The Fertility Gap
A thought-provoking article about the implications of differing fertility rates based on political ideology in the US: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008831 JDG __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: [lbstakoma] sci-fi magazines
Hi Everyone, I haven't been around in a while, but someone in my neighborhood just passed along the following notice, and I figured that someone here might be interested. Contact Neda for more information JDG --- Neda Juraydini [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 11:46:09 -0500 From: Neda Juraydini [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [lbstakoma] sci-fi magazines To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] My husband has stacks of the magazines Asimov, Analog and Fantasy Science Fiction. Dating back to '96 or '95, and maybe older. He's having a hard time parting with them but is willing to do so if he can find a new home for them. Any ideas?? Neda 905 Jackson __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Week 13 NFL Picks
On Thanksgiving Day I took Green Bay and Miami, and surprisingly went 1-1 in this .500 kind of year for me. Arizona at Chicago - The story of the Cardinals this year has been surprising people at home and getting blown out on the road. Pick: BEARS New England at Indianpolis - Bill Belichick, aka Lex Luther, has traditionally had Petyon SuperManning's number, but the Patriots have continued to pile up even more injuries each and every week, and something tells me that this is the Colts' year and they'll prove it tomorrow. Pick: COLTS Minnesota at St. Louis - This should be a fascinating game of two offensive-oriented teams. Last week, the Vikings got two picks returned for touchdowns in two minutes to seal the win... and this week they are playing Marc Bulger - who is throwing picks the way Pedro Martinez throws strikeouts. I'll go with the upset here... Pick: VIKINGS Buffalo at New York Giants - Travis Henry and Eric Moulds were already playing hurt, and now Drew Bledsoe has a concussion. Things don't look good for perhaps the NFL's worst road team next to Arizona right now. Pick: GIANTS Cincinnati at Pittsburgh - I can't bail on my pick to win the division... Pick: BENGALS Philadelphia at Carolina - Memo to the NFL that overreacted to Eagles losses the first two weeks of the season - this team is still pretty darn good. Pick: EAGLES San Francisco at Baltimore - The Ravens are an absolutely inexplicable team, almost winning in spite of themselves. Jeff Garcia returns from injury this week, but maybe he should have waited until afte rthe 49ers play Baltimore's defense. Pick: RAVENS Atlanta at Houston - Both these teams got robbed last week after playing two of the three best teams in the AFC incredibly tough... In this one, I'll go with the potential return of Michael Vick providing the spark that this team needs. Pick: FALCONS New Orleans at Washington - Yes Tim Hasselbeck looked awfully good last week. In Buffalo, we call this the well-documented Alex Van Pelt effect of backup QB's surprising defenses that had prepared extensively for another QB. Hasselbeck has no such luxury this week. Pick: SAINTS Denver at Oakland - The Broncos choked big time against the Bears at home last week, and should take it out on the Raiders. Pick: BRONCOS Kansas City at San Diego - The Chiefs are winning it all this year. Pick: CHIEFS Cleveland at Seattle - Yes the Seahawks gave up 38 points on offense to the hapless offense of the Baltimore Ravens last week. Which means, of course, that they will probably play Cleveland to a 13-13 tie. I have to take a winner, though, so... Pick: SEWAHAWKS Tampa Bay at Jacksonville - The Bucs still have an outside shot at the playoffs and simply cannot affor to stumble here. Pick: BUCS Tennessee at NY Jets - This looks like the first Monday Night humdinger of the year. Pick: TITANS = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Molly Ivins
David Frum, National Review: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary060103.asp Bill O'Reilly debated Al Franken and Molly Ivins in an event broadcast on C-Span on Sunday afternoon, and he made this great joke that cracked up the conservatives in the audience: These HMOs are getting so arrogant that men who want to beat their wives have to get the hospital bills pre-cleared. No, no, no - of course he didn't say that. O'Reilly can be a pretty outrageous guy, but he knows perfectly well that a joke about wife-beating is a career-ender. The joke actually was made by Molly Ivins, and it really went like this: The price of gas is riz so high - yes she said riz: if you're a Texan who wants to advocate gun control and lesbian marriage, you have to sprinkle your speech with hick phrases so that nobody gets the idea you're just another of them Yankee liberals - the price of gas is riz so high that women who want to run over their husbands have to carpool. And the liberals in the audience really did crack up, including both Franken and the ostensibly neutral moderator, whose name I did not catch. Now there are is a very obvious point to be made about this little humorous gem, and I'm sure it has already occurred to you. (Actually there are two: the other being that it's not very funny, but then none of Molly Ivins' work has been very funny since a court told her to quit repackaging Florence King's writing as her own.) Let me venture instead this possibly slightly less obvious point - Molly Ivins went on to deliver a passionate little speech about her commitment to civilizing American discourse! Apparently, American discourse is being rendered viciously uncivil by Rush Limbaugh's habit of explaining dynamic scoring over the airwaves - and the liberal way to elevate the vulgar tone of right-wing debate is to make jokes about killing people. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq's Chemical Weapons
Here is an excellent graphic describing Iraq's chemical weapons arsenal and delivery systems: http://images.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2003-04/7268711.pdf In other news, we may have confirmation of a smoking gun in a few hours or days: http://abcnews.go.com/wire/World/ap20030404_495.html Officer: Troops Find Vials of Powder Troops Find Vials of White Powder, Documents on Chemical Warfare Near Baghdad, Officer Says The Associated Press NEAR BAGHDAD, Iraq April 4 U.S. troops found thousands of boxes of white powder, nerve agent antidote and Arabic documents on how to engage in chemical warfare at an industrial site south of Baghdad, a U.S. officer said Friday. Col. John Peabody, engineer brigade commander of the 3rd Infantry Division, said the materials were found Friday at the Latifiyah industrial complex 25 miles south of Baghdad. It is clearly a suspicious site, Peabody said. Peabody said troops found thousands of boxes, each of which contained three vials of white powder, together with documents written in Arabic that dealt with how to engage in chemical warfare. He also said they discovered atropine, used to counter the effects of nerve agents. The facility had been identified by the International Atomic Energy Agency as a suspected chemical, biological and nuclear weapons site. U.N. inspectors visited the plant at least nine times, including as recently as Feb. 18. The facility is part of a larger complex known as the Latifiyah Explosives and Ammunition Plant al Qa Qaa. During the 1991 Gulf War, U.S. jets bombed the plant. Meanwhile, signs that Iraq may use chemical weapons are on the increase: http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-war-chemwar4apr04.story 8:20 PM PST, April 3, 2003 Iraqi 'Chatter' Threatens Use of Chemicals Intercepted electronic transmissions heighten effort by U.S.-led troops to find any secret caches. By Bob Drogin, Times Staff Writer WASHINGTON -- Alarmed by intercepts of Iraqi communications mentioning use of special weapons and other fresh intelligence, U.S. special operations teams and mobile units of scientists and weapons experts have stepped up their search for suspected Iraqi caches of chemical and biological weapons, U.S. officials said Thursday. The effort was given added urgency as armored columns of U.S. troops poured across the red line, a radius about 50 miles around Baghdad, and began besieging the outskirts of the capital. U.S. officials had warned that crossing the line could trigger a desperate counterattack by Iraqi artillery, missiles or drone aircraft capable of spraying lethal substances on massed U.S. troops. It's more difficult to target such attacks on fast-moving troops spread out across the desert. But U.S. experts believe that Iraq can no longer rely on biological weapons to stop or slow U.S. forces, because microbe-based agents such as anthrax or botulinum toxin may not take effect for days or weeks. Any biological attack would take too long now to have a useful military effect, one official said. Instead, U.S. military officials chiefly worry that Iraqi troops may try to use such deadly nerve gases as Tabun, sarin or VX. Such agents, which Iraq is known to have produced in the past, attack the central nervous system and can cause death in hours or even minutes. U.S. intelligence indicates shells and warheads filled with chemical agents may have been stockpiled in hidden arsenals in and around Baghdad, and are in the custody of Republican Guard and Special Republican Guard units that are trusted by the regime. U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a Pentagon briefing audience Thursday that we've always believed the risk of chemical attack increased the closer that coalition forces got to Baghdad. Although the Pentagon clearly hopes to avoid street fighting in Baghdad, some officials say that the danger of chemical attack is likely to recede if U.S. forces are drawn into the city's concrete confines. That's because poison gas would also endanger Iraqi troops and civilians in urban combat. Once you're mixed up with them, it doesn't make any tactical sense to use chemical weapons, said a second U.S. official, unless they're just reaching out in some irrational act. The official said concerns about a possible unconventional attack also have mounted in recent days because of fresh electronic intercepts of Iraqi military radio transmissions and other chatter that use euphemisms or code words to refer to weapons of mass destruction. There are allusions to using special weapons, the official said. There seem to be a lot more now. Marines, already in protective suits, increased their precautions as they approached Baghdad's perimeter. They were ordered to keep special gloves and gas masks close at hand, and to sleep with protective boots on for the first time since the war began. Special operations forces that have conducted clandestine raids deep inside Iraqi lines against suspected weapons facilities,
Rebuilding Iraq Won't Be Free
April 4, 2003 E-mail storyPrint Iraq Debts Add Up to Trouble Economists say Bush administration officials are wrong to assume that petroleum revenue will pay for postwar reconstruction. By Warren Vieth, LA Times Staff Writer http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-war-iraqdebt4apr04.story WASHINGTON -- To hear some Bush administration officials tell it, the reconstruction of Iraq will largely pay for itself, thanks to a postwar gusher of petroleum revenue. The one thing that is certain is Iraq is a wealthy nation, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said. A look at the national balance sheet tells a different story. Iraq will emerge from the war a financial shambles, many economists say, with a debt load bigger than that of Argentina, a cash flow crunch rivaling those of Third World countries, a mountain of unresolved compensation claims, a shaky currency, high unemployment, galloping inflation and a crumbling infrastructure expected to sustain more damage before the shooting stops. And the more oil Iraq produces to pump up its earnings, the more likely it becomes that prices will fall, leaving it no better off than before. Clearly, it's a basket case, said Dean Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington. Once you start talking about it, you see what an impossible situation it is. I don't think the Bush administration is anxious to have that conversation. Bathsheba Crocker, director of the Post-War Reconstruction Project at the centrist Center for Strategic International Studies, said Iraq's oil money is not the panacea many Bush officials seem to think it is. It's unreasonable to think that oil is going to finance all of the needs of the country, Crocker said. All told, there's just not enough money to go around. Baker and Crocker are among a small but vocal contingent of nongovernment economists and foreign policy analysts who say it is time for the United States to stop pretending that life in Iraq after the war will resemble something out of The Beverly Hillbillies. The reality, they say, will look more like Chapter 11. In their view, the only satisfactory solution is an international aid and debt relief program as ambitious as the Marshall Plan that helped Europe recover from the ravages of World War II. Unless debt and reparations are dealt with properly, Iraq is basically bankrupt, said Rubar Sandi, an Iraqi American investment banker who is pressing administration officials to embrace a major debt relief initiative. I know they might not like what I'm saying, said Sandi, whose Washington-based Corporate Bank Business Group has investments in several developing countries. But I am a businessman, and it's simple mathematics. Although the debt write-offs would be spread far and wide, some of the biggest hits would be taken by countries such as Russia and France, which supplied Saddam Hussein with military gear and other goods before the 1991 Persian Gulf War and have been staunch opponents of the current conflict. Even then, experts say, Iraq's oil revenue probably would fall short of what is needed to pay for postwar reconstruction, and much of the immediate shortfall would wind up being financed by U.S. Treasury bonds. So far, the administration seems not to have noticed. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told Congress last week that Iraq would be able to pick up much of the tab for postwar rebuilding. We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction relatively soon, he said. Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell Daniels Jr. asserted that oil and gas revenue and confiscated Iraqi assets would provide abundant resources for reconstruction. Some members of Congress agree. I don't think it makes sense to ask U.S. taxpayers to pay the full cost of rebuilding Iraq when the Iraqi state has plenty of resources to do so itself, said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who introduced a resolution Thursday calling for the use of oil proceeds to finance the rebuilding effort. However, Bush administration officials have declined to make specific estimates of the long-term costs of rebuilding Iraq. Without question, Iraq possesses assets any country would covet. It sits atop the world's second-biggest pool of proven oil reserves, some 112 billion barrels, as well as huge deposits of natural gas and petroleum yet to be discovered. But wealth in the ground does not necessarily translate into money in the bank, at least not immediately. Iraq's oil infrastructure has deteriorated badly during Hussein's reign, and most experts say it would take up to two years and $5 billion to restore production to its pre-Gulf War level. Estimates of Iraq's potential oil earnings during the first year or two after the war range from about $15 billion to $20 billion, depending on price and production assumptions. From that income, at least $11 billion would be needed initially for routine
British Troops Winning Hearts and Minds
It seems to me that there is a national partnership between the US and Europe, with the US specializing in being the best warriors they can be, Europeans specializing in peackeeping, and the British bridging the gap. Here seems to be more evidence for that... JDG From London to Iraq: Peacekeeping Lessons Learned the Hard Way http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23555-2003Apr3.html By Glenn Frankel Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, April 4, 2003; Page A30 LONDON, April 3 -- It was Royal Marines versus Iraqi civilians on the soccer field in Zubair south of Basra. The referee was a local community leader, and the crowd of onlookers included armed British riflemen who kept a nervous eye on the proceedings. The final score: 9 to 3 for the Iraqis. The game, as described in today's London Evening Standard newspaper, was the latest example of a military legend being forged in southern Iraq with the help of the media and transmitted home: British soldiers as civic-minded peacekeepers, struggling to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi civilians and deliver the message that the United States and the United Kingdom have come to Iraq not as conquerors but as liberators. It's a legend built on national pride and years of military training. But there's a flip side to the portrait: While British troops are seen as sensitive and concerned, their American counterparts are often depicted as inflexible and wary warriors who mistreat, humiliate and, even occasionally, slaughter civilians. A lot of this is stage-managed and done for public relations, said Ellie Goldsworthy, a former major in British military intelligence who now works for the Royal United Services Institute, a defense research organization. But a lot of it is for real. British troops are trained to come across as very forthcoming, very friendly and open and ready to take risks in dealing with the civilian population. First, we have football matches, then we have tea parties, and then somehow our soldiers go out and meet the local ladies, said Philip Wilkinson, a retired British army colonel who teaches at the Center for Defense Studies at King's College. It's amazing how quickly they do that. You can't go into a single military base back in Britain and not meet wives who have been brought back from the countries we've served in. From the beginning of the war, British soldiers in Iraq have appeared more willing to run risks when it comes to civilians. The first British soldier to die from enemy fire, Sgt. Steven Roberts, 33, was shot last week after he stepped down from his armored vehicle in Zubair to tend to an agitated group of civilians. Still, last Tuesday, Lt. Col. Mike Riddell-Webster of the Black Watch regiment traded his helmet for a tam-o'-shanter, ditched his sunglasses and took his men to patrol the streets of Zubair on foot. It was, reported the Daily Telegraph, a quintessentially British moment. You can't win hearts and minds from the back of an armored vehicle, Goldsworthy said. You've got to get down, take off your helmet and deal with people on their own level. The British say the lessons they have learned come from hard experience during the waning days of the British Empire and in Northern Ireland. British forces used brutal tactics to suppress rebellions in Malaya and Kenya in the 1950s. Three decades ago, British troops mowed down 13 unarmed demonstrators in Londonderry on the day known as Bloody Sunday. British analysts contend U.S. forces have much to learn. Some British officers disparagingly refer to Americans as Ninja Turtles because they are covered in body armor, helmets and Ray-Bans. There's a warrior-wimp syndrome in the U.S. Army, Wilkinson said. The Americans treat civil affairs [relations with local civilians] as a specialization, and you have specialized civil affairs battalions to do the touchy-feely stuff. Your warriors stay as warriors and perceive themselves as warriors. We don't have those kind of resources. Every single soldier has to become an agent of the civil affairs program. . . . We teach our young officers and soldiers all of this touchy-feely stuff right from the beginning. American troops have been carefully briefed on protecting Iraqi civilians, U.S. officials say. But often they have been surprised by the hostility they have encountered in southern Iraq. Last Saturday, a suicide bomber driving a taxi filled with explosives killed four soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division at a checkpoint near the city of Najaf. The driver had slowed down and waved for help, according to one officer's account. When soldiers approached the car, it exploded. Since then, U.S. troops have adopted a much more wary posture toward civilian vehicles. The British press gave heavy coverage to Washington Post reporter William Branigin's account of an incident Monday in which U.S. troops fired on a van full of Iraqi civilians at a checkpoint outside Najaf, killing 10. British military experts contend
UN Considers a New Korean War to be Entirely Possible
NORTH KOREA: U.N. Envoy Says War Is Possible; Security Council To Meet http://www.unfoundation.org/unwire/util/display_stories.asp?objid=32999 UN WIRE U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's envoy for North Korea, Maurice Strong, yesterday called it entirely possible for a war to result from U.S.-North Korean tensions over North Korea's nuclear ambitions. I think a war is unnecessary. It is unthinkable in its consequences, and yet it's entirely possible, Strong said in London after visiting the Korean Peninsula. North Korea's leaders, he added, are prepared to go to war if they believe the security and the integrity of their nation is really threatened, and they do. The U.N. Security Council plans to meet Wednesday, a day before North Korea is to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, to discuss the crisis. The United States has been seeking a Security Council measure condemning North Korea over what Washington calls a failure to live up to international obligations involving nuclear nonproliferation. Strong said the meeting is likely to be contentious. North Korea said Jan. 12 that it would withdraw from the treaty, and the International Atomic Energy Agency referred the matter to the council (Associated Press, April 3). The council took up the meeting Feb. 19, then referred it to expert consultations. A deadlock resulted from U.S.-Chinese differences over how to deal with North Korea, and current Security Council President Adolfo Aguilar Zinser this week announced there would be a meeting next week (Japan Economic Newswire, April 3). In related news, North Korea said today that it will not renounce efforts to develop missiles. Responding to U.S. sanctions imposed over North Korea's alleged transfer of missile technology to Pakistan, the state-run Korean Central News Agency said it is Pyongyang's sovereign right to produce, deploy or export missiles to other countries. The agency added that North Korea's missile program is defensive in nature and poses no threats to any country that respects our independence (Jong-Heon Lee, United Press International, April 4). = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq Was Starving Civilians
It will be interesting to count the instances of outrage over this, as Saddam attempted to starve civilians in Basra and blame it on the allies. JDG Complex found bulging with food in hungry city Distribution center was used by U.N. oil-for-food program From Mike Boettcher CNN Thursday, April 3, 2003 Posted: 4:29 PM EST (2129 GMT) BASRA, Iraq (CNN) -- A giant food distribution complex seized Wednesday by U.S. and British forces in this city grappling with hunger contained massive amounts of food. A walk through only about 20 percent of the warehouses in the complex revealed that tens of thousands of tons of supplies -- including huge quantities of baby milk -- were being stored in Iraq's second-largest city, which has been wracked by a food shortage. There are vast amounts of food staples, tea, sugar, tires, car batteries and sewing machines in the warehouses. Also found were large quantities of cash, weapons and documents relating to the food-distribution system. Coalition officials hope the documents will help them smooth out the distribution process. A small force of Iraqis tried Wednesday night without success to retake the complex, which had been used by the U.N. oil-for-food program. Iraq's second-largest city was controlled by Iraqis until Wednesday. Parts of it remained in contention Thursday. Six or seven volleys of rockets targeted armored positions Wednesday night in the part of the city still held by Iraqis. British troops, with the support of American special operations forces, have been pushing steadily into the city in a slow and methodical process. Although Iraqi paramilitary fighters were putting up fierce resistance, the suburbs and parts of the city appeared to be in coalition control. British forces late Wednesday and Thursday bombarded Iraqi forces around Basra with long-range artillery. A British military spokesman said the situation around Basra was stabilizing by the day. (Full story) As we drove through a suburb Thursday, a few Iraqis waved, but most appeared neutral. On the other hand, we saw no glares of hatred, either. Many people in Basra recall the failure of the United States to follow through on implied promises of military support to an uprising by Shia Muslims crushed by President Saddam Hussein. Thousands were killed by Saddam after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Meanwhile, coalition forces were trying to determine the needs of Basra's residents and then to meet them. Medical supplies and water headed the list. CNN Correspondent Mike Boettcher is with U.S. special operations forces in southern Iraq. EDITOR'S NOTE: This report was written in accordance with Pentagon ground rules allowing so-called embedded reporting, in which journalists join deployed troops. Among the rules accepted by all participating news organizations is an agreement not to disclose sensitive operational details. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Canada
Canadians hurl abuse at U.S. hockey peewees By INGRID PERITZ Wednesday, April 2, 2003 - Page A1 Toronto Globe and Mail http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030402/UMASSN//?query=Brockton MONTREAL -- A peewee hockey tournament in Montreal became a trip into hostile territory for a busload of Americans who say they encountered such fierce anti-Americanism that they will think twice before returning. During a four-day visit, boys travelling with their Massachusetts hockey team witnessed the burning of the Stars and Stripes and the booing of the U.S. national anthem. When travelling in their bus emblazoned with a red-white-and-blue Coach USA logo, they saw people on the street who extended their middle fingers or made other angry gestures. On the ice, the Canadian players told their visiting counterparts that the U.S. sucks and dispensed other anti-American insults, the Americans said. It was a shock to go to a tournament and have kids saying this to us. These are our friends that are doing this, Brockton Boxers coach Ernest Nadeau said. We didn't expect Canadian players -- especially young boys -- would take things to that extreme, he said in an interview. The 11- and 12-year-old boys from Brockton, 30 kilometres south of Boston, had been looking forward to the hockey tournament in Montreal. But parents who accompanied them said they were unprepared for the depth of anti-American sentiment over the U.S.-led war against Iraq. One parent, Bill Carpenter, was so upset he cancelled his family's vacation to Quebec this summer. We were very offended by the whole thing, said Mr. Carpenter, who accompanied two sons on the trip. I understand the opposition to the war. But we were made to feel unwelcome just about anywhere we went. Montreal is a 5½-hour drive for us. It's not like we were travelling to Syria or France or Germany, he said. As Americans, we felt in the past that Canada was our closest ally and friend. No one told us we were heading into unfriendly territory. The trip soured soon after the Americans rolled into Montreal on March 20. Their bus entered downtown Montreal just as hundreds of college and university students were marching through the streets in an antiwar demonstration. Police cruisers spotted the U.S. bus and escorted it to its hotel on Sherbrooke Street as a safety precaution. A police officer urged the visitors to remain in the bus until the protest passed. The children watched as several demonstrators made obscene gestures toward the bus. A U.S. flag was dragged through the street. We felt horrible, Mr. Nadeau said. How would you feel if the Canadian flag was dragged down the streets in the U.S.A.? This is a country that's supposed to be our ally. That night, about a dozen families went to the Montreal Canadiens-New York Islanders game at the Montreal Bell Centre, a much-anticipated visit planned months in advance. In a gesture later condemned, the U.S. national anthem was widely booed by the crowd, leaving the visiting American children perplexed. The kids were just questioning, 'Why are they doing this?' said David Cruise, who was there with his 12-year-old son. It's hard for them to realize we weren't in America any more; we were in a different country. I said, 'They're booing our national anthem because they don't like us.' Mr. Cruise felt so uncomfortable that he left with his son after the first period. Whether you're for or against the war, we have guys over there dying, Mr. Cruise said. The next time, we'll stay in the States. I'm not going back there again. The visitors say anti-American comments continued when the young players faced off against the Beverly Bandits, a team from Beverly, Ont. U.S. players say the Canadians hurled insults during face-offs and at other times. They told us we sucked, gave us the finger and said 'Down with the U.S.A.' or 'The U.S.A. sucks, Mr. Nadeau said. At one point, a Canadian player made a disparaging remark about the United States and the referee turned around and said, 'I agree with you.' What stunned us was that the referee, who is supposed to be unbiased, is agreeing with the boys on the ice. His players wanted to retaliate against the Canadians, but Mr. Nadeau said he urged them not to do anything foolish. Denis Desrochers, president of the minor hockey team in Beverly, west of Hamilton, said in an interview that he had heard nothing about the anti-American slurs. It boggles my mind that the kids would say that. They don't even talk about it, he said. I wouldn't tolerate it. Whether you're American or Canadian, you're not allowed to swear at any kids. On Saturday, Mr. Carpenter went for a walk downtown with his two children as another antiwar demonstration unfolded in Montreal -- one of several that drew huge crowds in a province staunchly opposed to the war. Mr. Carpenter came across a knot of demonstrators surrounding a protester who, with an Iraqi flag and a U.S. flag, had climbed
Taiwan Inelgible for WHO Aid Against SARS
At this point, I say that the United States should recognize Taiwanese independence to whatever extent it asks us to, and tell Beijing to take their objections and stuff it. Really, what will Red China do to us? Eventually, Beijing will come back to reality and just get over it. Time to do the right thing. JDG http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/topstories/story/0,4386,180847,00.html? TAIWAN Anger over lack of help from WHO TAIPEI - The President, the media and ordinary Taiwanese are outraged by the World Health Organisation's (WHO) failure to send its experts to tend to Taiwan's SARS outbreak, despite reports of 14 confirmed cases. The reason: Taiwan is not a member of the United Nations. They have also lashed out at Beijing for not giving the WHO a tacit go-ahead to work with Taiwan's health authorities. Beijing, which views Taiwan as a breakaway province, has objected to its attempts to become a member of the UN or any other international organisation. 'Sars knows no national boundaries,' said President Chen Shui-bian on Monday. 'Taiwan's being excluded from the WHO's help list shows disregard for the interest of 23 million Taiwanese.' However, the WHO said Taiwan was getting the help it needed. The United States, Taiwan's key ally, has so far sent two medical experts to help combat Sars. As of yesterday, there were 78 suspected cases, with 14 confirmed to have contracted the virus after trips to China and Hongkong. The government has suspended shipping traffic between China and Taiwan's defence outpost of Matsu, and postponed sports and cultural exchanges between the outlying Taiwanese island of Kinmen and the Chinese costal city of Xiamen. It has also ordered more than 600 people who have close contact with Sars patients to stay home. -- Lawrence Chung, Taiwan Bureau = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Doh!
A journalist was fired from the LA Times for altering a photo to, quote, improve the composition. http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/la-ednote_blurb.blurb Right. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Brin: David Frum on the War Plans
Dr. Brin recently made some harsh criticisms of the US war plans in Iraq, and suggested that it would be the prowess of US soldiers in the field that would salvage success in this war. David Frum's commentary on this from a few days ago seems particularly relevant - as well as providing some great one-liners. JDG MAR. 29, 2003: QUAGMIRE - PART 1 A reader writes: I've thought considerably about the D-Day invasion, which is widely agreed as a great triumph. But how would today's media reacted at the time to these issues? - The anti-aircraft fire disrupted the paratroop droppings, spreading them for miles, and causing great confusion. - The initial landings on the Utah beach were off the mark by about a half mile as a I recall. The strong tides carried the landing craft from the correct landing point. - The Army Air Force bombers dropped their bombs inland from Omaha Beach, missing key German positions that later lead to the death of so many American soldiers on the beach. - Allied intelligence didn't realize the hedgerows were so tall, and would cause so much havoc. The initial breakout strategy was obsolete. Many of today's media would sum this up as a complete failure of the invasion, but it wasn't. The paratroopers, in small groups adjusted to the situation. Patratoopers who didn't know even know each other began working together to achieve objectives. Teddy Roosevelt, Jr. made a quick decision on the beach, saying we'll start the war right here. He communicated back to the invasion fleet to bring troops to his position. Despite horrific losses, the troops on Omaha moved ahead and prevailed. Troops in the field developed tactics to kill Germans dug into strong defensive positions. This included mounting obstacles from the beach on the front of tanks to break through the hedgerows. So we now see D-Day for what it was, a tremendous accomplishment, in which the troops adjusted to the situation on the ground. Just like our troops are adjusting to the situation in Iraq. And from another: When I was a Company Commander in Germany, a sarcastic and ironic piece of paper was floating around the Army. It quoted a WWII German general and a present-day Soviet general making disparaging comments about us, based of course on the Soviet and German rigidity of command and control. It went like this: The reason the Americans are so successful at war is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis.---German general (can't remember the name of the guy. Might have been Guderian or Rommel). Americans are so hard to fight because they do not know their doctrine, and if they do, they do not feel compelled to follow it.---Soviet guy (also don't recall who.) Written at the bottom in longhand, as if from an American general to the troops, is 'Keep up the good work!' I thought you might think it was funny. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more http://tax.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Snap Judgements
Snap Judgments By WILLIAM SAFIRE http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/opinion/31SAFI.html WASHINGTON I never made it higher than corporal, but it doesn't take a military genius to figure out the strategy when you have air supremacy: break the back of the enemy's armor and its infantry before your big ground assault. A month's bombing worked in the last gulf war and a couple of weeks should degrade the Iraqi Army again. Here is a baker's dozen of my snap judgments about this war: 1. Best gamble: jumping our guns a few days early in a daring bid to win all at once. Our air strike to kill Saddam and his gang may not have succeeded, but failing to try on the basis of a sleeper spy's tip would have been a great mistake. 2. Biggest diplomatic mistake: trusting the new Islamist government of Turkey. This misplaced confidence denied us an opening pincers movement and shocked the awesomeness out of rapid dominance. 3. Best evidence of Saddam's weakness: his reliance on suicide bombers for media victories. Individual self-destruction may or may not terrorize a civilian population but is not a weapon capable of inflicting decisive casualties on, or striking fear into, a powerful army. (It does vividly demonstrate the Baghdad-terrorist nexus.) 4. Most stunning surprise: the degree of intimidation of Shiites in southern cities by Saddam's son Uday's Gestapo. When Basra falls, however, fierce retribution on these thuggish enforcers by local Shia may send a message of uprising to co-religionists who make up a third of Baghdad's populace. 5. Most effective turnaround of longtime left-wing lingo: Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's labeling of Uday's paramilitaries as death squads. 6. Most profound statement from a military leader: Gen. Tommy Franks, refuting criticism of a pause in the ground war, said, We have the power to be patient. 7. Most overdue revelation by the Pentagon: that Russia has long been smuggling sophisticated arms to Saddam's regime with Syria's hostile connivance. Who suppressed this damning data for a year, and to what end? And is the C.I.A. still ignorant of the transmission to Iraq through Syria of a key component in rocket propellant from China, brokered by France? 8. Most inexplicable weakness of our intelligence and air power: the inability to locate and obliterate all of Saddam's TV propaganda facilities. 9. Biggest long-run victory of coalition forces to date: the lightning seizure of southern oil fields before Saddam had a chance to ignite them. This underappreciated tactical triumph will speed Iraq's postwar reconstruction by at least a year. 10. Worst mistake as a result of State and C.I.A. interference with military planning: fearing to offend the Turks, we failed to arm 70,000 free Kurdish pesh merga in northern Iraq. Belatedly, we are giving Kurds the air, commando and missile support to drive Ansar-Qaeda terrorists out of a stronghold, but better planning would have given us a trained, indigenous force on the northern front. 11. Best military briefer: General Franks is less of a showman than the last war's bombastic Norman Schwarzkopf, but his low-key deputy, Lt. Gen. John Abizaid, is Franks's secret information weapon. Since Abizaid speaks fluent Arabic, why doesn't he hold a cool news conference with angry Arab journalists? 12. Most inspiring journalism: embedding is almost-full disclosure that puts Americans in close contact with local conflict, but the greatest war correspondent of this generation is not attached to any unit. He is John Burns of The Times, who is reporting with great insight, accuracy and courage from Baghdad and makes me proud to work on the same newspaper. (Among TV anchors, a lesser calling, the best organized are MSNBC's John Seigenthaler, CNN's Paula Zahn and Wolf Blitzer, and Fox's Tony Snow.) 13. Greatest wartime mysteries: What tales of special-ops derring-do await the telling? Who, in the fog of peace, will honor Iraqis inside Baghdad spotting military targets to save civilians? Will we learn first-hand of the last days of Saddam in his Hitlerian bunker? What scientists, murdered lest they point the way to germs and poison gases, left incriminating documents behind? Where are the secret files of Saddam's Mukhabarat, detailing the venal transactions with Western, Asian, Arab and Persian political and business leaders and connections to world terror networks? Snap judgments, these. Considered conclusions come after unconditional surrender. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!?
