofing with you. I didn't realize it was a sensitive subject.
"While American patriotism proudly celebrates its armed forces' power and victories, Europe's diverse loyalties and identities are formed by a war-weary pessimism thoroughly grounded in our history."
Again, particularly true in the case of Germany. The French try to keep up some remnant of their grandeur, even having troops and ballistic missiles parading at the Champs-Elysees on July 14.
But it's simply unthinkable for Germans to "proudly celebrate its armed forces' power and victories". And that particular thought sends shivers down the spines of practically all other Europeans -- even in my generation (I feel it as I type this, corny as it sounds).
I think the Euro perception of a good and just war is like the perception of necessary police work. That goes especially in the case of 9-11. It's no coincidence that Naumann notes
However, while the man [Saddam] is dangerous and crazy, we do not know that he has weapons of mass destruction. He seems to have had precious little connection to Sept. 11. His army has been destroyed.
This is actually the prevaling Euro view of Saddam, as I have told you long ago: There simply isn't any obvious case for attacking Iraq.
Stostosto -
I was being perhaps a bit snide in that post, and I apologize. As an American, I do have concerns that the US may yet act too precipitously in the 'War on Terrorism'. However, at the same time, I have no problem with the US sustaining a high level of pressure short of massive military involvement against terrorism supporting regimes such as in Iraq and North Korea.
The Europeans have good reason to be cautious about going to war and hooking on to impetuous allies. Of course, the European experience has also led to a mix of world weariness, pragmaticism and cynicism, that really pisses of us hard-charging, proactive, and un-nuanced Amurricans.
testing
That ethos is particularly lacking, most Republicans believe, in government bureaucracies, which, sheltered from the discipline of the market, become insular, self-perpetuating bastions of mediocrity. In recent years the most common GOP response to government bureaucracies that fail to successfully educate children, deliver the mail, or operate railroads has been some version of "blow them up."
All of which might lead you to believe that faced with the insular, self-perpetuating government bureaucracy that failed to protect the United States from Al Qaeda on September 11--the CIA--the Bush administration would have come down like a ton of bricks.
If you believed that, however, you were wrong
sigh
Similarly, Mr Bush's messianic claim that he is fighting "evil" – "evil" now apparently being a fully-fledged nation-state – and that America's al-Qa'ida enemies hate America because they are "against democracy" is poppycock. Most of America's Muslim enemies don't know what democracy is – they have certainly never enjoyed it – and their deeds, which are indeed wicked, have motives.
Mr Bush knows, and certainly his secretary of state, Colin Powell, does, that there is an intimate link between the crimes against humanity of 11 September and the Middle East. After all, the killers were all Arabs, they wrote and spoke Arabic, they came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Lebanon. This much we are allowed to reflect upon.
But the moment anyone takes the next logical step and looks at the Arab world itself, we step on forbidden territory. For any analysis of the current Middle East will encounter injustice and violence and death, often the result – directly or indirectly – of the policies of the United States and its regional allies (Arab as well as Israeli).
Fisk.
During the speech, Mullah Ashcroft, a Penetecostal minister's son, held up a copperhead to the audience of Christian broadcasters.
"This snake is an Axis of Evil."
Please tell me that I've missed a something and that a major newspaper wouldn't publish such rubbish.
Bush's foreign policy follies scream out for opposition.
The Bush administration has framed the security threat so broadly as to yield what every quasi-dictator craves -- a state, seemingly, of permanent low-level warfare that frightens the citizenry and trumps dissent.
It appears to me that you haven't even read the article in the link provided.
At the DMZ in North Korea, President Bush made what I thought was an odd remark regarding a 1976 incident there. (Full story here.)
In 1976, some 30 North Korea soldiers brutally attacked and killed two U.S. soldiers supervising tree-trimming work in the DMZ. The Korean soldiers used the work party's axes to batter the men. The axes are exhibited over the border in what North Korea calls a "peace museum," visible from the bunker.
Upon being told about the axes' display in the so-called "peace museum", the President said, "The axes that were used to slaughter two U.S. soldiers are in the peace museum. No wonder I think they're evil."
Huh? Is it just me, or does anyone else think the President's stream of consciousness inevitably led him to say the word "evil" once he had said the word "axes"?
Bush is deranged
The timing couldn't have been better. Here's a sample of headlines from this week's newspapers. "Italian premier wishes political dialogue with Iraq to continue," read one. "Bush warned against 'adventure' in Iraq," declared another. Canada worries about U.S. unilateralism; Britain hasn't decided. The French think we're "simplistic." The Germans want proof that Saddam was involved in the September 11 attacks. And, in the event we care about what other terrorist regimes think about a potential attack on Hussein's terrorist regime: "Sudan rejects military strikes on Iraq," and "Iran reiterates opposition to U.S. strike on Iraq."
Said Bush: "I understand what happens in the international arena; people say things."
It takes a very special mindset to quote this as proof of Bush's cunning.
Sign me up on your petition to keep George W from the office of Poet Laureate.
Clearly the parties in the middle east have options, and those choices carry consequences. Unilateralism on the part of American foreign policy is decried while unilateralism of American responsibility (or capacity) is assumed. Rubbish.
We start bombing in 5 minutes
Allahu Akbar!
What America should do is let countries work out their own defense. Our troups in South Korea, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Japan shopuld come home. We should let the world know that we respect each country's right to treat their citizens in the manner that country sees fit. Of course we choose a free open society, but if others do not, that is their business.
Our policy sould be to Saddam Hussain, do what you pleaase in the Middle East, but give us a good deal on oil.
Axes of Evil
without a scorecard....
Here's the latest
1. Iraq
2. Iran
3. North Korea
4. Great Britain - for invading Spain and calling our King an idiot
5. France - for farting
6. Sweden - bastion of EuroTrash Evil
7. South Korea - for not supporting our Warriour King
8. Morocco - for harboring Al Quaeda Rome Embassy bombers
Texas
5.
9. Texas 
I fail to understand America's policy that only certain countries should have so called weapons of mass destruction. U.S., England, France, Israel, India, Pakistan, China (have I left anyone out) have atomic weapons.
It is not official U.S. policy that Pakistan and India should have nukes, although it appears to be the de facto policy after 9-11. Israel is also a case where the Jewish state doesn't officially announce it has nukes, and the U.S. pretends it isn't an issue. (And, yes, you left out Russia.)
The Nonproliferation Treaty states that five countries (The U.S., Russia, China, France, and Great Britain) are allowed to have nuclear weapons so long as they assist in the flow of peaceful nuclear technology to non-nuclear weapons states. 185 states -- which is pretty much every significant state in the world except Israel, India, and Pakistan -- have agreed to those terms. Even North Korea and Iraq have agreed to be members of this treaty (although I don't know how this works now that Iraq is not letting inspectors into the country).
Where is the logic that says Iran or Iraq should not have the same weapons? Or South Korea, North Korea, Somalia, Denmark, Cuba or any sovereign Country.
Actually, some Realists argue this, saying it would add to international stability. I think they are insane.
What America should do is let countries work out their own defense. Our troups in South Korea, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Japan should come home. We should let the world know that we respect each country's right to treat their citizens in the manner that country sees fit. Of course we choose a free open society, but if others do not, that is their business.
continued ...
America's fault? what, if anything, should the USA do to stop civil war?
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Central Intelligence Agency is warning in a classified analysis that Afghanistan could descend into civil war due to fierce competition for power among rival warlords, a senior U.S. official said Friday.
There is agreement within the U.S. government that the south Asian country's security could be bolstered by setting up an Afghan army, a national police force and an effective legal system.
But there is disagreement within the U.S. government over whether to expand an international peacekeeping force, said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
...
"Civil war is not eminent, but the seeds are there," the official told The Associated Press as he verified an account in Friday's edition of The New York Times.
Even putting an Afghan military force in place could take months, while efforts to develop a police force have made little headway.
If the 4,500-strong international security force in Kabul is enlarged it could also help maintain order in other cities.
No Americans would serve in the security force.
...
But the interim Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, urged President Bush in a meeting last month that the force be expanded to other cities and some warlords are said to be in favor of such a move.
...
Bush has dispatched his special envoy for Afghanistan to Kabul to meet Karzai.
Zalmay Khalilzad, who is scheduled to be in Afghanistan through Feb. 25, also will consult with other senior Afghan and United Nations officials on the ongoing war "to root out al-Qaida and remnants of the Taliban," White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said in a written statement released Thursday in Beijing, the last stop in Bush's visit to Asia.
What you are hearing is LEAKS...sure sign of trouble on Choctaw Ridge
The newly created Transportation Security Administration, in its first move since assuming responsibility for the nation's air security Sunday, has ordered the airlines to eliminate the priority lanes they had created for their best customers at some of the nation's biggest airports.
The agency said having the exclusive, shorter lines causes security equipment to be underused while fostering hostility among the passengers who have to wait in the longer lines.
The two-tier system "created an imbalance of use of the security assets," said TSA spokesman Jim Mitchell.
Good heavens, when did flying become so egalitarian? Maybe they should eliminate first class, too.
And to listen to that half wit poseur President's condolences...
Makes me puke!
He loves watching people die. Remember Carla Faye Tucker.
TD- is Bu$h STILL holding his dick in China?
Don't lose your head over this 'Islam is Peace' crap.
Not to worry.
I am too busy laughing about Evil Axes
And the half wit in chief
Can that man speak at all? As if he had a revelation explaining to him just why he declared them evil. As if it was not himself who spoke when he made the State of the Union address, but someone who spoke through him, put thoughts into his heads that then came streaming out of his mouth as he stood before Congress. And now, facing the North Korean border and hearing that ax killing story, he realises "hey, there was actually a reason I thought they're evil".
No wonder I think he's stupid.
Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an "Axis of Evil." As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name.One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a President of the United States. Jimmy Carter's espousal of human rights as an integral part of American foreign policy was in truth the crucial first step towards the democratic transformation of Latin America. And Ronald Reagan's blast against "the evil empire" was a pivotal moment reminding everyone that there was more at issue in the struggle between east and west than a contest for power.
Don't lose your head over this 'Islam is Peace' crap.TD
Robertson Calls Islam a Religion of Violence and Mayhem
mmm...RObertson, TD
TD, Robertson..
Give em the axe the axe the axe
Right in the neck, the neck the neck
(Stanford cheer)
smart guys go there I here
Maybe, but the term, "axis" implies that the three countries are allies as in the case of WWII Germany, Italy and Japan, which is far from the case with Iran, Iraq and North Korea. "Axis of Evil" sounded good in Bush's speech but wasn't accurate. I prefer Teddy Roosevelt's "Walk softly and carry a big stick."
Ivy League educated Texans might not agree with that statement.
Come to think of it, neither would UT alums, nor Aggies for that matter but Aggies are dumb, too dumb to realize that they are.
Christ he's not West Texas trailer trash Lohr!
JC is quoting President Gore in Message # 20066
The "axis of evil" gem, wasn't "off the cuff". GWB read that one right off the teleprompter.
New Rules of Political Rhetoric
Travel writers should be careful not to draw general conclusions from life in roadside villages.
This is just the trap into which Robert Kaplan falls
So how do you explain Clinton's abilities, especially since he had no silver spoon? Or mine, for that matter. ;-)
WASHINGTON, Feb. 23 — In his first direct confrontation with the international shock set off by his "axis of evil" remark, President Bush spent six long days in Asia last week trying to reassure the shaken leaders of Japan, South Korea and China that he was more interested in peace than war.
I remember from International Relations 101, 30 years ago, the due attention to audience, signal and indices is fundamental to the effective conduct of foreign policy.
Which audience did that Imbecile intend to address? Europe? Congress? The Evil Ones? Pentecostals and holy roller fundies?
None seem to know or worse, care
Ronski...you should rejoice when I go scarcastic and lewd...
Doin you a favor
Esp
"Anybody who watches American TV channels or reads American magazines cannot fail to be struck by the manner in which the whole Afghanistan operation is being treated like a Commando comic or a Rambo movie. We hear about the War Room. We read about the military geniuses who planned the strategy. And we are told stories of bravery and action.
The truth, alas, is much less glamorous. In essence what happened was this: the richest nation in the world bombed the hell out of the poorest -- and still couldn't find bin Laden. American soldiers are probably the bravest in the world but we'll never know for sure because the US was so unwilling to commit them to a ground war. Instead, the battle was fought by cruise missiles, high flying aircraft and the mercenaries of the Northern Alliance.
At the end of the day, the war did not make the world safe for Americans; it only made America nicer to Pervez Musharraf. "
Two billion bucks a month. More reporters dead than US soldiers. And all we have to show for it is one pathetic "american taliban".
And to what purpose, pray tell, did those Marines die in the Phillipines fighting an "organization associated" with Al Quaeda on a remote island i the Phillipines Archipelago? 
Join me and TD....
IMPEACH BUSH!
While I can see how you mistoke my words that it was U.S. policy that Pakistan and India have atomic weapons, it is indeed U.S. Policy the certain countries have atonic weapons. I think I/we also left South Africa out.
I would contend that no country should agree to limit themselves to either defensive or offensive weapons. History shows that often it is the imbalance of power which leads to war.
I do not hold views because Buchanan states them, just as I don't expect banks hods views because Fisk states them, but when he reads Fisk he delights because he reads what he already thinks. Most of us do that. Also, if you read Buchanan, I don't think you read him carefully enough since you claimed he said the U.S. should not have gone to war with Hitler. You have my abject apology if you can cite the site.
Are you really convinced that Bush does not distinguish between axis and axes, or am I once again the victim of European humor? Are you aware that much before the axis of evil statement Bush has stated American is fighting an evil enemy? Now, I realize that such simplicity escapes the sophistication of you Europeans. I think it was necessary before Americans felt it a good idea to sacrifice thousands of our young men in Europe, F.D.R. felt he needed to demonize the Nazis and Hitler personaly. I don't think he took us to war just to save Uncle Joe, although that might have been the main reason.
Hahaha!
Add Afghanistan...Blood Brother to Evil
Karzai Promises Good Relations with Evil "Brother" Iran
My take was, of course, infinitely more sophisticated.
---
The substance problem I have with Bush's axis of evil thing is, like I said before here that it risks trapping Bush in a corner where anything other than a successful full scale invasion and toppling of Saddam will be embarrassing. That's unwise.
Following his victory [over France in 1940], Hitler made no overt move to threaten US vital interests. As of mid-1940, his actions argue that beneath the overlay of Nazi ideology, he was driven by a traditional German policy of “The Drive to the East.” In this analysis, Hitler had not wanted war with the West. Hitler saw the world divided into four spheres: Great Britain holding its empire; Japan, dominant in East Asia; Germany, master of Europe; and America, mistress of the Western Hemisphere.
Pat Buchanan's attempt to tone down his remarks: An Unnecessary War?.
How does Buchanan in the link you provided tone down his remarks? the point Buchanan's critics try to make is that he was pro Hitler, ergo a nazi in disguise. That is pure crap; he is rabidly anti-communism and and would not have objected in seeing a long war between Russia and Nazi Germany. One can argue his view is flawed, or that it makes good sense.
Would it be sane American policy to favor a war between Iraq and Iran that caused each to become weak and ineffective? Should we object if Syria got involved on one side and Saudi Arabia the other? Shouldn't we just say the devil take the hindmost. Perhaps Israel would sell each side arms.
In his Washington Post piece, Buchanan avoids his book's positive spin on Hitler's ambitions. In his book, he argues the redefined concept of Lebensraum, which prior to Hitler meant adding colonies, not enlarging Germany proper within Europe. In Buchanan's eyes, the Nazi Lebensraum was not a bad thing, and no danger to the US because Hitler meant to maintain peaceful relations with the US and even Great Britain, had the British given him a chance.
Yucca Mountain high
By officially authorizing construction of the high-level nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, President Bush put taxpayer's money on the best bet available for an increasingly high-stakes problem. Those stakes have to do with the vast number of spent fuel rods (about 40,000 tons worth) currently being stored in 131 above-ground facilities in 39 states. Approximately 161 million Americans live within 75 miles of those sites, making each location an odds-on favorite for a terrorist strike. And while there is practically no chance that attackers could set off a nuclear explosion, any breach of containment would cause an enormous decontamination problem, disrupting the lives of thousands of Americans.
Gee. Little Joey Conason didn't see fit to even mention the terrorist threat. Is that because he's a partisan hack? Certainly appears that way.
The same George W who once told us that his army would track down bin Laden wherever he was, doesn't even mention his name now.
How would Vir know? And what good would obsessing on mentioning bin Laden's name do anybody anyway, excepting the Leftist bums in the cheap seats?
While I can see how you mistoke my words that it was U.S. policy that Pakistan and India have atomic weapons, it is indeed U.S. Policy the certain countries have atonic weapons.
Are atonic weapons dangerous or just shrill?
Deputy shoots 2 soldiers, killing 1
Sheriff’s Dept: Deputy thought they were going to kill him
MSNBC STAFF AND WIRE REPORTS
ROBBINS, N.C., Feb. 24 — A sheriff’s deputy shot two Fort Bragg soldiers, killing one, after the two soldiers, both in civilian clothing, tried to disarm the deputy because they thought he was taking part in a role-playing training exercise, authorities said Sunday. The Moore County Sheriff’s Department said the deputy was “totally unaware” of the exercise.
Taliban and oil
Click on the graph for an interesting article from the Economist about advertising expert Charlotte Beers and the challenges she faces in her function as PR agent for the US government. Not all of them are external either:
Like most Americans, this daughter of a cowboy, who counts America's domesticity diva, Martha Stewart, among her best friends, naturally assumes that her values are the right ones. She assumes that everyone, given a choice, would want to be American and that the hatred her countrymen encounter overseas must be a tragic misunderstanding.
I think nothing is as irritating to non-Americans -- any foreigners, not just Muslims, or Chinese or Russians or Latin Americans or French, but also Japanese and Germans and British -- as this perennial and seemingly impenetrable American attitude.
When you got it, you got it, champ.
joezan
Proud, Ugly American
Enronesque ain't it.
61% say reports that the 19 9-11 terrorists were Arab are untrue; 77% say US action in Afghanistan is unjustifiable
And:
Respondents overwhelmingly describe the United States as "ruthless, aggressive, conceited, arrogant, easily provoked, biased"
and what do we have to show for it?
Johnny Walker
Though I must admit that I had no earthlly idea that this thing would cost 3 Billion a month.
Wish I had some pics of LAPD's light armored recon unit
"If we expect to kill every terrorist in the world, that's going to keep us going beyond doomsday," Byrd said. "How long can we afford this? We went [to Afghanistan] to hunt down the terrorists. We don't know where Osama bin Laden is or whether he is alive or not. We don't know where Mullah [Mohammad] Omar is hiding. . . . When will we know we have achieved victory?"
Byrd said the Pentagon has sent him documents estimating that the war would cost $30 billion in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, meaning Congress will be asked to provide an extra $12.6 billion in addition to $17.4 billion in supplemental spending approved last fall.
"We've got a deficit and we know it will exceed $350 billion," Hollings said. The administration, he said, seems to be arguing, "Since we've got a war, we've got to have deficits -- and the war is never going to end."
Sooner or later, Hollings said, "this town is going to sober up."
"War" Without End. Amen
It appears that Chomsky doesn't comprehend the plain meaning of UN Article 51, or else he believes his minions are too stupid to.
Excerpt:
"I'm asking that we accept the definition of hypocrite given in the gospels, " he said.
"The hypocrite is the person who refuses to apply to himself the standards he applies to others.
"I think we should try to rise to the level of minimal moral integrity."
I also noticed this little pearl of self contradiction that Chomsky offered up:
Mr Chomsky said it was "entirely possible" that Bin Laden did not know about the 11 September attacks and that he could have just been boasting in a videotape released by the US in December 2001 which links the Saudi-born militant to the atrocities.
He also claimed that Bin Laden could be taken at his word because his statements had been "consistent over time and very consistent with his actions over a long period".
Then the real work begins. We change terminology from "war" to "crime" terms. We strip political legitimacy from terrorist organizations and equate them to organized crime. The criminal aspects of their operations are emphasized- murder, kinapping, extorsion, smuggling rather than "terror." Whenever possible we highlight the money, sex, drugs, and rock'n roll they indulge in; the paucity of practical benefits to the poor oppressed masses they act in the name of; their cowardly nature, attacking unarmed women and children, avoidance of actions against armed forces; and emphasize their impotence in preventing us from doing pretty much whatever we want to do, when and where we want to do it. We
use every comparison to criminals possible in terminology, press releases, and even in the force we send against them which should be designated as "law enforcement." We separate the terrorists from their political claims whenever possible, acribing their actions to sadistic or selfish criminal masterminds using other people's grievances as a means of satisfying their personal needs or ambitions. Suicide bombers are treated as deluded victims, exploited to make others rich, famous or powerful by appealing to what they see as a just cause. The lack of personal sacrifice by the leadership is emphasized. They hide out in Rome, London, New York, go to discos with infidels, pick up hookers, live the high life and send misguided kids from other families off to their deaths... etc.
The Bush administration has worked to distance Al-Qeda et al from Islam, but has done so in a political context. We need to deny political opposition as their motive, and focus it on personal ambitions of the small groups of people who direct the terrorist actions.
'Everybody' knows Republicans are evil and half insane.
UR beginning to sound like the boy who cried wolf. 
taking guns away from 'right wing nuts'
"The Congress has a constitutional responsibility to ask questions," he said. "We are not a rubber stamp to this president or to anybody else. We must do what the Constitution and what our best judgment requires, and we'll continue to do this."
Daschle called GOP reaction to his remarks Thursday "nothing short of hysterical" and challenged them to show where he had criticized the president.
Daschle to Lott/DeLay - Bite Me
GARDEZ, Afghanistan -- n the biggest U.S.-led ground operation this year, U.S. and Afghan troops backed by U.S. jets Saturday attacked Taliban and al-Qaida forces regrouping in eastern Afghanistan. One American was killed and a number were injured, the Pentagon said.
Two Afghan fighters were also killed, the Pentagon added. The first day's attack made little headway in dislodging Taliban and al-Qaida fighters who fought back with artillery, mortars and heavy machine guns, Afghan officials said.
The casualties came during the largest U.S.-led ground operation in the anti-terror campaign since the December attack on the Tora-Bora cave complex, U.S. military officials said.
Of course-- both tracks are necessary. Arrest individuals and cells, shut down the money...and attack the states that tolerate and underwrite groups.
I tend to favor an attack on Iraq, but timing is certainly a valid question to raise.
U.S. Urges Bin Laden To Form Nation It Can Attack
WASHINGTON, DC— Speaking via closed-circuit television from the Oval Office Monday, President Bush made a direct plea to Osama bin Laden to form a nation the U.S. can attack. "Whether you take over an existing nation like Afghanistan or create a new breakaway republic called, say, Osamastan, the important thing is that you establish an identifiable nation-state with an army, a capital, and clearly defined borders," Bush said. "Maybe you could also sign some quick treaties to definitively establish who your allies are." The president then pledged $600 million to bin Laden for the construction of a state-of-the-art defense headquarters that the U.S. can bomb.
...from The Onion.
The simple fact that the Democrats' official attack dog was the one posing these "legitimate inquiries" makes the whole thing suspect, imo.
I would hope that the approach to military style concentrations of troops and material would be a military response. However, the host government could be challenged on the non-political criminal front at first, and when they balk can themselves be targeted and the "criminal" club can be used to beat them with in the geopolitical conflict created by their intransigence.
Say WHAT?
They are the front-line partners for U.S. Special Forces in Afghanistan — rugged Afghan men outfitted by the United States and paid $200 a month to hunt down al-Qaida and Taliban warriors.
Loyalty to their local commander binds them to the U.S. cause in a land where warlords have been known to switch sides easily, bringing along their entire force. As U.S. commanders pressed their biggest offensive this year on Saturday, they were relying heavily on these hired soldiers.
I left my Housman in my other pants, but I have no problem with mercenaries. In fact, I think the U.S. should take over sponsorship of the gurkhas.
I don't see how this could have been regarded as other than a rhetorical question at best, given even a minimal knowledge of events in Afghanistan.
Report: Al Qaida has 'dirty bomb'
WASHINGTON, Mar 03, 2002 (United Press International via COMTEX) -- The consensus view within the U.S. government is that the al Qaida terrorist group has acquired lower-level radioactive substances that ordinary explosives could spread as contaminants, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
Although such a so-called dirty bomb could cause a more modest number of deaths than an actual nuclear weapon, it could have a considerable impact as a "weapon of psychological terror," an unidentified senior government specialist told the newspaper.
President Bush, after a briefing by the CIA, ordered his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to the United States, the newspaper reported.
As a consequence, the report said, the Bush administration has installed hundreds of sophisticated radioactivity detectors at U.S. border inspection points and around the nation's capital. National laboratories have been ordered to develop even more sensitive detectors, according to the report.
The elite commando unit, the Delta Force, has been placed on standby alert to seize any nuclear materials that are detected, the Post said.
The heightened fears of the use of nuclear materials along with reported threats of a terrorist attack bigger than Sept. 11 explain the decision to maintain a cadre of senior federal managers on standby outside of Washington, the Post said of its initial disclosure of the precautions on Friday.
The likeliest source for terrorists of nuclear materials, the paper said, was the crumbling nuclear industry infrastructure in the former Soviet Union, despite the insistence of Russian officials that all such materials are accounted for.
Theft of nuclear byproducts have been reported frequently, the Post said, noting that in 1995 Chechen rebels placed a functional "dirty bomb" in a Moscow park but did not detonate it. Al Qaida has its own contacts with Chechen rebels, the paper said.
It's shameful of Congressional Democrats to be throwing sand in the gears of the US attempt to combat dangerous world terrorism less than six months after 9/11, particularly in view of the UPI report I posted above. Compounding their hypocrisy, I don't recall any of these whiners such as Daschole ever raising their voices in criticism against any of x42's pointless adventurism.
Remember the concerned/DeLAY sputum on Kosovo?
Phonies Patriot Pukes...like concerned
Moron
CONCORD, N.H. (Reuters) - U.S. Sen. John Kerry, in New Hampshire to support Democratic candidates for Congress, on Saturday accused Republicans of hiding behind a "false cloak of patriotism" as they attacked Democrats for questioning White House plans to expand the war on terrorism.
Funny...we were just discussing baby killers in the ME thread.
The US had no strategic interest or reason to interfere militarily in Kosovo and our bombing campaign there actually advanced the cause of al Qaeda.
And the issue, in case you missed it, is whether when US troops are in harm's way, who is it that is pissing on what they have been ordered to do?
And that indictment rests solely against traitors like you and Tom deLAY
J'accuse "concerned" - phony patriot
Because you couldn't name a good reason for the US to have interfered in Kosovo if it killed you.
That's how so.
Face it. The Clowntoon administration and Tony Blair completely refused to contemplate a diplomatic solution to the situation, and, instead, took the side of the Albanian terrorists and violated international law with their illegal war in Kosovo.
There is no way to honestly assert that 'patriotism' had anything to do with the US attacking Serbia the way it did.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20584-2002Feb28.html
Napoleon Bonehead
1. The atrocities are America's fault. ...
2. The failure of diplomacy to avert the war is America's fault.
3. Congress should not support the war.
4. We can't win. "
5. Don't believe U.S. propaganda.
6. Give peace a chance
7. We have no choice but to compromise
8. We're eager to compromise.
9. We'll back off first.
GOP Treason Redux, Concerned Ridiculous
In anticipation of the obvious objection, I will admit that there have been leaks of information from Congress in the past, but the same is true of the White House. The executive branch has had leakers for various reasons throughout recent history without regard for the personality or political party of the occupant of the office. Previous leakers have concerned themselves with far more hypothetical risks than the ones the capital faces now. It would be clear to any leaker than their own safety is implicated in such leaks, and I think that irresponsible leaks are far less likely in this circumstance. Even if you have no faith in their sense of safety or their patriotism, it would be political suicide to leak information that placed the public and the capital at risk. It seems reasonable to trust politicians and their minions to be sensitive to political realities, isn't it?
Nine Americans have been killed in recent operations in eastern Afghanistan, the most to die in combat since the war on terrorism began last October, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Monday.
Six troops were killed Monday when their Chinook helicopter was shot down and a firefight ensued, and a seventh died later from his wounds, Pentagon sources said. At least 10 U.S. military personnel also were injured in that incident.
Midless rah-rahing for Bush will not win the war, or frighten Al-Qeda or other criminals seeking to kill Americans.
Just for the sake of argument, suppose that Bush and his administration are not infallible.
What would a patriotic American's duty then be? Simply cheer and pray that they not make mistakes in the future, or offer constructive criticism?
I don't consider much of what Daschole said as being very constructive. Now is not the best time to be contentious about whether we should have a continuing involvement in Afghanistan or to prosecute the war on terrorism. But, I am speaking of the issue as a practical matter.
FWIW, Daschole is digging himself deeper with his rhetoric, so if I were really cynical, I'd be cheering his foolishness on right about now.
*Giggle*
Sen. John Corzine, D-N.J., distanced himself yesterday from Senate Plurality Leader Tom Daschle's recent protest that the Bush administration's prosecution of the war on terrorism lacked "a clear direction," saying instead that the Bush war effort has been consistent from the outset.
"I think that (Daschle's comments) would be something that I would not identify with," Corzine told WABC Radio's Steve Malzberg.
"I think there has been clear direction that we were going to pursue terrorists wherever they might be and from everything that I have been able to derive, and I'm not on the Intelligence Committees, it strikes me that the places that we're going (are) consistent with the charge that the president laid down and I stand with him on that."
Have you even listened to what he's saying? I have and I didn't hear that at all.
That is what Daschole seems to be advocating to me.
To give Daschole his due, I would be wrong to suggest that he hasn't supported our efforts in Afghanistan to date. But from what he's been saying this last week, every little thing from this point forward seems to be on the table of political debate for him.
"Soon this town is going to sober up" - Sen Foghorn Leghorn.
....Senator John Kerry, American Patriot
Overthrow the Dictatorship of the Moronariat!
Power to the People!
I did not make so strong an assertion. The extent to which he has been undermining US efforts with his rhetoric seem to me to be intended to create that effect, however. You don't need a weatherman to tell you that a lot of people are objecting to Daschole's rhetoric, including many in his own party.
The Pseudo-patriotic Hypocrisy of Trent Lott and Tom DeLay
The two top members of the Senate Appropriations Committee -- Chairman Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and senior Republican Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska -- wrote to Ridge on Monday asking that he appear before their panel.
More Psuedo-patriotic Hypocrisy from the Bu$h Dictatorship
We need to be cautious in hoping for any sort of decisive military victory, since the strategy of Al-Qeda is clearly shifted into a guerilla war mode. They are clearly planning on casuing increased American casualties and thus breaking the national will to pursue them. It is just as important to AlQeda to escape as it is to inflict casualties. I am surprised that they have concentrated forces in a given area. Perhaps they are hoping to establish a safe area for basing their hit and run campaign.
Driblets of information are hitting public discussion that are unsettling at least. One example is the revelation that a significant portion of the hijeckers were subjected to additional screening before boarding their planes, and yet were allowed on board with their capabilities intact. How did this happen? How could it have been prevented?
What has the shift in our intelligence services from human resources to electronic and satelite surveilance produced? Apparently there are gaps in its effectivness, or in the use of the information gathered. While the loss of life in New York is appalling, the ability of terrorists to strike the Pentagon is the most alarming. The military value of such a target is huge. If it is possible for a small force of deadicated extremists to launch a deadly attack on the most visible and central military target of the country, what could a desparate or crazed leader with even a semi-modern military do?
And with all the non-issues you bring up, you fail to ask how it was that they had one illegal Arab immigrant trying to pay for flight school without interest in learning how to land, and they never asked around to see if anyone else had tried the same thing.
As for the Bush administration bearing the responsibility- it's their watch. So far, I am not aware of anything that they did which is radically different than previous administrations in regard to the prevention of the attacks. So at this point there's no real partisan advantage that I am claiming or seeking. That might change, but I have no reason to think so at this point.
I know. That's what makes their failure even more obscene.
I find it absurd to use FAA regulations as proof that the Bush administration was asleep at the wheel.
Talk about arm chair generals! 
Alabama '10 Commandments' Judge Calls Gays 'Evil'
Hey the Moron has started something!
(CBS) As in every battle in every war, the plan for Operation Anaconda was perfect - until the fighting started, .as it did early last Saturday
Don't worry.
Our Warriour King has a Secret, no a DOUBLE Secret Strategery.
Pogue Colonel: Don't you love your country?
Private Joker: Yes, sir.
Pogue Colonel: Then how about getting with the program? Why don't you jump on the team and come on in for the big win?
Private Joker: Yes, sir!
Pogue Colonel: Son, all I've ever asked of my marines is that they obey my orders as they would the word of God. We are here to help the Vietnamese, because inside every gook there is an American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son..
What's strange is that you thought I did.
The little lying piece of dog shit Daschole was well aware of the shadow government since 9/11, as I pointed out earlier.
Daschole: Open Mouth, Insert Foot
Gingrich was worthy of demonization and it was easy for moderates to see his vicious streak, but it won't be as easy with Daschle .. .although you virtuoso hatemongers certainly give it the ol' outhouse try! 
US Commmanders watched in horror as a Predator's camera showed the execution of one of our GI's.
Talk about arm chair generals!
I bet it was one of the worst days of their lives. I truly feel for any of our people who watched the video. I pray that it doesn't become public and torture the solidier's surivivors.
I would hate to think that Jex is gloating over US conduct of and casualties from operations in Afghanistan because they are taking place under a Republican administration.
Which would be, no matter what, no matter where, no matter how, the bile can't help but rise, and in his effort to smear Bush, often times, civilian casualties (in this case, the military) occur. 
Excellent multi-part Economist survey asking the question - "Are Muslims and the people of the West doomed to perpetual confrontation?"