Jpeg Question
Hi All, I sent my Dad the picture of the camera-toting dolphin, and he reports: Don't know why but I can no longer see any jpg files. They come out all fuzzy. Not sure why. Any ideas? I'm clueless, but I'm hoping that maybe somebody here might have an idea. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Halliburton
I'd just like to note that after a recent discussion in which a couple list-members got all pissy at the suggestion that they would not post articles to this list about students being prohibited from wearing pro-life T-Shirts at school that I am absolutely shocked, *shocked* I tell you, that nobody has forwarded this news item to the List so far JDG Halliburton out of the running Dick Cheney's former employer won't have lead role in reconstructing Iraq March 31, 2003: 7:15 AM EST http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/28/news/companies/Halliburton/index.htm NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Halliburton, the energy and construction company once run by Vice President Dick Cheney, is no longer in the running for a $600 million contract to rebuild post-war Iraq, according to the United States Agency for International Development. The development is likely to spare Cheney, who was Halliburton's CEO from 1995-2000, and the Bush administration from conflict-of-interest criticism. A spokesperson for USAID, Ellen Yount, said there are two remaining firms bidding on the contract. No decision has been made on who will be awarded it, she said. Halliburton, which declined to comment, could still be awarded a sub-contractor role. Newsweek reported that it was unclear whether Halliburton took itself out of the running for the contract, was asked by the Bush administration to do so, or whether its bid was simply not deemed competitive. Post-war Iraq will require massive rebuilding centered on reconstructing oil wells. The work will also include emergency repair of electrical supply facilities, water and sanitation systems, roads and bridges, public buildings such as hospitals and schools, irrigation structures and ports. Newsweek reported that a Cheney spokeswoman, Cathie Martin, said the vice president hadn't even heard that Halliburton would not be awarded the reconstruction contract and added, The vice president has nothing to do with these contracts. Cheney sold his Halliburton shares when he re-entered politics as Bush's running mate. He held on to some options, but promised to donate all profits to charity. Timothy Beans, the chief acquisition officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development, would not identify the final bidders on the contract, the weekly magazine said. Halliburton has won one Iraq-related job. The company's Kellogg Brown Root unit this week was awarded a contract by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to put out oil fires and make emergency repairs to Iraq's oil infrastructure. Halliburton wouldn't speculate about the deal's monetary value. Shares of Dallas-based Halliburton (HAL: Research, Estimates) fell 6 cents to $21.44 Friday. Halliburton Out of the Running The construction firm once run by Dick Cheney wont get a big Iraq contract By Michael Hirsh NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE http://www.msnbc.com/news/892259.asp March 28 After taking some political heat, Halliburton is stepping out of the kitchen. The giant energy and construction firm once managed by Vice President Dick Cheney is no longer in the running for a $600 million rebuilding contract in postwar Iraq, NEWSWEEK has learned. TIMOTHY BEANS, THE chief acquisition officer for the U.S. Agency for International Development, said in an interview that Halliburton is not one of the two finalists to be prime contractor for the reconstruction of Iraq, though the Houston-based firm could take part as a subcontractor. The contract is to be awarded next week. Halliburton was one of five large U.S. companies that the Bush administration asked in mid-February to bid on the 21-month contract, which involves the reconstruction of Iraqs critical infrastructure, including roads, bridges and hospitals, after the war. But the administration has come under increasingly strident criticism abroad and at the United Nations for offering postwar contracts only to U.S. companies. Many of the questions have been raised about Halliburton, which Cheney headed from 1995 until 2000. On Monday, the U.S. Army announced it had awarded a contract to extinguish oil fires and restore oil infrastructure in Iraq to Halliburtons Kellogg, Brown Root engineering and construction division. Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, later sent a letter to Lt. Gen. Robert Flowers, commander of the Army Corps of Engineers, questioning why other oil-service companies had not been allowed to bid. Allegations of a too-close-for-comfort relationship with corporate America have long dogged Cheney and other Bush administration officials, as well as insiders. On Thursday, leading hawk Richard Perle stepped down as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, a Pentagon panel of unpaid outside advisers, after congressional Democrats raised questions about his relationship with Global Crossing, a telecom firm that had sought his assistance in winning government approval for a deal with an Asian conglomerate. Cheneys
Don't Go Back to the UN
While I find many of these arguments persuasive, I just can't envision a proces by which the formation of a successor organization to the UN occurs. For this to happen, many countries need to become disillusioned by the UN, and so far I don't see that happening. The United States remains somewhat unique in the world in having seen how broken the UN is before everyone else. JDG Don't Go Back to the U.N. By Charles Krauthammer Friday, March 21, 2003; Page A37 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1196-2003Mar20.html Don't go back, Mr. President. You walked away from the United Nations at great cost and with great courage. Don't go back. No one knows when this war will end. But when it does, you'll have to decide the terms. Yet in the past few days both you and Tony Blair have said you will seek a new U.N. resolution, postwar, providing for the governance of Iraq. Why in God's name would we want to re-empower the French in deciding the postwar settlement? Why would we want to grant them influence over the terms, the powers, the duration of an occupation bought at the price of American and British blood? France, Germany and Russia did everything they could to sabotage your policy before the war. Will they want to see it succeed after the war? The Frankfurter Allgemeine reports that on Feb. 21, Germany's U.N. ambassador, Gunter Pleuger, wrote his Foreign Ministry that the United States, blocked on a U.N. war resolution and fighting alone, would later remorsefully return to the council to seek help in rebuilding Iraq. That is their game. Why should we play into it? And why return the issue to Kofi Annan, who had the audacity to declare the war illegitimate because it is supported by only 17 U.N. resolutions and not 18? Mr. President, we lost at the United Nations. Badly. But that signal defeat had one significant side benefit. For the first time, Americans got to see what the United Nations truly is. The experience has been bracing. The result has been an enormous and salutary shift in American public opinion. You've seen the polls: Seventy-five percent of Americans disapprove of how the United Nations handled the situation with Iraq. In December, polls showed a majority of Americans opposed to a war without U.N. backing. Today, after the U.N. debacle, 71 percent support the war regardless. What happened? Americans finally had a look inside the sausage factory. Their image of the United Nations as a legitimating institution had always been deeply sentimental, based on the United Nations of their youth -- UNICEF, refugee help, earthquake assistance. A global Mother Teresa. That's what they thought of the United Nations, and that's why they held it in esteem and cared about what it said. Now they know that it is not UNICEF collection boxes but a committee of cynical, resentful, ex-imperial powers such as France and Russia serving their own national interests -- and delighting in frustrating America's -- without the slightest reference to the moral issues at stake. The American public understands that this is not a body with which to entrust American values or American security. On Sept. 12, 2002, you gave the United Nations a fair test: Act like a real instrument for collective security or die like the League of Nations. The United Nations failed spectacularly. The American people saw it. And the American people are now with you in leaving the United Nations behind. Why resurrect it after the war? When not destructive, as on Iraq, it is useless, as on North Korea. China has blocked the Security Council from even meeting to deal with North Korea's brazen nuclear breakout. On this one, the Security Council wants the United States to unilaterally engage North Korea -- this amid daily excoriations of the United States for unilateralism. The hypocrisy is stunning. But the deeper issue is that the principal purpose of the Security Council is not to restrain tyrants but to restrain the United States. The Security Council is nothing more than the victory coalition of 1945. That was six decades ago. Let a new structure be born out of the Iraq coalition. Maybe it will acquire a name, maybe it won't. But it is this coalition of freedom -- led by the United States and Britain and about 30 other nations, including such moderate Arab states as Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar -- that should set and institutionalize the terms for postwar Iraq. Not the Security Council. If we're going to negotiate terms, it should be with allies who helped us, who share our vision and our purposes. Not with France, Germany, Russia and China, which see us -- you -- as the threat, and whose singular purpose will be to subvert any victory. There were wars and truces and treaties before the United Nations was created -- as there will be after its demise. No need to formally leave the organization, Mr. President. Just ignore it. Without us, it will wither away. Fighting a war and rebuilding Iraq are tasks enough,
More Details on Overtime
After further review, it appears that the Bush plan will produce a net increase of 660,000 workers covered under overtime laws. Moreover, the excluded workers will come primarily from such highly-paid, upper-middle-class to rich-class professions as engineers and pharmacists. Perhaps most importantly, it significantly simplifies the regulations which will make application *and* _enforcement_ much easier in the future. In other words, this action by Bush is pro-worker, pro-Union, and pro-40 hour work week, and the hysterical opposition of the AFL-CIO to this is positively shameful. JDG BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 2003 For the first time in half a century, federal regulations proposed Thursday by the Labor Department could drastically change which workers qualify for overtime wages. Nearly 22 million Americans could be affected by new definitions of white and blue collar workers. The changes could cost businesses $870 million to $1.57 billion. The largest impact would be felt by lower-income workers and highly compensated, professional employees. For the first time, employers would be required to pay overtime to as many as 1.3 million lower-income workers who put in more than 40 hours a week. But 640,000 white-collar professionals who now are required to get overtime, such as some engineers and pharmacists, would lose it. (USA TODAY, page B1) . Posted 3/26/2003 9:17 PM http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-03-26-overtime-pay_x.htm Plan would extend low-income overtime pay WASHINGTON (AP) As many as 1.3 million low-income workers would be eligible for overtime pay for the first time in a proposed overhaul of decades-old labor regulations being released Thursday by the Bush administration. But in a trade-off, about 640,000 white-collar workers such as engineers, insurance claims adjusters and pharmacists who now receive overtime pay could lose it, The Associated Press has learned. The changes being proposed by the Labor Department are confined to a section of the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act that defines blue-collar and white-collar workers, and determines who must be paid an hourly rate of time-and-a-half for working beyond 40 hours a week. About 110 million workers are covered by the regulations, which have not been updated in 28 years. It is just one of several changes the administration is pursuing to workplace regulations and programs, including the Family Medical Leave Act, job training programs and unemployment insurance. The overtime proposal is subject to a 90-day public comment period. Final regulations probably will not take effect until late this year or early in 2004. Business groups long have complained that the complex rules, which contain outdated job descriptions and salary levels, require overtime pay for already well-compensated and highly skilled professionals. A surge in overtime pay lawsuits aimed at employers also is a concern. But employers could face $334 million to $895 million in direct payroll costs for the 1.3 million low-wage workers estimated to become eligible for overtime pay in the proposal. Overall, businesses could face costs of $870 million to $1.57 billion to put the changes in place. The benefits of increased productivity and fewer lawsuits could amount to savings of $1.1 billion to $1.9 billion, said Tammy McCutchen, administrator of the Labor Department's wage and hour division. Our proposal has attempted to simplify and update, to make those rules easier to apply and easier to enforce, McCutchen said. The current regulations are 31,000 words. The proposed replacement is 13,000 words, she said. Easy, clear rules mean employees will understand when they're entitled to overtime, employers will know what their obligations are and the Department of Labor will be able to more vigorously enforce the law. Union officials have said they would oppose any changes that would cause longer work weeks, because required overtime pay is the only brake stopping many employers from demanding excessive work hours. We're concerned that these rules could weaken the tradition of the 40-hour work week, said Kathy Roeder, spokeswoman for the AFL-CIO, which hadn't seen the proposal Wednesday night. Workers now are exempt from overtime pay if they earn more than $155 a week, or $8,060 a year, and meet other convoluted, confusing job criteria, such as devoting at least 80% of their time to exercising discretion and other intellectual tasks that cannot be standardized in ... a given period of time. Employees who work under collective bargaining agreements negotiated by unions will not be affected by any changes. Also, companies still can choose to pay overtime to exempt workers. The proposal would raise the salary cap to $425 a week, or $22,100 a year, and any worker earning less automatically would be required to receive overtime pay. Jobs most affected by the changes likely would be assistant
Colitas
Learn something new every day: http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_001.html BTW - not mentioned here is my friend's pet theory about Hotel California, which is that it is about divorce. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Computer Power Supplies
O.k., I've managed to confirm that at minimum, my computer's power supply died. Anybody have any advice on buying a 400watt power supply? Thanks for all your help. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
UK Cuts Greenhouse Emissions
I must say that these numbers definitely surprised me... JDG Minister claims greenhouse gain Terry Macalister Wednesday March 26, 2003 The Guardian The government today hails signs that its climate change strategy is producing results, with carbon dioxide emissions falling 3.5% over the past 12 months after rises over the previous two years. That appears to put Britain on target for cutting greenhouse gases ahead of the timetable agreed at Kyoto. The figure will be announced by energy minister Brian Wilson alongside £82m of public money for wind projects. The minister is likely to disappoint a meeting of the British Wind Energy Association by suggesting that money to build a new national electricity infrastructure capable of meeting the needs of renewables must come from the private sector. He will urge regulator Ofgem to do more to make this happen. The energy white paper set a goal of cutting carbon dioxide output by 60% from 1990 levels by 2050; the government previously talked of 20% by 2010. New figures produced by Mr Wilson suggest Britain's greenhouse gas emissions fell 9% in 2002 compared with 1990, not far short of the 12.5% by 2008-12 agreed by all signatories of the Kyoto protocol. That was achieved despite a 30% increase in economic output over the past 12 years and is attributed mainly to the switch from coal to gas-fired power plus energy efficiency. It has been helped by a fall in energy consumption. The drive to produce electricity from renewable sources is also beginning to help and will accelerate as new schemes come on stream. There are more than 1,000 wind turbines in Britain and 120 were sanctioned over the past week alone. The percentage of electricity demand met by renewables fell slightly last year because of growth in consumption. Mr Wilson aims to stimulate this sector further with £42m of public money to be allocated to five schemes. Another £40m has been earmarked for capital grants covering offshore wind schemes. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Light Echoes
Hubble Watches Light From Mysterious Star Reverberate http://www.spacedaily.com/news/spaceart-03a.html Baltimore - Mar 28, 2003 In January 2002, a dull star in an obscure constellation suddenly became 600,000 times more luminous than our Sun, temporarily making it the brightest star in our Milky Way galaxy. The mysterious star has long since faded back to obscurity, but observations by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope of a phenomenon called a light echo have uncovered remarkable new features. These details promise to provide astronomers with a CAT-scan-like probe of the three-dimensional structure of shells of dust surrounding an aging star. The results appear this week in the journal Nature. Like some past celebrities, this star had its 15 minutes of fame, says Anne Kinney, director of NASA's Astronomy and Physics program, Headquarters, Washington. But its legacy continues as it unveils an eerie light show in space. Thankfully, NASA's Hubble has a front row seat to this unique event in our galaxy. Light from a stellar explosion echoing off circumstellar dust in our Milky Way galaxy was last seen in 1936, long before Hubble was available to study the tidal wave of light and reveal the netherworld of dusty black interstellar space. As light from the outburst continues to reflect off the dust surrounding the star, we view continuously changing cross-sections of the dust envelope. Hubble's view is so sharp that we can do an 'astronomical cat-scan' of the space around the star, says the lead observer, astronomer Howard Bond of the Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore. Bond and his team used the Hubble images to determine that the petulant star, called V838 Monocerotis (V838 Mon) is about 20,000 light-years from Earth. The star put out enough energy in a brief flash to illuminate surrounding dust, like a spelunker taking a flash picture of the walls of an undiscovered cavern. The star presumably ejected the illuminated dust shells in previous outbursts. Light from the latest outburst travels to the dust and then is reflected to Earth. Because of this indirect path, the light arrives at Earth months after light coming directly toward Earth from the star itself. The outburst of V838 Mon was somewhat similar to that of a nova, a more common stellar outburst. A typical nova is a normal star that dumps hydrogen onto a compact white-dwarf companion star. The hydrogen piles up until it spontaneously explodes by nuclear fusion -- like a titanic hydrogen bomb. This exposes a searing stellar core, which has a temperature of hundreds of thousands of degrees Fahrenheit. By contrast, however, V838 Mon did not expel its outer layers. Instead, it grew enormously in size, with its surface temperature dropping to temperatures not much hotter than a light bulb. This behavior of ballooning to an immense size, but not losing its outer layers, is very unusual and completely unlike an ordinary nova explosion. We are having a hard time understanding this outburst, which has shown a behavior that is not predicted by present theories of nova outbursts, says Bond. It may represent a rare combination of stellar properties that we have not seen before. The star is so unique it may represent a transitory stage in a star's evolution that is rarely seen. The star has some similarities to highly unstable aging stars called eruptive variables, which suddenly and unpredictably increase in brightness. The circular light-echo feature has now expanded to twice the angular size of Jupiter on the sky. Astronomers expect it to continue expanding as reflected light from farther out in the dust envelope finally arrives at Earth. Bond predicts that the echo will be observable for the rest of this decade. The research team included investigators from the Space Telescope Institute in Baltimore; the Universities Space Research Association at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Flagstaff, Ariz.; the European Space Agency; Arizona State University; the Large Binocular Telescope Observatory at the University of Arizona at Tucson; the Isaac Newton Group of Telescopes in Spain's Canary Islands; and the INAF-Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova in Asiago, Italy. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Why S. Iraq is the Shi'a Holy Land
Holy Places, Battle Scenes A guide to Shiite Iraq. http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110003262 BY ERIC ORMSBY Friday, March 28, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST The exotic names Karbala and Najaf, where coalition forces in Iraq are engaged in fierce combat, have little resonance for most Americans. But for Shiite Muslims they represent two of the holiest places on the face of the earth, about which we should probably know more. The cities' shrines and sites of pilgrimage are equal in importance for Shiites to the pilgrimage to Mecca, their golden domes rising over a landscape of perennial sorrow and lamentation: Both Karbala and Najaf are indissolubly associated with the martyrdoms of Ali, the Prophet Muhammad's son-in-law, and of his son Husayn ibn Ali. The deaths of these men at the hands of those whom Shiites still remember with curses gave Shiism its foundational myth as well as its distinctive stamp. Though Shiite Islam is less known in the West than its Sunni counterpart, it not only commands millions of adherents but has created, over its long history, an imposing and often brilliant cultural and intellectual legacy, most vividly exemplified in the architecture of its shrines and mosques. We connect Shiism with Iran, but the Iranian adoption of this branch of Islam occurred late--in the mid-16th century. At Muhammad's death in 632, one faction supported Ali for the nascent caliphate because he was married to Muhammad's daughter Fatima and because he was the closest surviving male blood-relative of Muhammad. Other factions, following egalitarian bedouin practices, militated for Abu Bakr, a close friend of the Prophet renowned for his piety. Ali was in fact passed over twice more for the caliphate, acceding to power only in 656. For his supporters, known as the party of Ali or shi'at Ali (whence the name Shia), the first three caliphs were little better than usurpers. Even as caliph, however, Ali was under constant challenge, and in 661 he was stabbed to death in the great mosque of Kufa by a radical dissident. Control of the new empire passed to his archenemy, the first Umayyad Caliph al-Mu'awiyah. One of the archvillains of Shiite hagiography, whenever al-Mu'awiyah's name is mentioned, the tag May he lie in the pit of hell! is invariably affixed. The city of Najaf lies in the vicinity of the once powerful city of Kufa, with its rival Basra one of the principal garrison towns of early Islam, seething cantonments where much that is uniquely Islamic in art, thought and the sciences first took shape. Traditionally Ali is believed to have been buried in Najaf, which even now bears the honorific title Mashhad Ali, the place of martyrdom of Ali. As such, Najaf commands the reverence that St. Peter's holds for Roman Catholics. Almost 20 years later, when the Umayyad Caliph Yazid pressured Husayn, one of Ali's sons by his marriage to the Prophet's daughter, to offer allegiance to his rule, Husayn steadfastly refused. After fruitless negotiations and skirmishes, Husayn and most of his family were massacred at Karbala in October 680. Husayn was decapitated, and his head was mounted on a spear and paraded in public. During one such display a voice is said to have cried out from the crowd, Be gentle! On that face I have seen the lips of God's Apostle! The murder of Husayn provoked horror: for a self-proclaimed Muslim ruler to kill a descendant of the Prophet himself and to profane his body both outraged and galvanized his supporters. The martyrdom of Husayn, even more than that of his father, lies at the inmost heart of Shiite Islam and is annually commemorated with intense ceremony that includes passion plays, self-flagellation and chanted lamentation. Nowhere perhaps is the Shiite sense of a deep and tragic injustice at the core of things more conspicuous than in this ceremony, as is that ardent yearning for the messianic return of the last imam who will restore a just order to the world. The ceremony takes place on the 10th day of the Muslim month of Muharram during the period known as Ashura. By an inauspicious coincidence Ashura fell this year mere days before the outbreak of war. Mr. Ormsby is a professor at McGill University's Institute of Islamic Studies. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
CIA Warnings of Iraqi Resistance Were Toned Down
If this is true... this is highly embarassing. JDG Analysts Say Threat Warnings Toned Down Guerrilla Tactics Were Predicted http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34283-2003Mar26.html By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest Washington Post Staff Writers Thursday, March 27, 2003; Page A27 Intelligence analysts at the CIA and Pentagon warned the Bush administration that U.S. troops would face significant resistance from Iraqi irregular forces employing guerrilla tactics, but those views have not been adequately reflected in the administration's public predictions about how difficult a war might go, according to current and former intelligence officials. CIA analysts thought there was a good chance we would be forced to fight our way through everything, said one intelligence official who sat in on many briefings. They were much more cautious about it being an easy situation. With U.S. and British troops being forced to defend a more than 200-mile supply line from the Kuwaiti border to U.S. troops 50 miles from Baghdad and to fend off small-scale attacks by the Iraqi irregular forces, analysts at the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency are complaining that their reports would be softened as they moved to the White House. The caveats would be dropped and the edges filed off, the intelligence official said. The intelligence we gathered before the war accurately reflected what the troops are seeing out there now, one military intelligence official said. The question is whether the war planners and policymakers took adequate notice of it in preparing the plan. At least one pre-war intelligence analysis described potential threats of Iraqi irregular forces mining harbors, planting bombs and firing at troops while disguised in civilian clothes, according to one senior intelligence official. A CIA spokesman said the intelligence agencies presented President Bush and senior national security officials with the full debate, including a National Intelligence Estimate that analyzed the scenarios that U.S. forces would likely encounter during a war. Senior intelligence officials have all had their say, the spokesman said. One senior administration official said the consensus among intelligence agencies is that Saddam's Fedayeen, a Baath Party militia commanded by President Saddam Hussein's son Uday numbers about 25,000 members. The force has led a series of guerrilla-style attacks on coalition forces in southern Iraq cities. The official said the paramilitary force is viewed as a potential major annoyance to the U.S. war plan at the moment, but one that could expand into a significant problem. Because U.S. and other foreign media have heavily reported the attacks, the official said, they could become a major factor in the public relations battle during these early days of the war. We look at them as one of Saddam Hussein's tools, particularly in his trying to lure us into urban warfare, one senior intelligence official said yesterday. But he added that they could become more important than they are if the media turns them into the equivalent of the black pajama Vietcong, referring to the guerrilla force that caused many U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War. That view was echoed at the Pentagon yesterday by Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who, when asked about the firefights involving the fedayeen, described them as fairly limited incidents [that] take on a greater perceived value than they are. The fedayeen, also known as martyrs of Saddam or men of sacrifice, were organized in 1995 by Uday Hussein. In addition to the paramilitary force, there are an additional 3,000 in a reserve made up of Baath Party members and some Iraqi journalists, according to an intelligence official. [Policymakers] were told the fedayeen would fight more fanatically than regular army forces, using conventional or unconventional means, one analyst said yesterday. We did not predict the notoriety they have already achieved. Pentagon spokesmen struggled yesterday to deal with the media focus on the irregular forces. Victoria Clarke, the Pentagon's chief spokeswoman, described them as thugs who have done extraordinary things which go outside all laws and norms. If captured, she said, they would be treated as war criminals. Brig. Gen. Vincent K. Brooks, deputy director of operations for the U.S. Central Command, which is running the war, described the activities of the fedayeen who operate either in or out of uniform as more akin to the behaviors of global terrorists. CIA and Pentagon analysts disagree about how long the fedayeen and other units, such as the 15,000 members of the Special Republican Guard and the Special Security Organization, a force of 10,000 that enforces Baath Party orders, would continue to fight. CIA analysts believe these groups will fight to the end, whether Hussein is alive or not. This is about surviving for them, said one former senior Iraqi analyst who still consults with the Pentagon. A large
Re: North America
Aye, aye, aye like the great English word cleave, North America is a term that has multiple definitions when referring to the Western Hemisphere. Cultural Context and some Economic Contexts: North America = US + Canada This is as opposed to Latin America, which includes everything else.* some Geographical and some Economic Contexts: North America = US + Canada + Mexico This is as opposed to Central and South America some Geographical contexts and Geological Contexts: North America = Panama, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, Belize, Mexico, US and Canada This is as opposed to South America, which includes everything else. Inclusion of the Carribean varies, may be either in the North or as a separate third grouping. JDG * - Everything else limited to the Western Hemisphere. Greenland and St. Pierre Miquelon are not considered in the above defintions, as they're basically of too small population to matter much. Inclusions of them may vary. US Caribbean territories including Puerto Rico, the USVI, and Guantanamo Bay are not uncluding in United States above. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Moves to War Plan B, and C, and D.....
Analysis War's Military, Political Goals Begin to Diverge By Rick Atkinson and Thomas E. Ricks Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, March 30, 2003; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49102-2003Mar29.html KIFL, Iraq, March 29 -- Ten days into the invasion of Iraq, the political imperative of waging a short and decisive campaign is increasingly at odds with the military necessity of preparing for a protracted, more violent and costly war, according to senior military officials. Top Army officers in Iraq say they now believe that they effectively need to restart the war. Before launching a major ground attack on Iraq's Republican Guard, they want to secure their supply lines and build up their own combat power. Some timelines for the likely duration of the war now extend well into the summer, they say. This revised view of the war plan, a major departure from the blitzkrieg approach developed over the past year, threatens to undercut early Bush administration hopes for a quick triumph over the government of President Saddam Hussein. Wars often divide political and military leaders. But in the U.S. campaign in Iraq, that point of tension came surprisingly soon, after just a week of fighting, perhaps because an unusually lean launch helped the U.S. force advance so quickly. Carrying out the original aim of a quick war with minimal civilian casualties would require taking chances that officers here now deem imprudent. In the past week, they found the Iraqi resistance tougher and more widespread than expected, and the planned charge to Baghdad stopped short of the city, with Hussein still in place. The Army, which has little more than two divisions here, soon will have three brigades -- the rough equivalent of one division -- devoted just to the protection of the vulnerable supply lines from Kuwait to Najaf. And Iraq's best troops -- the Republican Guard and the elite Special Republican Guard -- haven't yet been engaged in large numbers on the ground. To some commanders in the field, that adds up to a need for longer timelines for the war. They are discussing a more conventional approach that would resemble the 1991 Persian Gulf War. It would mean several weeks of airstrikes aimed at Republican Guard units ringing Baghdad, and resuming major ground attacks after that. At the same time, commanders say the first 10 days of fighting reaped many successes. An initial plan last year predicted that it would take 47 days for U.S. troops to get within 50 miles of the outskirts of Baghdad, noted a senior Army commander. Instead, the 3rd Infantry Division got that far in less than a week. By invading from the south and putting in smaller troop contingents in the west and north, U.S. forces reduced a military problem the size of California to one closer to the size of Connecticut. In the process, Iraq's oil fields were not destroyed, and no missiles laden with chemical or biological weapons were fired. U.S. casualties, while painful, were light by the standards of modern military conquest. Look at the big picture, said Paul Van Riper, a retired Marine lieutenant general who helped review the war plan. Three hundred miles, relatively few casualties, and almost no armored vehicles lost. There also remains hope for a silver bullet outcome that could bring an abrupt change in fortunes. The possibilities are a coup, a bomb that kills Hussein or any one of several other scenarios that tip the regime, as Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has put it in White House meetings. This could all turn around in a couple of weeks, said one retired U.S. general who served in the northern Iraq relief operation in 1991. But when the U.S. ground attack resumes, it will probably look very different from the first week of fighting. You adjust the plan, said an Army general in Iraq. The initial strategy was to get to Baghdad as rapidly as you can, change the regime, bring in humanitarian aid and declare victory. Now it's going to take longer. The next phase of the war is likely to have scaled-back ambitions, not in the eventual goal of removing Hussein, but in how that is achieved. Retired Army Col. Benjamin W. Covington said the administration's initial approach was unrealistic. No country and no military force in recorded history has ever attempted to simultaneously fight and win a war, preserve the resources and infrastructure of the country, reduce noncombatant deaths to the absolute minimum within their capability and conduct a major humanitarian effort, he said. The first tactical change is likely to be that ground forces will wait for airstrikes to pound their opponents. This phase was skipped this month in Iraq but was carried out for five weeks during the Gulf War, as many commanders here recall. My concern is that we're trying to rush things, the Army source said. If people would revise their thinking and say, 'Okay, we're going to spend a couple weeks' time getting positioned and
Re: mexico wants to eliminate the public domain
This article posted by the Fool used some technical terms, but since I actually have some professional experience in this field, I thought that I'd point out that the concept of public domain has never existed in Mexico the way it has existed in the US. Moreover, despite the hysterical title put by Kneem on this article, but one major legal change being proposed in Mexico is fairly technical: extending copyrights from life + 75 years to life + 100 years. Another legal change discussed would bring Mexican law into closer harmony with Canadian law, and thus provide for artists to be compensated when their laws are played on the radio. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Fwd: Quote of the day!