Daschole is the sleaziest weasel in politics today. Guess somebody has to carry the ball for the 'Rats since x42 was booted.
One small snippet calls to mind an early prediction of mine in this thread. Rather than being a war "on Islam", I mused, this conflict may well be termed one day as a war "for Islam" - the by-products could well include a multiplicity of Islamist regimes where currently various shades of despots rule (often with US assistance).
Awkwardly, the status quo is convenient for the West, especially in western Islam, the region between the Gulf and the Atlantic. Europe and America have their understandings with most of the governments in this region, about oil and other matters, and do not like to think of a changed future.
The possible consolation, if the preceding article is correct, is that the force most likely to displace many existing governments—the Islamic revival—could in the long run prove a stabler partner for the West. In the short run, though, the collapse of the status quo is going to produce some angry quarrels.
When these endanger genuine western interests—a free market in oil, safe traffic in the air and on the sea, the security of decent allies—the West must be ready to defend those interests. The more visibly determined it is to defend them, the less likely that it will actually have to pull a trigger. But the West should be clear in its mind that, properly handled, these quarrels are merely the usual difficulties of a time of transition; and that the aim, when the transition is complete, should be an easier relationship with a modernised Islam.
If the West puts the two together again, it may have a better chance of solving its own problems. It will also have narrowed the gap between itself and the world's 1.2 billion Muslims. The differences between the two civilisations will still be large. They had their origins, long ago, in conflicting views about the way God chose to introduce himself to man. The paths they have followed since then have often wandered far apart, and sometimes bloodily crossed. They are not about to converge. But the distance between them would diminish, and the risk of misunderstanding be less, if Islam and the West no longer regarded each other as, respectively, amoral and fanatic.
And it would be a fine rounding off of ironies if Muslims could claim that they helped to nudge the West back on course. If they did, tomorrow's historians would record, first, that contact with Muslims helped to bring about the West's great leap forward out of the Middle Ages: second, that western influence 500 years later helped Islam to modernise itself; and, final exchange of courtesies, that Islam then reminded the West of the common underpinning of what they both stand for. It would be an apt end to too long a quarrel between cousins.
Hellooo? Excepting Turkey and Indonesia, we currently have 'various shades of despots' ruling almost all Islamic regimes. So Blanks is flat out wrong if that is how the US effort will be regarded by future historians as being 'for' Islam.
The way in which the US war on terrorism may benefit Islam is to so discredit Islamists in general that the typical practice of the religion as a whole will be forcibly weaned from its intellectual fossilization and dragged into the last half millennium of societal evolution.
'not long ago' being before the fucking Enlightenment. Sounds like Blanks is dabbling in Lefty voodoo mythmaking again.
"So Blanks is flat out wrong if that is how he believes the US effort will be regarded by future historians as being 'for' Islam."
Perhaps CalGal would have some unique perspective on this, since I gather that she was once a denizen of SA, but I was wondering who was doin the population exploding. Are we seeing the numerical rise of a perennial underclass? And how much arable land does SA have available to sustain their burgeoning masses, anyway? My mental vision of SA is of the world's third largest sandbox (after the Sahara Desert and the Democrat Underground website).
that's really nice, thank you.
Saudi Arabia always had a very generous welfare system for its citizens, so there hasn't been that much of a native underclass in the past. If they keep on cutting their social services back, one may arise.
One thing I wonder--is the population explosion all their own citizens? Because I believe they can pretty much boot out their outside laborers whenever they want, and somewhere between 30 and 40 percent of their population is non-citizens.
It has no arable land to speak of.
What it does have is a very bad drought, a ton of uneducated and pissed off young men, and not nearly enough money to assuage them all.
I doubt that.
Consider the religious context. Btw, condolences.
Put these two together 
and whatever economic pinch the Saudis may feel now tends to look temporary.
Note also that the cost of extraction in Saudi Arabia is among the lowest in the world, thus they will probably be able to make a profit at an oil price of, say, $8, when most other fields become uneconomical, many even dramatically so. 
(Neat graph). 
Click on graphs to enlarge them. 
Ha! And here I worried that you'd accuse me of being a geek!
Analysis Paper #11, Brookings
You want geekery?
I was bored at work yesterday afternoon, what with the Mote down, and all.
Source
If these numbers are accurate, Saudi Arabia has a lot more people to afford. But is it normal for percentage growth to jump all over the place like that?
During the 1980's and 1990's, the world's largest population growth occured in subSaharan Africa and in a belt extending from Egypt up through Iran.
Coincidentally, that region also witnessed the slowest growth in GNP
I wondered if it was just native births or all population counted.
But the Saudi birth rate is apparently 6+ per woman--I'm assuming that is by counting births and women, not new people?
On the other end of the scale we have the former Soviet republics like the various Farawaystans where fertility is very low although they are dirt poor, a legacy of the Soviet system, which for all it faults put great emphasis on education.
Concerned, I believe that Islamists loathe women. That's certainly been the anecdotal evidence thus far.
They don't loathe them. They believe everybody should own a couple.
Hopefully fewer run-on sentences.
Actually, I did a non-too-geeky back-of-the-envelope calculus of Saudi oil wealth. And, to my great surprise, it's not really that all-impressive. Assuming Saudi oil production has a 15% share of the total (a geek would hunt the precise number down), they're presently only generating revenues to the tune of $1,000 a year per capita. Even if the number is double, it's not staggering.
And if you convert its total amount of oil reserves, those whopping 25% of the world's total, into cash at a price of $20 a barrell (not a very high price, but substantially higher than the current price), you have an oil fortune per capita standing at US$261,700. That's nice, but if you consider an average life span of 70 years, it's only $3,740 a year.
Of course, the price of oil may sky rocket in the future, much faster than other prices. But even at a factor ten, this wouldn't be otherworldly -though it would place the Saudis among the world's richest (US income level is currently around $32,000 per cap). Of course, the petroleum sector isn't all there is to the Saudi economy; the CIA's Fact Book has it that it constitutes around 40% of GDP.
And if the population continues its breakneck pace and the human capital and development of economic and social infrastructure is neglected, there is no fairy tale cornucopia ahead for Saudi Arabia.
(I am still very surprised at the surprisingly modest value of the Saudi oil fortune -- I wonder if I have made a decimal error...)
The Los Angeles Times reports the Bush administration has told the Defence Department to prepare contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven countries.
Citing a classified Pentagon report, the newspaper reports the military was also directed to build smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain battlefield situations.
The countries named in the secret report - provided to Congress on January 8 - were China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Syria.
We will never forget Sept. 11, 2001
Just imagine the criminal leaders of the terrorist nations and their aides reading faxes of translations of these articles today.
Not knowing if we will, or won't use them, given the opportunity.
Makes me feel good knowing that it may frighten them into stopping their destructive natures.
And rather than frightening them, I think this might spur them on...you poke sticks at rattlesnakes and they fight back, they don't run off fearful for their lives.
Better them, than us.
We can spend billions exterminating countless lives, but we aren't willing to spend money on preventative programs for despairing and impoverished people--let's give 'em more mayhem. That will keep them from hating us and wanting to end our world dominance. That's what Jesus would do, right?
His moralistic bullshit makes me sick...no one is as partriotic as he, no one can understand it as thoroughly as he, blah blah blah. What an elitist snob.
Gee and here I thought the honor went to Andrew Sullivan!
Self-righteous bag of gas to be sure
Goldberg also credited the Bush income tax cuts for bringing us out of the recession. Challenged by an incredulous New Republic reporter who pointed out that the tax cuts haven't gone into effect yet and could not possibly have stimulated the economy, Goldberg's only counterpoint was the retort, "Prove they DIDN'T!"
Jonah Goldberg = AceofSpades?
A tribe in Africa.
You didn't grow up in the south so I guess you've never heard the little ditty sung to the tune of the old Salem cigarette jingle
You can take a [negro] out of the jungle but...
He probably picked it up from some Bushie yahoo at the National Review watercooler.
Let's roll...
You WolfieWitz, Mullah Moron and what army?
"A 21st Century 'Bay of Goats'" -Anthony Zinni
"Let's roll.."
Rosie the Clown
Was the leak by
a) an opponent of the so-called policy
or
b) an intentional Bush leak?
I've been going back and forth on that one...
c) Don't know
In the 60s, Mau-Mauing was coined by Tom Wolfe; he did a piece on the Weathermen and how society dames and their hangers-on used to think it was cool to hang out with the angry young organizers of that group and donate to their cause...I forget the beginning of the title but that last part of it was And Mau-Mauing With The Flak Catchers.
by Tom Wolfe
I looked it up....
Still don't fit.
From the Harvard-Brookings Press and Terrorism Project...
Stephen Hess: Could I ask one question...about anti-Americanism...is it just a myth that we've created?
Toby Harnden: No, I certainly don't think it's a myth. I mean, you know, when I was in high school I remember Ronald Reagan. There was a television program called Spitting Image, and they had an item, The President's Brain is Missing. This became sort of part of the law over there. And amongst, again, elites, the upper reaches of the newspapers, the media, there's a very strong sense in Europe, I mean perhaps in continental Europe a bit more than an Britain, which is, I think, more sort of instincts. Europeans are more sophisticated and more thoughtful and more reasonable, and Americans eat too much, are very fat and just make loads of money, and don't read books and don't have puzzles and don't travel.
NATO Split Over Iraq?
Journalists' Perspective
The International Secretary was speaking as Dick Cheney, the American vice-president, flew to Britain to seek Tony Blair's support for military action in Iraq. Her remarks will add to suspicions of a deep division in the Cabinet over the prospect of war in the Gulf.
Blair Gov't Split on Iraq Attack
You and *what* army Rosie?
SS Second Pz "das reich" unavailable at last check
DAILY DISH
I found this reference in a Google search; it's not exactly what I'd cite as a good reference to what Jonah Goldberg meant but it's some sort of definition, anyhow...it's from an artcle about class differences:
One that comes to mind is Tom Wolf's "Maumauing
the flak-catchers", where he talked about how political wannabes created the image of group=constituency to get a share of the federal pie
the Weathermen and how society dames and their hangers-on used to think it was cool to hang out with the angry young organizers of that group and donate to their cause...
this is still somewhat true...in the anarchist community there are lotsa trust fund kids who hang out in the squats and then go home when they turn 30, get their Jaguar and work for daddy...sometimes it can seem like a rite of passage for them. there are also trust fund kids who aren't doing it for kicks, are really dedicated to the movement and use Mommy and Daddy's money to publish newspapers, buy houses, create community centers, etc.
Everybody at his job knew what a freaker alfred was and they loved him all the more for it...it made them appear more tolerant/less conservative to say "My friend is an anarchist/pagan/freaky mother fucker..." the richest person I have ever met in my life threw a big houseparty for Ralph Nader this past election. It's still fashionable to like and support radicals while simultaneously avoiding actually stepping in the shit...less fashionable to live in a way that supports those principles that you throw money at.
Spike Lee's last film Bamboozled makes reference to the Mau-Maus and only gets didactic in the last 10 or 15 minutes...worth seeing!
H. Rap Brown - Guilty as Charged...hallelujah!
Have a seat, Mr. Brown!
be careful what yer praying for. He wouldn't be the first black panther framed and persecuted just for shits and giggles.
Brown, 58, now known as Jamil Abdullah al-Amin, sat impassively in an Atlanta courtroom as a Fulton County prosecutor pointed at him and told a jury it was the Muslim cleric who opened fire on two Fulton County deputies during a failed arrest outside his grocery store on March 16, 2000.
The surviving sheriff's deputy, Aldranon English, testified that Brown opened fire, killing his partner, when they tried to serve Brown with a warrant. Deputy English was wounded.
Whataweasel.
I do what I can! ;-)
CAIRO -- Jordan and Turkey on Sunday warned the United States that a military strike against their neighbor Iraq could destabilize the region and undermine the economies of two of America's closest allies in the Muslim world.
The warnings from two countries whose cooperation would be essential for any attack on Iraq came as Vice President Dick Cheney flew to London to begin a 10-day trip to the Middle East to bolster support for the campaign against the Al Qaeda terrorist network.
The comments by Jordan's King Abdullah II and Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit suggest a growing consensus among regional leaders that the risks of an attack on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein far outweigh any threat he may pose.
There's no misunderstanding this however....
That's Rich:
National Review's editor suggests nuking Mecca. We're not kidding
Ohio....
Looks like you were right. Now we know Ace's whereabouts
- Daily T
Yesterday Rosie o Jesu's panties were all wet.
"Let's Roll!"
Any one see a badly coiffed drag queen rolling down the Rock Creek Parkway please call LunchMoneyxxxxxxxxx 555.3456 
And I here these fellas did some bridge dancing in Belgrade... 
Why can't this be a permanent memorial?
It actually makes me feel good, like they rebuilt the WTC somehow.
I also think it's savvy (New York minute smart)that it's only a month from 7 to 11 pm.
Unique selling proposition.
But it is very beautiful. I was very moved, seeing it shoot to the heavens, the switch turned on by a 12-year-old orphan, listening to Miss Norman sing, as I drove from the City, to my little mountain retreat.
To my relative safety.
Where people, in their desperation, do not turn from political solutions, to incinerating children, as a rule.
To where crocuses are blooming, if prematurely.
To where hawks snatch chipmunks, as nature marches cruelly along.
But to where humans, at least since the dispatch of the Lenape, tend to treat one other with some respect.
m>A Tribute in Light
But look further, and Cicero's approach runs into trouble. Rome itself wasted no time with hearts and minds (it razed Carthage, salted the earth and sold surviving Carthaginians into slavery), yet Rome's harsh treatment of civilians abroad simply inspired more rebellions.
And look in the mirror. Britain's decision to get tough with us colonials triggered the birth of this country. Over and over around the world — in the Philippines, Malaysia, Algeria, Kenya, Vietnam and many other countries — efforts to terrify people into submission backfired and created more ferocious resistance.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Unveiling a color-coded terrorism warning system, domestic security chief Tom Ridge said Tuesday the nation is on yellow alert - facing a "significant risk" of danger but not the highest stage.
The five-level system is a response to public complaints that broad terror alerts issued by the government since the Sept. 11 attacks raised alarm without providing useful guidance.
The lowest-status warning is green, followed by blue, yellow, orange and red as the perceived dangers intensify.
the nation needs to know when to get their souls in order!
Can we get a picture of Ridge with Ashcroft's cock up his ass? I think it would be a wonderful illustration of Jay's post.
Since Sept. 11, the U.S. government has secretly transported dozens of people suspected of links to terrorists to countries other than the United States, bypassing extradition procedures and legal formalities, according to Western diplomats and intelligence sources. The suspects have been taken to countries, including Egypt and Jordan, whose intelligence services have close ties to the CIA and where they can be subjected to interrogation tactics - including torture and threats to families - that are illegal in the United States, the sources said. In some cases, U.S. intelligence agents remain closely involved in the interrogation, the sources said.
"After September 11, these sorts of movements have been occurring all the time," a U.S. diplomat said. "It allows us to get information from terrorists in a way we can't do on U.S. soil."
Between 1993 and 1999, terrorism suspects were rendered to the United States from Nigeria, the Philippines, Kenya and South Africa in operations acknowledged by U.S. officials. Dozens of other covert renditions, often with Egyptian co-operation, were also conducted, U.S. officials said.
Even when local intelligence agents are involved, diplomats said, it is preferable to render a suspect secretly because it prevents lengthy court battles and minimizes publicity that could tip off the detainee's associates. Rendering suspects to a third country, particularly Muslim nations such as Egypt or Jordan, also helps to defuse domestic political concerns in predominantly Muslim nations such as Indonesia, the diplomats said.
Sending a suspect directly to the United States, the diplomats said, could prompt objections from government officials who fear that any publicity of such an action would lead to a backlash from fundamentalist Islamic groups.
I am an enthusiastic supporter.
"Nazis believe that anything goes in the name of their cause. The fight against Naziism must not buy into that logic. Human rights principles must not be compromised in the name of any cause."
Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, denouncing Count Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg.
We are on YELLOW alert.
Let's roll!
You wanna get bin Laden? Here's how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the al Qaeda way. And that's how you get bin Laden!
Apologies to Sean Connery and The Untouchables
John the Vigilant, the Virtous.
Gitmo
This, I'll never understand.
My reaction to that article was "Well, duh!".
No one ever thought it was a good way of getting information, they just thought it was fun. I gotta a couple of appointments open this week, PoJ, concerned--would either of you like some time with my whip?
Why let them choose when they die, and how? It's cheap enough to force them to live, why give them any more pleasure?
The KGB was very good at systematic torture, and they lost control of the USSR. I don't think that it is worth the moral cost to us to facilitate such a dubious practice.
As I recall, it took them a hell of a long time to lose control, and I don't think they lost it because of their torture policy.
Puh-lease....
So it had nothing to do with the ratcheting up of the military build-up, increased influx of information about the free world, and a rotten economic system.
Nice to know....
...It was all about the torture.
One can justify--perhaps--torture of an individual that existing intelligence has already linked to a potential nuclear attack to find the ticking nuclear truck bomb in downtown New York. What cannot be justified is the routine or speculative use of torture that is less for actual intelligence than to assert power. It dehumanizes both the torturer and the tortured.
but isn't that exactly what makes it so fun?!!
Hey...different strokes for different folks.
though my comment was flippant I do mean it...if you take away the show of force aspect of torture I don't think you would get people willing to do that stuff. People who torture want to demonstrate, in a public way, that they are badass.
It's empirical proof that the man is a megalomaniacal throwback!
This looks to me like another Department of Disinformation affair which may require a denial/cancellation by Rumsfeld.
So, can he sing?
no nobody cares, but we do have TV!
have you read Michael Moore's latest?
Chris Matthews voiced the opinion tonight that the leak was "obviously by someone in the Pentagon who is opposed to the new policy recommendation." For whatever that's worth.
It still might have been a "trial balloon" Bush-leak but if it WAS a Pentagon leak, that makes two in as many weeks....
Rummy better watch his ass.
I was making a cynical joke.
Get it?
Krusty the Klown Gets Warning in Jordan
(AP) - Vice President Dick Cheney received a public warning Tuesday from Jordanian King Abdullah II that expanding the terrorism war to Iraq could destabilize the region and undermine gains in Afghanistan.
but heretofore I believe our policy has been to use nuclear weapons only after another country used them first on us or a NATO country.
I believe our stated policy always was that we would never launch the first nuclear strike
My recollection is different. Because the Warzaw pact's oonventional forces were thought superior to NATO's the US could not rule out the first strike option. The Soviet Union could but with the decline in Russia's military strength it reversed its policy last year.
We need to be alerted alright,. . . but to the madmen now in charge of this asylum! 
Arky, Yeah, I think so! We're on the same wave length.
Willing to die? TIs that why Saddam hid in a bunker as opposed to leading the troops to glorious martyrdom and the plethora of virgins that would have been his in heaven.
Is that why Osama sent his wives to hide in Afghanistan and then Pakistan. Because he wanted to martyr them.
Is that why Osama himself failed to lead the charge on the 10th Mountain Division as an example to all militant muslims and get his virgin booty up in the clouds?
Is that why Qaddaffi crawled under a rock after Reagan targeted his house and killed some of his family members?
Wake up. Sure the leaders of these guys willingly use nutjobs who are willing to die as their personal kamikazes. They're unwilling to do the deed themselves.
Puh-lease. You charge the administration with neolithic logic but fail to use any logic whatsoever yourself.
But unlike the old strategic formula of mutual assured destruction, or MAD, in which nuclear superpowers deter each other into a détente, the Pentagon's new saber-rattling is meant to signal something different. That is a unilateral assured destruction, so that no dictator could seek safety for himself or his weapons of mass destruction in some deep bunker where no conventional weapon could destroy them.
Critics are bound to argue that Mr. Bush is making a radical and dangerous shift to a first-strike policy.
But in the nuclear standoff of the cold war, the United States never declared a no-first-strike policy against its nuclear adversaries; it simply made massive retaliation a credible threat by building a triad of air, land and sea weapons, enough of which, in theory, would survive any plausible first strike by the Soviet Union, the only real strategic threat that the United States faced.
And partly because a nuclear superpower is always thinking the unthinkable, and often building weapons that can do the unthinkable. Deterrence ultimately requires both the right kind of weapons to do the job and the EXPRESSED WILLINGNESS TO USE THEM.
"The assets most valued by the spectrum of potential adversaries in the new security environment may be diverse and, in some cases, U.S. understanding of what an adversary values may evolve," the Pentagon report explains.
"Nuclear attack options that vary in scale, scope, and purpose will complement other military capabilities. The combination can provide the range of options needed to pose a credible deterrent to adversaries whose values and calculations of risk and gain and loss may be very diferent from and more difficult to discern than those of past adversaries."
You're right WoW. It would be more more "logical" for the Pentagon NOT to assess threats based on the world as it exists today, but to simply assume we're still in a cold war with the USSR.
And pray tell, if some nutjob uses a "dirty bomb" or chemical/biological weapon that kills thousands of Americans are you saying that the US should be ready willng and able to retaliate with appropriate weapons from its arsenal?
What's illogical about being prepared?
Nothing, you hate of the curent administration simply blinds you to all logic. You'll attack anything it says or does.
The U.S. interest lies in deproliferation, not expanding the conditions for using nuclear weapons because we have the strongest conventional warfare capability. We let the genie out of the bottle when we dropped the bomb on Japan, but it has been contained since then. Expanding to tactical nuclear weapons, simply because Al Qaida's caves couldn't easily be penetrated by a few conventional bombs, would be letting the genie back out of the bottle again as other nations emulated U.S. policy. Our policy should be designed to send the message that nuclear weapons are off limits for everyone, including the United States. With U.S. overwhelming conventional military strength it's hard for me to envision any situation where it would be in our interest to use nuclear weapons.
Try looking at the ignorance and poverty that makes people desperate enough to become terrorists and you might come to understand why the use of nuclear weapons are insane.
You haven't a clue! You're a sheep who falls for the same kind of jingo bleating that keeps Israel and Palestine hell on earth. Escalation never works. "Puh-lease," indeed!
The U.S. interest lies in deproliferation, not expanding the conditions for using nuclear weapons because we have the strongest conventional warfare capability.
I disagree. First, it is naive to think that if the US does not update it's arsenal to the weapons appropriate for the scenarios facing us that all other countries will say, bah, we don't need em. The fact of the matter is as technology advances so will weapons systems of all types. The only way that theUS remains asuperpower and assures its safety is by being able to obliterate anyone who tries to throw a weapon of mass destruction at us. If during the Gulf War, the spectre of nukes wasn't facing Saddam as a retal option, he would have been willing to throw chemical and biological scuds at our troops. Nukes are a trump card. In some cases that means smaller tactical nukes. Going around barefoot wearing flower garlands and tossing flower petals in the air isn't gonna keep us safe.
Osama, Saddam and Qaddaffi are indeed cowards, but they are the ones who fund and insight the cowardly acts of terrorism. What good is a nuclear device against a clandestine terrorist living in South Florida or the Philipines?
Turn off the sirens and bright lights that impair your brain and think a bit. If Saddam and Qadaffi know that they are going to be vaporized for sponsoring a chem/nuke attack on the US they are less likely to do it b/c they are cowards.
Granted, the theory does not work with a homeless terrorist like bin Laden who won't care if we turn afghanistan into a parking lot if he thinks he can escape to pakistan, but I'd rather have 7 or 8 guys as the threats to watch that 27 guys. The other 20 we are deterring are heads of state who have more resources and ability to hide what they;re doing than the rogue terrorists. If you hinkthrowing abunch of food at everyone is going to solve the problem, you are insane. We threw food at Somalia. The warlords used it as currency to buy weapons and as a weapon to keep their people subjugated.
Holding hands and singing "We are the World" isn't gonna cut it WoW.
Many war college games and studies pointed to a scenario where NATO was forced into a tactical nuclear first strike to allow time for regrouping and reinforcement of the NATO forces from US and Canada. Thus, it was assumed even though official policy was no first strike, in the event of a warsaw pact attack, it would be jestisonned under pressure.
The scenarios then often rapidly deterriorated into a general exchange of nuclear attacks, which was a driving force behind the Nuclear Freeze movement in the early 80's. The panic at the Fulda Gap was the standard boogeyman for the Freeze proponants at that time, not a rogue action or attack ala terrorists.
I disagree. I'm not sure how much more there is to say. We need to stay ahead of everyone else technologically. We need to be able to respond to new threats. If we did it your way we'd still be defending our shores and way of life with muskets and bayonets.
We can't even agree to quit using land mines and follow the lead of the rest of the civilized world for Christ's sake.
The standard line on US policy has generally been that we do not pre-target anyone, and that we will provide a devastating counter strike to any nuclear agression against the US or NATO. I would alter that with only one possible nuance, and that is to include a reference to "weapons of mass destruction" instead of the "nuclear" reference.
Deterrence can be accomplished without specific threats- there is no need to lock future Presidents into a decision where we cannot anticipate the factual setting which will surround it. There is no need for the distraction and political divisiveness or damage done by this stupid leak both here at home and with out allies. It was worse than a sin, its a blunder.
I did not intend to say that the US had a first strike policy. But it had not formally renounced the possibility of a first strike in the case that NATO ground troops were overrun.
Tellin OUR Regent, Krusty the Klown to go stick it where the sun don't shine.
The South Koreans, the Jordanians, the Saudis, the Kuwaitis, when will they learn that when it comes to the Evil Axis at their doorsteps, our Moron King knows what's best for them!
First they told The All Highest they'd back him...THAT was at the White Palace.
NOW they're singin a different tune.
Horseshit! They know (and we know) that we won't Hiroshima entire countries to destroy some mad finatics--and if we did, we wouldn't be any different than the worst madmen of history.
Granted, the theory does not work with a homeless terrorist like bin Laden who won't care if we turn afghanistan into a parking lot if he thinks he can escape to pakistan, but I'd rather have 7 or 8 guys as the threats to watch that 27 guys. The other 20 we are deterring are heads of state who have more resources and ability to hide what they;re doing than the rogue terrorists. If you hinkthrowing abunch of food at everyone is going to solve the problem, you are insane. We threw food at Somalia. The warlords used it as currency to buy weapons and as a weapon to keep their people subjugated.
Don't try to put your words in my mouth. There are hundreds of terrorists and thousands of hateful people who are willing to aid and comfort the few suicidal ones that will put a dirty nuclear bomb somewhere in a Manhattan warehouse. In fact your idiotic solution will only multiply the numbers of people who whant to destroy America.
Holding hands and singing "We are the World" isn't gonna cut it WoW.
Sure, boil it all down into a simplistic cliche; but remember that most cliches are usually based on some truth and in this interconnected global village, we are the world . . .and your short sighted kill-them-before-they-kill-us is imbecilic, to say the least.
The official policy of NATO was that it refused to rule out that it would be the first to use nuclear weapons. The point of NATO's ambiguity was clear: nukes could be used first to secure Western Europe from being overrun. U.S. policymakers from at least the time of Eisenhower assumed that tactical nuclear weapons would be needed to stop any full-scale assault by the Soviets in Europe. What's more, NATO policy was in stark contrast to Soviet policy. The Soviets stated that they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons and badgered the U.S. to meet their high moral standard. The U.S. refused to do this for the simple reason that such a standard would have undercut its entire military doctrine in Europe. Contrary to JonesAtLaw's comments, that doctrine was not based on technological superiority.
Ironically, the Russians dropped the no first use policy after the fall of the Soviet Union. They were no longer confident in their conventional superiority and wanted a more robust deterrent.
Here is a Carnegie Endowment article on the matter. A brief excerpt: NATO was a shotgun marriage, formed under fear that Moscow could use nuclear threats to expand communism throughout Europe. The threat of Soviet military aggression deepened NATO's reliance on nuclear weapons as the first line of deterrence, leading to the policy of using nuclear weapons first in conflict. Contrary to the general public's understanding, this meant that the U.S. would initiate nuclear war in response to conventional attack, not just to retaliate against Soviet nuclear attack.
Horseshit! They know (and we know) that we won't Hiroshima entire countries to destroy some mad finatics--and if we did, we wouldn't be any different than the worst madmen of history.
Again. Think a bit. Maybe that's the purpose of further R&D on tactical nukes and developing better, smaller nukes. You don't have to turn all of Iraq into a parking lot that way, but Saddam knows you can get HIM. That type of possibility is a deterrent.
In fact your idiotic solution will only multiply the numbers of people who whant to destroy America.
How does developing appropriate weapons "multiply the numbers of people who whant to destroy America"? That my friend is nonsensical, hysterical, crap.
Sure, boil it all down into a simplistic cliche; but remember that most cliches are usually based on some truth and in this interconnected global village, we are the world. . ..
Fine WoW. Invite Osama into the global village. Hold his grimy, murderous little hand. Along with all the other "hundreds of terrorists and thousands of hateful people who are willing to aid and comfort the few suicidal ones that will put a dirty nuclear bomb somewhere in a Manhattan warehouse." I'm sure the fox will accept your invitation into the henhouse.
...and your short sighted kill-them-before-they-kill-us is imbecilic, to say the least
Tell that to the 3000 dead in NYC. And moreover, read my posts before you spout your cartoonish answers. Did I say kill them all or did I say make sure we have the technology to do so as a deterrent? As I said, you are so narrowly focused on hating this president that your not even willing to listen to policies that make sense. After all that's one less copped/modified pic to post on a silly little website somewhere.
I thought you were merely a misguided fool, but now I have a much lower opinion of you. I don't know what makes you so dumb--but it really works!
Have a nice WWIII, zojak!
Notable for its absence, any criticism of Congress.
Lookin more like an inside Pentagon job
They've a billboard "What's so great about Denny?
Happy at 6 am
Happy at 6 pm"
Now how could one possibly HATE that guy?
How could one possibly HATE Our Moron King,
Happy at 6 am
Happy at 6 pm
All the more reason NOT to hate His Imbecility.
Happy at 6 am
Happy at 6 pm
Have a nice WWIII, zojak!
Lemme guess. You were a "better red than dead guy, right? You venom belies your words.... and lack of a defensible position. I note you never answered the questions. But the reason why is obvious. And your gun analogy is silly and inapplicable. If you think this is simply gun control on an international scale, then there really is nothing more to say. Let's just take all weapons of every kind and dump them into the ocean. Dismantle the military. Because we all love each other. Forget the fact that you have acknowledged that there are thousands of madmen out there. We're talking about defending our country. Sorry I hurt your feelings. Go back to your global village and continue to play the village idiot. You do it well. Later.
Oh that billboard is awful...I know lots of developmentally disabled people who are just miserable beasts. robbing them of their emotions in a public sort of way is just de-humanizing...do you happen to know which organization is sponsoring that billboard? Is it ARC?
{or better "Let us roll Rosie"}
Cheney finds little zeal for new battle with Saddam- Times of London
"WHEN Dick Cheney arrived in the Middle East last night he had good cause to look back wistfully on the last time he led a mission to the region to drum up support for a war against Iraq.
More than a decade ago, when he was US Defence Secretary, he was greeted warmly by every Arab leader he encountered.
Yesterday, however, the only warmth that the Vice-President felt was the wind that blows off the Arabian Desert at this time of year..."
Ungrateful dune coons.
Must have been those goofy sunglasses he was wearing; he'd have gotten more action in a pair of Armani's. (Cadged from Don Imus)
Nope.
WoW-
You're pathetic. Again you failed to answer the questions and yelled, "nuh-uh, that's stupid."
Although if your attitudes are driven by fear, I guess it explains alot. Like an ostrich you choose to bury your head in the sand, pass out money and food to everyone, sing campfire songs in the global village, and hope that everything comes out ok. Between fight or flight you have obviously chosen flight. Keep running. The administration, the military, the intelligence community, and the 86% of the country that approves of the manner in which the war is being conducted will continue to protect you. Now unless you've got any substantive points that can be discussed you can now continue to say whatever you want about your perception of my intelligence and understanding of any words I used. I won't respond. You ain't worth it.
Judith, did you hear frist on Imus this a.m.? 
But I do concur about one thing--you aren't worth another word.
Frist appeared on Imus this a.m. to push the book. Imus accused him (half-jokingly) of trying to cash in on fear. Frist didn't even catch it. His wife reminded him (off air) to tell Imus that he was donating all the $$ to a charity that trains physicians to respond to disaster.
He described the book as a how-to guide on disaster preparedness. He goes thru such things as how/where to buy the right gas mask, etc. Frist sounded silly talking about it all. Maybe the guy's heart is in the right place. I'm not willing to label it as "exploitative propaganda" on the little we know.
Jolted into action by the sharp upturn in Israeli-Palestinian violence and that conflict's intrusion on efforts to gain foreign support for the war against terrorism, the Bush administration rushed on several fronts yesterday to demonstrate its renewed commitment to stopping the carnage in the Middle East.
A Rush to Act on the Mideast
Trouble is the Imbecile in Chief doesn't seem to know which way to rush
Nation building?
Such an approach is much more sensible, in the long run, not just politically, but possibly strategically in the War against Terrorism.
Hiya Rose!
The Warriour King can't use Turkey, can't use Kuwait, can't use Saudi Arabia, can't use Kuwait...
Then its either Iran or Rummy's Secret Transporter
No bodies...
No Mullah Omar...
No Osama...
Well at least we have Johnny Walker Black...
War without end. Amen.
Mange tak
Mange tak
please call
St Elizabeth's Mental Hospital 2700 Martin Luther King Jr Ave Washington,
District of Columbia 20032. Telephone 202-562-4000.
On 2-25-02, Helen Thomas asked Ari about Poindexter.
"Q Ari, why would this administration choose a man for couterterrorism who is so associated with the dark side of the Iran Contra scandal, Admiral Poindexter? ...
ARI: Let me just say about Admiral Poindexter, Admiral Poindexter is somebody who this administration thinks is an outstanding American and an outstanding citizen who has done a very good job in what he has done for our country, serving in the military.