Quote of the day (I wonder who actually said it) From a friend (no offense to anyone): you know the world's gone mad when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the USA of arrogance and the Germans don't want to go to war! Meanwhile, us Mexicans are still waiting for Saudi Arabia to deplete its oil reserves so we can become a world power... JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
From the Front Lines
Marines Meet Potent Enemy in Deadly Fight By MICHAEL WILSON NY Times http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/24/international/worldspecial/24BATT.html NASIRIYA, Iraq, March 23 What looked to be an easy ride into this city turned into a messy firefight today when Iraqi tanks, regular soldiers and guerrillas darted through the streets and turned their mortars, artillery cannons, rockets and rifles on advancing United States marines. The battle began shortly after dawn. The infantry unit, code-named Timber Wolf, approached the southern edge of Nasiriya, which straddles the Euphrates River in the south. The city's bridges, which were eventually captured, are essential to the allied troops behind Marine Task Force Tarawa, who are looking to head north, toward Baghdad. The marines were trying to secure the bridges and retrieve four wounded Army soliders. The soldiers were among those left stranded after about a dozen members of their unit were killed or captured after making a wrong turn while trying to skirt the city before dawn. Still, there was little clue what was in store for the marines the deadliest battle of the war so far. Minutes before 7 a.m., Col. Glenn Starnes, commanding officer of the artillery battalion, listening on a radio several miles south, shouted, Timber Wolf is taking fire! Tanks, part of a light armor reconnaissance unit, crept forward 100 yards at a time against pockets of Iraqi infantry and bands of Iraqi guerrillas known as Martyrs of Saddam. The battle continued throughout the afternoon, with as many as 10 marines killed and dozens wounded. The Marine artillery unit, trying to provide cover fire for the tanks, spent frustrating hours unable to shoot into the city for fear of hitting fellow marines. Iraqi mortar fire sounded in the distance, and Colonel Starnes winced and cursed as American cannon batteries, caught off guard, scrambled to get into position. Twenty-three minutes later, the first battery reported itself fully in the fight, or ready to fire. Radar detected the location of the Iraqi mortars, and the Marine cannons returned fire, but it was impossible to tell what was hit. Mortars are easy to move and hide, especially in a city, where the shooter can drag the weapon around a corner or into a home and shut the door in seconds. You've got to remember, Maj. Phillip Boggs said, you can hide a mortar in nothing. The American command center was code-named Nightmare. On its maps, it appeared that besides mortar, up to four Iraqi tanks were shooting from behind a building. Waste it, an officer said under his breath, wanting to demolish the site. But firing would have been too dangerous with so little information about the target. With every denied spoken over the artillery radios, curses followed and the unit was forced to hold its fire. Let's not get gun-happy here, Major Boggs cautioned the officers under the tarp that was the command center, quickly heating under the midmorning sun. We are running amok, he said. We're suppressing him, probably, but we're not killing him. Reports came in of a platoon-sized group of 30 or 40 Iraqis, and smaller squads of soldiers apparently from Iraq's 11th Mechanized Infantry Division. The leadership of the division reportedly surrendered to Army units the day before. But marines approaching the city found machine gun nests in outlying dwellings, Colonel Starnes said. They also found four Army soldiers, injured in a ditch, and called in an evacuation team. The soldiers were part of a group of about 20 that made a wrong turn in the dark, intending to skirt the city, only to be ambushed, Colonel Starnes said. There was a puzzle. The Iraqi mortar and artillery fire missed by such large distances that the marines wondered about another motivation behind the rounds. I'm afraid he's trying to unmask me, Colonel Starnes said. I'm afraid he's trying to find out where we're at. Returning fire, he feared, could give away his position. A leutenant, Michael Slawsky, said, It would be really nice to have some forward observer out there to tell us `left' or `right' or whatever, and what we hit. After being pinned down most of the morning, the infantry unit and the forward observer for the artillery advanced shortly before noon, meeting machine-gun fire. The fight did not let up. Cobra helicopters flew low, barely above the oversized balloons regularly launched by an artillery unit to test the wind. More than a dozen marines shouted orders and scribbled down coordinates, hunched over lunchbox-sized portable telephones, often struggling to be heard above the din. The phone boxes frequently went silent for no apparent reason. Officers wiggled the cables or clicked the button on the handset, or picked up the box and slammed it down on the table until it worked again. With the heat came the flies. The voices on the other end of the radio sounded frantic, shouting above machine-gun fire in the background. Tensions rose quickly in
The Timeline Of the War Decision
Here is a fascinating article about how the war plans were made, including some insight as to why it took more than an entire year to go from the axis-of-evil speech to the war. JDG Attack Was 48 Hours Old When It 'Began' By Bob Woodward Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, March 23, 2003; Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12215-2003Mar22.html When President Bush huddled with his senior national security team Wednesday afternoon to consider fresh CIA intelligence that President Saddam Hussein and other key members of the Iraqi leadership were spending the night at a complex in southern Baghdad, the Bush team was aware of another, perhaps even bigger secret. Under the official war plan, designated OPLAN 1003 V and approved by the president, the war with Iraq had already begun. A little more than two hours earlier, at 1 p.m., Washington time, 31 Special Operations teams -- about 300 men -- began pouring under cover of darkness into western and southern Iraq. Joining smaller contingents of U.S. Special Forces and CIA paramilitaries already in Iraq, the special operators fanned out to sever communications, take down observation posts and position themselves to prevent what the Bush administration most feared -- moves by the Iraqi high command to use chemical or biological weapons, attack Israel with Scud missiles or destroy the country's oil fields. The plan anticipated a 48-hour window for the special operators to carry out their missions before the official start of the war, set for 1 p.m. Friday with massive airstrikes against Baghdad and other cities. Soon afterward, the president was to announce the start of the air war, and conventional ground forces were to cross the Kuwait border into Iraq nine hours later. Over the course of a three-hour meeting in the Oval Office Wednesday afternoon, the president and his senior national security advisers tore up this choreographed opening to the war. Acting on information presented by CIA Director George J. Tenet, the president ordered an airstrike and cruise missile attack on the Baghdad complex, called Dora Farm, in an attempt to kill Hussein and other senior members of the leadership. In addition, on Thursday, the administration decided to move up the ground operation by 24 hours. It would commence 15 hours before the first large-scale airstrikes hit Iraq. The revision of the war plan on the fly on Wednesday, which was described by numerous well-placed government sources, fit a pattern established in January 2002, when Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and U.S. Central Command chief Gen. Tommy R. Franks began drafting the blueprint for war. Over the ensuing 14 months, in a series of what these sources described as seemingly endless, often excruciating two- to three-hour sessions in Rumsfeld's office and in secure video conference calls between the Pentagon and Franks's headquarters in Tampa, the Pentagon planners came up with more than 20 versions of the plan. In all, Bush received a dozen detailed briefings as it evolved. The constant reshaping, questioning and tinkering by Rumsfeld and Franks strained and nearly broke the system of war planning, according to several senior and well-placed sources. But the process also built in some unprecedented flexibility and surprise, characteristics that have defined the war's opening days. Push and Pull In his State of the Union address on Jan. 29, 2002, Bush declared that Iraq was part of an axis of evil -- setting the country on what, in hindsight, seems like an inevitable course toward war. At about the same time, as the first phase of the war in Afghanistan was winding down following the ouster of the Taliban militia from power, the president signed a secret intelligence order authorizing the CIA to undertake a comprehensive program to remove Hussein. He authorized spending upwards of $200 million to support opposition groups and expand intelligence collection. The first CIA paramilitary team secretly began operating in Iraq in June 2002 to gather intelligence and meet with and support opposition groups. Eventually the CIA deployed additional paramilitary teams and established links with Iraqis throughout the country, including Baghdad. On a parallel track to this covert operation, Rumsfeld, Franks and other civilian and uniformed Pentagon officials began work on the administration's top-secret war plan. According to various sources, when Franks first was asked to present a concept of operations, he proposed a large force. Rumsfeld, with the experience of the Afghanistan war fresh in his mind, pushed for a radically different approach that would involve a smaller ground force and much larger participation by Special Operations troops. The push and pull between the two men continued over the months that followed. The initial plan called for 14 days of airstrikes before the onset of the ground attack. Rumsfeld pressed Franks to reduce the time between the air and
Poland Becomes 4th Coalition Member in Combat
Sort of makes you wonder who else has joined in the fighting without touting it Maybe the Czechs, Italians, or Hungarians? JDG Poland Admits Iraq Combat Role After News Photos Mar 24, 1:12 pm ET By Douglas Busvine WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland admitted on Monday that its elite GROM commando unit had taken part in the U.S.-led attack on Iraq after the soldiers posed for a Reuters news photographer. The Defense Ministry had denied that GROM (Thunder) special forces were involved in combat, but on Monday it confirmed their participation after dailies splashed photographs of the soldiers in the Iraqi port of Umm Qasr, where U.S.-led troops are battling pockets of Iraqi resistance. Defense Minister Jerzy Szmajdzinski refused, however, to divulge details of the troops' role in supporting the main U.S.-British force fighting to oust Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. We are determined not to comment on secret operations, Szmajdzinski told reporters, saying only that GROM troops were operating in the coastal region of Iraq and in Gulf waters. You don't comment about the theater of operations because that would give away information about our capability...this is secret, he added. GROM is an SAS-style commando unit which has seen recent action in Afghanistan. It is one of the few highly trained units in Poland's armed forces, which are mostly underfunded and still rely on outdated Soviet-era equipment. Poland, a NATO member whose government has supported the tough U.S. line against Baghdad, sent 200 troops to the Gulf in what they originally said was a supporting, non-combat, role. The Reuters photographs showed masked GROM soldiers taking prisoners, scrawling graffiti on a portrait of Saddam and posing with U.S. Navy Seals holding up a U.S. flag. These photos shouldn't have happened, said Szmajdzinski. The next time it will definitely be with the Polish flag. Surveys show that most people in this east European country of 38 million do not want Polish troops to take active part in fighting in Iraq, although a majority backs an auxiliary role. Szmajdzinski denied the government had failed to tell the nation that Polish troops would take part in combat. We sent our contingent to take part in military operations, not to be observers -- that was obvious, he said. Nobody misled anyone. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Sullivan on the BBC
As a side note, whie driving through several stretches of Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West Virginia over the weekend, I couldn't get any radio coverage of the NCAA Men's Basketball tournament, and my only radio source of war coverage was NPR. As an example of how biased NPR is, even by mainstream media standards, while most radio news outfits cover the actual war, NPR seemed to find coverage of the anti-war protests far more interesting - and provided virtually play-by-play coverage. My general impression was that they'd start in Washington, and after several minutes, we now take you to New York where protests are under way, and by evening protests are winding down around the country, but protest activity is still heavy in San Francisco at this hour... Unbelievable. And of course, despite this comprehensive coverage, almost no mention was made of the extremist views of so many of these protestors, nor was much shrift given to pro-war views, nor (unlike on DC Television that night) was coverage given to law enforcement professionals describing legal infractions by protestors. Hard to imagine that these are my US taxpayer dollars at work... I mean, I am generally sympathetic to much of the concept behind public broadcasting in the US, but this kind of propagandizing under the veneer of news should be left to the private sector. Anyhow... on to Andrew Sullivan JDG AXIS OF BIAS: Lileks observes a moronic convergence: 11:50 NPR is running . . . the BBC. It's interesting, listening to these guys - I'm unsure how it's possible to sneer the entire time you're speaking. I fear the announcer's face will stay that way. Perhaps you can recognize an old Beeb hand by the permanently curled lip. I've tuned in twice in half an hour; both times they were talking about the FAILURE to get Saddam, and what this FAILURE means for the war which might be hindered by this initial FAILURE. And then the reporter - a female one, with a sneerier sneer - says the question now is when the attack will come, and whether the President will give his generals permission to act with a free hand. Um . . . haven't we already settled that question? I know it conflicts with the Beeb's view of Bush as a vulture with a bloody globe clutched in one claw, the other holding the leashes of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but I heard hours ago that theater decisions had been left to the folks who do this for a living. Unbelievable: NPR's top of the hour theme is somber, downbeat, with a few disconsolate snare drums - music to lose by! Is it too much to ask of these people to play something that doesn't sound like the music you'd use for the sinking of a f--king aircraft carrier? *$#%*(#$%$#5 Nah, James. They've only just begun. Imagine how terrified they are that Saddam might actually be dead. - 1:14:03 PM = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Oops, Clinton Just Lied Again....
...in case you still didn't believe that Bill Clinton is and was a compulsive liar, he now claims to have dunked a basketball in a high school basketball game. http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/sports/s_124908.html?s_124908.html JDG - No Comment Needed, Maru = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Kagan on the Atlantic Divide
Although I have significant disagreements with this article, I nonetheless found it thought-provoking. Although its 20 pages, you can probably skim some sections to get the main points. In a nutshell: Kagan views the current Atlantic divide as in large part the national dissasociation between mid-tier powers and great powers. Mid-tiers seek rules based systems, great powers seek to act unilaterally. In the end, the US should show greater commitment to international rules, and Europe should so great commitment to enforcing those rules with military power. http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan_print.html JDG Here is my analysis: 1) Was disappointed that Kagan treated Europe's process of unification into the European Union as unique, and drew no parallels to the formation of the United States - which at the time included a great deal of both religious diversity (Puritans in New England, Catholics in Maryland, Quakers in Pennsylvania, Protestants everywhere else) and ethnic diversity (Dutch in New York, Swedes in the mid-atlantic, Germans in PA - in fact, the US Congress fell one vote shy of making German the national language.) Indeed, the US in large part is the culmination of the transition from ethnic-based nationalism (frex, France is the land of the French, Germany is the land of the Germans, the US, however, is *not* the land of the US'ins) to idea-based nationalism (US nationalism resides around the Consitution, the Declaration of Independence, and other ideals, etc.) - a transition that the Europeans are just beginning. Moreover, Kagan declares without comment - until about ten pages later anyways - that the European Union was designed as a counterweight to US hegemony, without acknowledging the much more complex picture that the US actually pushed the formation of the UN. If having the German lion lie down with the French lamb is a major European triumph of rules, it is a triumph with US fingerprints over it. Moreover, many Americans, including myself, still view a strong and united Europe as being in the US national interest (despite the best efforts of the French to shake that belief recently.) 2) I am not at all convinced that, as Kagan asserts, the end of the Cold War made the US more prone to toss its weight around the world. I haven't done the analysis, but what about Grenada, Nicaragua, and all the silent battles fought by US special ops during the Cold War throughout the developing world? Indeed, completely neglected by Kagan is that an unwilling US practically had to be dragged into the Balkan conflict by the Europeans, after the Europeans realized that they lacked the military might to solve this problem on their own. I guess, in the end, the end of the Cold War to 9/11 provides too small of a sample to draw firm conclusions either way about the rold of a hyperpower in a unipolar world, without perceived strategic threats. 3) Europe, or more specifically, France - can hardly be described as being pacifistic over militaristic. If the US is going to be called militaristic for intervening in the Balkans, Haiti, and Somalia - then France must similarily be credited for its interventions in Cote d'Ivoire, the Central African Republic, and any other of its former colonies. Indeed, an analysis of French foreign policy without mention of the Gaullist view that American cultural and military hegemony is France's primary long-term strategic threat just seems inadequate. Kagan sometimes comes tantalizingly close to tackling this, only to come up empty - but, a primary source of the Atlantic divide he is analyzing is the inherent irrationality of a French worldview that views the US to be a greater strategic threat to French interests than Hussein, bin Laden, or China. Although Kagan admits that the US has a conscience and an idealistic streak, France doesn't see it. Indeed, although Kagan talks of the US's indispensible role in defending Western Civilization, his oversight causes him to miss out on the paradox of France considering the very protector of its civilization - the US - to be its greater threat. 4) Kagan's central proposition in describing his worldview seems to be that mid-tier powers favor rules, and big-time-powers, quote, fear rules that may constrain them The problem with this analysis is that he only barely touches upon the role of low-powers in this worldview. If the mid-tiers live in the idealism world of rules and agreements, and (in Kagan's view) the big-powers reside in a Hobbesian world (in Kagan's view) simply because they can (and fear constraint, then certainly the low-powers also live in the Hobbesian world.Clearly, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Islamic Fundamentalist Iran, Kim Jong Il's DPRK, nor Al-Qaeda/Taliban Afghanistan have any interest in operating in a system of international rules. Indeed, the DPRK clearly views the European-style international rules system as a way to have their cake and
Re: Corrected French History
To everyone on Brin-L: In a recent thread, a certain listmember impugned both my patriotism and my honor, and over the course of a rather long and detailed response, I included two very heated insults. I recognize now that it was impolite to make such assessments to his face in any medium, let alone over a public list-serv. This was, to say the least, regrettable, and should not have happened. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Will the Worst Case Scenario Occur?
The Pentagon's Scariest Thoughts By ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN WASHINGTON Watching television images of American soldiers in the Kuwaiti desert, chemical-protection suits strapped to their belts, it's hard not to worry about what Saddam Hussein may have in store for them. Still, one needs to be careful in talking about worst-case scenarios: most worst cases will not happen. Consider one of the possibilities Pentagon planners have most feared an Iraqi infliction of smallpox, which can kill 30 percent of those infected. The fact is, there is no evidence that Iraq has smallpox we know for certain only that it is one of the last countries where an outbreak occurred. Most allied soldiers have been vaccinated, and the rest can quickly be inoculated. Thus the serious threat would be to civilian workers at our ports and military bases. It could hamper our logistics while we immunize these people, but smallpox doesn't seem likely to go undetected or spread so widely that it could not be contained. As for other methods of chemical or biological attack, all weapons of mass destruction are not created equal. Though VX nerve gas is very lethal, chemical weapons and toxins still must be delivered in large amounts to produce large casualties. Saddam Hussein relies primarily on large rockets and missiles with relatively simple unitary warheads and contact fuses, which cannot disseminate agents effectively over a wide area. Iraq also still seems to rely on wet versions of biological agents like anthrax, which lose effectiveness in sunlight and in hot weather. The story will be very different, however, if Iraq has developed anthrax in the form of dry micropowders that are coated for wide dissemination and resistance to the sun, and that have been re-sized to increase their infectiveness. This is possible, but we don't have enough evidence to say it is probable. This danger would be compounded if Iraq has built a covert delivery system, or has more sophisticated chemical and biological warheads and bombs. The discovery by weapons inspectors this month of warheads fitted with cluster bomblets that could spread chemical or biological agents, and of large unmanned drones, is worrisome. With improved delivery, the lethality of these agents could be 10 to 100 times higher. The pilotless drone shown to reporters outside Baghdad last week may have looked like a flimsy toy, but Iraq may have developed more sophisticated craft, and they can be very dangerous. The most efficient way to use chemical and biological agents is a low-flying, slow-flying system that releases just the right amount of an agent in a long line over a target area or that circles in a spiral. Iraq has been working on sprayers for its unmanned vehicles for two decades. Iraqi soldiers could also fly helicopters or aircraft laden with agents in suicide missions, disguising them as reconnaissance or conventional attack missions. What can our troops do? They have Patriot missile defense systems that are vastly improved from the Persian Gulf war but the new Patriots, which could work on drones and aircraft as well as missiles, are untested in real combat. And they are not designed to deal with shorter-range artillery rockets and shells that might be fired at our troops in Iraq or at close-range targets in Kuwait. The effectiveness of any missile or artillery attack by Iraq's army depends on its being able to fire large numbers of chemical rounds at relatively static targets. Thus the biggest concern would be when our forces concentrate, particularly on the edges of Iraqi cities and military bases. However, British and American forces have armored vehicles with filters and systems that increase the air pressure in the cabin, an extremely effective defense against chemical and biological agents. Further, they will carry out their major regroupings and maneuvers at night, when Iraq's army is blind. Those factors usually get lost in press coverage, which tends to look at the chemical protection suit as the first and last line of defense from a chemical attack. Yes, even a false alarm could force our soldiers to suit up the protective gear is unpleasant and being forced to use it could delay our soldiers' advance. But it is important to keep the risk of chemical or biological warfare in perspective. As for other unorthodox threats, there is speculation that retreating Iraqi troops may be ordered to set the oil fields ablaze. The Iraqi military rationale is that the oil smoke would paralyze American operations. But this seems off the mark. Our missiles do not rely on lasers anymore oil smoke does not affect satellite positioning technology. Our planes and helicopters can fly above and around such smoke. Most wells are in remote areas and thus the fires would have little tactical impact. In fact, setting the fields ablaze might do more to inhibit Iraq's military operations. Iraq could also use its dams and waterways to create a limited flood plain in the
Blood for Oil Analysis
...the blood for oil argument simply doesn't add up: http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-18-03.html JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
First Report That War Has Begun
Can anyone from the UK vouch for the credibility of this paper? http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/til/jsp/modules/Article/print.jsp?itemId=3895393 This is LONDON 19/03/03 - War on Iraq section The war has started By Robert Fox, Defence Correspondent and David Taylor, Evening Standard British and American troops were involved in fierce fighting near Iraq's main port today as the war to topple Saddam Hussein began. The firefight broke out near Basra as men of the Special Boat Service targeted the strategically vital city and the oilfields in southern Iraq. At the same time allied troops were flooding into the demilitarised zone on the Iraqi border with Kuwait 40 miles away to take up positions for an all-out invasion. Cruise missiles were also loaded onto B52 bombers at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, a clear sign that the bombardment of Baghdad could be only hours away. British troops taking up forward battle positions were ordered to switch off satellite phones and allied warplanes bombed targets in Iraq after coming under fire in the no-fly zone. By lunchtime, allied forces were in position to strike from the moment the 48-hour deadline set by President Bush for Saddam to quit Iraq expires at 1am British time tomorrow. But the White House had refused to rule out a strike before that. The fighting reported at Basra was believed to involve British special forces and US marines in an operation to prepare landing sites for amphibious craft during an invasion. Other special units were deep inside Iraq on secret operations to prepare landing strips in the desert for airborne troops. Basra, Iraq's only seaport, lies on the Shatt al Arab waterway where the Tigris and the Euphrates open into the northern Gulf. Surrounded by treacherous sandbanks and marshes it is difficult to approach from the sea. Artillery, infantry and the tanks of the 7th Armoured Brigade had already moved into Forming Up Positions, and some were already on the start line. An attack could target Basra and proceed up alongside the Euphrates towards the strategic cities of Nasariya, Najaf and Karbala. Tony Blair said he believed all MPs, irrespective of their views on the war, now wished British troops well. I know everyone in this House wishes our Armed Forces well, he said in the Commons. A sandstorm whipped across northern Kuwait as the pace of preparations suddenly quickened Kuwaiti security sources disclosed that allied troops move into the demilitarised zone, which straddles the Iraq-Kuwait border, at around 11am local time, 8am UK time. The source, working in the Umm Qasr area in the east of the zone, said: American convoys are still driving towards Umm Qasr. A US military spokesman said he could not confirm or deny that troops were inside the zone. A British Army spokesman said only that soldiers had taken up forward battle positions. At Fairford, 14 giant American B52 bombers which will lead the fight against Saddam were loaded up with cruise missiles this morning. The first flight of B52s were expected to take off two hours before sunset to give them enough flying time to identify their targets and drop their first devastating payload before heading for home. The missiles were driven to the aircraft in five articulated lorries escorted by police at 10.30am. Troops meticulously loaded the weapons - each costing around £1million - into the bomb bays by forklift truck. With an estimated flight time of only six hours to Iraq the bombers are expected to play a huge part in the initial air bombardment. A single B52 can deliver a payload of more than 70,000lb at a range of 8,800 miles without being refuelled. They are likely to take up positions over the Mediterranean or the Red Sea to unleash cruise missiles or satelliteguided smart bombs. RAF Tornados, Harriers and Jaguars are also likely to be involved in the opening 48-hour offensive. The Tornados will be given the specific task of taking out air defences and barracks round small missile batteries and air strips in the Iraqi desert. This will enable the enemy positions to be quickly seized by airborne forces and turned into bases for the advancing allied armies. The Harrier force of up to 20 planes has the job of supporting special forces, the SAS and Special Boat Service and American Rangers in the hunt for Scud missile sites and any artillery shells with chemical warheads. Intelligence suggests Saddam has given his generals personal authority to unleash the deadly weapons as a last desperate measure to hold the Allies off from attacking Baghdad. The mainstay of the bombing attack will be the 750 American and British fighter bombers from Gulf bases and the six American aircraft carriers now at battle stations in the Mediterranean and the Arabian Sea. The aircraft, including RAF Tornados and Harriers, F16s, F15s and F18 Hornets will work on a taxi rank basis, forming ranks in the air before being sent in on targets. Along with
Allies to Face Chemical Ali in Basra
Allies Hope to Move Quickly to Seize City in Iraq's South By PATRICK E. TYLER NY TIMES http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/18/international/middleeast/18BASR.html?pagewanted=allposition=top KUWAIT CITY, March 17 One of the first major objectives in the war against Iraq will be to seize its largest southern city, Basra, and secure its port facilities and nearby oil fields. Officials say they are aiming for a rapid and benign occupation of Basra that results in flag-waving crowds hugging British and American soldiers all of which would create an immediate positive image of American and British war goals while undermining Iraqi resistance elsewhere in the country. But things rarely go as planned in war, and as the onset of conflict appeared imminent today, soldiers prayed and prepared to move. Everywhere a sense that the waiting was almost over was palpable among military units. This afternoon, soldiers of the Third Infantry Division's First Brigade Combat Team began packing up and dismantling parts of a mobile command center in the Kuwaiti desert. They packed their own bags, too. The division is to head for Baghdad and beyond. You could call it relief, almost, that something is happening, said Capt. Andrew J. Valles, the brigade's civil-military operations officer. [In a further sign that military activity was rapidly speeding up, marines at the forward headquarters in Kuwait for the First Marine Division, which will lead the drive toward Baghdad, began on Tuesday morning to load their gear onto Humvees, trucks and other vehicles. There was a sense that they would not be returning to the base, Camp Matilda, anytime soon.] As a military objective, Basra, a largely Shiite Muslim city of more than one million people with no great affection for President Saddam Hussein's government, is thought to be vulnerable. The Iraqi military command has ordered all of its front-line divisions to pull back to defend Baghdad, officials said, leaving poorly trained and equipped garrison units to protect the port city and the oil fields that straddle the border region with Kuwait, just 40 miles south of Basra. The city is a key to Iraq's southern oil region. Not all of the signals suggest that it will fall easily. Last week President Hussein appointed the most notorious member of his inner circle, Ali Hassan al-Majid, to direct the defense of southern Iraq. Mr. Majid, known as Chemical Ali, has been accused of war crimes for his use of mustard and nerve gases against the Kurdish population in northern Iraq in 1988. American officials are not certain whether Mr. Hussein appointed Mr. Majid, a close relative, to ensure that the restive Shiites of southern Iraq remained loyal to Baghdad, or whether Mr. Majid has been entrusted with executing a military strategy devised to blunt or undermine the American-British invasion. We fully recognize his image and his track record, a military official said. One fear is that Mr. Hussein, by appearing to expose Basra to easy occupation, is preparing to surprise American and British forces by attacking them with chemical or biological weapons. All I can tell you is that the marines will be wearing their chem suits, the official added, referring to the protective clothing and gas masks designed to protect soldiers from attacks with chemical or biological weapons. The fate of Basra is viewed as critical. The first image of this war will define the conflict, said Maj. Chris Hughes, a Marine Corps spokesman. Military officials said the 15th Marine Expeditionary Unit, under the command of the British Royal Marines, had been designated to take Basra. An early success, if secured, would inoculate the military to some extent against any setbacks that occur in Baghdad, where a powerful American army of tanks, mobile artillery and infantry will face down Mr. Hussein's most loyal and best armed Republican Guard divisions. The willingness of these Guard divisions to fight will determine in greatest measure the human cost of the war, military officials say. If Basra falls, American and British officials are planning to organize relief convoys of food and other aid that can roll into the city from depots positioned here and in Iranian cities that lie just east of Basra across the Shatt-al-Arab waterway. Soldiers will carry packets of food to pass out to children, and medics will provide care to Iraqis in need as the occupation forces roll in, military officials said. To speed the relief work, the Pentagon has dispatched a 60-member disaster response team that will enter the city with British and American troops. American officials said they had begun radio broadcasts and leaflet drops in and around Basra to notify residents that the attacking allied forces will use kid gloves in taking the city. They will avoid bombing electrical and other civilian infrastructure targets, the officials said, and are advising civilians that they will be safe in their homes and that there is no need to
30 Nations Publicly Join US Coalition, France May Yet Join Up
Those countries include: Afghanistan, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Colombia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Eritrea, Estonia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Japan, the Rep. of Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, the FYR Macedonia, the Netherlands, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey, the UK, and Uzbekistan. Powell: 30 Nations Support U.S. on Iraq 2:50 PM EST,March 18, 2003 By BARRY SCHWEID, AP Diplomatic Writer WASHINGTON -- As the United States moved closer to war with Iraq, Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that 30 nations have declared varying levels of support and 15 others have given their backing privately. Most of the nations named by Powell would not have a combat role, but have allowed the United States to base troops on their soil and to let U.S. planes overfly their territory. Others have offered expertise in dealing with possible chemical weapons attacks. We now have a coalition of the willing that includes some 30 nations who publicly said they could be included in such a listing, Powell said, and there are 15 other nations, for one reason or another, who do not wish to be publicly named but will be supporting the coalition. Powell told reporters he had received assurances of open support in telephone conversations Tuesday from the foreign ministers of Denmark and the Netherlands, which were listed, but that Russian President Vladimir Putin had reaffirmed his opposition to war with Iraq in a telephone conversation with President Bush. But Powell said a mutual concern over terrorism and a planned reduction in nuclear weapons arsenals pull us together, and I think we will have this disagreement and move on. At the same time, Powell said Iraqi President Saddam Hussein so far had rejected Bush's demand that he leave Iraq, but that a number of countries were still trying to persuade the Iraqi president to go into exile. He has essentially dismissed the message, Powell said. Asked when the United States may go to war against Iraq, the former Army general said he had learned long ago not to make predictions. The State Department released the list of 30 countries, one of which, Japan, was identified as only a post-conflict member of the coalition. Spokesman Richard Boucher said some of them may put troops on the ground, while others would take on other roles, such as assisting in a defense against the use of chemical or biological weapons or permitting allied combat planes to fly over their territory. Boucher did not specify which countries would send troops to fight. But Britain is known to have contributed about 45,000 troops, Australia has offered 2,000 and Poland, 200. Albania has offered 70 soldiers for noncombat roles and Romania contributed 278 non-combat experts in demining, in chemical and biological decontamination and military police. No Arab country was listed by the State Department. But Boucher declined to say none supported the United States against Iraq. On the diplomatic front, Powell met with his senior staff on Tuesday as we move into a new phase of diplomacy, Boucher said. The U.S. focus will be on the humanitarian situation and considering ways to assure food is distributed to the Iraqi people and that oil exports are continued after the war, Boucher said. The spokesman said the United States would seek a U.N. resolution to ensure food distribution. Turkey was included on the list, and Powell said even as the Turkish parliament debates a U.S. proposal to use Turkish territory for an invasion of northern Iraq he was confident of Turkish cooperation in one form or another. Powell also hinted that if the parliament accepts the U.S. proposal the Bush administration might revive its offer of $6 billion in special economic assistance. Powell said war plans have been drawn up designed to minimize Iraqi civilian casualties and to warn Iraqi commanders about their actions. He said the U.S. aim was to make it as quick as possible. Powell also said he would not attend a U.N. Security Council meeting on Wednesday at which the chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, is due to make a report. France and Russia, which opposed war and sought to extend inspections, have indicated they would be represented by their foreign ministers. But Powell said he saw no point in going, and that U.S. Ambassador John Negroponte would represent the United States. It's not a question of the United States boycotting the meeting, Powell said. It's just that I don't particularly see a need for me to go. Paris: We may help in chemical war Tuesday, March 18, 2003 Posted: 1:50 PM EST (1850 GMT) France could help despite opposition to military action, Chirac's ambassador says WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite French opposition to a war in Iraq, the French military could assist a U.S.-led coalition should Iraq use biological and chemical weapons against coalition forces, the French ambassador to the