Q How can you say that, when he told Colonel North to lie?
ARI: Helen, I think your views on Iran Contra are well-known, but the President does believe that Admiral Poindexter served --
Q It isn't my view, this is the prosecutor for the United States.
ARI: I understand. The President thinks that Admiral Poinndexter has served our nation very well.
Q Really?
MR. FLEISCHER: That's the President's thoughts.
Q Do you know his record?
MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sure you will inform me.
Q I don't have to, all you have to do is look it up." - Source - The White Palace Press Office
War Without End. Amen. [Minneapolis Star Trib]
Answer the questions Ari..answer the questions.
Men who tried to save the girls were prevented from doing so by the mutaween because approaching the girls would have been "sinful." This is detailed in The Telegraph, after a report in a Saudi newspaper. Apparently, some of the Saudi media (and the girls' parents) are upset by what happened.
How many billions are we giving those bastards to crack gay skulls?
There is a new round of throwing gay Egyptians into prison for homosexuality, despite the fact that there is no Egyptian law against homosexuality.
Damning with faint praise IMO
>Lindh interrogation report questioned
Newly revealed set of notes says Marin man wanted to leave Taliban after Sept. 11
No Gitmo for Mullah Omar
No Death Gurney for Osama
No Anthrax for Mullah Moron
Just a scapegoat for failure, a sacrifice to bloodlusts.
Cheney is also promoting Washington's campaign to stop Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) acquiring weapons of mass destruction, but several Arab leaders Cheney has met on the trip said they would oppose any military action against Iraq.
Crown Prince Abdullah said in the ABC interview, broadcast on Friday, that an attack on Iraq would not be in the interests of the United States, the region or the world, echoing language used by other leaders in describing their opposition.
Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) said in a French television interview on Friday that the United States had no attack plans "on the desk of the president."
So what did we get for that silly ass Afgh show?
Oh yeah...Hamid Karzai..and Johnny Walker...
Hamid's brother has a VERY popular restaurant in N. Beach
Unleash Gunga Din!
"Don't worry about all those big 'fuck you's' Krusty is getting, they really mean something else"
Deep thinking Paul, very deep
With his latest remarks, Prince Abdullah joined the chorus of Arab complaints about the Bush administration's talk of taking military action to oust Saddam Hussein and put an end to his programs to develop weapons of mass destruction. At virtually every stop in the Arab world, Mr. Cheney has been told that an American military strike would destabilize the region. The warnings have been made in news conferences, government statements and, in the case of Saudi Arabia, television interviews.
A Crescent of Evil
Backstabber!
Jordan Joins Axis of Evil
wondering if you can point me to some information on the gay Egyptian stories...neither my guy nor I had heard of them, suspecting it's getting buried somewhere we ain't looking.
thanks.
Doing Our Part for the "War" Effort
So I just did a Lexis search for the past year.
There's been a leeetle mainstream coverage, not much..
. Los Angeles Times, March 12, 2002 Tuesday, Home Edition, Page 4, 84 words, The World; IN BRIEF / EGYPT; 5 Men Sent to Prison on Gay Sex Charges, From Times Wire Reports
2. USA TODAY, March 12, 2002, Tuesday, FIRST EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. 12A, 573 words, Police in Zimbabwe chase away voters, Smita P. Nordwall; With wire reports
3. USA TODAY, March 12, 2002, Tuesday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. 12A, 575 words, Police in Zimbabwe chase away voters, Smita P. Nordwall; With wire reports
4. The Christian Science Monitor, March 1, 2002, Friday, WORLD; Pg. 07, 703 words, Egypt cracks down on gays, trumping Islamists, Sarah Gauch Special to The Christian Science Monitor, CAIRO
5. Newsday (New York, NY), February 20, 2002 Wednesday, HOME EDITION, Pg. A14, 680 words, WORLD; NATION BRIEFS, COMPILED FROM NEWS DISPATCHES
6. The Age (Melbourne), January 12, 2002, News Extra; Pg.5, 2498 words, Putting A Leash On The Land Of Liberty
7. The Gazette (Montreal), December 29, 2001 Saturday, 3762 words, Events of 2001: a time of tumult, Compiled by LIZ FERGUSON
8. The Washington Post, December 29, 2001, Saturday, Final Edition, STYLE; Pg. C01, 1330 words, And You Thought Things Were Strange Here, Ken Ringle, Washington Post Staff Writer
9. Toronto Star, December 20, 2001 Thursday, Ontario Edition, NEWS;, Pg. A23, 481 words, Brief
10. Los Angeles Times, December 2, 2001 Sunday, Home Edition, Page 17, 16692 words, The Best Books of 2001; Nonfiction
11. Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), November 30, 2001, Friday, Metro Edition, NEWS; Pg. 32A, 1238 words, Letters from readers
12. Los Angeles Times, November 21, 2001 Wednesday, Home Edition, Page 4, 1700 words, RESPONSE TO TERROR; MILITARY COURTS; Convened for Special Circumstances, Tribunals Have a Way of Expanding; Justice: In Peru, Egypt and elsewhere, courts set up to deal with rebellion have been broadened to address ordinary crime with swift, tough rulings., HECTOR TOBAR, NATALIA TARNAWIECKI, SPECIAL TO THE TIMES, LIMA, Peru
13. The Baltimore Sun, November 18, 2001 Sunday, FINAL EDITION, Pg. 5F, 940 words, Mideast 'friends' could do more; Message: If America put pressure on repressive Egypt and Saudi Arabia to open up, it might not be so hated., G. Jefferson Price III
14. The Guardian (London), November 15, 2001, Guardian Foreign Pages, Pg. 18, 664 words, Egypt jails 'debauched' gays: Up to five-year prison sentences for 23 men tried under security law for homosexuality, Khaled Dawoud in Cairo and Brian Whitaker
Ooooh, thanks. You rock...thanks.
"We just got a message from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)," President Bush (news - web sites) joked at a dinner last weekend, according to other attendees. "The good news is that he's willing to have his nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons counted. The bad news is he wants Arthur Andersen to do it."
Anyone still think this is a "war"? 
I have intimated that a certain ignoramus is trying to pay attention.
Why did he have to waste millions in taxpayers' $$$$ to find out what I would have been happy to tell him 3 months ago?
Afganistan is not another Vietnam yet by a long shot, but it has potential.
And admit that the waters around you have grown....
Nevermind.
To echo the prominent pleader from Nebraska, this isn't Vietnam, but it has potential.
Since apparently the OBL boyz headed for where ever they added "running away" to Rummy bravado.
Oh well at least we have Johnny Walker Black.
Poor bastard. 
By Walter Pincus and John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 19, 2002; Page A01
A senior associate of Osama bin Laden who is on President Bush's most-wanted list of international terrorists for allegedly helping plan the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa has been captured in Sudan, senior administration officials said yesterday.
U.S. officials have been negotiating for more than a month with the Sudanese government to have Abu Anas Liby transferred to Egypt because he also allegedly took part in planning an attempted assassination of President Hosni Mubarak in June 1995, according to an official familiar with the negotiations.
Liby is the most senior al Qaeda member to be arrested since the United States launched its war on terrorism. He is the first person captured alive among the administration's group of most wanted terrorists, a roster of 22 names released on Oct. 10.
U.S. authorities have a warrant for Liby's arrest but appear willing to have him transferred to Egypt, citing his alleged participation in the attempt on Mubarak's life, which took place before the embassy bombings. However, another practical reason is that Egyptian security officials are not bound in interrogation of prisoners by the same rules that apply to U.S. law enforcement agents.
As the most senior official of al Qaeda in custody, Liby would potentially be an extremely valuable source on information about bin Laden's terrorist network, which the United States says plotted and carried out the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and Washington....
(see link for rest of story)
PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) March 19 — Protected by sympathetic clerics, up to 1,000 Taliban and al-Qaida leaders are hiding in Pakistan and planning a Taliban comeback in Afghanistan, according to Taliban members and others familiar with the Islamic movement.
Most of the exiles including some of the best-known figures in the Islamic militia live quietly in Pakistan's lawless frontier region, protected by tribal leaders of their own Pashtun ethnic group in an area where the central government's authority is limited.
Many of the Taliban fugitives remain convinced that interim Prime Minister Hamid Karzai's hold on power depends on U.S. support and once the Americans are gone, they will have little trouble dealing with Afghans who are now allied with Washington.
Giving a stark portrait of the security climate faced by U.S. troops, CIA Director George J. Tenet and Vice Adm. Thomas R. Wilson, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said that, despite the ouster of the Taliban last year, the return of warmer weather this spring will increase the likelihood of attacks against U.S. personnel.
"You're entering into another phase here that actually is more difficult because you're probably looking at smaller units who intend to really operate against you in a classic insurgency format," Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee.
The warning underscored the recent comments by U.S. commanders that the war is far from over, and signaled that the United States risks being drawn into a protracted guerrilla-style conflict. It helped explain Britain's announcement on Monday that it will send 1,700 Royal Marines to Afghanistan next month to join U.S. forces
No prisoners worth shit, AlQ finances and communications in tact....
Oh well, at least we have John Lindh. Our King doesn't have anthrax yet and best of all he has an insurgency to fight in the Armpit of Central Asia for a while. He'll have great fun playing with his new GI Joe "Delta Force" doll and delivering witless sermons on Evil.
Do you worry that the United States is headed into "unilateral overdrive" in its war against terrorism?
TUTU: What happened in New York was not an act of war, but a crime directed against the entire international community. As such, I believe fervently that the response should not be driven by one country, but by the United Nations. It should seek to apprehend the suspects and bring them to trial before the world community --this would be the perfect case in point for the International Criminal Court (though the United States, of course, has not yet agreed to the establishment of such a court).
The awfulness of the innocent civilian casualties in New York and Washington should not be matched by the outrage in response of killing innocents in Afghanistan or elsewhere. One, too, hopes very, very much that one of the elements that makes America so great and admired -- respect for the rule of law -- will not be disregarded in fear, that innocents will remain that until proven guilty.
There is a dispute regarding how they should be killed: One opinion is that the penalty for fornication should be applied to homosexuals, as [the act involves] penetration of a bodily orifice prohibited by religious law.
Another opinion is that the perpetrator of the deed, and the one to whom it is done, should be killed; a third opinion is that the homosexual should be burned. A fourth opinion is that he should be thrown from the highest wall, because of the loathsome nature of the deed.
- Ali Al-Sibki, lecturer on Islamic culture at Cairo University
Funny, when errant whackos kill gays over here, they're prosecuted. Over in the Middle East it's the government doing the killing. Wow, what differnt -but morally eqivalent mind you - cultures we have.
Those 200 advisors that Bush sent to Georgia to help with the AlQ's? Remember them. Well seems Georgia's agenda is a leetle different....
Abkhazia
In His hunger to be our WarLord, Bush is getting into things he doesn't have a clue about.
I am afraid that he really believes that simple-minded Manichean horseshit he delivers speech, after speech, after tiresome speech..
Oh please.
This man is bad joke.
- Mikhail Gorbachev
I'm glad your sense of humor is intact, jexster. GWB has already accomplished more against terrorism in a year than x42 managed in eight, or at the rate he was going, would ever have done.
"I state in the presence of God that I will slaughter infidels for my entire life"?
Be creative. We need a good chuckle here.
In your measurement of President Bush's accomplishments, I think you forgot to net out the little matter of 3500 dead Americans on September 11.
Well, first of all I'd round them up and bring them somewhere (anywhere but the US - maybe Cuba?) and let them stew in cages.
But they'd be decent cages, with a nice view and a constant, cool ocean breeze, and I'd tell them their circumstances were only temporary.
I'd let them contemplate exactly what "temporary" means for a couple of months while I had them politely interrogated.
Then, I'd start building a big prison - a veritable fortress with thick walls and few windows. I'd build it very near to the cages, so that they could hear the construction equipment, see the thickness of the outer walls, and perhaps even be able to discern the size of the tiny cells.
Then, as it dawned on them exactly what was meant by "temporary", I'd step up the frequency of the interrogations.
When my prison was finished, I'd start transferring some of them - while at the same time turning up the interrogations of the caged ones a notch or two.
Maybe then I'd even start "negotiating" with them.
Of course our WarLord doesn't appreciate that. The Thought is too deep.
He's too busy with his Manichean Machinations....
"I know it's a lot of money, my request. But let me just tell you this -- I want to remind you all, we fight for freedom."
Journalists don't do math. It is a well-known fact.
Poor Peruvians. Two national disasters in a week!
GI Joe GI Joe
Fightin man from head to toe....
War without end. Amen.
Why the US Cannot Match the Brits at High Altitudes
It's not about sponsoring terrorism. Iran and Syria are the world's leaders here.
If it's about weapons of mass destruction, either he has them, in which an invasion leads to use 'em or lose 'em scenarios. Or he doesn't, in which case the strategy should be to keep him from getting them.
The article talks about hundreds of thousands of troops and months of preparation time. This seems like an ineffective way of stopping development, deployment or use of a weapon of mass destruction.
Unannounced preemptive strikes on facilities makes a lot more sense. Or the announcement that missile sites are subject to destruction at any time.
Finally, is there a credible bio or chemical threat? Is this really only about nukes?
The NYTimes op-ed offers the law suit route, which doesn't seem all that terrifying to me.
which case the strategy should be to keep him from getting them."
I think the argument is that removing Saddam from power is the best way to do this. With inspections no longer an option, you can do aerial raids, but believing you can be successful in this requires a hell of a lot of confidence in your intelligence. Based on recent history, I think such confidence would be unwarranted.
To me, the question is: what is the possibility that Iraq will develop weapons of mass destruction in the next decade or so, absent an invasion. If our estimate of that probability is not negligible, then an invasion is a potentially reasonable policy option, provided that the political price isn't too high.
And 9/11 gives the US more political will and momentum to accomplish this now, more than it will probably have at any other time in the future.
FWIW, I saw one estimate that Saddam could have some sort of nuclear weapon in about a year's time. I'm sure a better estimate would have been possible if x42 hadn't bungled things regarding UN weapons inspectors.
But on the whole this is a "he's a really bad argument," with the wrinkle that may get a nuke. If you think he would not be deterred, then I guess that constitutes an argument. Deterrence has held up pretty well, though.
There are two arguments I can see in response to this. 1) He'll strike Israel instead, daring us to strike him. 2) A boat nuke delivered by al Qaeda or some other such group, to get himself deniabilty. Who would we nuke if that happened?
But you still have to answer the use 'em or lose 'em response. If he has a nuke, and if we do attack, he is more likely to use it. Deterrence is weakened--he's under attack anyway, and we may find the nuke.
In fact, if he has a nuke, is there any doubt that his final act would be to launch it at Israel?
So there's one that I can buy. We want to take him down before he gets a nuke, because once he gets one, it may ultimately get used.
And that should be Bush's inspection ultimatum. Convince us that you do not have a nuke, nor that you have the capability of building one, or we will invade.
Still seems pretty tenuous. Would the people who were to carry out the orders not be deterred?
It is really a matter of potential threat in a new world. At present, we are engaging militarily against an international crime syndicate from Afghanistan to the Sudan to Yemen to the Phillipines to Somalia. Al Qaeda will try our abilities in their most unorthodox form.
But certain regimes are threats in a more conventional manner. I agree that the two most dangerous regional poles of the Axis are North Korea (as it works on a missile of greater and greater capacity without allowing inspections) and Iraq (as evidence of its own biological, chemical and nuclear weapons progams come to the fore with post 9/11 significance, and it too disallows inspections). Regional diplomatic considerations play into the equation, but the question is fair: What is it you will need to know, for sure, that might justify military intervention with regard to these regimes?
For if you wait until capacity reaches operability, it will be too late.
We have undergone a painful example of what happens when one is lax. Al Qaeda attacked relentlessly through the 90s. Both parties did little. There can be no greater exemplification of a measured, cautious appraoch than the fact that Al Qaeda had one shot at the towers, were milled through the criminal system, attacked our people and installations throughout the world, we fired some cruise missiles, and then, the exact toothlessness of our response was made clear on 9/11.
Nobody has answered that question, not the article indy posted, not JC, not concerned.
Nor has anyone explained how a campaign of this complexity, requiring the prepartion time and commitment to garrisoning large areas, will stop production of weapons systems.
If the stateless criminal syndicate is as effective as you say, the result of an invasion could well be transfer of any mass destruction technology to that syndicate.
And they will not be deterred. It is vital that weapons of mass destruction remain associated with states.
Its a good idea, especially if we use a nice green with envy font. And we also need a different one in blazing red to save jexster all the time he spends blasting Bush.
I don't follow you here. You don't see how overthrowing Saddam and installing a friendlier regime will stop (or at least drastically reduce the probability of) the development and production of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
"Effective intelligence and preemptive strikes do that."
I think it is much more difficult to know whether your intelligence and strikes are effective. At any rate, we would end up with the sort of public relations nightmares we faced early in Afghanistan, where every bombing is claimed to kill innocents. But in this case, there won't be any end in sight.
"And I don't see why I shouldn't believe that he can be deterred."