President Bush to Address the Nation Tonight
ABC has just shown video of a US military officer telling troops in Kuwait that the President is going to talk to the nation tonight. In other news, forces in Kuwait packed up their civilian items and placed them into storage today, and yesterday they opened their vacuum-sealed chemical suits. These suits begin degrading upon exposure to the elements. Lastly, the US has warned UN weapons inspectors to leave Iraq, and Iraq is expelling foreign journalists. Suffice to say, it definitely looks like this is it. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
WHO Issues Alert, CDC Activates War Room
World Health Organization issues emergency travel advisory Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) Spreads Worldwide 15 March 2003 | GENEVA -- During the past week, WHO has received reports of more than 150 new suspected cases of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), an atypical pneumonia for which cause has not yet been determined. Reports to date have been received from Canada, China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China, Indonesia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Early today, an ill passenger and companions who travelled from New York, United States, and who landed in Frankfurt, Germany were removed from their flight and taken to hospital isolation. Due to the spread of SARS to several countries in a short period of time, the World Health Organization today has issued emergency guidance for travellers and airlines. This syndrome, SARS, is now a worldwide health threat, said Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director General of the World Health Organization. The world needs to work together to find its cause, cure the sick, and stop its spread. There is presently no recommendation for people to restrict travel to any destination. However in response to enquiries from governments, airlines, physicians and travellers, WHO is now offering guidance for travellers, airline crew and airlines. The exact nature of the infection is still under investigation and this guidance is based on the early information available to WHO. TRAVELLERS INCLUDING AIRLINE CREW: All travellers should be aware of main symptoms and signs of SARS which include: #61607; high fever (38oC) AND #61607; one or more respiratory symptoms including cough, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing AND one or more of the following: #61607; close contact* with a person who has been diagnosed with SARS #61607; recent history of travel to areas reporting cases of SARS. In the unlikely event of a traveller experiencing this combination of symptoms they should seek medical attention and ensure that information about their recent travel is passed on to the health care staff. Any traveller who develops these symptoms is advised not to undertake further travel until they have recovered. AIRLINES: Should a passenger or crew member who meets the criteria above travel on a flight, the aircraft should alert the destination airport. On arrival the sick passenger should be referred to airport health authorities for assessment and management. The aircraft passengers and crew should be informed of the persons status as a suspect case of SARS. The passengers and crew should provide all contact details for the subsequent 14 days to the airport health authorities. There are currently no indications to restrict the onward travel of healthy passengers, but all passengers and crew should be advised to seek medical attention if they develop the symptoms highlighted above. There is currently no indication to provide passengers and crew with any medication or investigation unless they become ill. In the absence of specific information regarding the nature of the organism causing this illness, specific measures to be applied to the aircraft cannot be recommended. As a general precaution the aircraft may be disinfected in the manner described in the WHO Guide to Hygiene and Sanitation in Aviation. * * * As more information has become available, WHO-recommended SARS case definitions have been revised as follows: Suspect Case A person presenting after 1 February 2003 with history of : #61607; high fever (38oC) AND #61607; one or more respiratory symptoms including cough, shortness of breath, difficulty breathing AND one or more of the following: #61607; close contact* with a person who has been diagnosed with SARS #61607; recent history of travel to areas reporting cases of SARS Probable Case A suspect case with chest x-ray findings of pneumonia or Respiratory Distress Syndrome OR A person with an unexplained respiratory illness resulting in death, with an autopsy examination demonstrating the pathology of Respiratory Distress Syndrome without an identifiable cause. Comments In addition to fever and respiratory symptoms, SARS may be associated with other symptoms including: headache, muscular stiffness, loss of appetite, malaise, confusion, rash, and diarrhea. * * * Until more is known about the cause of these outbreaks, WHO recommends that patients with SARS be isolated with barrier nursing techniques and treated as clinically indicated. At the same time, WHO recommends that any suspect cases be reported to national health authorities. WHO is in close communication with all national authorities and has also offered epidemiological, laboratory and clinical support. WHO is working with national authorities to ensure appropriate investigation, reporting and containment of these outbreaks. *Close contact means having cared for, having lived with, or having had direct contact with respiratory secretions
US Sending Food to the DPRK
U.N. envoy says U.S. food donation keeps aid flowing to North Korea Sun Mar 16, 4:41 AM ET BEIJING - A U.N. envoy bound for North Korea (news - web sites) said Sunday that the United States is promising to send 40,000 tons of food immediately for the hungry nation. Maurice Strong, a Canadian aide to Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), was en route to Pyongyang as part of U.N. efforts to mediate in a standoff over the North's nuclear program. His announcement of new aid part of a U.S. commitment of 100,000 tons of food follows warnings by aid agencies that foreign donations have dropped off sharply, jeopardizing programs that feed millions of North Koreans. Washington is one of the North's biggest aid donors. In the next few months, the humanitarian assistance will keep going, said Strong, who was to go to Pyongyang on Tuesday. Beyond that, there is still a lot of uncertainty, a lot of doubt, and so we have to just keep working at it. Strong said he had information for North Korean officials after a meeting in Washington with U.S. officials last week, but he wouldn't give any details. Aid agencies have appealed to donors to put aside unease over helping the North during the crisis over its nuclear program and missile tests. The important thing is that the humanitarian aid continues while the attempts to resolve the larger nuclear and nuclear-related issues continue, Strong said. The World Food Program, a U.N. agency, has said that even with the American donation, its programs in North Korea will run out of food in June. The U.N. children's agency, UNICEF (news - web sites), said last week that its clinics in the North will run out of medicines next month and other essential supplies in coming months. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Coup in Central African Republic
CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC: Rebel Leader Stages Coup; Refugees Flee UN WIRE Rebel commander General Francois Bozize, who led a weekend coup in the Central African Republic while President Ange-Felix Patasse was in Niger for a meeting of African leaders, suspended the constitution and dismissed the legislature yesterday, tightening his hold on the country as thousands of refugees fled to Chad. In a brief radio address, Bozize said his forces ousted the government because of the mismanagement of the country and its inability to carry out its domestic responsibilities. Our government is that of peace and national reconciliation. Declared president of the C.A.R. on state radio, Bozize said he would speedily take steps toward reconstruction of the country, including meeting with officials from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. The takeover by Bozize's forces, who moved on the capital, Bangui, on Saturday, followed six failed coup attempts in six years in the C.A.R., one of the world's poorest countries. Three soldiers from the Republic of the Congo who were part of a 300-member African security force policing the capital died in the fighting (Joseph Benamsse, London Independent, March 17). Hospital and military sources said at least eight people were killed during the coup, and dozens were wounded. Bozize said in his radio address that the coup was only a temporary suspension of the democratic process and that he would meet as soon as possible with the nation's political parties and other active forces to draft a consensus program for the country, including the preparation and holding of transparent elections. He said searches would be carried out to identify looters, who ransacked the homes of government officials and foreign nationals as well as ministries and shops. In an effort to halt the looting, Bozize announced a curfew during hours of darkness (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo! News, March 17). The African Union today condemned the coup and said its conflict prevention and resolution body will meet very shortly to consider the situation and the measures to be taken, according to Amara Essy, the interim African Union Commission chairman (Associated Press/Yahoo! News, March 17). South African President Thabo Mbeki, chairman of the African Union, expressed his unequivocal condemnation of the coup. Coming at a time when government and opposition parties were involved in preparations for national dialogue, peace and reconciliation, the unconstitutional transfer of power subtracts rather than adds to the momentum for peace and stability and indeed undermines continental efforts aimed at sustainable development and economic recovery, Mbeki said (AFP, March 17). In neighboring Chad, the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees is setting up a field office in the border town of Gore, where refugees from the C.A.R. have fled their country's unrest, which began in mid-February. UNHCR officials said Friday that more than 4,000 people crossed into Chad last week, bringing the total number of refugees in the area to roughly 30,000. Chadian Soldiers Reportedly Tried To Abduct Women Refugees UNHCR officials appealed to Chadian authorities to reign in government troops, who have been accused of harassing refugees. Last Tuesday, Chadian troops allegedly tried to abduct women from a refugee camp in Gore, while on Wednesday, Chadian forces reportedly went on a looting spree in Gore. The military was thereafter ordered to stay out of Gore (UNHCR release, March 14). Last week, the World Food Program announced that donors had ignored its $6.1 million appeal for funds for the C.A.R. No contributions were received (UN Wire, March 12). = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop! http://platinum.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Formally Withdraws Resolution
Reading between the lines here, basically what happened is this: a country whose leadership supports the war, but faces unhappiness with the war among its own people and/or possible diplomatic retribution from France is going to be unlikely, ceteris paribis, to vote for a resolution when it knows that its yes vote won't count anyways due to the veto. Since the UNSC votes in English alphabetic order, France would thus have the opportunity to veto very early, and nations with a vote before F, i.e. Chile and Cameroon, could simply wait to pass first before seeing if France would vote no. Thus, the French veto really did poison the discussions, since it made the opinions of the undecideds essentially unknowable. JDG IRAQ: U.S., U.K., Spain Withdraw Resolution; Annan Orders U.N. Staff To Leave, Niger May Have Forged Documents, Iraqis Lead World in Asylum-Seeking UN WIRE The United States, the United Kingdom and Spain this morning took a major step toward launching war against Iraq, withdrawing their faltering resolution at the Security Council and declaring that they reserve the right to take their own steps to secure the disarmament of Iraq, according to British Ambassador to the United Nations Jeremy Greenstock. Before the ambassadors of the three countries entered a closed Security Council session this morning on Iraq, Greenstock announced, We have had to conclude that council consensus will not be possible, adding that the three countries would therefore not seek a vote on the draft resolution. One country in particular has underlined its intention to veto a resolution no matter what the circumstances, Greenstock said, referring to France without naming the country. France, which supports more time for weapons inspections rather than an attack on Iraq, has repeatedly said it would veto the resolution if a vote was called (CNN.com, March 17). French President Jacques Chirac said in a CBS 60 Minutes interview broadcast yesterday that Paris will naturally go to the end with its refusal to back an Iraq war. He proposed giving Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 30 more days to comply with U.N. disarmament resolutions, an offer U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed as further delaying tactics (Bob Kemper, Chicago Tribune, March 17). U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Negroponte today said nearly 4½ months have passed since the council unanimously passed Resolution 1441, which declared Iraq in material breach of its obligations under previous resolutions to disarm. The government of Iraq has clearly failed to comply, Negroponte said. Through acts of omission as well as commission, Iraq is in further material breach. Negroponte added that the vote would have been close but that in the face of an explicit threat to veto, the vote-counting became a secondary consideration. When asked if he believed the three countries would have received the needed nine votes from among the 15 council members to pass their resolution, Greenstock said that the threat of a veto affected the framework of discussion about the resolution. U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said the withdrawn resolution was not a resolution we believed was necessary but was one last step to see if Hussein would disarm. The United Nations is an important institution, and it will survive, Powell said, but clearly, this was a test the Security Council did not meet. He added that Hussein was able to thumb his nose at Resolution 1441. A couple of hours after the U.S.-British-Spanish announcement, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan announced that he was withdrawing U.N. weapons inspectors and aid workers from Iraq. We will find a way to resume aid to the country, Annan said. The council will have to give me a mandate to continue activities in Iraq, Annan said, adding that pulling out U.N. staff does not mean the end of U.N. operations in Iraq. Syrian U.N. Ambassador Mikhail Wehbe said withdrawing weapons inspectors from Iraq has a very dangerous implication -- it means there are no more inspections. Wehbe also confirmed to reporters that a ministerial meeting on the Iraq crisis is scheduled for Wednesday (Angela Stephens, UN Wire, March 17). ElBaradei said today that Washington advised him last night to pull out our inspectors from Baghdad. U.N. officials said the inspectors and support staff could be evacuated from Iraq in as little as 48 hours. The IAEA said it would wait for Security Council advice today before deciding whether to pull out. U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission Executive Chairman Hans Blix said UNMOVIC inspectors will continue their work in Iraq unless we call them back. Most of the inspectors' helicopters have already left Iraq after their insurance was canceled (William Kole, Associated Press/Yahoo! News, March 17). U.N. Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission employees began pulling out of the Iraqi-Kuwaiti border zone today after their alert status was increased to level 4, which
Pulling out of Germany and the ROK L3! Re: [Fwd: Water conservation]
Gautam Mukunda wrote: --- Dan Minette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is an indication that the administration is considering pulling troops out of S. Korea and reducing the force in W. Europe. Given the statements of the governments of S. Korea and Germany, it seems that the administration is thinking about a redefinition of its role in the world. It won't abandon the world and retreat into fortress US, but it may no longer be available to fight the main surge of a N. Korean attack. It might also move out of all of its German bases to a friendlier location in E. Europe, with a scaled back presence. My guess is that this will now be coupled with why is this my problem? response to issues like the Balkans. The US would intervene when world peace is at stake, but special attention to certain areas of the world would be reduced. Dan M. So, let's talk about this a little bit. Is this a good idea or not? Actually, I'd suggest that this is a discussion in two parts. 1. Is this a good idea _for the United States_? I think that it is a slightly bad idea for the US to pull out of Germany. From a purely strategic-location perspective, if there is any justification for the US keeping troops in Europe, it would be in Eastern Europe, since the next European crises/conflicts will likely involve the Balkans, Belarus, the Rep. of Moldova, Ukraine, or Russia, in roughly that order of likeliness. Now, I know very little about what sort of *facilities* we actually have in Europe, but it seems like whenever US soldiers get hurt in the Middle East, the first stop is always Rammstein in Germany - so I don't know how difficult it would be to duplicate those facilities in another country. Likewise, if we had a Prince Sultan-style airbase in Germany, it probably wouldn't be worthwhile to try and move something like that. With that being said, however, we need to sort of probe/pressure Germany to find out if they are fundamentally going to align themselves as a friend of the United States or if they are going to fundamentally align themselves with the French as our enemy. Just one year ago, I was very hopefull about the direction Germany was taking - especially as they began to finally support military ventures outside their borders in the Balkans, and then in Afghanistan. It was possible that true strategic relationship could be produced with a US-German pillarship of NATO. The US would specialize in being the thunder and lightning of offensive operations, and the Germans would specialize in peackeeping (two fairly different skill sets.) (The UK would sort of blue a glue between them, participating in both.) I still have hope that this could materialize, especially was Schroeder gets bounced but it is a fundamental question that the US needs to answer. Keeping US troops in Germany may help keep Germany aligned as our friend, in which case keeping our troops in Germany will be well worth it, even with no other strategic value.On the other hand, if Germany is going to align itself with France as our enemy, the possibility of Germany, paralyzing any assets we keep in Germany over the long-term, as the US becomes embroiled in some future conflict, is frightening enough that it would be prudent to place our military assets in countries that are more likely to be fundamentally aligned with our strategic vision, and indeed, just aligned with us as friends in the future. As for Dan's fear that pulling out of Germany will lead to the US calling future Balkan-style conflicts not our problem, I see this as being unlikely - especially under the current Administration. Not only do I truly believe that the Bush sees the world through a moral vision, but I believe that there is a fundamental recognition that failed States are a primary source of our most significant strategic threat of the moment - international terrorism. I think that the US will be very wary of letting any more failed States arrise (and I think that this is a primary reason the US is willing to let Palestine languish under occupation until it democratizes... the US feels safer letting Israel occupy Palestine than to force Israel to create a Palestinian State that would essentially be a corrupt and failing dictatorship.) Anyhow, it looks like we may get to test this prediction of mine fairly soon*, as reports this week indicate that Papua New Guinea, already one of the world's poorest countries, is on the verge of collapse. We'll see how the US reacts... although with one out of every one thousand Americans in the Persian Gulf, are hands are a bit tied at the moment. As for pulling out of the ROK, I think that it would be a very bad idea. As many of you know, my basic strategic forecast for the future is that China is the greatest long-term threat to US interests, and as China develops, I expect Cold War II to ensue between the US and China in
Walk Away from the UN
This editorial makes a pretty good analysis of how this crisis has transpired so far, until the end. Somehow, Krauthammer seems to have missed the fact that the US proposed exactly the same resolution he described several weeks ago, and it was rejected by the French, et all. Indeed, Jose Maria Aznar famously proclaimed, how can anyone be opposed to this plain and simple fact? JDG Call the Vote. Walk Away. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A13017-2003Mar11?language=printer By Charles Krauthammer Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21 Walk away, Mr. President. Walk away from the U.N. Security Council. It will not authorize the coming war. You can stand on your head and it won't change the outcome. You can convert to Islam in a Parisian mosque and it won't prevent a French veto. The French are bent not just on opposing your policy but on destroying it -- and the coalition you built around it. When they send their foreign minister to tour the three African countries on the Security Council in order to turn them against the United States, you know that this is a country with resolve -- more than our side is showing today. And that is a losing proposition for us. The reason you were able to build support at home and rally the world to at least pretend to care about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction is that you showed implacable resolve to disarm Iraq one way or the other. Your wobbles at the United Nations today -- postponing the vote, renegotiating the terms -- are undermining the entire enterprise. I understand that the wobble is not yours but a secondary, sympathetic wobble to Tony Blair's. Blair is courageous but opposed by a large part of his party and in need of some diplomatic cover. But, Mr. President, he's not going to get it. Even if you marshal the nine votes on the Security Council by watering down the resolution, delaying the invasion, establishing criteria Hans Blix is sure to muddy and Mohamed ElBaradei is sure to say Saddam Hussein has met, France and Russia will still exercise the veto. You may call it a moral victory. The British left, which is what this little exercise is about, will not. It will not care what you call it but what Kofi Annan calls it, and he has already told us: a failed resolution rendering a war that follows illegitimate. This, of course, is the rankest hypocrisy. The United Nations did not sanction the Kosovo war, surely a just war, and that did not in any way make it illegitimate. Of the scores of armed conflicts since 1945, exactly two have received Security Council sanction: the Korean War (purely an accident, the Soviets having walked out over another issue) and the Gulf War. The Gulf War ended in a cease-fire, whose terms everybody agrees Hussein has violated. You could very well have gone to war under the original Security Council resolutions of 1991 and been justified. I understand why you did not. A large segment of American opinion swoons at the words United Nations and international community. That the international community is a fiction and the United Nations a farce hardly matters. People believe in them. It was for them that you went to the United Nations on Sept. 12, 2002. And it worked. When you framed the issue as the United Nations enforcing its own edicts, vindicating its own relevance by making Hussein disarm, the intellectual opposition to the war -- always in search of some standard outside the United States' own judgment and interests to justify American action -- fell apart. Thus Resolution 1441, passed unanimously, bought you two things: domestic support and a window of legitimacy, a time to build up our forces in the region under the umbrella of enforcing the will of the international community. Mr. President, the window has closed. Diplomatically, we are today back where we were before Sept. 12. It is America, Britain, Australia, a few Gulf states, some of Old Europe, most of New Europe and other governments still too afraid to say so openly. That's enough. And in any case that is all you are going to get. Why are we dallying and deferring at the United Nations? In your news conference last week, you said you were going to have people put their cards on the table. I thought it a lousy idea to call a vote we were sure to lose. But having made your decision, you are making it worse by waffling. The world knows you as a cards-on-the-table man. Now you're asking for an extension of time and a reshuffle of the deck. If, for Blair's sake, you must have a second resolution, why include an ultimatum that Blix will obfuscate and the French will veto? If you must have a second resolution, it should consist of a single sentence: The Security Council finds Iraq in violation of Resolution 1441, which demanded 'full and immediate compliance by Iraq without conditions or restrictions.' The new resolution should be a statement not of policy but of fact. The fact is undeniable. You invite the French to cast what will be seen
Radio Free France
March 10, 2003 9:00 a.m. A Theory What if theres method to the Franco-German madness? Michael Ledeen National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen031003.asp Assume, for a moment, that the French and the Germans aren't thwarting us out of pique, but by design, long-term design. Then look at the world again, and see if there's evidence of such a design. Like everyone else, the French and the Germans saw that the defeat of the Soviet Empire projected the United States into the rare, almost unique position of a global hyperpower, a country so strong in every measurable element that no other nation could possibly resist its will. The new Europe had been designed to carve out a limited autonomy for the old continent, a balance-point between the Americans and the Soviets. But once the Soviets were gone, and the Red Army melted down, the European Union was reduced to a combination theme park and free-trade zone. Some foolish American professors and doltish politicians might say and even believe that henceforth power would be defined in economic terms, and that military power would no longer count. But cynical Europeans know better. They dreaded the establishment of an American empire, and they sought for a way to bring it down. If you were the French president or the German chancellor, you might well have done the same. How could it be done? No military operation could possibly defeat the United States, and no direct economic challenge could hope to succeed. That left politics and culture. And here there was a chance to turn America's vaunted openness at home and toleration abroad against the United States. So the French and the Germans struck a deal with radical Islam and with radical Arabs: You go after the United States, and we'll do everything we can to protect you, and we will do everything we can to weaken the Americans. The Franco-German strategy was based on using Arab and Islamic extremism and terrorism as the weapon of choice, and the United Nations as the straitjacket for blocking a decisive response from the United States. This required considerable skill, and total cynicism, both of which were in abundant supply in Paris and Berlin. Chancellor Shroeder gained reelection by warning of American warmongering, even though, as usual, America had been attacked first. And both Shroeder and Chirac went to great lengths to support Islamic institutions in their countries, even when as in the French case it was in open violation of the national constitution. French law stipulates a total separation of church and state, yet the French Government openly funds Islamic study centers, mosques, and welfare organizations. A couple of months ago, Chirac approved the creation of an Islamic political body, a mini-parliament, that would provide Muslims living in France with official stature and enhanced political clout. And both countries have permitted the Saudis to build thousands of radical Wahhabi mosques and schools, where the hatred of the infidels is instilled in generation after generation of young Sunnis. It is perhaps no accident that Chirac went to Algeria last week and promised a cheering crowd that he would not rest until America's grand design had been defeated. Both countries have been totally deaf to suggestions that the West take stern measures against the tyrannical terrorist sponsors in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Saudi Arabia. Instead, they do everything in their power to undermine American-sponsored trade embargoes or more limited sanctions, and it is an open secret that they have been supplying Saddam with military technology through the corrupt ports of Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid's little playground in Dubai, often through Iranian middlemen. It sounds fanciful, to be sure. But the smartest people I know have been thoroughly astonished at recent French and German behavior. This theory may help understand what's going on. I now believe that I was wrong to forecast that the French would join the war against Iraq at the last minute, having gained every possible economic advantage in the meantime. I think Chirac will oppose us before, during, and after the war, because he has cast his lot with radical Islam and with the Arab extremists. He isn't doing it just for the money although I have no doubt that France is being richly rewarded for defending Saddam against the civilized countries of the world but for higher stakes. He's fighting to end the feared American domination before it takes stable shape. If this is correct, we will have to pursue the war against terror far beyond the boundaries of the Middle East, into the heart of Western Europe. And there, as in the Middle East, our greatest weapons are political: the demonstrated desire for freedom of the peoples of the countries that oppose us. Radio Free France, anyone? Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen, Resident
Deadlier Than War
Deadlier Than War By Walter Russell Mead Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A21 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13019-2003Mar11.html Those who still oppose war in Iraq think containment is an alternative -- a middle way between all-out war and letting Saddam Hussein out of his box. They are wrong. Sanctions are inevitably the cornerstone of containment, and in Iraq, sanctions kill. In this case, containment is not an alternative to war. Containment is war: a slow, grinding war in which the only certainty is that hundreds of thousands of civilians will die. The Gulf War killed somewhere between 21,000 and 35,000 Iraqis, of whom between 1,000 and 5,000 were civilians. Based on Iraqi government figures, UNICEF estimates that containment kills roughly 5,000 Iraqi babies (children under 5 years of age) every month, or 60,000 per year. Other estimates are lower, but by any reasonable estimate containment kills about as many people every year as the Gulf War -- and almost all the victims of containment are civilian, and two-thirds are children under 5. Each year of containment is a new Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is 65; containing him for another 10 years condemns at least another 360,000 Iraqis to death. Of these, 240,000 will be children under 5. Those are the low-end estimates. Believe UNICEF and 10 more years kills 600,000 Iraqi babies and altogether almost 1 million Iraqis. Ever since U.N.-mandated sanctions took effect, Iraqi propaganda has blamed the United States for deliberately murdering Iraqi babies to further U.S. foreign policy goals. Wrong. The sanctions exist only because Saddam Hussein has refused for 12 years to honor the terms of a cease-fire he himself signed. In any case, the United Nations and the United States allow Iraq to sell enough oil each month to meet the basic needs of Iraqi civilians. Hussein diverts these resources. Hussein murders the babies. But containment enables the slaughter. Containment kills. The slaughter of innocents is the worst cost of containment, but it is not the only cost of containment. Containment allows Saddam Hussein to control the political climate of the Middle East. If it serves his interest to provoke a crisis, he can shoot at U.S. planes. He can mobilize his troops near Kuwait. He can support terrorists and destabilize his neighbors. The United States must respond to these provocations. Worse, containment forces the United States to keep large conventional forces in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the region. That costs much more than money. The existence of al Qaeda, and the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are part of the price the United States has paid to contain Saddam Hussein. The link is clear and direct. Since 1991 the United States has had forces in Saudi Arabia. Those forces are there for one purpose only: to defend the kingdom (and its neighbors) from Iraqi attack. If Saddam Hussein had either fallen from power in 1991 or fulfilled the terms of his cease-fire agreement and disarmed, U.S. forces would have left Saudi Arabia. But Iraqi defiance forced the United States to stay, and one consequence was dire and direct. Osama bin Laden founded al Qaeda because U.S. forces stayed in Saudi Arabia. This is the link between Saddam Hussein's defiance of international law and the events of Sept. 11; it is clear and compelling. No Iraqi violations, no Sept. 11. So that is our cost. And what have we bought? We've bought the right of a dictator to suppress his own people, disturb the peace of the region and make the world darker and more dangerous for the American people. We've bought the continuing presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia, causing a profound religious offense to a billion Muslims around the world, and accelerating the alarming drift of Saudi religious and political leaders toward ever more extreme forms of anti-Americanism. What we can't buy is protection from Hussein's development of weapons of mass destruction. Too many companies and too many states will sell him anything he wants, and Russia and France will continue to sabotage any inspections and sanctions regime. Morally, politically, financially, containing Iraq is one of the costliest failures in the history of American foreign policy. Containment can be tweaked -- made a little less murderous, a little less dangerous, a little less futile -- but the basic equations don't change. Containing Hussein delivers civilians into the hands of a murderous psychopath, destabilizes the whole Middle East and foments anti-American terror -- with no end in sight. This is disaster, not policy. It is time for a change. Walter Russell Mead is senior fellow for U.S. foreign policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and author most recently of Special Providence: American Foreign Policy and How It Changed the World. © 2003 The Washington Post Company = --- John D. Giorgis -
Computer Repair Question
Can anybody provide some advice on this: I bought a brand new computer last June. As is my habit, I basically leave my computer turned on all the time, except when I am on travel for multiple days. Last night, I had guests over, so I turned my computer off. This morning, I turned on my computer to check my e-mail. I was simply sitting, typing away, when my computer mysteriously powered down. Upon inspection, I noticed (ack!) that a side panel to the computer case had come a bit loose. Additionally, my friend noted that the back of the computer was unusually warm (which is odd, since I bought an extra fan for the case - as I knew I would leave it on a lot in a non-air-conditioned apartment.) At this point I went to work, but when I came home, the computer still will simply not turn on. I plugged in my old computer using the same cord to the same surge protector and same plug - and clearly, my old computer is working just fine from that plug. So, any ideas as to what happened and how it could be corrected? Thanks muchly for any advice you might have. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
UK Fears ICC Charges Without a 2nd UN Resolution
See all the way at the bottom now we know another reason why the US won't sign the ICC Treaty. JDG Bush Lobbies For Deal On Iraq Plan Would Set Deadlines, Goals By Karen DeYoung and Colum Lynch Washington Post Staff Writers Wednesday, March 12, 2003; Page A01 President Bush personally weighed in yesterday on diplomatic efforts to secure United Nations' authority for war against Iraq, telephoning the presidents of Chile, Mexico and Angola to push a compromise proposal that U.S. and British officials believe could begin to break the impasse at the U.N. Security Council. Under the evolving plan, Iraq would be given a set of benchmark disarmament tasks and a deadline for achieving them, a proposal that incorporates suggestions made by undecided council members. The proposal would also automatically authorize the end of U.N. weapons inspections and the use of force against Iraq unless a council majority agrees that Baghdad has fully complied with the benchmark demands. Diplomats and senior administration officials cautioned that many parts of the proposal, which would amend a widely opposed resolution introduced last week, were still under discussion. Chief among the points of disagreement was a deadline date, originally set for March 17. The six undecided members have suggested April 17, while the United States has insisted that it be no later than the end of next week. Britain is seeking a middle ground. The White House has said a vote on the measure must be held by Friday. Bush's personal intervention marked a sharp change from days of saber-rattling against Iraq and conversations largely limited to fellow leaders who already agreed with him, suggesting that the White House is closing in on the final phase of diplomacy. He also telephoned the leaders of Australia, Italy and Spain yesterday, all strong supporters of his stern attitude toward the United Nations and aggressive policy against Baghdad. Despite U.S. and British optimism that they will be ready to put a new version of the resolution on the table today or early Thursday, and stand a good chance of winning the nine of 15 council votes needed for passage, early reaction from the six was not encouraging. I don't think this can be accepted, said one diplomat who said both the benchmarks and the early deadline remained unacceptable. The six uncommitted members are Angola, Mexico, Guinea, Cameroon, Chile and Pakistan. What they had seen and heard so far, the diplomat said, is not what we expected in terms of compromise. Saying that the six were very frustrated, the diplomat added, I don't think there will be any solution to this problem. . . . This may possibly be the end of the road in terms of possible compromise. An amended resolution is still almost certain to be vetoed by France and perhaps Russia, who oppose any deadline and have argued that only the U.N. inspectors can set benchmarks or judge compliance. But U.S. and British officials, with Spain and Bulgaria the only other declared members on their side, have made clear they will consider nine votes a moral victory sufficient to launch a war they say is legally justified by years of U.N. demands on Iraq. We prefer a vote of 15 to nothing, a senior official said. But we'd also be glad to have nine votes. In fact, the official said, many in the administration view a vetoed majority as a very good outcome, leaving the United States on what it perceives as moral high ground but with no obligation to obey the terms of the mooted resolution. The resolution would not be a resolution, the official said. It would be a vetoed resolution, and the administration would see no further need to wait for additional reports from inspectors, or for any deadline beyond a decision by Bush. A French official yesterday described the new proposals as a completely artificial attempt at compromise that merely restates U.S. and British insistence that weapons inspections be ended by a definite early date, regardless of whether they are making progress. Referring to a report to the council by chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix last Friday, the official said, The inspectors have already said they need not years, not days, but months to complete their assessments. The official said it was doubtful the proposal would draw in any of the six undecided votes particularly with the short deadline Washington is demanding. They've resisted so much pressure . . . if they were going to swallow this so easily, they would have done it days ago, the official said, adding that French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin has just returned from a tour of the three African countries quite confident they will stand firm in opposition. Germany and Syria are seen as extremely unlikely to change their opposition to any deadline, and China is likely to vote no or abstain. In a day of frenzied diplomacy, most of the negotiating took place in bilateral and regional conversations on the telephone and behind closed
SCOUTED: Proposal Made for 14 Solar Planets
Having Pups Over Pluto And The Planetary Misfits Of The Kuipers As king of the Kuipers should Pluto remain an honourary planet until something bigger is found beyond Neptune by Robert Sanders for Berkeley NewsCenter Berkeley - Mar 12, 2003 Ask any kid how many planets are in our solar system, and you'll get a firm answer: nine. But knock on a few doors in Berkeley's astronomy department, and you'll hear, amid the hemming and hawing, a whole range of numbers. Professor Gibor Basri, who plans soon to propose a formal definition of a planet to the international body that names astronomical objects, argues that there are at least 14 planets, and perhaps as many as 20. To the well-known list of nine he adds several large asteroids and more distant objects from the rocky swarm called the Kuiper Belt circling beyond the orbit of Neptune. Professor Imke de Pater and Assistant Professor Eugene Chiang, on the other hand, toss out Pluto without a backward glance. It's just a big rock, they say, a former member of the Kuiper Belt, puppy-dogging Neptune around the solar system. Not so fast, says Professor Alex Filippenko. The International Astronomical Union (IAU), which rules on names for astronomical bodies, has officially said that Pluto remains a planet, at least for the time being. Thus, officially, there are nine. He cavils a bit, however, making it clear to his students that Pluto is more fundamentally a Kuiper Belt Object (KBO), though an unusually large one. Professor Geoffrey Marcy and research astronomer Debra Fischer, both planet hunters within the department, also prefer to keep the number at nine, noting that the sun, though it probably had 12 or 14 planets in the past, will in five billion years probably lose Mercury and Pluto, bringing the count down to seven. Moons, fusors, brown dwarfs This difference of opinion within the astronomy department is part of a larger debate in the astronomical community over what constitutes a planet. It provides endless hours of beer-hall debate and Friday-afternoon tea-time chat, with little hope for resolution in the near future. It's something of an embarrassment that we currently have no definition of what a planet is, Basri said. People like to classify things. We live on a planet; it would be nice to know what that was. The IAU has sidestepped any formal definition, largely, Basri says, because a good definition would eject Pluto from the list and relegate it to a minor planet or, even worse, a comet. Basri has come up with a definition that keeps Pluto in the fold, but necessarily brings in other objects that until now have not been considered planets -- objects with names such as Vesta, Pallas and Ceres, now considered asteroids, or KBOs such as Varuna. He's now preparing a formal definition to put before the IAU Working Group on Extra-Solar Planets, and has posted an article on his Web site that lays out his definition and arguments as to why it should be adopted. By 10 years from now, I'd be a little surprised if the IAU had not adopted something along the lines I'm proposing, Basri said. It's reasonable. Most astronomers and the IAU agree that planets should be orbiting a star -- or more precisely, an object that is big enough to ignite hydrogen fusion in its core (what Basri calls a fusor). The IAU Working Group also excludes anything, like a star, that is big enough to manage core fusion itself. The consensus thus excludes moons, even those such as Ganymede, which is almost as large as Mars but which happens to be orbiting the planet Jupiter rather than a star. The definition also excludes failed stars called brown dwarfs, which are too small to be stars but too big to be planets. These are the subjects of Basri's research. In 1995, he was the first to obtain a spectrum confirming that brown dwarfs exist, and he has concentrated on tests that can distinguish brown dwarfs from low-mass stars. This work naturally led him to focus on mass as a way to distinguish between planets and non-planets. He proposes a natural upper limit for a planetary mass object of about 13 times the mass of Jupiter, or about 4,000 Earths. At this size, gravity will cause an object to give off heat, as happens with Jupiter, but the pressure at the core is a bit too cool to fuse the element easiest to fuse, deuterium or heavy hydrogen. Because anything bigger, including stars and brown dwarfs, is able to fuse deuterium, Basri argues that it makes sense to define a planetary mass object -- or planemo, as he has dubbed them -- as an object too small to achieve any fusion. A natural lower limit to the mass of a planemo, Basri says, would be a body large enough for self-gravity to squash it into a round shape. On average, that would be about 700 kilometers in diameter, though that number is squishy -- an iron wrecking ball like Mercury could be smaller and round, while icy planets like Pluto would need to be larger to achieve roundness. This limit excludes all but a few
The UN Is Killing Americans
REVIEW OUTLOOK Bush in Lilliput Delaying action in Iraq is endangering American lives. Wednesday, March 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST Wall St. Journal The Bush Administration is putting a special focus on winning the support of Guinea . . .--page A3, yesterday's Wall Street Journal. We've never visited Guinea, which is perhaps our loss. But the spectacle of the U.S. government begging that African nation for permission to sacrifice American blood and treasure to save the world from Saddam Hussein exposes the farce that the U.N. Security Council's Iraq debate has become. Every day of delay in starting the war matters little to Guinea but it puts more Americans at mortal risk. President Bush is of course trying to accommodate his stalwart friend, Tony Blair. The British Prime Minister wants a nine-vote majority in the 15-member Security Council as a shield against his Labour Party critics. But Mr. Blair's fate will surely rise or fall on how well the war goes and not on who approves it in advance. Mr. Bush has already done him the favor of going for a first U.N. resolution last fall, followed by weeks of further delay this year to seek a second. That second effort now looks like a diplomatic blunder, given Russian and the implacable French opposition. The process itself has also forced the U.S. to give up some of the attack advantage of strategic surprise. And it now risks causing more tangible harm as the U.S. agrees to more concessions and extensions--yesterday to one beyond even the earlier final deadline of March 17. This latest delay is aimed at gathering the elusive but somehow crucial votes of six swing Council nations. In addition to Guinea, those countries are Mexico, Chile, Angola, Pakistan and the always strategically vital Cameroon. The U.S. has already been reduced to bribing these countries with cash or other favors in return for their support. Yet they've all played hard to get, posing as Hamlet for their 10 minutes of fame on the world stage. The Mexican and Chilean fandango is especially insulting given the preferential treatment their exports receive to the U.S. market. Maybe we should transfer to Bulgaria--which is supporting us sans bribery--the trade benefits that these two nations apparently take for granted. These columns have long tried sympathetically to explain Mexican realities to our readers, but President Vicente Fox's U.N. war straddle will cost his country years of U.S. public goodwill. Mexican and French soldiers will not be doing any dying once the war finally does start. That privilege will belong to Americans (and some Brits and Aussies), and every day that they are prevented from starting to disarm Saddam is one more day he is able to prepare death traps for them and for us. There are now daily reports that the Iraqi dictator has booby-trapped oil wells, dispersed his mobile poison labs or placed agents among Iraqi civilians. Yesterday's AP dispatch had him opening a training camp for Arab volunteers willing to carry out suicide bombings against U.S. forces. Every day of delay also gives him, or al Qaeda, more time to plant or mobilize agents to attack the U.S. homeland. There are other growing costs of delay. One is the economic damage from uncertainty--which is small compared with life and limb but seems large if you lose your job. Another is the lesson to other thugs, such as North Korea's Kim Jong Il, that they can also use the U.N. to stymie and wait out American resolve. And then there is the cost to President Bush's own political standing and credibility as he lets the world's pygmies tie him down like Gulliver. We could support further delay in starting the war if there were any hope at all that U.N. inspections might disarm Saddam short of costing American lives. The trend is in fact the opposite. Hans Blix, Mohammed El Baradei and the other inspectors seem more inclined than ever to forgive Iraqi intransigence. Mr. El Baradei made a public fuss last week about one British-U.S. claim that turns out to have been false, but which was in any case peripheral to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Mr. Blix buried deep in his latest report the news of an illegal Iraqi drone capable of delivering chemical weapons. As each day passes, the evidence mounts that the U.N. inspections regime is not about containing Saddam; it is about containing America. Messrs. Bush and Blair went to the U.N. in good faith to build international support, and perhaps in the process to rescue the U.N. from irrelevance. The U.N. is proving daily that is in fact another League of Nations. Mr. Bush's obligation is not to the reputation of the U.N. but to the safety of American soldiers and citizens. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling
David Frum on France
From David Frum's Blog: Im in Minneapolis, Minnesota, but thanks to the miracle of modern satellite technology, I was able to join yesterday in a French television program that pitted former French foreign minister Hubert Vedrine against a line-up of North American sparring partners. Vedrine too was in his own way highly impressive: poised, well-spoken, and beguilingly frank about his hostility to the United States. The book he cowrote a couple of years back with Dominique Moisi is full of unconvincing humbug about human rights and Frances special symbolic significance in the world. On television, Vedrine dispenses with all the pretense and gets straight to the point: French ambition, resentment, and envy of the United States. I couldnt take notes during the conversation and the transcript is not yet posted to Nexis, if it ever will be, so Ill have to recall Vedrines words from memory. I was struck by one thing above all how little he talked about Iraq, the shows purported subject. Neither Saddam Husseins weapons of mass destruction nor Saddams cruelty and tyranny interested Vedrine much. What fascinated him instead was the United States and the need, as he repeatedly said, for the nations of the world to join together to contain and control it. In his press conference last week, President Bush described France as a friend. Vedrine spoke about the United States in the way that states more typically speak of their enemies. Vedrines words were illustrated by three or four video clips intended to offer the French television viewer some context. One clip, on the evolution of American power, started with some quick shots of D-Day and the proceeded through B-52s dropping bombs on Vietnamese rice paddies, weeping Vietnamese widows and orphans, vast sheets of dollars spitting out of the presses of the Mint, Donald Duck and Mickey Mouse, McDonalds arches, and President Bush addressing Congress on September 20. Another, on American religion, showed the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, and elderly white people in absurd hats proudly discussing their disdain for Muslims. It was rather as if an American TV show produced a video clip about France that began with Marshall Petain, cut to scenes of torture from the Battle of Algiers, a reeking pissoir, politicians accepting bribes, and rioting truck drivers smashing windows to protest Frances hopeless inability to compete on world markets. After an hour of this, I made a personal vow: Never, ever again will I permit anyone to disparage in my hearing Americans ignorance of the rest of the world. Compared to what the French are getting from their media, Americans are bloody Baedekers. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online http://webhosting.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Those Sanctions Really Worked in North Korea
Kazakhstan tops North Korea's weapons shop list SEOUL (AFP) Mar 06, 2003 Russia and Kazakhstan were the main suppliers of fighters and other conventional weapons to North Korea in the past ten years, according to a Swedish research institute. The website of the Stockholm International Peace Research Instituteshowed that North Korea acquired 35 SS-N-2b Styx anti-ship missiles from Russia between 1992 and 1996. One of the Styx missiles was fired into international waters in the Sea of Japan on February 24, South Korea's Yonhap news agency said. Between 1993 and 2002, North Korea imported 308 million dollars worth of weapons -- 176 million dollars from Kazakhstan, 103 million dollars from Russia and 29 million dollars from China, SIPRI said. During the same period, China delivered 550 portable SAM missiles and 16 Romeo-class submarines while Kazakhstan shipped 34 MiG-21 fighters, 24 KS-19 anti-aircraft guns and four fire control radars, it said. Russian weapons purchased by North Korea during the period included Styx missiles, four surveillance radars, six fire control radars and 32 IFV armored vehicles. North Korea also produced other weapons under Russian license -- 1,100 AT-4 anti-tank missiles, 550 SA-16 portable SAM missiles and 500 SA-7 portable SAM missiles, according to the institute. The impoverished North is capable of producing most conventional weapons. All rights reserved. © 2002 Agence France-Presse. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ditch Turkey
Unfortunately, I must totally disagree with the author of this article. In my mind, the integration of Turkey, ie. a secular Muslim democracy in the Middle East into Western Civilization is one of the most important tasks facing our civilization. We must prove that Western Civilization and Muslim Civilization are not incompatabile, and that indeed, they can be merged. Turkey is perhaps our best chance of accomplishing that. Likewise, Hitchens totally fails to consider the consequences of endorsing the formation of a Kurdistan. For better or for worse, such actions would be viewed as the US dismembering an Arab, Muslim, State. Even worse, it would also be viewed as the US stabbing-in-the-back its primary Muslim ally. Unfortunately, we simply must do the best we can for the Kurds - as ethnic minorities in democratic, pluralistic Turkey and Iraq. JDG Talking Turkey An ally we're better off without. By Christopher Hitchens Updated Tuesday, March 4, 2003, at 2:50 PM PT The slander of the Iraqi and Kurdish opposition, and of their friends, as little better than puppets of the Bush administration is an idea that is half-alive in the minds of those who are knowingly trying to buy more time for Saddam Hussein. Every now and then, one gets a sneer about it. So, it's good to step aside from the everyday arguments with the regime preservers and point out that proxies and mercenaries seldom express themselves as forcefully and publicly as the Iraqi opposition has been doing recently. The first point of disagreementabout the role of American officers in the aftermathis a matter of principle but still somewhat contingent since nobody can know in advance what conditions will be in the post-Baathist republic. Many of the supplies required for rebuilding may be deliverable, for example, only by military transports. Nonetheless, a strong presumption has been established against any uniformed tutelage; the Iraqi National Congress, the Shiite forces, and the Kurds have united forcefully on the issue of self-government. A second point of dissent hardly admits of any negotiation at all. Turkey has no rights in any part of Iraq, and least of all does it have any right to involve itself in the Kurdish areas, emancipated for a dozen years from Saddam's rule, which adjoin its own borders. The Bush administration has been entirely too lenient with Ankara, not just on this point but on many related ones. 1) Kurdistan itself. It has taken decades for the Turkish state even to acknowledge that another people with a distinct language and culture lives within its borders. It's sadly true that a Kurdish rebellion in southeastern Turkey was led by a Shining Path-type leader named Abdullah Ocalan (believe me: I interviewed him in Lebanon and found a Kurdish Pol Pot), but this in itself expresses the desperate conditions that obtain. Under steady civilian pressure from within and without, Turkish authorities are now prepared to concede on the Kurdish right to existprincipally because the European Union has insisted on the point. The time for Washington to make a statement about Kurdish rights in Turkey would be right about now. (We have only been waiting since Woodrow Wilson first murmured on the same point.) 2) Cyprus. If any regime in the world has collected a bigger sheaf of resolutions condemning its international behavior than the Iraqi one, it must be the Turks (followed perhaps by the Israelis). Since 1974, Turkey has patrolled a line of forcible partition drawn by its own troopsthe first occupation of the territory of another European state since 1945. It has expelled almost one-third of the original Greek inhabitants and further violated international law by importing settlers and colonists from the Anatolian mainland. It has been condemned for murder, rape, and theft by innumerable European court rulings. So abysmal are conditions in its sweatshop colony in northern Cyprus, policed by the notorious thug and proxy Rauf Denktash, that the majority of Turkish Cypriots have recently joined vast demonstrations calling for an end to his rule and a federal brotherhood with their Greek co-citizens. Turkey could not hang on to Cyprus for a day without vast tranches of American military aid that shield it from the real cost of the annexation. This aid should be cut off without any further shameful delay: It makes the United States an accomplice in a gross violation of international law and human rights. 3) Armenia. The destruction and dispossession of the Armenian people, in the first ethnocide of the 20th century, is not the responsibility of Turkey's present-day elected government. Nonetheless, the Turkish authorities continue to deny historical responsibility and even to deny that the massacres occurred at all. Repeated proposals in the U.S. Senate to observe a day for Armenian-Americans (bravely sponsored for years by former Sen. Robert Dole) have been defeated by an alliance of defense contractors owed
4,000 Allied Troops on the Ground in Iraq
300 SAS troops already in Iraq By Michael Smith (Filed: 04/03/2003) The London Telegraph Several thousand allied special forces, including more than 300 SAS personnel, are already operating inside Iraq. Anti-war protestors demonstrate as US B52 bombers move into RAF Fairford This suggests that, despite efforts to secure a United Nations resolution backing force, the war has begun. Defence sources said last night that two SAS Sabre squadrons - about 240 men - plus more than 100 support troops were engaged in various parts of Iraq. The scale of the operations in the south and west is unprecedented. British special forces did not enter Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war until the ground offensive began. The men are part of joint special operations, which include more than 4,000 American and Australian special forces with headquarters in Qatar and bases in Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey. Their insertion into Iraq coincides with intensified air attacks. Iraq said yesterday that American and British aircraft killed six civilians and wounded 15 others in raids on Basra but Washington said the jets had struck military targets after coming under anti-aircraft fire. In the Commons, the Conservatives said that the action amounted to the opening shots in a new Gulf war. Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, told MPs that there had been no substantial change in activity but that patrols in the no-fly zones now involved a broader range of aircraft. RAF aircraft have played only a supporting role in the latest attacks. Eight American B52 bombers arrived at RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire yesterday, from where they could bomb targets in Iraq. Mr Hoon told the Commons that he had given permission for 14 B52s to be stationed there. Last September RAF and US air force patrols of the no-fly zones were turned into a de facto air war when a raid by 106 aircraft on the H3 air base in western Iraq signalled the start of an intensification of attacks aimed at destroying air defences. The Telegraph disclosed in January that a team of 35 SAS men was operating in and out of western Iraq as part of a 100-strong allied force looking for Scud missile launchers that could be used to attack Israel. The special forces are now moving in and out of Iraq virtually at will, monitoring Iraqi oilfields west of Baghdad and in the north amid concern that Saddam Hussein will set fire to them in the event of an invasion. The priority of the SAS, which is being ferried back and forth by RAF Chinook helicopters normally based at Odiham, Hants, has been to ascertain Iraqi troop positions and confirm that targets selected from satellite photographs for the first attacks in any air war are not decoys. The troops have also been looking for suitable holding areas in south-western Iraq for the many Iraqi troops who are expected to give themselves up in the early phases of fighting. The allied plans involve a rapid advance across southern Iraq towards Baghdad from Kuwait and it is feared that this could be seriously delayed by the need to deal with large numbers of prisoners of war. Other roles have included monitoring troop movements in the vast desert west of Baghdad and in the north around Saddam's home town of Tikrit, where senior commanders expect the Iraqis to put up stiff resistance. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iranians Boycott Elections
OPINION March 4, 2003 9:00 a.m. The Iranian-Election Revolt The people speak. The West wont listen. Michael Ledeen - National Review Iran held municipal elections over the weekend. All the regime's big guns had implored the people to turn out in record numbers, to demonstrate that the people were committed to participation in the Islamic Republic. Supreme Leader Khamenei, Eminence Grise Rafsanjani, and President Khatami the vapid matinee idol of the New York and Los Angeles Times apologists made clear their desperate desire for a record turnout. Be careful what you ask for. There was a record turnout, but it was a negative record. The official reports speak of a ten-percent turnout in Tehran and other major cities, with higher participation elsewhere. If those numbers were accurate, it would represent a massive abstention, and hence an enormous vote of no confidence in the system. But the real numbers are worse still: Of the roughly seven million people entitled to vote in Tehran, less than 70,000 actually voted. I make that about one percent. These data come directly from a high-ranking official involved in the elections office, who was shocked by the results. The Iranian people rejected the regime in the most unmistakable way, yet the story you read in our newspapers is that the hard liners routed the reformers in something resembling a real election. As if the Iranian people, after years of mass demonstrations against the mullahcracy, after thousands of freedom fighters had sacrificed their lives in protest against Islamic oppression, had suddenly seen the darkness and decided they preferred tyranny to freedom. Or perhaps they had heard the shameful nonsense emanating from the mouth of Deputy Secretary of State Armitage (Iran is a democracy) and decided that since the Supreme Leader was a confirmed democrat, the best path to liberty was to give the regime a huge vote of confidence. No way. The elections were a protest non-vote, pure and simple. The pathetic Khatami and his apologists at the BBC and elsewhere in the Western media are now crying that the system is being undermined and chances for reform have been weakened, but they have totally missed the point. Chances for reform are nil so long as Khamenei and Rafsanjani are in command, and the Iranian people are disgusted with Khatami's failed promises and empty gestures. He's not only ineffectual, but a coward to boot. He's threatened to resign with monotonous regularity, but never does it. He promised reforms but has produced none at all, and there is manifestly less freedom today than when he came to office. If we had had any honest reporters in Tehran for the past two weeks, they would have put the elections in their proper context. The vote came hard on the heels of a weeklong demonstration for the benefit of the United Nations Human Rights Commission, which visited Iran on a fact-finding mission. Headed by the usual Frenchman, the commission managed to complain about the protracted use of solitary confinement in Iranian prisons. But they did not denounce the more terrible practices such as torture and arbitrary executions. Indeed, while they were in Iran, the regime rounded up five more newspaper editors and locked them up, with no protest from the commissioners. And apparently the commissioners did not insist on interviewing the country's most celebrated prisoners, like student leader Tabarzadeh or the recently arrested jurist Sholeh Sadi, who had bravely denounced the regime in uncompromising language. And unbeknownst to the commissioners, the regime had staged a dry run for the prisoners. Blonde-haired, blue-eyed agents of the regime, pretending to be commissioners, were sent into the prisons to interview prisoners. Those who complained about maltreatment were isolated, and maltreated some more. Those who spoke well about their conditions were permitted to be interviewed by the real commissioners. God willing, Judgment Day is coming to the Middle East, and the long-suffering people of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia will get their chance to be free. I have no doubt that they will have suitably harsh words for the Western governments and journalists who failed to help them, or even tell the real story. Michael Ledeen, an NRO contributing editor, is most recently the author of The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen, Resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, can be reached through Benador Associates. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you
Blowback
Arming Saudi Arabia today, may, in a couple decades, be looked upon like our arming of Hussein in 1980 and the mujaheddin in Afghanistan. JDG March 4, 2003, 9:30 a.m. Blowback Alert Saudi Arabia is next. By Gerald M. Steinberg National Review Officials in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia have announced that once the war with Iraq is over, Western troops particularly the Americans would receive a letter of thanks and a return ticket home. On the face of it, this seems like a good idea a rare example of a win-win situation in the Middle East. Few Americans enjoy spending time on distant desert bases protecting a corrupt royal family and its retainers, who in turn resent this evidence of their own weakness. At the same time, the fanatical Wahhabis that control religion and society in Saudi Arabia would cheer the departure of the infidels. Indeed, this is the core demand of Osama bin Laden, the onetime Saudi citizen who founded al Qaeda and planned the mass terror of 9/11. Heeding bin Laden's call, 15 more Saudis were recruited to carry out the attacks against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon helped along also by substantial Saudi funding and religious justification. Thus by ridding themselves of the impure forces on holy Islamic ground, the Saudi rulers can also appease bin Laden. Indeed, once Saddam is gone and the threat from Iraq is destroyed (at least for now), the main justification for the presence of foreign military forces will also disappear. When Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990 and threatened to move against Saudi Arabia and seize its oil wells American troops were dispatched immediately. Although a post-Saddam Middle East will still pose many threats to the Saudi royal family and its oil income, the security situation should improve, and, in any case, this will no longer be America's problem. With Iraqi oil back on line and available after the war, any disruptions in Saudi production will have less impact. However, the departure of the American and other forces from Saudi Arabia could create new and more menacing difficulties for the U.S., Israel and other countries. If the huge arsenals of the world's most advanced weapons become available to radical groups and Islamic terrorists, the result could be a catastrophic case of blowback. Following the war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, guerrillas who had been trained and armed by the U.S. (including bin Laden) turned their weapons against their former benefactors. The potential blowback from the Saudi arsenal of advanced aircraft and missiles would be many times more devastating. The scope of this threat should not be underestimated. For over 30 years, Saudi defense officials (princes of the royal family) have been converting a significant portion of their oil income into weapons and bases. Multi-billion-dollar deals to acquire large numbers of the most advanced combat aircraft, tanks, missiles, and other systems were signed and implemented over the years, making Saudi Arabia one of the most highly armed countries in the world. In the early 1980s and despite strenuous objections from Israel and within the U.S. the Reagan administration agreed to sell AWACS airborne battle stations to the Saudis, as well as F-15s (over 150 of these advanced fighter-bombers are now in the Saudi inventory) and tactical missiles (such as the Maverick and Sidewinder). Large and modern bases were also built including the Prince Sultan complex south of Riyadh, complete with a 15,000-foot runway and advanced air-traffic control, navigation, meteorological, and communications systems. The additional weapons purchased from France and Britain also should not be overlooked in this assessment. Throughout this period, successive American governments rejected concerns that this arsenal could be turned against the U.S. and Israel. (While the Saudis are often portrayed as pragmatic and passive, they are at the forefront of anti-Israel incitement and anti-Semitism, and have sent symbolic forces to fight in past Arab-Israeli wars.) Repeated reassurances were given that these weapons could not be operated without American permission and cooperation. But if the U.S. and other Western forces depart, huge stockpiles of some of the most advanced weapons in the world would no longer be locked away. In the likely event of a major political upheaval in Saudi Arabia and the replacement of the royal family with an Islamic regime that is closely aligned with Islamic radicals or terror groups these weapons and bases could become a central element in the war against the U.S. and the West. Pakistanis or others might be given access to these weapons, and with Pakistan spinning toward radicalism and nuclear-armed chaos, the prospect of what could follow is not encouraging. Moreover, the intercontinental ballistic missiles it purchased from China many years ago could provide the foundation for a Saudi strategic force. A number of former diplomats
Letter to a Dutchman: What This War is About
Rod Dreher National Review March 4, 2003 9:00 a.m. Letter to a European Friend Explaining this war. Dear Harry, Thanks so much for your recent letter. You Dutch are great about remembering birthdays. I hardly noticed that I even had a birthday this year, inasmuch as the day came at the end of an exhausting week.. The whole country had been under high terror alert that week. Anti-aircraft missiles had been parked around Washington, and here in New York, police commandos were on the streets carrying assault rifles. Julie and I decided not to bother going out to celebrate, to instead stay home with Matthew and be grateful that nothing bad happened. I've been meaning to write to answer your concerns about the war, and to address your remarks about the increasing anti-Americanism in the air in Europe. I finally have the time, given that Julie and Matthew have gone to Texas to stay with her folks for a few weeks. It might sound paranoid to you, but I feel a lot better with them down there for the time being. I'm hearing that more and more New Yorkers are doing this, quietly. Maybe this is overreacting, but if a dirty bomb should go off, we have no car, and no way of getting out of town. Until they left, every moment of every day I'd sit at my desk in Manhattan, wondering how I would get home to them across the river in Brooklyn if there were another catastrophic terrorist attack. I hate having my family split up like this, however temporary, but I can't bear the thought of something terrible happening to them when and if the war starts, and me not having gotten them to someplace safer when I had the chance. We lived through September 11, and are not eager to go through anything like that again, if we can help it. I must tell you that beyond particular arguments over the usefulness of this or that aspect of the Iraq standoff, I believe that experience is at the root of the American public's willingness to go to war with Iraq, versus Europe's overwhelming rejection of same. We know what these terrorists can do, and will do; for Europeans, it was all a story on television. Most Americans understand the lesson of 9/11; most Europeans, in my view, do not. Because you are my friend, I don't want to bore you by going through the kinds of policy arguments I would use in a public debate, which you may have read in the newspapers and magazines anyway. I want to tell you what 9/11 was like for us, and why it matters to the way we, and lots of Americans, feel about this war. That morning began with a phone call from my father, who had been watching TV. Look out your front door, the World Trade Center is on fire, he said. It was a warm, clear, beautiful September day. And there was one of the towers, billowing smoke and paper, which was being carried by the wind right over our house in Brooklyn. While I was downstairs gathering my notepad so I could run across the bridge to cover the fire, I heard the explosion of the second plane hitting. It shook our building. I opened the door, saw the second tower burning, kissed Julie goodbye, and told her, I'm going to get as close as I can. There was an exodus of workers crossing the bridge out of Manhattan. I stopped to talk to some of them. They were gasping and sobbing, talking about having seen people jumping to their deaths from the upper floors. I have never seen that kind of trauma in anyone. They were very nearly in shock. I am fortunate that I stopped to talk to them, because I had plenty of time to have made it to the south tower. As it was, I was standing on the bridge watching the fire, about to begin my descent into Manhattan, when the south tower collapsed. My knees nearly buckled. I was sure I had just seen tens of thousands of people die. I turned back toward home, because there was no getting into Manhattan now. My mobile phone wasn't working, so I had no way of letting Julie know I hadn't been killed. All she knew was that my last words were, I'm going to get as close as I can. It took me almost an hour to get home that morning. When she saw me coming, she ran down the street holding Matthew, sobbing. She had to live for nearly an hour anticipating that the Islamic terrorists had killed me too. We were lucky: We really didn't know anyone who died in the Towers, though eight people from our church perished. People in our parish who had grown up in Beirut told us that the slightly sweet smell that hung in the air in our neighborhood was burning flesh. I hadn't counted on ever knowing what that smelled like. We went and stood by the harbor with hundreds of our neighbors, watching the smoke rise from the 16-acre crematorium, praying and wondering what had happened to our city and our country. Six days later, they reopened the Financial District, and I went there to report on what I saw. Harry, I hope you never have to see anything like this in Amsterdam. The immensity of the violence done to New York and America on that day became clear to me in a way
Saddam Assasinated Missile Chieft to Thwart Inspections
Saddam 'killed missile chief' to thwart UN team By David Wastell and Julian Coman in Washington (Filed: 02/03/2003) The Telegraph Western intelligence agencies are investigating claims that Saddam Hussein ordered the murder of a senior Iraqi missile engineer to prevent him passing vital information to United Nations weapons inspectors. Gen Muhammad Sa'id al-Darraj, who was in charge of Iraq's mobile Scud missiles until three months ago, died 24 hours after talks with Saddam's officials, according to Arab newspaper reports. The officials wanted to discuss how the general would conceal his knowledge if he were called for interview by the UN. The London-based Al-Zaman newspaper said that Gen al-Darraj told indignant relatives shortly before he died that he had been slipped a poisoned drink during the meeting at one of Saddam's presidential palaces. Iraqi opposition groups suspect that the general's loyalty to Saddam was in doubt after he was removed from his post at the end of last year. British Government officials said yesterday that they were still trying to corroborate the report. UN inspectors held their initial private interviews with Iraqis involved in Saddam's weapons programme - a biologist and a missile expert - on Friday, their first such talks for three weeks. Last week Britain's ambassador to the UN, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, gave a private briefing to other members of the Security Council on Iraq's continuing efforts to conceal its chemical weapons and nerve gas production from the weapons inspectors, The Telegraph has learnt. Officials say that Sir Jeremy will reveal more to his senior UN colleagues this week, including sensitive intelligence information, in an effort to boost support for the British and American-backed resolution on Iraq. Donald Rumsfeld, the United States Secretary of Defence, put further pressure on Saddam's regime by linking senior Iraqi officials to a new list of 24 crimes for which detainees in the war on terrorism may be tried by American military tribunals. Mr Rumsfeld said that war-crimes suspects in Saddam's regime might be brought to Guantanamo Bay, where about 650 al-Qa'eda suspects are currently held, after any military action. According to Pentagon officials, Saddam and other top Ba'ath Party activists could be put on trial for crimes against Kurds in northern Iraq and Shia Muslims in the south. The war crimes list includes employing poison or analogous weapons, using protected persons as shields and using protected property as shields. Mr Rumsfeld said that the 19-page list was a codification of existing laws of war to take account of the new landscape of international terrorism. During an emergency Arab summit in Egypt yesterday the United Arab Emirates became the first Arab country to call publicly for Saddam and his aides to go into exile, to spare Iraq's people from war. The UAE said that the Iraqi leadership should be offered all suitable privileges to leave within two weeks, plus internationally binding guarantees that they would not face prosecution in any form. The proposal appeared to receive backing from Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al Faisal. At the same summit, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria called on fellow Arab League nations not to provide America with military facilities to wage war on Iraq. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Posner: Was I Really That Stupid?