Deterred from what? We managed to deter the Soviets from launching an all out war in Western Europe, and nuking us, but we didn't deter them from invading Afghanistan, crushing eastern european rebellion, or sponsoring dozens of destabilizing revolutionary movements in the third world.
Instead, we played a long game of cat and mouse, where both the US and the USSR avoided direct conflict, and avoided serious provocation in each other's areas of vital interest. But this was obviously suboptimal.
If Iraq developed nukes, at what point would it be willing to use them? To saber rattle over ending the no fly zone? Would we dare enforce the no fly zone against a nuclear power?
Would Iraq threaten nuclear retaliation if the US interfered with its next real estate grab? Would that substantially deter the US?
Do we want a world where Iraq plays at being a regional nuclear power, getting away with what the USSR did on a regional scale?
I am a tad nervous about this. My preference would be to avoid having to worry about such things by drastically reducing the possibility of Iraq developing nukes.
Fair is fair.
I'm all for stopping and destruction the production of these systems by this guy. I don't see how an invasion does that. Effective intelligence and preemptive strikes do that.
An invasion guarantees a more effective destruction, especially on the heels of intelligence and strikes, though the advanced technology of bombing makes an aerial strike a greater tool.
The Case for an American Osirak
I don't see why I shouldn't believe that he can be deterred.
That would depend on what methods of deterrence you are proposing. I have yet to read any.
Nobody has answered that question, not the article indy posted, not JC, not concerned.
See above.
Nor has anyone explained how a campaign of this complexity, requiring the prepartion time and commitment to garrisoning large areas, will stop production of weapons systems.
If you control the ground, you destroy everything. This is not brain surgery. Moreover, you are being excessively binary, as if there coulde only be deterrence or bombing or invasion, and there could be no melding of the tools.
If the stateless criminal syndicate is as effective as you say, the result of an invasion could well be transfer of any mass destruction technology to that syndicate.
The fact of military action would impede a transfer, unless you are suggesting that the status quo be maintained because of the threat of transfer.
And they will not be deterred. It is vital that weapons of mass destruction remain associated with states.
You have recast MADD in an almost absurdist light, as if Iraq were a reliable signatory to mutual-defense agreement with Al Qaeda.
Seems to me that it is much easier for a state to conceal mass destruction technology than it is for a syndicate. In essence, bin Laden had to borrow a state to support his infrastructure. By this, I'm not sayingthat it's impossible to build/transfer weps of mass destruction within a stateless criminal syndicate but it seems to me that if the syndicate has to move the weapons around to keep them hidden there are many more opportunities to interdict.
I haven't read this whole debate here, but it seems that your glib answer mischaracterizes what was said. As I read it, he was just saying you may be able to deter a state. You may not beable to deter a stateless organization.
Here is jay's contention:
If the stateless criminal syndicate is as effective as you say, the result of an invasion could well be transfer of any mass destruction technology to that syndicate.
And they will not be deterred. It is vital that weapons of mass destruction remain associated with states.
I'd be interested in alternative interpretations, but my reading is "If you invade, Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to Al Qaeda, and such weapons are best with a criminal state (Iraq) than a criminal syndicate (Al Qaeda). So, don't invade and risk the lessened threat of transfer or invade and risk the heightened threat of transfer."
I guess I have few observations.
1. If an invasion is necessary, then you haven't been able to deter Iraq. So the reasoning falls apart there.
2. A state'sability toresearch and hide weps IS much greater than a rogue organization's, so I'd rather stop the state (while we're trying to keep the rogue on the run as we kill several different parts of it).
"That would depend on what methods of deterrence you are proposing. I have yet to read any. "
Nukes, obviously. Like during the Gulf War, and like any other state that uses a nuke on us.
"The fact of military action would impede a transfer, unless you are suggesting that the status quo be maintained because of the threat of transfer."
You'd transfer when the threat was building, obviously. The New Yorker quotes a defense planner as saying this would take months to set up.
"You have recast MADD in an almost absurdist light, as if Iraq were a reliable signatory to mutual-defense agreement with Al Qaeda."
Not at all. An invasion that threatens the material will require a response of some kind. If they are ready to go, use 'em or lose 'em. If they are not, get them out of country. The best out of country place is with a trusted, non-state organization. At the moment, I don't think one exists, and the action taken in Afghanistan may make this difficult. (There's an interesting Defense backgrounder on the DOD site about the degree to which al Qaeda has been disrupted.) So in that sense, if you're gonna do this, now is the time. That again argues not for an invasion but for the aerial destruction of suspect sites, following a warning that we will do so if not permitted to inspect within a short time frame.
My overall point is that trying to eliminate the regime for any reason is destabilizing. If you fear extant weapons of mass destruction, then an invasion will run the risk of their use. If you fear their development in the near future, you run the risk of their being transferred somewhere else, in the worst case, to a stateless organization. MADD doesn't work with stateless organizations.
Seems to me that it is much easier for a state to conceal mass destruction technology than it is for a syndicate. In essence, bin Laden had to borrow a state to support his infrastructure. By this, I'm not sayingthat it's impossible to build/transfer weps of mass destruction within a stateless criminal syndicate but it seems to me that if the syndicate has to move the weapons around to keep them hidden there are many more opportunities to interdict.
Yes, the invasion of Afghanistan has taken away al Qaeda's venue. It is now more difficult than it was for a stateless organization to hold the materials. If you're gonna act, act now. Not in a year.
I have wondered if the reason we'er worried about the Phillipines is that the jungle might be a good place to hide stuff. However, places that are good to hide stuff are hard to reach undetected, the first time.
Nukes, obviously. Like during the Gulf War, and like any other state that uses a nuke on us.
We had nukes in 1991. We had nukes when he banned inspectors. We've had nukes as the entire biological, chemical and nuclear program of Iraq has expanded. And when you wait long enough for the weapons of mass destruction to become operable, you will have no deterrent.
You'd transfer when the threat was building, obviously. The New Yorker quotes a defense planner as saying this would take months to set up.
It would take five minutes to bomb. You continue to act as if air strikes, intelligence and ground troops cannot be used in a complementary fashion.
Not at all. An invasion that threatens the material will require a response of some kind. If they are ready to go, use 'em or lose 'em. If they are not, get them out of country. The best out of country place is with a trusted, non-state organization. At the moment, I don't think one exists, and the action taken in Afghanistan may make this difficult. (There's an interesting Defense backgrounder on the DOD site about the degree to which al Qaeda has been disrupted.) So in that sense, if you're gonna do this, now is the time. That again argues not for an invasion but for the aerial destruction of suspect sites, following a warning that we will do so if not permitted to inspect within a short time frame.
Under this framework, the best time to get them out is now. That said, when you invade, you get "them" early, when they are less effective, and you get intelligence as to where any of "it" may have gone, and you act accordingly.
My overall point is that trying to eliminate the regime for any reason is destabilizing. If you fear extant weapons of mass destruction, then an invasion will run the risk of their use. If you fear their development in the near future, you run the risk of their being transferred somewhere else, in the worst case, to a stateless organization. MADD doesn't work with stateless organizations.
Under your theory, when a state embarks on creating weapons of mass destruction, they have the hammer of deterrence, and can thereby fortestall military action.
Your view is premature and thankfully, minority.
If you're gonna act, act now. Not in a year.
Preach it, brother.
I don't get this. If Iraq has already developed nukes, an invasion is too late, and risks a regional nuclear exchange. If they haven't developed nukes, then I am not too worried about what they might give to a "stateless organization", as such an organization will have more trouble finishing the development than a state.
And he is correct on that point, which again, argues for immediate and massive military intervention.
Your argument is foolish, for the follwoing reasons.
I'm arguing against massive.
Then you are arguing for a half-assed approach. Easterbook may be right about capacity from the air, but you can be sure only by use of ground troops. And there is no point in merely diminishing capacity. We must eliminate it and despose the regime that insists upon it.
I'm arguing for soon, and precise, or not at all
So, either do it it now and lightly, or resign yourself to operability with payload capability because the timing was not to your liking.
Hoo boy.
And presuming it does not happen?
or not at all
Which states unequivocally NO INTERVENTION, and with no intervention, there will eventually be operability with payload capacity.
We all have preferences, but your inflexibility on the matter is dangerous.
Is it just nukes we are worried about? What are the other threats? How scary are they and how hard are they to develop?
If by this you mean missile bases, I say take them out preemptively, before they are operational. So my "not at all" was misleading. Sorry about that.
As for your questions as to the curent "scariness" quotient for what Iraq can do and has done and is working on doing, here are some informative links:
State Department 1998
CNS
IRPS
Why Iraq?
What to Do About Iraq?
Center for Strategic and International Studies
It's mostly nukes, Jay.
Our attack should be against Hesbola (sp.) in southern Lebonon. We should simple let countries like Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Lybia, and others know that we are prepared to use all the force we have to keep them in line.
We should cut the crap and call Arafat the terrorist he is and let Israel know we back them 100% in their fight, not against Palistinian people but the terrorists who think they can kill women and children and suffer very little. It's time to take off the velvet glove and strike with an iron fist.
AlD -
Let's suppose Saddam develops a nuclear capability, and through his support of international terrorism, one or more nuclear devices detonates in Israel, Europe or the US.
What's in your playback, given that eventuality?
You would have believe that Saddam had a death wish, not only for himself but all of Iraq. The fact that a Nation has weapons does not mean they will use them, unless they have a distinct advantage. Hitler could have been stopped and WWII avoided had the western powers taken him seriously in the early '30's and armed to the hilt. It was their weekness that encouraged him to attack. There is no Nation in the world matching our might. We only have to fear from irrational actors such as extreme Islamic idiots.
KABOOM!
Of course, he'll deny everything.
I don't see how the US can obtain guaranteed 'effective intelligence' about the internal military workings of Saddam's government without at least an extensive overt monitoring regime. Plus, I want to ask Jay if he knows of anything besides force which has 'deterred' Saddam in his more grandiose designs to date.
Sorry, Raskol -
The buck just stops at the x42 administration here, wouldn't you agree?
Good news: The Bush administration has finally "thrown the prestige of the White House behind addressing Middle East violence," according to the New York Times. This should be welcomed by Americans who get the picture—who see that, because hatred of America will translate into American deaths with growing efficiency as technology advances, the festering Palestinian issue is a long-term security threat to the United States.
Bad news: George W. Bush seems not to be among these enlightened Americans. His suddenly heightened concern with Middle East violence has little to do with its direct implications for homeland security. By all accounts, his main worry is that the violence will complicate his plan to invade Iraq. Of course, that invasion could itself in some ways increase American security, but it would also have the downside of increasing the amount of Islamic hatred of America. So, one way to summarize the Bush Middle East policy is this: Let's stop the carnage that is making America more enemies every day—at least, let's stop it for long enough so that America can make some more enemies
Warriour King Lost
See above link.
The ChickenHawks can't even manage any new propaganda. They've had to dustoff GWI. "Sadaam uses weapons of Mass D on HIS OWN PEOPLE!" They even sent James Woolsey on a mission charged with getting the goods on Saddam. Not only did he come up with nothing, he lost what was there as the Czechs retracted the 9-1-1 Atta/Iraqi intel report.
Worse there is no strategic justification that manages to hold up to the slightest scrutiny. Sadaam's boldest move in 12 years has been to light up the no-fly patrols from time to time. In fact, the Bushies advance Sadaams' very weakness as a main reason to attack. He's old. By some accounts he controls no more than 50% of the country for any sustained period.
Against the fabricated threat, the understated risk.
Nobody in the region wants us to attack. Even Turkey backed off. Qatar was the only state offering any help at all.
Why should we spend billions and spill blood just so that Bush can avenge Poppy and keep his poll ratings high?
The answer is clear. The fog of war provides cover for Bush and his wildly unpopular plutocratic domestic policies.
In case you haven't heard, the Czech retraction of that Atta/Iraqi Intel meeting has long since been retracted by the Czech gov't, after new details of the meeting were uncovered by some newspaper, iirc.
I hope any nuclear devices that go off with which Saddam's regime played some contributory part don't injure or kill you or yours.
I hope that no nuclear devices that WE played a part in don't go off except in Texas.
You're really setting yourself up for the GWB administration doing something on the order of what they are accomplishing in Afghanistan. Have you ever considered taking off your shit colored goggles?
I have never seen a more unbalanced strategic calculus than that the Bushies offer to butress the Revenge of Poppy.
But hey did you hear that they used chemical weapons against their own people? Did you know that Saddam is so weak that his regime will collapse at the first sight of a humvee?
So will someone tell me again, why it is we have to spend billions, kill thousands, wreck our influence in the region while enhancing Saddam's?
That is assuming we can find a base from which to launch ground ops.
Yeah, right. We're going to 'enhance' Sodamn Insane right into exile, if he's lucky.
Glad you asked that. AL Quaeda is very active (CIA/DIA). The future of the Kabul regime is in doubt. We have had to increase ground troops. The security and stability of the Afghan state are very much in doubt. Years of nation building are assured. Pakistan is nuclear and more unstable than ever. And suddently, Iran is a major influence in the country.
SO what did we accomplish?
We took out a bunch of jeeps with machine guns. The mobile armored force that the Talibees foolishly concentrated. And WE didn't even do it, the NA did. We have no Osama, We have no Mullah Omar.
We DO have a gold mine of intelligence about AlQ but most of that comes from places like Sudan, Yemen etc that woke up and smelled the burning WTC bodies.
When will Bush?
Hell, Saddam has more influence in the world RIGHT NOW than at any time since he invaded Kuwait.
Thanks to another of Bush's flights of wingnut fantasy.
Pure tomfoolerly
The US has freed a nation from tyranny. If that doesn't set your Lefty heart aflutter with Kumbayah type rejoicing, nothing will.
But that is nation building...isn't it?
So charge me with sedition, summon the Military Tribunal, but "America's great victory" in Afghanistan, as worthwhile as it was, isn't half of what our overamped press has claimed it to be.
And if Iraq is the greater danger as you and the Bushies seem to think, our adventurees there have tied up our forces and made it very unlikely that we will see anything before 2003-04.
By then maybe DC will have sobered up and even, as is likely, our Warrior King is still on a binder, well it won't much matter what he thinks by that time
Give it a rest, jex. You're nearing the edge.
Of course not. There is plenty of blame to go around: Failure to follow through on the Gulf War, earlier military support for Saddam, tepid enforcement of rights to conduct inspections, etc.
The U.S. will never attack Iraq absent some new provocation. The downside will become increasingly apparent as time passes. Bush is just walking loudly and carrying a little stick.
i dunno... i think invasion depends on his poll numbers in late 2003, myself.
Bush stated that he would not wait until danger gathered to strike. It is a fair knock on Clinton that during 8 years, he and Congress waited for danger to gather and strike.
If during the 4 to 8 years of Bush, Iraq and/or North Korea remain unimpeded and thereafter, weapons of mass destruction become operable for leverage or, God forbid, they are utilized, no matter what gains we make with Al Qaeda, those failures will make the Clinton failures pale in comparison.
North Korea Missile Ranges
Iraq is working on various weapons of mass destruction, as I set forth in my links of yesterday.
All countries either reject inspection and verification or develop weapons programs in secrecy.
This nation was prepared (rightly) to risk war against the Soviet Union in an effort to prevent missiles in Cuba. But forty yars later, when other hostile regimes hurry to become players, the usual suspects cringe, alleging politicization, fear of disrupting regional harmony, distaste over unilateralism, war-mongering, concerns of sovereignty and/or lack of justification.
You clods give the term superpower a bad name.
JC -
Regardless of your smokescreen about 'reasoned analysis', you seemed to have hopped on my bandwagon here.
If he waits that long, I will be shocked.
Raskol -
Are you suggesting that the US should have allowed Iran to decisively win the Iran/Iraq war here? If so, why?
Bush stated that he would not wait until danger gathered to strike. It is a fair knock on Clinton that during 8 years, he and Congress waited for danger to gather and strike.
In fact, Bush did wait for danger to gather to strike. I do not think Bush or Clinton would have had the support of the nation to strike as we have without more provocation than the Cole.
And, sadly, hundreds of people killed in Kenya didn't upset people all that much either. Certainly not enough to justify the measures we took.
With al Qaeda, I get it. You have a group of terrorists who have attacked/planned to attack the US over a number of years. It would have been great if we'd taken that wasp's nest out before all the wasps hatched. We didn't. We're scrambling to get them now. Swat away.
North Korea, however, is a sovereign nation with interests of its own to protect. Are we simply assuming that those interests are not legit? Edumacateme. Here's how I see it.
1. Nations, in general, use their militaries and their militaries' weapons as tools in a toolbox to protect their interests.
2. The US, at this point, is the only military superpower capable of taking on any other nation one on one, heck maybe even 2 to 3 on one or better. As a result the US has the power to say "no" to everyone else's interests id those interests conflict with the interests of the US.
3. If the US sets a policy now of, ok all you little guys, if you develop anything close to what we've got, we're going to assume that you're going to intentionally misuse what you've got and we're going to take you out. If the US gets the rest of the world to accept (even if they don't like it) the policy, then the US can ensure that it will always be able to say "no."