Updated Tuesday, February 25 at 1:27 PM Was I That Stupid? by Gerald Posner This past weekend, millions turned out in cities worldwide for antiwar protests the largest since the Vietnam war by groups opposed to US military action against Iraq. Tens of thousands in the United States recently braved frigid east coast weather and almost half-a-million people marched through Florence and Paris in what was promoted as one in a series in many Europe-wide anti-war rallies. Many of my fellow Democrats have been gushing about the hordes that have taken to the streets, basking in nostalgia about the street demonstrations over Vietnam that were a factor in changing government policy in Southeast Asia. But the enthusiasm that the protests kindled in some seemed strange, as all they did for me was bring back shameful memories of my own political naiveté thirty years ago. In 1972 I was a freshman at UC Berkeley, then proud to boast it had the only city council in America that refused to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Carrying around baby-doctor Benjamin Spocks leftist manifesto on Vietnam, I quickly became an activist during the next two years in immense antiwar protests that seemed almost daily occurrences at Berkeley. As a political science major I thought I had all the answers. The North Vietnamese were merely freedom fighters trying to liberate their country from the shackles of western imperialism. The US war was unjust and being waged against innocents. And Governor Ronald Reagan, who kept badmouthing us and sending in the tough Alameda sheriffs department to disburse the crowds, was somewhere right of Attila the Hun. Three decades later I have no pride in the memory of those protests. Rather, I wonder how it was possible to be so mistaken about real politics and world events. My political gullibility is an embarrassment. The so-called peace movement had completely deluded itself, conveniently ignoring any evidence that countered its agenda. How was it not possible to have seen that the North was a convenient tool for the Soviets to bleed the US and that it represented one of the most repressive old-line communist dictatorships since Stalin? What were we marching for three decades ago? Certainly not for the right of North Vietnam to invade neighboring Cambodia, killing tens of thousands of civilians in a brutal war of submission. Nor did we raucously protest so that two million Cambodians could be exterminated under the Khmer Rouge. Not many of us would have been so enthusiastic in Sproul Plaza had we known that the North Vietnamese secret police would imprison, torture, and kill tens of thousands of political prisoners in a futile, but barbarous, attempt to cleanse the country of western influence. None of the tragedies that happened after the US withdrawal from Southeast Asia should have come as a surprise. But they did to those of us in the antiwar movement because we had blinded ourselves to any reality. Will todays current peace protestors eventually feel as foolish as I do? I think even more so. Weapons of mass destruction, a war declared on America by Islamic extremists, and a leader in Saddam who rivals the most thuggish dictators in recent history, changes the entire equation. Thirty years ago there was never a question of North Vietnam attacking America or its civilians around the globe. Our often-misguided peace demonstrations inadvertently assisted the communists in brutally reuniting the country. But todays peaceniks, who seem to be more interested in protecting Saddam than in trying to prevent the massive loss of life on American soil if terrorists get their hands on weapons of mass destruction, are playing with much more dangerous consequences. They are deluding themselves to the post 9.11 realities, and in so doing, their success would put the country at considerable risk. Saddam must be delirious with joy to think that not a shot has been fired, and the same old suspects Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Ramsey Clark - are taking to the streets and leading many impressionable and idealistic young Americans in trying to stop a war that is, unfortunately, a necessity. Such demonstrations give Saddam the false hope that peace sentiment on the street will weaken the resolve of Western leaders, and the vacillation of allies like Germany and France only rekindle the shameful specter earlier European weakness when it came to dealing with its own fascist dictators a generation ago. The loose collaboration of leftists, anti-war activists, and anti-globalization proponents, must wake up. There are fundamentalists who would kill them without a second thought merely because they are Westerners. Appeasement gets you nowhere, as Europe learned from Hitler. I looked at the recent television images of thousands, almost in a party atmosphere, as they chanted their rhyming protests against a possible war. Was I that stupid? I hope not. Gerald Posner is a Miami and New
US Plans Iraqi Occupation
and Krugman is again all wet. JDG U.S. makes plans for post-Saddam Iraq From Barbara Starr CNN Washington Bureau Monday, February 24, 2003 Posted: 1:16 PM EST (1816 GMT) U.N. weapons inspectors pass an Iraqi soldier Monday in Baghdad. WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration is laying extensive plans for a long-term U.S. military and civilian administration in Iraq once the regime of Saddam Hussein is removed from power, either through war or other means, officials said Monday. Some of the initial plans were discussed last week in testimony on Capitol Hill, but further White House and Pentagon briefings are expected this week with more detail. More than 100 officials from government agencies that would be involved met Friday and Saturday for a classified briefing at the National Defense University in Washington to begin to lay out the framework. Here is what officials have said about that framework: At the core of a post-Saddam administration would be the U.S. Central Command. Gen. Tommy Franks, who is the head of Central Command, and his troops would remain in charge of security and stability for Iraq when the shooting stops. The goal would be to keep those troops in place as long as necessary but also install a civilian administrator so there is no appearance solely of a U.S. military occupation of Iraq. The Pentagon also has established an Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, which retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay Garner will run. Garner has previous experience in humanitarian relief operations in northern Iraq with the Kurds. He would coordinate operations under the plan. Garner and several staffers are expected to move from the Pentagon into the Persian Gulf region in the near future and then be ready to deploy to the Iraqi capital, Baghdad. Their stated goal will be to also solicit international and private sector support for all efforts rather than have the U.S. military do the work. The Pentagon envisions an era of transition before Iraq can be transformed into a democracy, according to one official. The office will have separate deputies overseeing three areas: Humanitarian relief: The weekend meeting identified this area as a major and continuing issue. Some 60 percent of Iraqis get their food from U.N. and other relief organizations, and the Pentagon is trying to ensure aid agencies can get back into Iraq as soon as hostilities cease. The meeting underscored that the military's humanitarian daily rations airdropped over Afghanistan would be insufficient for ensuring food for as large a population as Iraq. Ensuring a safe water supply also will be a top priority. Reconstruction of infrastructure: Iraq's basic infrastructure of roads, bridges, civil works and other facilities has deteriorated badly over the last 20 years. The Pentagon will coordinate repair and reconstruction as well as work needed to restore oil fields. Civil administration: This effort envisions first removing any Baath Party or Saddam supporters from the government and then beginning to work to establish a new government. The United States would work side by side with Iraqis in the bureaucracy and courts and justice system, including the possibility of writing a new legal code. Officials emphasize they do not know how long any of this process will take or how much it will cost. The whole effort depends on how much destruction is caused during a war and the amount of resistance the United States might encounter in Iraqi society. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Pledges $10mil for Disarmament Efforts in Afghanistan
Obviously, disarmament is just one very small portion of the rebuilding in Afghanistan, but this article belies Krugman's ridiculous assertion that the US was pledging not one cent towards Afghanistan in the next budget. In other news, President Karzai himself has stated that he is, quote, not worried about the reconstruction of Afghanistan being abandoned. If you think about it, this is a very, very, strong statement of support for the Bush Administration's reconstruction efforts, since in general, recipients of aid try to play up the amount of need they have - they almost never say that they are not worried that their needs will not be met. JDG Donor nations pledge $50.7 million to Karzai The Japan Times Japan and three other major donor countries pledged Saturday to continue to support Afghanistan's efforts to rebuild at a conference in Tokyo. The four countries unveiled an aid package totaling $50.7 million that is designed to help Afghan soldiers leave the military and rejoin society as civilians. The money being provided covers the budget for the first year of the three-year program. During the Tokyo Conference on Consolidation of Peace in Afghanistan, Japan pledged to provide $35 million, the U.S. offered $10 million, Britain some $3.5 million and Canada $2.2 million. The process of disarmament, demobilization and reintegration -- known as DDR -- of former combatants into Afghan society will cost about $134 million over three years, according to the United Nations Development Program. More than 30 donor countries, the European Union and about 10 international institutions took part in the conference. In addition to the four major donors, many other countries expressed readiness to offer financial aid, although they did not provide specific figures during the meeting. Germany, which is in charge of organizing the new police force in Afghanistan, said it will cooperate closely with Japan to reduce the number of Afghan police officials. Afghan President Hamid Karzai emphasized the importance of the DDR plan to ensure peace and security in his homeland. Achieving DDR answers the deepest aspirations of the Afghan people, who are eager to move away from war and violence toward a peaceful, safe and civil society, Karzai said in his opening speech. Afghanistan has between 150,000 and 200,000 soldiers, of which 100,000 will be discharged in line with the reorganization of the country's military and police forces. Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi vowed to continue her commitment toward Afghanistan's reconstruction process and called on the international community to continue to support the from guns to plows plan. Each of the major donor nations has already played a leading role in supporting Afghan's efforts to rebuild, with Japan taking responsibility for the DDR program. Some 34 countries and 12 international organizations attended the conference. Among the participants were Sadako Ogata, special representative of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi for Assistance to Afghanistan, and Lakhdar Brahimi, special representative of the U.N. secretary general for Afghanistan. The Japan Times: Feb. 23, 2003 Afghan leader says donors committed Karzai states war no impediment By Peggy Hernandez, Boston Globe Correspondent, 2/23/2003 TOKYO - Hamid Karzai, president of Afghanistan's interim government, said yesterday that he has assurances from President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that a war with Iraq will not impede his country's reconstruction. Karzai, attending a one-day donors conference here, secured another $51 million in aid for his war-torn country. ''Generally, of course, war in Iraq will have an impact,'' Karzai said. But he said that an attack would not impede financial assistance to Afghanistan or efforts to bring peace to the divided country. ''We are not worried.'' The conference, attended by representatives from more than 40 countries, served as a follow-up to a historic session in January 2002, in which dozens of nations and organizations pledged $4.5 billion to rebuild the country. The new pledges come from Japan, the United States, Britain, and Canada. The United Nations, the World Bank, and the Asian Development Bank estimate it will cost about $15 billion over 10 years for Afghanistan's reconstruction. In Tokyo, Karzai offered more details to the donor countries about his three-year plan for ''disarmament, demobilization, and reintegration'' to develop the country. Under the plan, the country's warlords and their soldiers are expected to surrender their weapons in exchange for cash, vocational training, and work placement. Karzai will formally announce the start of the program on March 21, the Afghan new year. He also said he hoped the country will be able to hold its first general election in June or July 2004. ''During the past year, we have had some remarkable achievements,'' Karzai said. ''Most were made possible by the desire of the
Interview With Hans Blix
All Eyes on The Inspector An interview with the U.N. diplomat. He talks about Iraqi credibility, the necessity of a military threat and wrangling within the Security Council Posted Sunday, February 23, 2003; 10:31 a.m. EST TIME: In a perfect world, how long should inspections proceed before you know whether Iraq is cooperating? Blix: It should not take a very long time. There will always be a residue of uncertainty, but for the larger things, industrial-scale activities, I think within a number of months. TIME: Do you think Iraq is becoming more cooperative? Blix: There is clearly a difference between the tone [of my report to the U.N.] on Jan. 27 and the one I had [in the second report] Feb. 14. I am supposed to give an accurate description of the reality I see. And if the reality changes, I damn well ought to register that. By the 14th of February, we had been to Baghdad, and there were a number of things that ... did not bring us close to disarmament but opened up the potential opportunity for progress. TIME: What exactly was this potential progress? Blix: They [initially] said, We destroyed all the biological weapons in the summer of 1991but the documentation was destroyed, and we cannot tell you anything more about it. Now they said, Well, maybe there is a way of finding out underground. I said that our people were not very hopeful about it, but nevertheless we would [pursue] it. They claim they had drilled in the ground and there was rock underneath, and they thought we might still find traces of it. TIME: Any other hopeful developments? Blix: We [received] a letter that gave us the names of persons who had taken part in the destruction of biological weapons in the summer of 1991. These are people who are still alive and who [could be] interviewed about it. Since then we have had further names from the missile sector and from the chemical. I'm not rushing to conclusions that this is going to give results. They could be scripted. They could all tell us the same story. TIME: Have you begun to interview the people on those lists? Blix: No, but we are planning for how it will be done. TIME: Is credible threat of force necessary to get even minimal compliance? Blix: Just as Kofi Annan says, diplomacy may need to be backed up by force. Inspections may need to be backed up by pressure. TIME: So the buildup of U.S. forces actually has helped you? Blix: I don't think there would have been any inspection but for outside pressure, including U.S. forces. TIME: Are the members of the U.N. Security Council depending on you too much to make up their minds? Blix: No, I don't think so. The way I read the U.S. and perhaps the U.K. now, they are more intent on looking at the cooperation rather than the degree of disarmament. It seems to me that the U.S. and U.K. are looking at: Is there a change of heart? TIME: You said Feb. 14 that many proscribed items, including tons of chemical agent, were unaccounted for. You said there were significant outstanding issues, including the whereabouts of previously identified stores of anthrax and VX poisons and long-range missiles. Isn't it reasonable to conclude that the Iraqis aren't cooperating? Blix: Is non-delivery of documents that they deny having noncooperation? They deny they have these documents, and [others] say they are not giving the documents. Well, I don't have evidence that they have them. TIME: So when you say to them, what happened to the anthrax? They say, well, there was a hole in the ground in the desert and we put it in? Blix: Yes. It was not a hole in the ground; they poured it in the ground. They did the same with the VX. TIME: Do you believe them? Blix: I'd like to see evidence of it. I don't work by gut feelings. I have to be the lawyer. Some people say, Jump at this. I'd like to see evidence. I'd like to interview the people. If they have contemporary documents, we can establish whether the documents are authentic. TIME: How could there be no documents? Hasn't the Iraqi regime in the past had a Prussian-like efficiency in terms of keeping records? Blix: Well, they've been one of the best-organized regimes in the Arab world. But then, if they destroyed their documents with that efficiency, there might be relatively little left. But when they've had need of something to show, then they have been able to do so. TIME: So this is all a bit odd. Blix: Yes, it's a bit odd. TIME: What will you do if in the end you don't get documents as evidence? Blix: I would not say they are guilty. I do not say they have them. I say that I will not recommend to the Security Council to have any confidence. TIME: There are also questions about whether the quantities of weapons that Iraq originally declared represent the full amount anyway. Blix: You're hinting at their lack of credibility. Of course they have no credibility. If they had any, they certainly lost it in 1991. I don't see that they have acquired any
The Best Case Against Iraq Yet
February 21, 2003 A Last Chance to Stop Iraq By KENNETH M. POLLACK WASHINGTON With the Bush administration set to put a resolution on Iraq before the United Nations Security Council next week, those opposed to war will rally around the notion that Saddam Hussein can be deterred from aggression. They will continue to say that the mere presence of United Nations inspectors will prevent him from building nuclear weapons, and that even if he were to acquire them he could still be contained. Unfortunately, these claims fly in the face of 12 years and in truth more like 30 years of history. Observers have a very poor track record in predicting the progress of the Iraqi nuclear weapons program. In the late 1980's, the nuclear experts of the American intelligence services were convinced that the Iraqis were at least 5 and probably 10 years away from having a nuclear weapon. For its part, the International Atomic Energy Agency did not even believe that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. After the 1991 Persian Gulf war, United Nations inspectors found that not only did Iraq have a program far more extensive than anyone had realized, but it was also less than two years away from producing a weapon. Four years later, the international agency was so certain that it had eradicated the Iraqi nuclear program that it wanted to end aggressive inspections in favor of passive monitoring. Then a slew of defectors came out of Iraq including Hussein Kamel al-Majid, the son-in-law of Saddam Hussein who led the Iraqi program to build weapons of mass destruction; Wafiq al-Samarrai, one of Saddam Hussein's intelligence chiefs; and Khidhir Hamza, a leading scientist with the nuclear weapons program. These defectors reported that outside pressure had not only failed to eradicate the nuclear program, it was bigger and more cleverly spread out and concealed than anyone had imagined it to be. In the late 1990's, American and international nuclear experts again concluded that the Iraqi nuclear program was dormant: yes, the scientists were still working in teams; yes, they still had all of the plans; and yes, they probably were hiding some machinery but they were not making any progress. Then another batch of important defectors escaped to Europe and told Western intelligence services that after the inspectors left Iraq in 1998, Saddam Hussein had started a crash program to build a nuclear weapon and that the Iraqis had devised methods to hide the effort. The reports of these defectors prompted the German intelligence service in 2001 to conclude that Iraq was only three to six years away from having one or more nuclear weapons. Today, the American, British and Israeli intelligence services believe that unless he is stopped, Saddam Hussein is likely to acquire a nuclear weapon in the second half of this decade. Even this estimate may be overly optimistic. While it's true that the presence of weapons inspectors does hamper the Iraqis, there are some critical caveats. We simply do not know how close Iraq is to acquiring a nuclear weapon, nor do we know to what extent the inspectors' presence is slowing the Iraqi program. What we do know is that for more than a decade we have consistently overestimated the ability of inspectors to impede the Iraqi efforts and we have consistently underestimated how far along Iraq has been toward acquiring a nuclear weapon. For all of these reasons the assurances from Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, that he has Iraq's nuclear program well in hand should be less than comforting. Nor is there reason to be confident about how Saddam Hussein will behave once he has acquired a nuclear weapon. He has been anything but circumspect about his aspirations: He has stated that he wants to turn Iraq into a superpower that will dominate the Middle East, to liberate Jerusalem and to drive the United States out of the region. He has said he believes the only way he can achieve his goals is through the use of force. Indeed, his half-brother and former chief of intelligence, Barzan al-Tikriti, was reported to say that Iraq needs nuclear weapons because it wants a strong hand in order to redraw the map of the Middle East. It is probably true that fear of retaliation kept Iraq from using chemical weapons against coalition forces during the gulf war. However, this should give us little comfort that he will be similarly deterred in the future. Before the 1991 war, Secretary of State James Baker warned his Iraqi counterpart, Tariq Aziz, that Iraq faced terrible consequences if it used weapons of mass destruction, mounted terrorist attacks or destroyed Kuwaiti oil fields. Yet despite this warning, Saddam Hussein tried to send terrorist teams to America and did blow up the Kuwaiti oil fields he simply gambled on which two of the three things Mr. Baker mentioned were unlikely to result in America ending the regime. (Many officials from that Bush administration have
The Wash Post on Iraq vs. DPRK
Editorial No Easy Way Friday, February 14, 2003; Page A30 RUSSIA, CHINA and several European governments have been insisting that the United States cannot take action against Iraq without the full involvement of the United Nations. So it's curious to hear those same countries argue that in the case of North Korea, another rogue state that threatens its neighbors with weapons of mass destruction, the only solution is unilateral steps by the Bush administration. North Korea's defiance of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was rightly referred to the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agency's chief, Mohamed ElBaradei, said Pyongyang's defiance set a dangerous precedent that should receive zero tolerance. Yet the Russian and Chinese governments grumbled that any action by the Security Council would be counterproductive. The only solution, they insist, is direct dialogue between the United States and North Korea. More than the Bush administration, neighbors ought to be gravely concerned about the incipient nuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Yet while demanding a veto over any campaign to disarm Iraq, Russia and China propose to stand aside while Washington disarms North Korea on its own -- presumably by meeting Pyongyang's demands for political and economic bribes. The consistency in these apparently paradoxical positions is not hard to find. Both represent the easy way out of confronting a dictator. In Iraq, multilateralism is embraced as a way of blocking the tough but probably necessary measure of military intervention; in North Korea, power is delegated to the United States because that will save other countries from having to take responsibility for facing Kim Jong Il. The United States has been willing enough to go along with this formula -- the Clinton administration consented to multilateral containment of Saddam Hussein while negotiating unilateral deals with Mr. Kim. The problem is that this path of least resistance didn't work in either case, and not because of the Bush administration's belligerence. North Korea pocketed Mr. Clinton's concessions and went right on working on nuclear weapons. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5704-2003Feb13.html = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
France Tells Eastern Europeans to Pipe Down
Chirac Scolding Angers Nations That Back U.S. By CRAIG S. SMITH NY Times RUSSELS, Feb. 18 New Europe barked back at old Europe today, deepening the continental rift over Iraq after President Jacques Chirac of France told Central and Eastern European countries to keep their views on Iraq to themselves or risk losing their chance to join the European Union. We thought we were preparing for war with Saddam Hussein and not Jacques Chirac, said Alexandr Vondra, deputy foreign minister of the Czech Republic, one of the European Union applicants that have drawn French ire by openly supporting the United States and Britain in the Iraqi crisis. Mr. Vondra said his country and its immediate neighbors definitely cannot remain silent, as Mr. Chirac advised on Monday. The French president, in an unusually emotional outburst in Brussels after the European Union meeting on Monday about Iraq, derided the Central and Eastern European countries that have signed letters expressing their support for the American policy on Iraq for being badly brought up, and having missed an opportunity to keep quiet. All 13 candidates today endorsed the joint declaration on Iraq issued on Monday by the 15 European leaders, warning Saddam Hussein that he had one last chance to disarm and vowing to avoid new lines of division over European policy on Iraq. But divisions exist. The war of words highlighted not only disagreement over Iraq, but also France's struggle for dominance in European affairs in the face of an enlarging European Union whose incoming members are historically beholden to the United States. France has long been concerned that the former Communist countries, indebted to the United States for liberation from Soviet domination in the cold war, would turn out to be a sort of Trojan horse bringing America's influence into the union. For France, the European Union is a way for it to remain a big power in the world because it can use Europe to act and to have a certain influence in world affairs that it can't have anymore on its own, said Gilles Lepesant, a French expert on European identity and Eastern Europe. France fears that expanding the European Union membership will erode its influence and weaken Europe's position as a potential counterweight to American power. The broader European Union membership is also more likely to produce a decentralized organization that leaves much power with national governments, rather than the more centralized, cohesive union favored by France and Germany. The tension across Europe has grown steadily as Central and Eastern European countries have sided with the United States over how to resolve the Iraq crisis. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld last month chastised France and Germany for opposing the United States, calling them old Europe, out of step with the new Europe made up of former Soviet bloc countries. While France this month recalled its gratitude to the United States for liberation from Germany more than half a century ago, the gratitude of former Communist states toward Washington seems far more immediate and, for now, binding. Even once rock-solid bonds like that between Germany and the United States have been undermined in recent months. Andrzej Kapiszewski, professor of sociology and political science at Krakow University in Poland, recalled that even under communism, America remained a benevolent presence. I'm from Krakow, and practically every single person had some relative in the United States, Mr. Kapiszewski said. There is little sense of obligation to Western Europe, though, and some irritation at the long, difficult negotiations insisted on by Western Europe for membership of the European Union. The East-West European divide broke into the open when eight European leaders, including the European Union candidates Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, signed a letter of support for Washington's position in January. That letter was followed by another signed by 10 more countries, including seven candidates for the European Union. The letters reinforced widespread suspicion in France that the poorer European countries are primarily attracted to European Union membership for economic reasons while their political allegiance will remain with Washington. Europe is not a cash register, warned Dominique de Villepin, the French foreign minister, on Sunday. In his comments on Monday, Mr. Chirac went on to suggest that opposing France and Germany could hurt candidates for European Union membership. He warned, in particular, that Romania and Bulgaria, the poorest of the thirteen candidates and the two that are still negotiating to enter the bloc in 2007, could hardly find a better way of reducing their chances for membership by speaking up against France. The French defense minister, Michele Alliot-Marie, echoed Mr. Chirac in Warsaw today, telling her hosts that it was better to keep silent when you don't know what's going on. The comments were rejected across
The Draft and Inequality
The draft Warriors-by-numbers Feb 13th 2003 | BOSTON From The Economist print edition An old and much-loathed scheme resurfaces THE last man to be conscripted into America's armed forces was called up on Valentine's Day 30 years ago. But the idea of the draft as a social equaliser lives on. In his recent call to renew it, Charles Rangel, an outspoken black Democratic congressman from Harlem, noted that few of his colleagues have children in the armed forces and that a disproportionate number of soldiers are black. Mr Rangel means mostly to make Americans nervous about war, and his words won't bring back conscription. But the idea that the draft was a useful tool for social engineering endures. Military recruits these days are 20% black, a proportion that has held steady since 1979; in the general population, only 14% of 18-34-year-olds are black. By contrast, Latinos, America's largest minority, account for 11% of new entrants and for 15% of the population at large. Whites, too, are under-represented. United States Wars Congressman Charles Rangel, Charles Moskos and James Fallows (editor of the Atlantic Monthly) advocate renewal of the draft. See also a selection of articles on the draft by Joshua Angrist. The relatively heavy proportion of blacks may be seen as a bad thing: a sign that blacks have fewer opportunities and end up with the most dangerous and gruelling jobs. Yet Colin Powell, for one, thinks their increasing presence both in the ranks and in the officer corps is a strong sign of success. For many decades, blacks were under-represented: a legacy of the segregation of the armed forces, which was not fully ended until 1954 and which excluded black volunteers in favour of white draftees. Few blacks served in Korea or the second world war. And although many remember Vietnam as a war fought disproportionately by blacks, it was not until 1972, near the end of the draft, that the proportion of blacks in the armed forces reached 11%, more or less their share of the population at the time. The draft, in fact, did not do much for social levelling. Even during the peak Vietnam conscription years, far more soldiers were rejected for low test scores than were able to wriggle out of serviceas Bill Clinton was accused of doingthrough deferments for being at college. Many low-scoring applicants are rejected today (the army is a fighting machine, not a remedial school). But a new draft might further damage the chances of those volunteers with most to gain from military training. The draft may also damage draftees' capacity to earn money afterwards in the civilian world. One comparison between the incomes of men with high lottery numbers (who were likely to be drafted) and those with lower ones showed that the conscripts earned about 15% less than they would otherwise have done, and that the difference persisted in every year they worked after they came home. Whatever his views about Iraq, Mr Rangel's aim looks off. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion, Miscarriage, and Subsequent Premature Births
This was an interesting column on an oft-discussed list subject. JDG Subject: Abortion's Link to Premature Birth is No Mystery Source: Elliot Institute; February 10, 2003 Abortion's Link to Premature Birth is No Mystery by David Reardon The March of Dimes has announced a major fund raising effort to understand and battle premature deliveries. March of Dimes medical director Dr. Nancy Green told Time magazine that the 27 percent rise in premature births over the last few decades is a mystery. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030210-4185 59,00.html) Dr. Green's claim that the rise in premature birth rates is a mystery reflects either a distressing ignorance of the medical literature or a calculated case of selective recall. At least 48 published studies have shown significantly higher risk of premature birth and low birth weight deliveries among women with a history of abortion.(1-48) One of the best, a Danish record based study (1), found the risk doubled after just one abortion. Multiple abortions increase the risk even more. A doubling of risk among an estimated one-fourth of delivering women who have a prior history of abortion would result in a 25 percent rise overall. The only real mystery surrounding the 27 percent rise in premature delivery rates among the post-Roe generation of women is why the March of Dimes has failed to call attention to this major risk factor. Their fact sheets downplay the risk of abortion, stating only that women are at higher risk of premature delivery if they have had more than three abortions or miscarriages. Other risk factors such as drinking, smoking, and drug use are also elevated by a history of abortion. The March of Dimes professes that its position on abortion is one of neutrality. This is a good position to be in if one is trying to gather in donations from as large an audience as possible. But the fact that the March of Dimes encourages prenatal screening for birth defects that can only be treated by abortion does not support the claim that they are neutral. Instead, it supports the view that the March of Dimes is encouraging eugenic targeting of unfit children that do not deserve to be born. Their refusal to aggressively educate the public about the role abortion plays in heightening the risk posed to subsequent pregnancies is another sign that their claim of neutrality is a just a veneer over a pro-abortion, eugenic- minded charity. According to the March of Dimes, In 2000, hospital charges for 23,000 prematurity-related infant stays totaled $1.2 billion. The average charge was $58,000 per baby, compared to $4,300 for a typical newborn stay. (http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/791_6775.asp) Treatment of these children through employer health plans is estimated at $4.7 billion per year. One fifth of these costs may be is attributable to extra cases of prematurity arising from abortion-related morbidity. Premature birth is the leading cause of neonatal death and is related to increased risk of cerebral palsy, vision and hearing loss, retardation and other lifelong health problems. You can register your complaints about the March of Dimes coverup by calling 1-888-MODIMES. The list of 48 studies showing abortion's relationship to premature birth and low birth rate deliveries compiled by Brent Rooney can be found at http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~whatsup/APB-Major.html = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Abortion, Miscarriage, and Subsequent Premature Births
This was an interesting column on an oft-discussed list subject. Please note that if you are easily offended by a column that presents strong pro-life viewpoints, in addition to the scientific information that I am interested in comments on, you may not wish to read this article. JDG Subject: Abortion's Link to Premature Birth is No Mystery Source: Elliot Institute; February 10, 2003 Abortion's Link to Premature Birth is No Mystery by David Reardon The March of Dimes has announced a major fund raising effort to understand and battle premature deliveries. March of Dimes medical director Dr. Nancy Green told Time magazine that the 27 percent rise in premature births over the last few decades is a mystery. (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030210-4185 59,00.html) Dr. Green's claim that the rise in premature birth rates is a mystery reflects either a distressing ignorance of the medical literature or a calculated case of selective recall. At least 48 published studies have shown significantly higher risk of premature birth and low birth weight deliveries among women with a history of abortion.(1-48) One of the best, a Danish record based study (1), found the risk doubled after just one abortion. Multiple abortions increase the risk even more. A doubling of risk among an estimated one-fourth of delivering women who have a prior history of abortion would result in a 25 percent rise overall. The only real mystery surrounding the 27 percent rise in premature delivery rates among the post-Roe generation of women is why the March of Dimes has failed to call attention to this major risk factor. Their fact sheets downplay the risk of abortion, stating only that women are at higher risk of premature delivery if they have had more than three abortions or miscarriages. Other risk factors such as drinking, smoking, and drug use are also elevated by a history of abortion. The March of Dimes professes that its position on abortion is one of neutrality. This is a good position to be in if one is trying to gather in donations from as large an audience as possible. But the fact that the March of Dimes encourages prenatal screening for birth defects that can only be treated by abortion does not support the claim that they are neutral. Instead, it supports the view that the March of Dimes is encouraging eugenic targeting of unfit children that do not deserve to be born. Their refusal to aggressively educate the public about the role abortion plays in heightening the risk posed to subsequent pregnancies is another sign that their claim of neutrality is a just a veneer over a pro-abortion, eugenic- minded charity. According to the March of Dimes, In 2000, hospital charges for 23,000 prematurity-related infant stays totaled $1.2 billion. The average charge was $58,000 per baby, compared to $4,300 for a typical newborn stay. (http://www.marchofdimes.com/aboutus/791_6775.asp) Treatment of these children through employer health plans is estimated at $4.7 billion per year. One fifth of these costs may be is attributable to extra cases of prematurity arising from abortion-related morbidity. Premature birth is the leading cause of neonatal death and is related to increased risk of cerebral palsy, vision and hearing loss, retardation and other lifelong health problems. You can register your complaints about the March of Dimes coverup by calling 1-888-MODIMES. The list of 48 studies showing abortion's relationship to premature birth and low birth rate deliveries compiled by Brent Rooney can be found at http://www.vcn.bc.ca/~whatsup/APB-Major.html = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Global Warming and El Nino
Ancient Climate May Augur Future Effects Of Global Warming by Matthew Huber West Lafayette - Feb 12, 2003 Ancient lake sediments and modern computers both indicate that El Nino might react differently to global warming than current theory claims, according to a Purdue research report. Purdue University's Matt Huber has simulated the hothouse climate of the distant past with a computer model to study the reaction of the tropical Pacific Ocean, a key player in removing heat from the atmosphere. While it cannot absorb an unlimited amount of atmospheric heat, Huber has found that even when the climate warms, the tropical Pacific Ocean maintains its ability to remove heat periodically - the permanent loss of which could encourage runaway global warming. Huber has found historical evidence for his theory in 45 million-year-old lake sediments, which may indicate that the relationship between global warming and El Nino needs to be re-examined. The tropical Pacific's ability to cool the atmosphere may be less susceptible to global warming's effects than we believed, said Huber, an assistant professor of earth and atmospheric sciences in Purdue's School of Science. We should still be greatly concerned about global warming, but it appears that one mechanism involved in climate change operates differently than we have imagined. The research appears in the Feb. 7 issue of Science. In the decades since theories of global warming came to prominence, there has been intense scientific debate over how an influx of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere would affect the Earth's climate, particularly El Nino-La Nina oscillations. El Nino refers to a warming of the surface layers of the eastern Pacific Ocean, which occurs in those years when the prevailing westerly winds in the South Pacific die down, allowing the warm waters from the western Pacific to slosh eastward. Conversely, in a La Nina year, the winds pile up warm water in the western Pacific and drag cooler water up from the depths in the east. For the past several millennia the Pacific has alternated between these two states in an irregular but basically stable oscillation. A question climate scientists have debated is whether future global warming might make the oscillation stop, Huber said. The worry is that Earth would suffer a runaway greenhouse effect if that happened. Ordinarily the cool surface layer of the eastern Pacific absorbs heat from the tropical atmosphere and carries it far away via ocean currents that flow hundreds of meters below the surface. But in an El Nino year, both the shallows and depths grow so warm that the atmospheric heat has nowhere to go, causing a warming of the tropics and strange weather patterns worldwide. If you compare the eastern Pacific to a water-cooled radiator, then the ocean currents are the coolant that absorbs atmospheric heat, Huber said. El Nino heats the radiator to the point where it can't do its job. Nowadays, El Nino events are too brief to have lasting effect, but some have theorized that if the oscillation stops the Earth will suffer a 'continuous El Nino-like state' that would warm the planet very quickly. Huber's desire to ground such theories with historical evidence led him to examine a period of the distant past when the Earth's climate was considerably warmer - the Eocene epoch. During the Eocene, nearly 50 million years ago, palm trees grew in the north of England and alligators thrived far above the Arctic Circle on Canada's Ellesmere Island. We figured that if a continuous El Nino state had ever existed, it would have been during the Eocene, Huber said. So we decided to use a computer model of the Eocene's climate to see what the eastern Pacific Ocean would do. Huber and Rodrigo Caballero, both working at the time at Denmark's Neils Bohr Institute, spent several years simulating the Eocene atmosphere and oceans with computers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado. Their results, which surprised even them, indicated that the tropical oceans were more resilient at absorbing heat than current theory states. It seems that when the global climate was considerably warmer, the tropical eastern Pacific was still relatively cool, even though most theories suggest it would have warmed as well, Huber said. It turns out these theories were not wrong, merely oversimplified. Instead of a two-layer ocean, with shallows that absorb heat and depths that carry it away, there was a third layer wedged between them. It was this third layer that was the key to it all. Huber theorizes this third layer of water remained cool even when the temperature increased above and below it. This wedge, which in Huber's computer model extends across thousands of miles of ocean, would enable the radiator to keep operating despite a high level of atmospheric greenhouse gases. The wedge formed a cool barrier between the warmer shallows and depths, Huber said. It was a place for the heat to go
Abortion Myths
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/RevivalMediaMythsMemo.html An excerpt follows: The September 17, 1996 edition of the Washington Post contained the results of a lengthy investigation conducted by reporters Barbara Vobejda and David M. Brown, M.D., who interviewed several abortionists (not those in New Jersey), and concluded: Furthermore, in most cases where the procedure is used, the physical health of the woman whose pregnancy is being terminated is not in jeopardy Instead, the typical patients tend to be young, low-income women, often poorly educated or naive, whose reasons for waiting so long to end their pregnancies are rarely medical. Shortly thereafter, in February 1997, the abortion industry's disinformation campaign completely exploded when Ron Fitzsimmons -- then and now the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers (an association of 150 or so abortion providers) -- gave a series of well-publicized interviews in which he acknowledged that the claim that the partial-birth abortion procedure was used rarely and mostly in acute medical situations was merely a party line, and was false. Mr. Fitzsimmons expressed regret about his own previous (albeit minor) role in propagating that party line, explaining, I lied through my teeth. The truth, Mr. Fitzsimmons said, was that [i]n the vast majority of cases, the procedure is performed on a healthy mother with a healthy fetus (The New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997). He estimated that 3,000-5,000 abortions annually are performed by the partial-birth method. Here are two examples of clear reporting on these revelations, including confirmations from other pro-abortion sources: www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20NYT%20lied.pdf and www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/PBA%20activists%20lied.pdf In addition, in early 1997 the PBS media criticism program Media Matters reviewed the history of the news media's gullible acceptance of the abortion lobby's original disinformation about partial-birth abortion, and concluded that it was a case study in bad journalism. The Washington Posts David Brown was shown on the program saying that the Post study found, Cases in which the mother's life were at risk were extremely rare. . . . Most people who got this procedure were really not very different from most people who got abortions. Is Partial-Birth Abortion Performed Rarely? The Washington Post reported that a committee of the Virginia legislature passed a bill to ban the rarely used method (Jan. 28, 2003) Likewise, the Associated Press reported, A bill seeking to ban a rarely performed procedure commonly referred to as partial-birth abortion moved along in the [Virginia] Senate . . . (Jan. 30, 2003) (Many similar sightings in other media.) Peggy Girsham, deputy managing editor of NPR News, recently sent out a note cautioning NPR reporters, It is not correct to call these procedures RARE -- it is not known how often they are performed. However, in fact enough is known to demonstrate that it is tendentious to dismiss these brutal procedures as rare. Only one state (Kansas) requires reporting the partial-birth method separately from other methods used at the same stages in pregnancy.[5] As noted, in 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, estimated approximately 3,000-5,000 abortions were performed by the method annually. However, since the Supreme Courts 2000 ruling in Stenberg v. Carhart rendered unenforceable the bans on partial-birth abortion that had been enacted by more than half the states, the number of partial-birth abortions may have climbed since Mr. Fitzsimmons made that estimate. A voluntary survey of known abortion providers conducted by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (a special affiliate of Planned Parenthood), released in January 2003, claimed 2,200 partial-birth abortions in the year 2000 (despite a survey question so convoluted that daily practitioners of the method could have honestly answered zero). This was more than triple the absurdly low number of 650 obtained by AGI using the same question just four years earlier yet both numbers were immediately accepted by some journalists as reliable. So has the number of partial-birth abortions more than tripled in just four years? If so, isnt that news? None of these numbers justify the dismissive adjective rare. Rare, compared to what? Usually, the answer is, Rare, compared to first-trimester abortions performed by entirely different methods. But why is that the apt comparison? It is evident that a substantial fraction of the population, and many state and federal lawmakers, believe that there are some important distinctions between abortions performed by vacuum aspiration or drugs during the first three months, and abortions performed in the fifth month and later involving partial delivery while the baby is still alive. Rare? If a virus had killed
Dutch Forces Bail out Americans in Afghanistan
Just for the record, the Europeans still can't project power on their own in a meaningfull way, and still should be doing much more to hold up their end of the Transatlantic Alliance. Nobody is saying that they accomplish absolutely nothing with their militaries - just that they need to accomplish more to reach the level of, as Gautam puts it, seriousness. JDG COMBAT Ambushed in Afghanistan, G.I.'s Call in Airstrikes By CARLOTTA GALL NY Times ABUL, Afghanistan, Feb. 11 American Special Forces troops ran into an ambush early Monday during a reconnaissance mission in a remote mountain valley of southern Afghanistan. They escaped injury after calling in airstrikes on at least five gunmen positioned in caves, an American military spokesman said today. Two Dutch F-16 planes, part of the coalition force, dropped laser-guided bombs, and American A-10 planes fired machine guns into the ridge and caves where the gunmen had been seen. At least five men had opened fire on the American soldiers with machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades just after dawn on Monday, the American military spokesman, Col. Roger King, said at a briefing at Bagram Air Base. It was unclear if the rebels had suffered any casualties. The Dutch Defense Ministry said the attackers fled after the F-16's bombed the area, Reuters reported. The special forces had been sweeping a mountain valley in Baghran, in the top corner of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, in search of rebel fighters or weapons caches. Intelligence reports had indicated suspicious activity in the area, Colonel King said. We had troops that were moving through the valley, he said. It was just around dawn, and the troops came under fire from the ridge line on either side. Special Forcers were conducting an operation in that valley, looking for weapons caches and enemy personnel. We got some reports that there might be enemy personnel there and it looks like the reports were true. The United States military was not sure who the rebels were or whom they were aligned with, he said, adding, They fall under the heading of personnel who are against the coalition and against the government of Afghanistan. The Baghran area, mountainous and forested, is thought to be a principal opium-smuggling route from central Afghanistan. But the Americans have suspected that there may also be rebel activity around Baghran, and in the neighboring province of Oruzgan. Over 50 Special Forces troops have been in Tirin Kot and Deh Rawud, two towns in Oruzgan just east of Baghran, for months because a number of senior Taliban figures are thought to have taken refuge near there. The former Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, is thought to have retreated to his home province of Oruzgan when the southern town of Kandahar fell to the anti-Taliban alliance in December 2001. He was reported to be moving in the remote mountains between Deh Rawud and Baghran last year, along with some of his closest commanders and followers. In July, just south of Baghran, Afghan aid workers saw a long convoy of four-wheel-drive cars with armed guards, which they said certainly belonged to a major Taliban commander. American military officers say they think that Mullah Omar is now in Pakistan. But they have noticed increased activity in the region recently, suggesting that rebel fighters may be gathering again or setting up bases in the area. The increased activity comes amid a propaganda campaign by Taliban supporters and other opponents of the government calling for rebels to fight against the United States presence in Afghanistan and the Kabul government. The campaign, spread by handwritten leaflets and announcements to the press, warns that fighters will rise up if the United States goes to war against Iraq. = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day http://shopping.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Bought and Paid For
AT WAR The Inspections Dodge Why are France and Germany pro-Saddam? Follow the money. BY KHIDHIR HAMZA Tuesday, February 11, 2003 12:01 a.m. EST My 20 years of work in Iraq's nuclear-weapons program and military industry were partly a training course in methods of deception and camouflage to keep the program secret. Given what I know about Saddam Hussein's commitment to developing and using weapons of mass destruction, the following two points are abundantly clear to me: First, the U.N. weapons inspectors will not find anything Saddam does not want them to find. Second, France, Germany, and to a degree, Russia, are opposed to U.S. military action in Iraq mainly because they maintain lucrative trade deals with Baghdad, many of which are arms-related. Since the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 we have witnessed a tiny team of inspectors with a supposedly stronger mandate begging Iraq to disclose its weapons stockpiles and commence disarmament. The question that nags me is: How can a team of 200 inspectors disarm Iraq when 6,000 inspectors could not do so in the previous seven years of inspection? Put simply, surprise inspections no longer work. With the Iraqis' current level of mobility and intelligence the whole point of inspecting sites is moot. This was made perfectly clear by Colin Powell in his presentation before the U.N. last week. But the inspectors, mindless of these changes, are still visiting old sites and interviewing marginal scientists. I can assure you, the core of Iraq's nuclear-weapons program has not even been touched. Yesterday's news that Iraq will accept U-2 surveillance flights is another sign that Saddam has confidence in his ability to hide what he's got. Meanwhile, the time U.N. inspectors could have used gathering intelligence by interviewing scientists outside Iraq is running out. The problem is that there is nothing Saddam can declare that will provide any level of assurance of disarmament. If he delivers the 8,500 liters of anthrax that he now admits to having, he will still not be in compliance because the growth media he imported to grow it can produce 25,000 liters. Iraq must account for the growth media and its products; it is doing neither. Iraq's attempt to import aluminum tubes of higher tensile strength than is needed in conventional weapons has been brushed aside by the IAEA's Mohammed El-Baradei. He claims there is no proof that these tubes were intended for modification and use in centrifuges to make enriched uranium. Yet he fails to report that Iraq has the machining equipment to thin these tubes down to the required thickness (less than one millimeter) for an efficient centrifuge rotor. What's more, they don't find it suspect that Iraq did not deliver all the computer controlled machining equipment that it imported from the British-based, Iraqi-owned Matrix-Churchill that manufacture these units. Mr. Blix also discounted the discovery of a number of empty chemical-weapons warheads. What he failed to mention is that empty is the only way to store these weapon parts. The warheads in question were not designed to store chemicals for long periods. They have a much higher possibility of leakage and corrosion than conventional warheads. Separate storage for the poisons is a standard practice in Iraq, since the Special Security Organization that guards Saddam also controls the storage and inventory of these chemicals. What has become obvious is that the U.N. inspection process was designed to delay any possible U.S. military action to disarm Iraq. Germany, France, and Russia, states we called friendly when I was in Baghdad, are also engaged in a strategy of delay and obstruction. In the two decades before the Gulf War, I played a role in Iraq's efforts to acquire major technologies from friendly states. In 1974, I headed an Iraqi delegation to France to purchase a nuclear reactor. It was a 40-megawatt research reactor that our sources in the IAEA told us should cost no more than $50 million. But the French deal ended up costing Baghdad more than $200 million. The French-controlled Habbania Resort project cost Baghdad a whopping $750 million, and with the same huge profit margin. With these kinds of deals coming their way, is it any surprise that the French are so desperate to save Saddam's regime? Germany was the hub of Iraq's military purchases in the 1980s. Our commercial attaché, Ali Abdul Mutalib, was allocated billions of dollars to spend each year on German military industry imports. These imports included many proscribed technologies with the German government looking the other way. In 1989, German engineer Karl Schaab sold us classified technology to build and operate the centrifuges we needed for our uranium-enrichment program. German authorities have since found Mr. Schaab guilty of selling nuclear secrets, but because the technology was considered dual use he was fined only $32,000 and given five years probation.
A Bad Omen
Interesting footnote in today's news digest . The NYT, alone among the papers, fronts word that Ansar al-Islam guerrillas, who the administration says have connections to AQ, assassinated a top Kurdish official yesterday. To me, this bears ominious resemblance to the assasination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, leader of the Afghan resistance, on September 10th, 2001. If you recall, Al Qaeda assassinated Massoud the day before their attack in the hopes of crippling the US's ability to retaliate against Taliban-occupied Afghanistan. Given the rise in threat status last week, I hope that this assassination is not a harbinger of things to come. JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
More on Afghanistan
AFGHANISTAN: ISAF Commander Says Force Needs Three More Years UN WIRE The International Security Assistance Force must stay in Afghanistan's capital, Kabul, two or three more years to ensure security and stability, the commander of the force said yesterday. [snip] The establishment of both the national army and the police force, along with reconstruction of roads, schools and hospitals, has already begun, he said. But the rebuilding of the whole of Afghanistan will take many years and a great deal of patience on the part of the Afghan people and the international community. Despite sporadic bombings and rocket attacks, Zorlu said the 4,000 armed peacekeepers in Kabul have helped to make the city safer and provide a stable foundation for reconstruction. I will leave Afghanistan in a few days satisfied that ISAF ... has made a significant impact on Kabul, he said. The new commander, Germany's Norbert van Heyst, arrived Wednesday. Germany doubled its contingent in the peacekeeping force to 2,500 in December and extended its participation by a year, while the Turkish contingent, now at about 1,400, will likely be reduced to 160, according to Zorlu (Associated Press/MSNBC.com, Feb. 6). = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country your enemy is ruling your country. And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. -George W. Bush 1/29/03 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Adoption of Unwanted Children
Terry Eastland: Children with 'special needs' are as loved as any others 01/28/2003 Dallas Morning News By TERRY EASTLAND Last month, Dateline NBC told the story of a young couple's decision to have a baby who had been diagnosed with Down syndrome. The story, which took place in 1998, is worth recalling as the nation continues to grapple with the morality of abortion. In Dateline's account, Greg and Tierney Fairchild (of Hartford, Conn.) receive the good news that Tierney is pregnant with their first child. But later tests reveal that their baby will have Down syndrome, a genetic disorder that can produce a wide range of physical and mental disabilities. For the Fairchilds, who both happen to support abortion rights, that prospect raises the question of whether they (or, to be precise, Tierney) will choose abortion. The Fairchilds worry about the severity of their child's retardation and the unfair burden it might place on other children they hope to have. They learn their baby would have to undergo heart surgery. They go back and forth on abortion but appear close to choosing it. As the legal deadline for making that decision draws near, Greg wonders about the adoptability of a baby like theirs and calls a local service. He is told it is no problem finding parents for babies with Down syndrome. The couple is taken aback. One of the things we hadn't considered, Tierney says, was that ... someone else would love to have [this child] and was prepared to handle it. Her husband adds, [I]t even makes you question yourself. What is it exactly that I'm so worried about, if there are people lined up to adopt this baby? As you probably have guessed, the Fairchilds choose life, and Naia Grace Fairchild is born. She has Down syndrome and endures difficult surgery, and today she is a spunky 4-year-old, her parents' evident joy. The question is why the Fairchilds made the choice they did, and the answer obviously involved their discovery that people were lined up to adopt this baby. Quickly, it appears, they realized that the baby they came close to regarding as unwanted to use the terminology of Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion would be wanted by someone else. The Fairchilds' story is all the more remarkable when you consider that infants like theirs those with special needs would seem to be among the least adoptable. Yet interviews with Thomas Atwood, president of the National Council for Adoption, and others knowledgeable about adoption suggest that the interest in adopting special-needs infants is as strong nationwide as it was in Hartford in 1998 when Greg Fairchild made his inquiry. Glenn DeMots, president of Bethany Christian Services (which has offices in 31 states, including Texas), cites many special-needs placements carried out by his organization, including one of an infant who died, as expected, before reaching her first birthday. Notwithstanding the acute difficulties of her brief life, she was unquestionably a wanted child. While the number of people waiting to adopt an infant of any description is unknown, Mr. Atwood thinks there may be as many as 2 million couples who would be willing to take a newborn into their home if one were available. Keep that number in mind as you ponder the many abortions in America 1.31 million in 2000, the most recent year for which the Alan Guttmacher Institute has collected statistics. The lives prematurely ended by abortion (the great bulk would have been normal babies) experienced that fate because they were deemed for one reason or none at all, after much agony or upon casual reaction unwanted. To the extent pregnant women considering abortion were to choose adoption instead, the number of abortions would decline. Unfortunately, women in that circumstance aren't thinking much about adoption. Indeed, unmarried pregnant women -- who get most of the reported abortions -- now choose adoption much less often than they did in the early 1970s. That change would appear to be a result at least in part of the pro-abortion rights regime established by Roe, which has shifted the question an unmarried pregnant woman might ask herself from Who will care for my child? to Shall I carry this baby or not? Kenneth Connor, president of the Family Research Council and himself an adoptive parent, makes a persuasive case to anyone who will listen that increasing adoption should be a key goal of public policy. The forgotten option, he calls adoption. No doubt it would be less forgotten if Americans were to understand that to say a baby is unwanted is to fail to consult a wider universe. As the Fairchilds discovered, there are people out there ready, indeed eager, to open their arms. Terry Eastland is publisher of The Weekly Standard and a regular contributor to Viewpoints. = - John D. Giorgis -
Abortion: War Without End
If you've ever wondered about the difference between Europe and America on abortion, then this is a fascinating article. JDG Abortion in America The war that never ends Jan 16th 2003 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition The United States did not deal with abortion as Europe did. As a result, the issue divides the country as bitterly as ever ANNIVERSARIES don't get much more controversial than this. On January 22nd, America will mark the thirtieth anniversary of the Supreme Court decision that declared abortion a constitutional right. Anti-abortionists will march in Washington in their thousands, carrying gruesome photographs. Supporters of abortion rights will retort that Roe v Wade, the decision in question, was one of the great milestones in the long march for women's rightsa heroic decision that has saved thousands of women from death by coat-hanger or back-street butchery. The two sides will end the day even more polarised than ever. Since 1973, about 75 countries have liberalised their abortion laws (the most recent being Switzerland and Nepal last year). In most countries, that was enough to settle the debate. Not in America. The Supreme Court's ruling immediately created a furious backlash. State legislatures passed laws restricting the rights of minors to obtain abortions, usually by requiring the consent of one or both parents. In 1976 Henry Hyde, an Illinois congressman, sponsored legislation eliminating Medicaid funding for abortions except in extreme cases (such as rape, incest or where a woman's life was endangered by her pregnancy). Some extremists took to blowing up clinics and shooting abortion doctors (who, in turn, took to coming to work wearing bullet-proof vests). There are no signs that the debate is quietening down. One of George Bush's first actions on coming to office was to reinstate a rule barring overseas recipients of American development funds from using their own money to advocate or provide abortions. The day after the 2002 mid-term elections, Trent Lott, then poised to resume the leadership of the Senate, promised to ban partial-birth abortion, a late-term and particularly grisly procedure. The battle over abortion reaches the obscurest sides of life. The Centre for Reproductive Law and Policy has filed lawsuits against the states of Florida and Louisiana for allowing the sale of choose life licence-plates but not pro-choice ones. Why does abortion remain so much more controversial in America than in the other countries that have legalised it? The fundamental reason is the way the Americans went about legalisation. European countries did so through legislation and, occasionally, referenda. This allowed abortion opponents to vent their objections and legislators to adjust the rules to local tastes. Above all, it gave legalisation the legitimacy of majority support. Most European countries provide abortion free. But they have also hedged the practice with all sorts of qualifications. They justify abortion on the basis of health rather than rights. Many European countries impose a 12-week limit (America, by contrast, allows abortion up to about 24 weeks and beyond, and many abortion-rights advocates seem to oppose any restrictions.) Frances Kissling, head of Catholics for a Free Choice, also points out that the Europeans have been careful to preserve a patina of disapproval. Even in England, the country with the most liberal abortion laws in Europe, women have to get permission from two doctors. America went down the alternative route of declaring abortion a constitutional right. (The only other country that has done anything comparable is South Africa.) A seven-to-two majority of justices struck down state abortion laws on the grounds that reproductive rights are included in a fundamental right to privacy whichrather like freedom of speech and freedom of religionis guaranteed by the constitution. It would be hard to design a way of legalising abortion that could be better calculated to stir up controversy. Abortion opponents were furious about being denied their say. Abortion supporters had to rely on the precarious balance of power on the Supreme Court. Legalisation did not have the legitimacy of majority support. Instead, it rested on a highly controversial interpretation of the constitution (abortion rights are clearly not enshrined in the constitution in the same plain way that free speech is). By going down the legislative road, the Europeans managed to neutralise the debate; by relying on the hammer-blow of a Supreme Court decision, the Americans institutionalised it. A second reason is the continued importance of religion in American life. The Pew Global Attitudes Project recently revealed that six in ten (59%) of Americans say that religion plays a very important role in their lives. This is roughly twice the percentage of self-avowed religious people in Canada (30%) and an even higher proportion when compared with
Iraq, Iran to Chair UN Disarmament Conference
...and Libya is chairing the Commission on Human Rights. File this as Reason #3462 why the UN system is broken... JDG Iraq to chair U.N. disarmament conference From Richard Roth CNN New York Bureau Wednesday, January 29, 2003 Posted: 6:49 AM EST (1149 GMT) UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- Iraq will chair the United Nations' most important disarmament negotiating forum during the panel's May session. At the rules-minded United Nations, it's not a country's status with international weapons inspectors, but the letters in its name that determine which member state chairs the Conference on Disarmament. The irony is overwhelming, a U.S. diplomat said. Chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei, director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Monday delivered their 60-day report on the status of weapons inspections in Iraq. It was a less-than-glowing summary, with both men saying Baghdad is not cooperating with inspectors and is not being forthcoming on disclosing information about its weapons programs. Iraq will take its turn as the head of the conference, a U.N. spokesman said, because of a purely automatic rotation by alphabetical order. Therefore, joining Iraq as co-chair for the session in Geneva, Switzerland, will be Iran. The conference chair helps organize the work of the conference and assists in setting the agenda. The May 12-June 27 conference will be the 25th anniversary session since the conference was established in 1979 after a special U.N. General Assembly session. The conference is made up of 66 countries who have been divided in recent years on several issues, including the prevention of an arms race in outer space. The conference and its predecessors have negotiated such major multilateral arms limitation and disarmament agreements as: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Libya to Chair UN Human Rights Commission
If this doesn't shred the last bit of the UN's credibility on human rights, I don't know what will. The USA should withdraw from the UN Commission on Human Rights in protest... JDG RIGHTS COMMISSION: Libya Wins Chair Over U.S. Objections UN WIRE In a secret ballot, the U.N. Human Rights Commission yesterday voted 33-3, with 17 abstentions, to make Libyan Ambassador Najat al-Hajjaji its chairwoman. Citing concerns about Libya's human rights record, the United States called the vote yesterday, breaking with the custom of filling the commission chair by acclamation. Africa currently controls the chair, which rotates among regional blocs, and the African Union chose Libya as its candidate during a meeting last year. Condemning the nomination of al-Hajjaji prior to yesterday's vote, the United States cited Libya's alleged role in rights abuses and involvement in the 1988 bombing of a Pan Am flight over Lockerbie, Scotland. Washington is seeking an acknowledgement of responsibility from Libya in the bombing and compensation for victims' families. U.N. sanctions imposed over the incident were suspended several years ago. Canada said last week that it would join the United States in opposing the nomination, while Western European countries said they would abstain. Others opposed the U.S. move. It is regrettable that the United States opted for this method, South African Ambassador George Nene said. The previous, reliable practice has been violated. U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Sergio Vieira de Mello added that the occasion was a unique opportunity for the commission to demonstrate that it can manage with wisdom, speed and restraint its procedural business (Clare Nullis, Associated Press, Jan. 20). Following her election, al-Hajjaji said the panel must send a message that it deals with all countries equally in seeking to enforce human rights; account for religious, cultural and historical differences in carrying out its work; and assert the universality, indivisibility and complementarity of human rights (U.N. release, Jan. 20). In Tripoli, the Libyan capital, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassuna al-Shawsh said the vote showed Libya has a clean sheet with regard to human rights, calling the result a shining victory which gives back their rights to oppressed peoples (The Australian, Jan. 21). U.S. Ambassador Kevin Moley said, This is not a defeat for the United States; this is a defeat for the Human Rights Commission. The United States is deeply disappointed. ... Libya's government continues to commit serious human rights violations. ... A country with this record does not merit a leadership role in the U.N. system, Moley said after the vote (Richard Waddington, Reuters/Yahoo! News, Jan. 20). Human Rights Watch last week condemned the nomination ahead of the vote, calling Libya's human rights record over the last 30 years appalling. The group cited abduction, disappearance and assassination of political opposition figures; mistreatment of detainees; and long-term detention without charge or trial, or after grossly unfair trials. It said hundreds remain incarcerated arbitrarily in Libya, some for more than 10 years, and it questioned fairness of the country's Peoples' Courts, calling them grossly unfair. Following the African Union's nomination of Libya for the U.N. post, the country indicated it would invite U.N. and other rights investigators to visit and promised to review the Peoples' Courts with a view to abolishing them, Human Rights Watch said. The group welcomed such statements but called for more concrete action from Libya. Human Rights Watch also criticized the commission itself over the affair, saying the panel has grown more timid in recent years as countries with poor human rights records have vied to become members so they can block their own censure. Repressive governments must not be allowed to hijack the U.N. human rights system, the group's U.N. representative, Joanna Wechsler, said. No country has a perfect human rights record, but every member should at least show a real commitment to cooperating with the United Nations on human rights (Human Rights Watch release, Jan. 17). Writing yesterday in the Wall Street Journal, Freedom House President Adrian Karatnycky said the election is a major blow to the credibility of the U.N. system. Karatnycky said Libyan Leader Muammar Qaddafi obtained African Union support by helping bankroll the fledgling organization and that the commission vote will embolden dictators like Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe, whom Qaddafi has staunchly defended, as well as Hugo Chavez, who has proposed Libya as an arbiter for Venezuela's mounting strike and protest movement. The U.N. deserves better. Karatnycky called for the establishment of a democracy caucus at the United Nations. While more than three-fifths of the members of the Rights Commission are democracies, they do not represent a cohesive bloc and appear at the moment unwilling
[Abortion] Survey of Partial-Birth Abortions Released
In the past, the number of partial-birth abortions in the United States has been debated - so I thought that the numbers in the enclosed article would be of interest. JDG Subject: Study Shows Threefold Increase in Partial-Birth Abortions Source: Washington Times; January 14, 2003 Study Shows Threefold Increase in Partial-Birth Abortions Washington, DC -- The number of partial-birth abortions has tripled in the past four years, according to a report on abortion trends released this week. An estimated 2,200 dilation and extraction, or partial-birth, abortions were conducted in 2000, said researchers with the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute, who surveyed all known U.S. abortion facilities during the past two years. In 1996, institute researchers estimated that there had been 650 partial-birth abortions, which are performed on unborn children older than 20 weeks. The 2,200 partial-birth abortions account for 0.17 percent of abortions, said institute researchers Lawrence Finer and Stanley Henshaw. Moreover, the 2,200 figure should be interpreted cautiously because projections based on such small numbers are subject to error, they wrote. Douglas Johnson, legislative director, and Dr. Randall O'Bannon, director of education, of the National Right to Life Committee said the new number shows one of two things: Either they vastly underreported the number in 1996 or there's been a huge increase, more than tripling partial-birth abortions in four years. We think even the new number only represents a fraction of the true number, Johnson added. In the new study, AGI tries to minimize the significance of the 2,200 figure by saying that it amounts to only a fraction of 1% of all reported abortions. Johnson commented, It is unbelievably callous to dismiss the killing of 2,200 mostly delivered babies as 'rare.' If a virus was killing 2,200 pre-mature infants, we'd call it an epidemic. Johnson noted that the survey question describes the abortion method in a way that is so confused and inaccurate that even abortionists who have performed hundreds of partial-birth abortions, as legally defined, could honestly answer that they have never performed the procedure described in the question. Secondly, responses to the AGI survey are purely voluntary, and abortionists who perform large numbers of partial-birth abortions may be disinclined to feed the national controversy by voluntarily reporting. Partial-birth abortion is expected to be a political issue again this year, despite a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2000 that struck down a Nebraska ban on partial-birth abortion and chilled enforcement of dozens of similar laws in other states. Congress is moving to address the issue on a national basis, Johnson said. A federal ban should pass the House, and we hope it will pass the Senate this year. Abortion advocates are expecting the same-old, same-old from the new Congress, said Elizabeth Cavendish, legal director of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League's Pro-Choice America. Whatever Congress produces is likely to be extreme and unconstitutional and, like the Nebraska law, restrictive of too many abortion procedures, she said. = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Orson Scott Card on N. Korea
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 03:56 PM 1/14/2003 -0800 Gautam Mukunda wrote: Card's not right about everything (he overstates the importance of the China situation, imo, and understates the extent to which the Administration seems to have been purposely putting the North Koreans into a corner to force them to give up their nuclear weapons program), but it's a pretty good analysis on the whole. I'm impressed. http://www.rhinotimes.com/greensboro/osc2.html Gautam: These kinds of solutions to the DPRK crisis (and their cousing solutions to solving the Israel/Palestine crisis) are always intriguing, but seem to suffer from the serious flaw of being detatched from reality. After all, do we have any reason to believe that Kim Jong Il does not also realize that greater openness would spell death for his regime?Or to put it another way, what evidence at all do we have that the DPRK wouldn't require us to make concessions for putting a McDonald's in Pyongyang, rather than giving us concessions for the same? Oops the above commentary refers not to Gautam's article, but to *this* article that another friend sent me: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/14/opinion/14KRIS.html NY Times, Rhino Times, its all the same thing, right? JDG = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Mr. Bush Snookers 'Em Again
Many of President Bush's admirers have noticed his uncanny ability to continually outsmart and outwit his opponents in the political arena. The latest example of this may be in the effects of the much-criticized steel tariffs he implemented. Now, his defenders have always argued that this was a fair price to pay in order to gain Trade Promotion Authority, which has already produced bilateral trade deals with Chile and Singapore, and has permitted the opening of a new global round of trade talks, as well as opening discussions on the FTAA. Well, it turns out that Bush appears to have secured another quid pro quo in that deal, that being from the United Steel Worker's of America who have dropped their decades-long opposition to industry consolidation. This turn-around in America's steel industry has been so amzaing since the imposition of tariffs that _The Economist_ wrote this week that: Most startling of all is the possibility of an American steel industry emerging that is strong enough to survive without trade barriers or government handouts. That really would be something of a miracle. As long as you liberals out there (and you know you are) keep misunderestimating Mr. Bush, we Republicans are going to laugh all the way to his re-election. JDG = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Is Anyone Else Offended By This?