(Con't)
So, let's say that the Greeks actually pull of the Olympics, make some $$ of off them and get really worried about a Turkish military build-up and Turkey's intentions with respect to disputed Eastern Med. Islands. The Greek military is smaller. Greece decides that the best way to deter the Turks from taking advantage is to build some wep of mass destruction. I don't know, exploding baklava maybe. For Greece, it makes sense, there is no "ill intent."
But, under US policy, it's a small country building a wep of mass destruction, terrorists have operated there before. So what happens? Does the US strike before danger gathers? From the "terrorism" perspective the answer is probably no. From the "US wants to remain supreme" perspective the answer is probably yes.
Apply this to Korea. They're building missiles. Are we worried about terrorism, or are we worried that they'll have more influence than us in that lil corner of the world?
I am saying that we helped create the monster. Which country has been more of a threat since the Iran/Iraq war?
I am also saying that your tendentiousness is tedious. No reasonable person can look at Iraq and blame only Clinton. To do so ignores the Gulf War and US military support for Iraq, which occurred prior to Clinton's presidency.
I do not think Bush or Clinton would have had the support of the nation to strike as we have without more provocation than the Cole.
B.S. It's all in how the response of our leaders is couched. If the then-president had expressed outrage over the attack on a US military ship and the loss of human life, waved the flag, told us that we needed to kill the cancer and told us that it was worth fighting for, the American people would have rallied.
Look at how uncertain everyone was in the days after 9/11. Would we bomb another aspirin factory? Would we pull out the second someone died? No one knew. The thing about this president, like it ornot, is that HE set the tone, he didn't let the polls or uncertainty setthe tone. Like it or not a majority of US people have pulled out their flags and gone with it.
Sayingit dcouldn't have been done afterthe Cole or even after the Cole, then TWO embassies, I think is silly. I'd bet it wasn't even considered.
But I think it is a fair criticism of both (mostly of Clinton, as he had 8 years, whereas Bush had only 8 months before 9/11) that the support of the nation on this issue was never really sought. Combatting terrorism was never a priority issue for Clinton. On issues that he did deem a priority, he had at least partial success in implementing controversial policies (tax hike, NAFTA).
The "axis of evil" section of the State of the Union Address came as a shock to countries that had offered Washington strong support for the first phase of the post-Sept. 11 war on terrorism.
The linkage of Iraq, Iran and North Korea made no sense to them, and subsequent assurances that Bush had no immediate intention to take military action against the last two simply heightened fears that he planned to bomb or invade Iraq.
Americans are being asked: What has happened in the past few months that makes it so imperative to remove Saddam Hussein? Is there any evidence that Iraq was implicated in the 9-11 attacks? With whom do you plan to replace Saddam? And what will a war with Iraq mean for Israel, Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia? If removing Saddam is vital to America's national interest, how are the interests of the neighboring countries to be protected?
There may be answers to all these questions, but the Europeans would like to hear them.
Hey Broder not ALL Americans are morons. We'd like to know too! 
World's Policeman
The Top Cop
I really could care less about pre-September 11 culpability, and I am happy to spread blame in a bipartisan fashion so as to make everyone happy. I was screaming to topple Baghdad and depose Sadaam in 1991. I've also been screaming for military action against Iraq since inspectors were banished, and I consider the Clinton-era nuclear deal with North Korea to be perhaps the worst statecraft of the last 40 years. What matters now is going forward.
North Korea, however, is a sovereign nation with interests of its own to protect. Are we simply assuming that those interests are not legit? Edumacateme.
I'm sure North Korean interests are deemed legitimate by the North Korean government. But Iraq is a sovereign nation as well. So is Turkey. So was Afghanistan. The sovereign part is irrelevant (unless you are under the sway of Chomsky). The inquiry is behavior and responsibility.
1. Nations, in general, use their militaries and their militaries' weapons as tools in a toolbox to protect their interests.
2. The US, at this point, is the only military superpower capable of taking on any other nation one on one, heck maybe even 2 to 3 on one or better. As a result the US has the power to say "no" to everyone else's interests id those interests conflict with the interests of the US.
3. If the US sets a policy now of, ok all you little guys, if you develop anything close to what we've got, we're going to assume that you're going to intentionally misuse what you've got and we're going to take you out. If the US gets the rest of the world to accept (even if they don't like it) the policy, then the US can ensure that it will always be able to say "no."
It is not an all-encompassing policy. It is a policy directed at those nations that have proven to be menaces. Non-proliferation is a laudable goal all the way around, but if your policy cannot make a distinction between Greece and Iraq/North Korea, than you have lapsed into impotent equivalence. In essence, it involves choices.
THEN THE TERRORISTS WIN!
"its about behavior and responsibility'
Actually its not, its rather more about strategic interest and risks, but for the sake of argument, let's look at the issue, miscast, and make a list of Saddamite Sins
"he gassed his own people in 1988"
"he gassed his own people in 1988"
"he gassed his own people in 1988"
"he gassed his own people in 1988"
"he gassed his own people in 1988"
"he gassed his own people in 1988"
Who is Scott Ritter anyway?
and another question,
Julio, you cannot answer because you've not given the matter much thought, deep or otherwise, but doesn't it strike strange how the very nations that live next door or near to the Axes of Evil are the most strident opponents of Bush's Great Adventures?
Perhaps South Korea lives in petrifying fear of its half starved neighbor?
Ditto Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Egypt.
I wouldn't want to stymie your passion with facts, and any answers you receive from me are, by rule, in the vein of your own town fool style.
Thus, SEE MY LINKS YESTERDAY FOR POST-1988 THREAT, YOU MORON and then, STOP CRAPPING YOUR PANTS LONG-ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT IRAQ'S NEIGHBORS ARE NONE TO KEEN ON THE DEVIL FROM THE WEST PUTTING DOWN AN ARAB DOG!!!!!!
AyiiiiEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Which country has been more of a threat since the Iran/Iraq war?
To date, Iraq appears to have been, but that seems to have been dependent on the continuing dictatorship of Saddam, so I don't necessarily see this relative state of affairs continuing indefinitely.
I am also saying that your tendentiousness is tedious. No reasonable person can look at Iraq and blame only Clinton. To do so ignores the Gulf War and US military support for Iraq, which occurred prior to Clinton's presidency.
I don't blame 'only' x42. However, he is the one who gave Saddam enough excuse to terminate the very minimal protection of UN arms inspections, betraying extreme weakness in his foreign policy and helping to precipitate the situation that the US is being forced to address now.
Plus, isn't it rather strange that you criticize my 'tendentiousness' but then to immediately go after Clowntoon's foreign policy fecklessness yourself in such a big way?
Really now that's NEWS but unfortunately not the question now is it?
For if they were so terrified, just pissing their pants or robes or whatever for Bush to save them, I seemed to have missed any evidence of it.
No bases, no support, nothing but lectures.
For your truism, comforting though it maybe to you, boils down to "Saddam is an asshole"
Wow! 
Don't fight the Deepness Julio
See the links. Take a nap.
ANOTHER BRILLIANT X42 FOREIGN POLICY SUCCESS!!!!!!
From geostrategy-direct.com:
N. Korea hiding nukes in underground bunkers
The Bush administration has obtained information indicating that North Korea possesses at least three nuclear bombs as well as an undetermined amount of fissile material. The officials said the material is being stored in underground bunkers kept off-limits to both the United States or the International Atomic Energy Agency.
I have read your TNR links and the point remains, Saddam Hussein has been trying to develop NMD since Begin bombed his breeder reactor in the 1970's.
The very justification that the chicken hawks advance in support of Gulf War II is that Saddam is far weaker now than ever before.
Absent of course, is any evidence whatsoever that Saddam has the capability much less the inclination after all these decades to actually be a present threat.
Indeed the only victims of Saddamite aggressiuon have been the very folk who now think that Bush is out to lunch.
Bet you didn't know that JC.
Such a beguiling combination of ignorance and trust. What would we do without jexster?
If you read every pro-GWII argument carefully, without exception, they all boil down to - "Saddam is an asshole who gassed his people."
They assume the danger exists without a shred of convincing proof and immediately undercut their credal statement by saying Saddam is weaker than ever, strike now.
White man speak with forked tongue. Great White Leader is all talk, no walk
Read the 7 links I offered yesterday, not the Easterbrook link from TNR.
Then, decouple your vicious political instincts from your intellect. I do not work for the Administration. I don't even belong to the Federalist Society.
And then, realize that since we failed to topple Sadaam in 1991, I have been clamoring for his ouster, for the reasons set forth in the seven links.
Lastly, reject the phobia you have to unilateralism, and please, drop the embarrassing "If Saudi Arabia isn't clamoring for his ouster, why should we?"
Then, perhaps, you can understand, presuming I have caught you in the lucid.
Until that question is answered, the only fair conclusion is that Bush's policy is bereft of substantial strategic justification, that we have a WarLord who has been playing to long with GI Joe dolls and who thinks he's Winston Churchill.
The fact of the matter is that, with all his idle threats, bluff and bluster, Saddam, is in a stronger position diplomatically than at any time since 1988.
Better yet, give me 2 reasons other than "do you know he gassed his own people" or "Saddam is a mess", and I will be a happy fella
Post nos. 20569 and 20589.
Notice the double talk...
He's hasn't shit. He has less capability than he did in 1990. Sure he could resurrect a dead program.
Lasarus come out!
He isn't. We made a mistake not taking him out in 1991. A mistake that we now have the political momentum and will to remedy.
* With sufficient black-market uranium or plutonium, Iraq probably could fabricate a nuclear weapon.
* If undetected and unobstructed, could produce weapons-grade fissile material within several years.
* Engaged in clandestine procurement of special nuclear weapon-related equipment.
* Retains large and experienced pool of nuclear scientists and technicians.
* Retains nuclear weapons design, and may retain related components and software.
Iraq's Threat
NCI
Sadaam's Bombmaker
London Sunday Times
JCPA
Yea, I guess you're right. The last thing Sadaam did was in 1988.
Notice the doubletalk.
For the jexsters of the world, not until their hands are actually melting will there be any "evidence" sufficient to presuppose a threat.
Weapons inspectors, shmectors. The last thing Bush wants is weapons inspection of any type. Weapons of Mass Destruction, UN Resolutions - its all a ruse.
But Julio you knew that now didn't ya?
I suppose they didn't want to be embarrassed by the fact that their capabilities are nil.
Seems a lot of work to avoid a little humiliation.
It's all the Evil Bush.
Well, have a happy day Mr. Giggles. Your 11:00 am pill will be here shortly.
Oh my Gawd!
Do you have any earthly idea how hard it is to deliver these weapons?
Do you know how many Iraqi pilots have taken off in anger and lived to tell the story since 1990?
He's not very bright. He's infected with hubris. He's a heretic but he's not evil.
Iraq is evil
North Korea is evil
Iran is evil
France is evil
Sweden is the Mother of Evil
Bush is not evil. He's a simpleton, too dumb to realize that he's dumb.
It is not an all-encompassing policy. It is a policy directed at those nations that have proven to be menaces. Non-proliferation is a laudable goal all the way around, but if your policy cannot make a distinction between Greece and Iraq/North Korea, than you have lapsed into impotent equivalence. In essence, it involves choices.
Julius-
That is a wonderful non-statement. Does it translate in English to:
It'd be great if we can get rid of all the weapons - but we can't. U.S. policy should distinguish between good guys and bad guys. If you can't distinguish between good guys and bad guys, then you're treating things the same that shouldn't be treated the same.
Fine, I buy that in part. But let's call it like it is. In this context, good = whoever isalignedwith US interests at the moment and bad = whoever is not. Which is why we fundedthe very guys we just tried to take out in Afghanistan.
In my view, it's not based on any real moral choice, other than what some policy wonk in a small windowless office somewhere convinces someone else is best for John Q. Public on Main St. USA at that point in time.
So, how would it have been preferable to have not resisted Soviet hegemonism in Afghanistan nor Islamic fundamentalism in the Iran/Iraq War?
I see clear moral stances taken by the US in both cases. Doesn't mean the US has committed itself to a static policy in perpetuity.
Or you can vote for the Kumbayah crowd who sport policy wonks that frankly don't know what the fuck they are doing.
So, how would it have been preferable to have not resisted Soviet hegemonism in Afghanistan nor Islamic fundamentalism in the Iran/Iraq War?
I didn't say it was preferable to not resist the Soviets - for the US. If we'd let them be in Afghanistan who's to say that the Afghanis wouldn't be better off now? Frankly I don't think the quesation of what was good for the Afghanis played any role in the decision. If we were concerned about Afghanistan we wouldn't have left them out to dry after they dumped the Russkies. Can you really call that moral? Use 'em and leave 'em. And then come back and deal with the problem you IN PART created.
I see clear moral stances taken by the US in both cases. Doesn't mean the US has committed itself to a static policy in perpetuity.
I disagree. I see clear policy stances - not moral stances. My country is a democracy. The Soviets are runningaround gobbling upthe countriesfrom where I get my resources. They may even threaten me. Time to stomp it.
Take a look at theTurkish invasion of Cyprus. Thousands of people were brutally murdered and 1/3 of the island taken over. The US had carriers and assets nearby. Greece asked for US intervention and the US refused. Why? because of the stategic importance of Turkey. It controlled the Dardanelle Strait. If Turkey fell under Soviet influence it would have access to the Med and year ound warm water ports. Pure strategy for US interests not morality. Please.
Besides, those in the Middle East are born and bred on the idea of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'. There's a grain of validity to that, IMO.
Sure. I can be glib too. Once the enemy of your enemy is dead, what are you left with? An enemy.
ZQ -
Even if you insit on arguing against any moral aspect for a country's foreign policy, there is still the fact that the US has consistently shown itself, warts and all, to be the most powerful catalyst for an international system of free trade and a more untrammeled recognition of human rights than any other major power.
USSR? Nope. China? Puhleeze. EU? Too insular and self absorbed. India? Too provincial. Anybody else? Easily ignored small potatoes.
I'm not saying that the US in general hasn't tried to be a "nice guy."
But don't make us out to be Jesus. We're not.
Free trade? That's an issue of morality? It's in our interests. When we sell so much. Except for steel right?
Human Rights? Again, yes. When it's in our interests. It's not universal. That's why we're loaning CIA JETS AND PILOTS to fly suspected terrorists from Singapore to Egypt - WHERE WE CAN WATCH THEM BE TORTURED. Because we're too moral to do it ourselves. Please.
Don't get me wrong. I say send 'em. But don't call us Jesus.
An alliance which needs to be reviewed, I suppose.
As I said: Sure. I can be glib too.
Thank you for your contribution to the discussion, Pelle.
'night all.
Nothing to see here:
Really, I'm serious. Move along now.
Rummy didn't like it..and sent the bois back to the drawing board..
There's a story here....keep a weather eye open for it
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Justice Department (news - web sites) will seek the death penalty for Zacarias Moussaoui if a jury finds the French citizen guilty of conspiring to kill thousands in the Sept. 11 attacks on America, according to court papers filed on Thursday.
that's an understatement if i ever heard one.
In a move sure to spark new criticism from European nations opposed to capital punishment, Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) rejected pleas from the French Justice Ministry not to seek a death sentence for Moussaoui, the only person charged in the United States for the Sept. 11 attacks.
Ashcroft, the top U.S. law enforcement official who must approve all federal death penalty cases, accepted the recommendation of his prosecutors in the Moussaoui case and said he authorized them to seek the death penalty.
"The government will seek the sentence of death, in that the circumstances of the offenses are such that a sentence of death is justified," prosecutors Paul McNulty and James Comey said in the eight-page court filing.
He might be breaking the law.
I Hear That The Hague Has an Open Cell Next to Slobo
perky at 6 am
perky at 6 pm
in jail by midnight
Someone might oughta raise this with Deputy Dawg
The heroes of Flight 93 died protecting America. They deserve more than a highway and a plaque.
OLD ENEMIES EMBRACE
Arab leaders, who clapped when the heads of the Saudi and Iraqi delegations embraced before them, called for the definitive lifting of U.N. sanctions imposed for the Iraqi invasion, as well as for U.N. resolutions to be respected.
"We stress our total rejection of any attack on Iraq," they said in the Beirut Declaration read at the close of the summit.
Kuwaiti Deputy Prime Minister Sheikh Sabah al-Ahmed al-Sabah told Reuters he had even shaken hands with Iraqi presidential envoy Izzat Ibrahim during a closed summit session.
Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are close U.S. allies and their support would be important if the United States decided to extend its war on terror to Iraq, lumped by President Bush (news - web sites) into an "axis of evil" with Iran and North Korea (news - web sites).
The Beirut Declaration "welcomed Iraq's confirmation to respect the independence, sovereignty and security of the state of Kuwait and guarantee its safety and unity to avoid anything that might cause a repetition of what happened in 1990."
Maybe we can launch Da Big one against Iran from Khandahar.
And then there's always france and sweden the True Root of All Evil
Eat sand ChickenHawks
Kuwait had it right the last time. And as goes Kuwait, so gores Christendom.
Don't you agree Julio?
Wake Up Half Wits, GWB's Iraq Invasion Force Gonna Be Tied Up For a While
Are they drunk?
Is HE using again?
What happened to Saddam?
Analysts Look at Iraq Invasion - Sen. Warner WARNS Bush
Fools. All you've managed to do is make Saddam 1/2 respectable.
"A Bay of Goats" - Gen. Anthony Zinni (USMC -ret)
or as Rosie would say
"Let's Roll!"
Georgia: Fighting Terrorism in Another Failed State 
2700 Martin Luther King Jr Ave
Washington, District of Columbia 20032
Telephone 202-562-4000
Frightening Fraud - an "expose" of the crash of AA flight 77 on Sep. 11, 2001.
Apparently, this book purports to prove that flight 77 never did crash into the Pentagon as reported. It was all an elaborate hoax -for God knows what reason - foisted on the American people by our own government.
Does this surprise anyone?
Not me.
And its "fatal weakness", Pelle, is its entire premise.
But that is beside the point.
The more important point is, of course, that so many in France actually believe this crap.
I think it says much about what absolute lunacy is floating around France - and maybe all of Europe - regarding the US, its motives, methods, etc.
Surely you've heard of the people who think they've been probed by aliens and those who think we never landed on the moon? It's that kind of thing, only in France.
Apples and oranges, judith.
In this day and age, such questions as whether or not a plane really flew into the Pentagon are easily, damn near immediately verifiable.
Sure, there are plenty of kooks all over the world who believe people have been abducted by aliens - but these fantasies are nourished by a whole 'nother type of weirdness.
And, really, where's the "proof" they weren't? One can look and look for eternity, and never disprove something like that.
That people are willing (or, in the French case, eager, imo) to believe such absolute, easily disproved nonsense about those from another country - because they are from that other country - speaks to a much more dangerous type of idiocy.
Just replace "French" with "Joezan" and this makes a lot of sense.
What's your source?
I'm looking myself and can't find anything. It was reported on FOXNews earlier today.
11 Septembre: L'effroyable imposture.
I say we nuke em.
Big victory...on Iraq...Korea...Iran..Sweden
Bozos
Now, Mr. Cohen argues, "Iraq has a receded a bit," and "you are seeing Bush react with his own instincts," which have led him, inevitably, to compare the attacks in Israel to the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. NyT
Paper Tiger..Paper Tiger...Paper Tiger....
Bozos.
Uhuh... tell that to the American morons convinced that Hitler never even looked at a Jew funny -- forget exterminating them or that we've never landed a man on the moon. We're not talking apples or oranges, we're talking fruit cups and the world’s fruit cup population recognizes no man-made border.
Until leaders of the Taliban banned opium in their last year in power, Afghanistan produced as much as three-fourths of the world's supply, and taxes on the drug trade were an important source of revenue for the Taliban. Now, the profits that flowed to the Taliban's allies are expected to enrich tribal leaders whose support is vital to the American-backed government.
So long as the drug trade flourishes, law-enforcement officials said, it will fuel political rivalries, foster corruption and undermine the authority of the central government. But because opium farming remains one of the few viable economic activities, officials added, any intense eradication effort could imperil the stability of the government and thus hamper the military campaign against the Taliban and Al Qaeda.
"The fight against terrorism takes priority," one British law enforcement official said. "The fight against narcotics comes in second."
The challenge that American and European officials face is compounded by the surprising success the Taliban achieved in banning poppy cultivation two years ago.
That prohibition, which came after several years in which the Taliban quietly encouraged poppy farming, cut opium output from an estimated 4,042 tons in 2000, about 71 percent of the world's supply, to just 82 tons last year, according to the Central Intelligence Agency. What little opium Afghanistan produced in 2001 came almost entirely from the 10 percent of its territory then controlled by the Northern Alliance, the backbone of the new government.
The judge also stunned the defense team into silence by asking the question that pundits around the country have been debating since Lindh's capture.
Harris was arguing that Lindh did not go to Afghanistan to be a terrorist. "The defendant contests that he ever intended to be part of a conspiracy to kill civilians or Americans. . . . "
"Well what was he doing out there?" Ellis interrupted.
As defense lawyers goggled, he withdrew the question. "You don't have to answer that."
He further states, "But the chain of events leading inexorably to full-scale American invasion, if it hasn't already begun, evidently will begin soon."
Paper tiger...paper tigers, I TOLD you that all you'd accomplish with that silly GWII yap was to turn Saddam from non-factor to factor
Paper tiger...paper tiger
US invented air attack on Pentagon, claims French book
Someone pointed out to me the European sentiment (ex UK) toward america now is far from favorable and will sour more if the US chooses more violent actions in the mideast eg invading iraq.
What really amazes me is only a couple of years ago the talk was of no more recessions, the new economy was here, everyone was enjoying income growth even the poorest segments of the population, inflation was dead, government surpluses as far as the eye could see, the market was booming and the idea of a major military action anywhere seemed exceedingly remote.
How things have changed.
So you are amazed that a terrorist attack that killed 3,000 people would dramatically change things?
No doubt you saw the blow coming and your motherly instincts prompted you to shield sto3, the promising and handsome young economist, with your own body. And you made it with six seconds to spare. What a cliff-hanger that was.
I regret to inform you, though, that you are now cyberspacially dead.
What was the date of that story?
The book is real. No joke.
What seems strange is why Meyssan's weird theory isn't easily and immediately disprovable. Or at least not sufficiently for him to be exposed as a total crackpot, which is no doubt the inclination of most sane people, even in France.
I gather that the book's sales success is due to Meyssard's media apperance, not least a half-hour talk show appearance on a prominent French programme.
huh, huh to you too, boobs. Check around among the light-hearted threads and you will understand.
I am placing you under citizens arrest.
Cozy. I'm sure my manly energy will soar in your benevolent custody.
Pious thoughts from wise fools
my question in regards to the French book for our dear Francophobe joezan...just because people are buying the book means they believe it?
Yes, in many cases. The onus is upon you to show that people buy purportedly nonfiction books in order to diss them. Earth In the Balance is a case in point.
That was great. Thanks for linking it.
I've bought lots of books that I don't agree with. there is no onus upon me, I have nothing to prove...you demonstrate that you are not a complete dolt with so little range of thought that you are threatend by the very notion that people might investigate ideas that differ from their own.
If you intend to partake in discource amongst people of varying opinions you have to investigate their motivations and their ideas, or else you sound like a fundamentalist of one sort another. Reading the work of those you disagree with is an excellent way of building critical thinking skills, you might be interested in some of those.
I'm sure my manly energy will soar in your benevolent custody.
:-)
(that's me blushing)
betty -
You can blather on endlessly about how you, personally, and for all I know, some of your selected friends, are sooo advanced (as I have been since grade school) that you buy and read books with which you 'don't agree', but that has not the least relevance to my point.
But to blithely assume that a great many people will not believe, not least because they want to believe gratuitous tripe, something that they pay to read, is extremely silly.
And if you persist in this attitude, I'll have to consider you a silly person.
Btw, I've been building those 'critical thinking skills' that you are so proud of having achieved, since my early years in grade school. So, please shuck the bogus elitist attitude, why don't you?
This is just too funny....elitist attitude, anyone?
And of course people buy and read things with which they disagree...good lord, how do you think Bernard Goldberg and Rush Limbaugh sell so many books?
Being able to create and attack straw men does not a critical thinker make.
Intelligence officials have come to regard Abu Zubaida, 30, as one of the most important remaining leaders in an al Qaeda organization that has been substantially crippled by the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan. One U.S. official said today that Abu Zubaida "ranks probably third on a list of al Qaeda leaders we would like to have, but not third in their hierarchy."
As a chief recruiter for al Qaeda in the late 1990s and one of several gatekeepers for its training camps in Afghanistan, Abu Zubaida not only culled recruits but also arranged for their travels after they completed training -- a role that gave him detailed knowledge of undercover terrorist cells scattered around the world.
He moved up in al Qaeda's ranks after the organization's commander of military operations, Muhammad Atef, was apparently killed in November in a bombing attack in Afghanistan. In recent months U.S. officials feared that Abu Zubaida, whose photo has never been released, had been deployed to organize fresh attacks.
may I call you Peanut?
you said: Yes, in many cases.
to my question of: just because people are buying the book means they believe it?
now, you have nothing to support this opinion other than a willingness to believe French people are gullible and/or stupid for some reason, yet you claim critical thinking skills. Now, my bogus elitism (which I assure you is entirely genuine) is attacked because I question the silly notion that people only buy books to believe in them...yet you have critical thinking skills and read books of an opinion contrary to your own but you think others are incapable of this same skill. *sniff* I smell a burning pot calling the kettle black.
It is remotely possible that people want to see what all the WhoHa is about, controversy does sell you know. there are undoubtedly people who want to believe that the Pentagon was not hit by flight 77, some of whom are related to the passengers of that flight who would really like to believe their loved ones will walk home any minute now...however, this hardly means that the only reason the book is selling is because people want to believe this shit, i'm sure lots of them want a good laugh!
Now, I know that you said "Yes, in many cases", not "yes, in all cases", but i asked "just because people are buying the book means they believe it?"...you allow, with your response of "many", not all, of the purchasers will believe the book that in fact "just because people buy the book" does not mean they believe it. I never said that none of the people who purchase it will believe it but I'm not willing to wager, either way, that the majority do or do not agree with what the book states. I was just raising to our friend Joe the potential for folks to be looking at a dissenting opinion.
and I'm wondering Peanut, what exactly you mean by "many" and "great many"? the majority? 30%, 10%?
From what I can gather, the French media (with the exception of one chat-show host) has done a pretty good job of refuting this nonsense. Most of the debate among journalists has been about whether to ignore Meyssan's book as complete nonsense or whether to systematically undermine it (but risk drawing attention to it).
Here (scroll down a bit)
JAH -
Of course I object when a total stranger tries to incorrectly categorize me in a way which suits her agenda.
It's just too bad if the truth doesn't suit you, JAH. Snicker over that one.
Simply put, your position regarding how much of the readership will believe it is even more untenable than the book's premise.
Don't act even stupider than you have already, Betty. You're just peddling bullshit, and everybody knows it.
I don't feel like playing stupid games, Betty. My assertion stands, and you apparently agree with it. No need to be nasty with your namecalling.
This is a ridiculous claim, and one that is entirely unsupportable.
And to whoever it was called me a Francophobe up-thread:
Kiss my ass.
Only the worst crybaby sissy is afraid of a Frog. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Thoughtful is becoming concerned. What next?
there is no onus upon me
You don't have an onus?
Out of Leggos?
We've been working furiously at sharpening TD's critical thinking skills lately but plastic doesn't take an edge too well. 
20792. betty -4/3/2002 8:10:09 AM
My point was that we can neither prove that people are buying this book because they believe this shit nor that they are buying it to excersize their critical thinking skills. If you have some imperical evidence that proves your point ("Non-fiction" books do not become bestsellers because of a desire amongst the book-reading public to snicker at them.), please present it...otherwise, wear your Francophobe label with honor.
(If you want to skip the general historical analysis of America--especially if you have a low tolerance for pro-American analysis--skip down to the part that begins with a quotation from Jeanne Kirkpatrick about three-quarters of the way down. It's the most relevant portion to the "War on Terrorism.")
I don't need any evidence - empirical or otherwise.
Several French newspapers (bless their smelly hearts) have already expressed shock and outrage that this book is so wildly popular among their countrymen (while suggesting that the US could be more helpful by supplying the Franco-idiots with more conclusive evidence).
France's largest newspaper has suggested that the only way to disabuse their poor deceived populace of their mass duped-ness is to refute it with hard evidence -others have suggested ignoring it completely.
Several French politicians have expressed extreme embarassment over the entire mess.
I'm sorry, but these are not the reactions of people concerned that their countrymen are on a mass book-buying mission to refute a hoax.
It's just too bad if the truth doesn't suit you, JAH. Snicker over that one.
You constantly catagorize people you don't know by labeling them "liberals" because it suits your agenda. So that one won't fly.
And the truth suits me just fine, concerned...it's delusion that's making me smile.
(And not to quibble, but the oldest democracy is Iceland, and the oldest republic, San Marino.)
From the 1200s to 1874 Iceland was ruled by outsiders.
I am thinking the four million resident (or is it six? they just reported that larger figure on my radio) Muslims in France might provide at least some part of the fertile ground for the hoax book.
Just as they're responsible for the recent anti-semitic attacks.
Just as they're expected to provide a good chunk of the votes that Holocaust denier Jean-Marie Le Pen will get in the upcoming Presidential election.
This Danish site maintains otherwise.
In any case, I remain pleased to have risen in defense of the Sammarinese.
That would be ironic, considering that Le Pen's main platform is always anti-immigration, and he is always going on about the Islamification of la belle France.
It is a good essay, and I don't meant only the last part.
Or it can be specific to US policies, but you Euros always say we're too US-centric.
Did we win?
wonderful article by Owen Harries. Good link.
First, what he says about American prosperity as a recent phenonomenon is correct in absolute terms. But relatively speaking American income was at the very top from early on. He compares to Australia in 1900, but the Aussies (and a few others, like the Argentines) were at the very top of the list in 1900.
I also wondered about some of his remarks on the shifting composition of population when he says:
There have been three stages. From the Declaration of Independence in 1776 until just before the Civil War in the 1860s, the United States was a country of Anglo-Saxon stock and Protestant religion. The population was overwhelmingly of British origin. By the very end of this period, increasing numbers of Irish and Germans started to come, driven by famine and political upheaval at home, but the Anglo-Protestant character still easily predominated.
Just before the Civil War there began a period of massive immigration, reaching its peak in the period 1890 to 1914, when-as its industrial economy was making gigantic leaps-the United States was absorbing people at the rate of a million a year. Only a small proportion of these was Anglo-Saxon. They were overwhelmingly Irish, Italian, Slav and Jewish. Their religions were Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Jewish. In the course of a few decades America was transformed from an Anglo-American Protestant society into a multidenominational Euro-American society. By 1920 the percentage of Americans of British origin was down to 40% and still falling rapidly.
(cont.)
So I searched and found this source which has it that
This is confirmed by the 1990 Census, according to which more Americans claim German "ancestry or ethnic origin" than any other: 57.9 million (23.3%). In comparison, 38.7 million (15.6%) claim Irish ancestry, 32.7 million (13.1%) English, 23.8 million (9.6%) Afro-American, 14.7 million (5.9%) Italian, and smaller numbers for other groups.
Adding that
Earlier in this century, the identification with German ethnicity in the United States was dampened as a result of the anti-German hysteria during World War I and the crimes of the Hitler regime.
I remembered because I was startled at this factoid. One does not habitually think of Yanks as German-derived. (Although it does explain some phenonena, like country music...)
I thought Germany wasn't even a country until late in the 1800s.
Yes, but 'Germany' referred to both a fairly well defined part of Europe and a particular set of peoples since at least the breakup of the Frankish Empire, if not back to Roman times.
Excerpt:
The host of the meeting, the Malaysian Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamed, had suggested in his opening speech that Palestinian suicide bomb-ers be included in a condemn-ation of all who use violence against civilians. "According to this definition of terrorism, the attacks on the World Trade Centre on 11 September, the human bomb attacks by Palestinians and Tamil Tigers [of Sri Lanka], the attacks against civilians by Israeli forces ... must be considered as acts of terror," he said. But the OIC rejected the proposal, and supported the Palestinian delegation's argument that the suicide attacks can be seen a legitimate tool of national liberation.
this thread will go away, but CalGal and i will be launching a new thread on World Terrorism and responses & repercussions that follow.
this newer thread will be more heavily monitored and moderated so that, hopefully, the discussions will flow better and not be so sporadic. if interested, you can read the discussion in the 'New Thread and Feature Suggestions' thread.
that's what i mean by more 'moderation'. just more involvement by the hosts.
Also, hosts should let the conversation flow naturally and not continually rap people on the knuckles for getting slightly off topic.
links and spam will be watched, but conversation will ebb and flow as in real life. this thread has been pretty consistently on-topic for the duration, and i see that continuing.
I do host the Movies thread, you know, and I am only occasionally wrath of god. So it's not like I'm planning a gulag.
The new thread may not work, but I just thought it would be fun to try. I'm hoping Jex has enough places to post his constant links that he'll treat this thread like The Slow Thread or Movies, where he acts much like any other poster.
Incidentally, I have a ton of links that I'm adding to the thread and left them at work. I'll activate the thread by noon. Ducky, if you want it up sooner no problem.
See, I was just making a little joke because I WAS interested in when the thread would start and you've shown by your usual cattiness that I've no need to bother posting in the new thread. Thanks a lot.
It will be open when it's open. I want to get the links done first. I'm weird. Chill.
And if you're not going to enter a thread that I host, does this mean you'll never post in Movies again? If not, stop being the drama queen.
In any event, the thread will be ready when it's ready, and I'm done with our little chat. Toodles.
let's just wait for CG to be done.
CG, i'm gonna mothball this thread now and you can reopen it when you're done.