Subject: Late Term Kansas Abortionist to Perform Free Abortions Source: Lawrence Journal World January 13, 2003 Late Term Kansas Abortionist to Perform Free Abortions Wichita, KS -- George Tiller, the infamous Kansas late-term abortionist, will do free abortions on poor women Saturday to mark 30 years since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Tiller said in a news release that he hoped the free abortions would draw attention to the increasing pressure being placed on abortion from pro-life legislation. ** I can just see the signs now: 1 Day Only, 100% off abortion sale. Or Bring a Friend Day, Buy One Abortion, Get the Second One Free! I think that the above really hits home the ludicrousness of the abortion situation - and to encourage women to have abortions by offering discounts or free for a limited time offers, just totally grosses me out. JDG = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Positives in Rebuilding Afghanistan
An article in this week's Economist discusses many of the positive accomplishments in Afghanistan, while also parsing few words about how very far remains to go in rebuilding in Afghanistan. Nevertheless, I think that it would be good to accentuate some of the positives, just one year after the end of the Taliban War: -The country is at peace for the first time since 1978, with minimal intervention from its neighbors. -The dispersal of Al Qaeda and Taliban elements within the country, and shipments of weapons destined for the remnants are being regularly intercepted. -An interim republican government, with elections scheduled for June 2004. -A World Bank supported reconstruction plan. -Successful introduction of a new, stable currency. -The establishment of a mobile phone network in several major cities. -Several major infrustructure projects, including the Salang Tunnel that will link the north and south of the country in 2003. -A recently completed deal for a $3.2billion Turkmenistan-Pakistan gas pipeline through the country. -Aid pledges for $1.2billion this year, and hopes by Norway that the actual figure will end up being nearly $2bil. -3million Afghan children are in school, double that projected by the United Nations for the first year. -2million repatriated refugees, the largest movement of people since the foundation of Bangladesh. Yes, rebuilding one of the poorest places on Earth has a long ways to go (and the article spends twice as long detailing a few of the major remaining problems), but please, lets not count out the effort to rebuild Afghanistan just yet. JDG = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Blix Endorses US Policy on Iraq
Many people have argued that Bush's hard-nosed policy in regards to Iraq has been instrumental in unifying the UN Security Council in regards to the situation, and then producing the first UN inspections in years in Iraq. Apparently Hans Blix agrees with this assessment From UN Wire: Blix referred to the ongoing U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf in seeking to persuade Iraq to provide such evidence. I think they only need look around their borders and they should realize the seriousness of the situation, he said. What the show of force demonstrates to Iraq is that here is the other alternative. JDG = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Gerrymandering is Evil, It Must Be Eliminated
January 3, 2003 9:30 a.m. Guess Whos Coming to the Statehouse? The surprising political success of Nevada blacks. by: John J. Miller, National Review Seven blacks in the Nevada state legislature may not sound like a big deal except that they give the Silver State the unexpected honor of having elected the most racially progressive legislature in the country, compared to its population. Nevada is less than 7 percent black, but its legislature is 11 percent black (seven of 63 members). What's especially interesting is that none of these seven lawmakers comes from a majority black district, according to a recent article in the Las Vegas Review-Journal. (See the chart at the bottom of the page. Also read a related editorial on the subject here it's unsigned, but the author is Rick Henderson.) The political success of black Nevadans is a compelling rebuttal to the claims of liberal civil-rights activists, who say that black candidates face enormous racial hurdles if they can't run for office in majority-black voting districts. For years, groups such as the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP have done everything in their power to bring racial preferences to the voting booth, in the form of gerrymandered political districts drawn with the intent guaranteeing the election of minority candidates. The Supreme Court has frowned on this practice, but has not totally overturned it and the number of majority-minority districts has steadily increased over the last couple of decades. In Nevada, however, black pols have flourished in the absence of these peculiar arrangements. Nevada's record even puts to shame liberal states that probably like to regard themselves as bastions of racial tolerance. California has 120 members in its state legislature, but only six of them are black; Massachusetts has 200 legislators, but only seven of them are black. Nevada isn't the only state where black candidates have done well: They have strong contingents in the Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio legislatures, too. Where they haven't succeeded and this is true almost everywhere is in statewide elections. And the rise of majority-minority districts is a big part of the reason why. That's because candidates who win in these environments aren't forced to create multiracial coalitions that include whites. These districts generate the likes of Maxine Waters, the grievance-spewing congresswoman from Los Angeles, not Douglas Wilder, the former governor of Virginia who was elected to office with substantial white support. For black politicians, therefore, the path to statewide success does not wind through gerrymandered districts. The next black candidate to win a statewide election is much more likely to hail from Nevada than from, say, one of the tangled congressional districts of North Carolina or Texas. There will always be majority-minority districts, as long as there's residential segregation. Yet the civil-rights establishment hurts minority political aspirations when it embraces race-driven redistricting; its strategy may produce a few extra legislators, but few if any of them will ever become governors or senators. Republicans, unfortunately, often have been strong supporters of racial gerrymandering, in the belief that packing as many blacks as possible into the fewest number of districts essentially whitens the other ones, and thereby makes them friendlier to the GOP. This is a clever tack, but it does come with a high cost. Majority-minority districts are usually strongholds of extremism, and they make the Democratic party more liberal than it otherwise would be. Because Republicans often don't even run candidates in these districts, it puts many blacks in the position of not seeing Republicans ask for their votes until presidential nominees do. Despite this, Republican strategists continue to scratch their heads over why so few blacks voted for George W. Bush two years ago, and wonder whether they put enough African American on display at their Philadelphia convention. The lesson of Nevada is a simple one: Blacks can succeed without special help in the voting booth, and in many other areas as well. = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Week 17 NFL Picks
As we enter the final week, I am 148-92 (.616) on the season, and the Upset Special is at 8-7 after further review of the season record and the Browns upended the Ravens. One last chance for the special to stay above .500 for the year. On Saturday, I think that the EAGLES escape from New York behind AJ Feely, and in Oakland, I think that the CHIEFS stun the Raiders. Meanwhile, the inexorably Super Bowl-bound Atlanta FALCONS clinch the playoffs with a win on the frozen tundra in Cleveland and the TITANS beat Houston. In Pittsburgh, I like the STEELERS over the Ravens, who will be playing for a first-round bye. I also think that the COLTS top the Jaguars, although I'm suddenly nervous that this game will be closer than I first thought. The UPSET SPECIAL of the day is in CAROLINA which puts the final nail in the Saints' coffin.I like DENVER to get things done against the Cards, and I think that the JETS slip past the Packers.I see BUFFALO playing for pride and drubbing the Bengals. In Washington, I think the Cowboys quit on lame-duck Dave Campo, letting the REDSKINS beat Dallas for the first time since JFK was in the Whitehouse or something like that.In the game of the week, I can't see the PATRIOTS losing at home with the season on the line, but with the loser needing a ton of help just to make the playoffs, this game should be a *war*. I'd almost rather watch that one than the Bills this week. Speaking of meaningless games, the VIKINGS beat the Lions. In another upset, the red-hot Seattle SEAHAWKS are finally playing like I had predicted before the season, and they upend the one-dimensional Chargers. Speaking of Upsets, the BEARS upend the Bucs in the freezing cold of Champaign, IL. On Monday night, the RAMS win a who-knows, who-cares contest. JDG = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Week 16 Picks
Sorry for not formally sending my picks last week - but I was packing my bags for a nice Florida vacation. So, here I am, under a palm tree on a warm winter night on a small island off the cost of Florida - and my thoughts turn again to my NFL picks. I am 139-85 (.651) for the year, and the Upset Special is starting to look good after the Texans took down the Steelers and the Bills topped the Chargers - sending it to 9-6 on the year. Anyhow, I like MIAMI to take control of the AFC East by whipping the Vikings and Minnesota. Likewise, I see the NINERS taking their frustrations out from last week's loss via a drubbing of the Cardinals. Meanwhile, the EAGLES sohuld comfortably move past Dallas. In Green Bay, I'm starting to have to admit that the Packers are for real - if only because their incredibly soft schedule lets them stay goosed up for the truly big games. Nevertheless, I am going to go with the homer pick, since the BILLS need it more, and should be able to handle the cold weather. Moreover, the Packers lack depth at WR depth, which offsets the Bills' lack of depth at corner. With Donald Driver shut down by Winfiled Co., the Packers offense should struggle. Another tough place to play is Arrowhead, in Kansas City, but with Priest Holmes on the bench, I like the CHARGERS. Less fearsome these days is Ericcson Stadium in Charlotte, and as for the game - who knows? who cares? Well, the PANTHERS are at home vs. the Bears, so give me the home team. Elsewhere in the southeast, I'll stay on that FALCONS bandwagon against the Colts, and let me jump onboard that TITANS bandwagon at Jacksonville. Up in Washington, though, I sniff an upset with the Texans in town, but in the end, I go with the REDSKINS. The UPSET SPECIAL is in Baltimore, where the RAVENS upend the Browns, leaving the Ravens - who have more rookies on the roster than the Texans in contention for the division title! O.k. gimme the SAINTS in Cincy, and the COLTS over the Giants. In Oakland, the Broncos got whupped by the RAIDERS at home on Monday night, and I can't see them doing any better on the road. On Sunday Night, I see the AFC Playoff picture thickening as the JETS take out the Patriots in a desperation game, and on Monday Night give me a mild upset as the STEELERS take down the Bucs. JDG = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
How to Disarm Iraq
Here's a brilliant essay on what needs to be done to disarm Iraq Hopefully everyone who is opposed to war with Iraq can at least agree that we can't let Iraq play the tricks described here http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074297 = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Retronyms
Acoustic Guitar Natural Turf Analog Watch Two-Parent Family Off-Line Publication Kinetic Warfare How many other retronyms can you name? http://slate.msn.com/?id=2074367 JDG = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Laser Destroys Aritllery Projectile for 1st Time in Human History
Army uses laser to destroy artillery projectile in flight WASHINGTON (AFP) Nov 05, 2002 A mobile laser destroyed an artillery projectile in flight Tuesday for the first time in a test in New Mexico, the US Army said. The two-foot-long projectile was destroyed with the Mobile Tactical High Energy Laser, a system that is being developed by the army and the Israeli defense ministry, it said. The system tracked, locked and fired a burst of photons on an artillery projectile, the army's space and missile defense command said. Seconds later, at a point well short of its intended destination, the projectile was destroyed. It said it was the first time in history that an artillery projectile has been destroyed in flight with a laser. The system has previously been successfully tested against Katyusha rockets. The artillery projectile's small size, combined with the lack of heat it gives off, makes it much more difficult to track, the command said. All rights reserved. © 2002 Agence France-Presse. = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
I Voted.....
and if you've done your homework, so should you. Personally, given the stakes associated with control of the Senate, I can't imagine how anybody could *not* vote if you live in a State like South Dakota, Missouri, Colorado, Louisianna, New Hampshire, Minnesota, or Arkansas. Anyhow, for those of you interested, I voted in 11 partisan races, and plumped for 7 Republicans, 1 Democrat, 1 Green (who, by the way, many people are predicting will pull off the upset and become my representative in the State Legislature), and None of the Above (write-in of a non-candidate) in the remaining two. I must say that voting in a State that trends as left-wing as Maryland, and indeed, voting in Takoma Park which is one of the most left-wing areas of Maryland, can be difficult. For example, the only candidate endorsed by Maryland Right-to-Life in any race that I was voting for was Bob Ehrlich (R) for Governor, and Ehrlich is running ads that insist that he supports a woman's right to choose! He got the endorsement, however, because Kennedy-Townsend (D) never met an abortion she didn't like, and because Ehrlich supports parental notification for minors who want an abortion, opposes using taxpayer dollars for abortion, and most importantly for me, Ehrlich supports a conscience clause - that would prevent the State of Maryland from requiring doctors, nurses, and hospitals that are morally opposed to abortion from being required to assist with or perform an abortion by the State. I am continually flabbergasted that *any* American could believe that a doctor, nurse, or hospital that considers abortion to be murder should be required by the State to perform one anyways! The other huge difficult with my votes this year is that I am opposed to building the Inter-County Connector, a new superhighway that is being proposed. As an economist, I know that the evidence from the experience of other cities is that building duplicative highways like the ICC usually does little-to-nothing to reduce congestion. Rather, people simply take advantage of the additional roads to live even further from the cities than they already do. The only proven way to alleviate congestion is to invest the money into mass-transit, such that the critical mass of transit destinations and transit frequency makes the mass transit a truly viable alternative to roads for consumers who want to travel exactly where they want to go exactly when they want to go. Unfortunately, a solid majority of Marylanders seem to be in favor of plunging billions of dollars into the highway. For example, I briefly considered voting for Townsend when Ehrlich began running ads emphasizing how committed he was to building the ICC - until the next week Townsend coutered with an ad accusing Ehrlich of distorting her record, since she supports building the ICC too. So, with the ICC off the table for the governor's race, and with the Green Party (unfortunately) not running a candidate for governor, and with Ehrlich not quite as pro-choice as I had first thought that he was, I ended up going with him. Besides which, I don't want to see Kennedy-Townsend become Governor and then be running for Vice-President in 2004 or 2008.Still, this then finally convinced me to balance my ticket and vote for the aptly-named Linda Schade of the Green Party for State Delegate, since she's the only State Delegate candidate opposing both the ICC and corporate welfare. For County Executive, I took the Democrat since the Democrat is in favor of building the Metro Inner-Purple Line and the ICC and the Republican is in favor of building the ICC and the Purple Line. I figure that if everyone is going to support building this dumb highway, then at least the one who is lising Metro first in his campaign platform might be a bit more willing to ensure that the transit gets built too. Given how hard it is to find *anything* out about candidates in these very local races, sometimes you just have to make your vote on as little details as that. I'd like to think, though, that somehow there could be a better way for interested voters to find out some actual serious positions of candidates in these local races. One of the most difficult non-partisan races to vote in every year is for the school board, since nobody really seems to have much in the way of issues. Fortuantely, I've developed a fairly effective system of just searching out the person from the teacher's unions who is electioneering at the polling place and just voting against whomever is on the flyer that that person is handing out. :) Lastly, we had seven candidates for circuit court judge, six incumbents and one challenger (apparently he's the first challenger for judgeship to even qualify for the ballot in decades). Fortunately, the challenger is making a big deal about the fact that he is the only candidate endorsed by the (rabidly pro-abortion) National Organization for Women, so that made my six votes easier. Anyhow,
In Praise of Paper Ballots
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/techwrapper.jsp?PID=1051-250CID=1051-110502A = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Week 9 Picks
I went a solid 9-5 last week to go 69-47 (.594) on the season. Even better, the Michael Vick and the Atlanta Falcons came through on the Upset special, which moves to 3-5. Baltimore (+7) at Atlanta - The Falcons remain inexorably Super Bowl bound. Pick: FALCONS, but take the points on virtue of Atlanta's inconsistency and the Balitmore defense. Tennessee (+3) at Indianapolis - Oddly, the way Edgerrin James has been playing, the Colts may be a better team without him. Pick: COLTS and to cover Cincinnati (+3) at Houston - Everyone is jumping a little too hard on the anti-Bengals bandwagon, and is forgetting that this is still an NFL team. Sure, the Bengals are on the road, but when you are as bad as the Bengals are, getting away from the boo-birds at the home field is often a positive. Plus, they have guaranteed a win - and I'm inclined to believe them. Pick: BENGALS UPSET SPECIAL! Yeah, I took the Bengals again - so I lied! NY Jets (+7.5) at San Diego - Here's a battle between what I thought was the best team in the AFC before the season, and the team which I think is the best team in the AFC right now. I still insist that the Jets are better than they look, even after collapsing like the awful turf conditions at the Meadowlands last week, which nullified their team speed. Still, the Chargers really are good, are at home, and coming off of the Bye. Pick: CHARGERS, but take the points, as the Bolts haven't blown anybody out yet this year. Dallas (+3) at Detroit - This is a really lousy team, but for anyone who doesn't think that QB's are important, just loook at what Heisman Joey has done for these guys. Pick: LIONS and to cover San Francisco (+3) at Oakland - When the Raiders came to Buffalo, and won - thereby annoiting themselves as the best team in football, and sending Bills fans everywhere rending their garments about how the Bills defense was killing this team, I pointed out that the Raiders defense didn't look like any great shakes in that game either. Yes, the Raiders are reeling and ready for the bounce-back, but the 49'ers are recovering from a tough road loss as well, their offense is clicking, and their defense is just plain better. Pick: 49'ERS Minnesota (+7.5) at Tampa Bay - Tony Dungy is no longer around to have Dennis Green's number - oops he's gone too, but I still say that the Vikings wilt in Tampa... as the Bucs offense starts to eeirly resemble the Super Bowl Ravens offense of old. Pick: BUCCANEERS, and to cover St. Louis at Arizona (+3.5) - Kurt Warner's homeworld has apparently groomed Marc Bulger to replace their St. Louis field agent. Yes, the Cardinals played for first place last week, and don't you just have the feeling that the same-old Cardinals are just around the corner? Pick: RAMS and to cover New England (+2) at Buffalo - The Bledsoe-Brady-Belicihick Bowl. Yes, the Patriots season is nearly over if they loose this one, but Travis Henry will punish New England's ailing run defense, and the playoff-atmosphere in Buffalo will help propell the Bills and Bledsoe to the win. Pick: BILLS and to cover Washington (+3) at Seattle - The Seahawks nearly had a player die on the football field last week. They should be running on high emotion, and with Washington missing Stephen Davis... Pick: SEAHAWKS, and to cover Philadelphia at Chicago (+5) - The Bears hit a new low in losing to Detroit and Minnesota on consecutive weeks. These guys look ready to mail it in Pick: EALGES and to cover Jacksonville (+3) at NY Giants - Just because these two twams are completely unpredictable. Pick: JAGUARS Pittsburgh at Cleveland (+3) - Warner, Brady, Maddox. Yeah, the shoe fits. Pick: STEELERS and to cover Miami (+4) at Green Bay - The Packers are on a roll, the Fish are playing Ray Lucas who looked horrible two weeks ago, and Cris Carter was just brough in off of the street to start for them its hard to give the Fish a chance in this game, and even though all my alarm bells are screamin upset waiting to happen Pick: PACKERS but take the points = - John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Blix Endorses US Proposal, Negotiatins Continue
IRAQ: Blix Calls For Tough Inspections Regime, Agrees With U.S. Draft UN WIRE The chief U.N. weapons inspector told the Security Council yesterday that the decision of waging war on Iraq would be up to the council, not him. We've seen sometimes stated that we hold peace and war in our hands. We decline that, Hans Blix said. Our job is to report, and the decision of whether there is war or peace, or reaction, is for the council. Blix, the head of the U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, and International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei spoke after presenting their views on the U.S. draft resolution on Iraq's disarmament. Council members said they wanted to hear what the two thought of the new inspection regime crafted by the United States and United Kingdom. Our role is to establish the facts; its for the Security Council to evaluate the facts and determine whether these facts constitute material breach and what is the next step to be taken by the council, ElBaradei said. This is a council prerogative. Neither official would go into the specifics of the proposed regime with reporters after briefing the council, but both said it was important that the regime be fully backed by the council. The intention is in the draft resolution to give very clear signals as to what we can do and to avoid what people have referred to as 'cat-and-mouse' play. It is helpful, Blix said. British Ambassador Jeremy Greenstock said council members have a better idea now of what precisely the inspectors need. ... We will need further time to absorb what we have heard. He added, We're talking about the clarity of what the resolution says. We're talking about the inspectors and the council being at one about the powers that they have. This is a cooperative process, not an adversarial one. The United States said the inspectors welcomed the tougher regime outlined in the U.S. draft. I think it's clear from their comments that they welcome that authority that will strengthen their hand and give them the opportunity to do the job the council has asked them to do. We were pleased with that, said Deputy Ambassador James Cunningham. Although France and Russia have circulated their own drafts on inspections, both of which envision less stringent inspection regimes, Blix and ElBaradei limited themselves to comments on the U.S. text since it is the only one of the three formally before the council (Jim Wurst, UN Wire, Oct. 29). Blix said he was pleased the U.S. resolution gives inspectors the authority to decide the methods for interviewing Iraqi weapons scientists, but warned that there would be great practical difficulties in removing the scientists from Iraq for the interviews, as the U.S. resolution provides. A demand in the U.S. resolution for Iraq to provide a complete declaration of its chemical and biological weapons capabilities 30 days after the resolution is approved, however, would not be practical, Blix said. He and ElBaradei asked the Security Council members to help provide intelligence information on which suspect Iraqi sites inspectors should visit, but also said inspectors would only report to the council (Julia Preston, New York Times, Oct. 29). If the Security Council cannot agree on a new inspections regime, however, then the inspectors probably will not return to Iraq, Blix said. He indicated that there could be dangers in sending inspectors to Iraq without the full approval of the council. It is almost inconceivable to return inspectors to Iraq while half of the council wants us to be there and the other half of the council does not want us to be there, Blix said. Let me stress that from the inspectors' horizon, council unity is of the greatest importance, he said. We have difficulty in acting with full strength if we feel that we do not have the backing (Allen/Lynch, Washington Post, Oct. 29). U.S-French Compromises Negotiations on the new resolution are still progressing and might continue into next week, Bush administration officials at the United Nations said. The United States and France have neared a compromise on the language of the new resolution on Iraq, according to the New York Times. U.S. and French officials have agreed that the resolution would contain language in its final paragraphs warning Iraq of serious consequences if it fails to disarm -- a euphemism for military action, according to the Times (Preston, New York Times). France might also agree to a U.S. demand to also include the phrase material breach in the resolution -- which the United States believes would create the authority for military action -- but only if the Security Council has the authority to determine if Iraq has committed such a breach, according to the Los Angeles Times. Much of the debate over the resolution on Iraq has centered on the phrase, which means a violation of a resolution, according to the Times. France will accept 'material
+++ US National Security Policy on WMD and MAD
Dr. Brin recently suggested that MAD remained an appropriate logic for confronting the WMD threat posed by rogue states and terrorists. By happy coincidence I was finally getting around to reading the US National Security Policy today, and it had a very detailed rebuttal to Dr. Brin's arguments **excerpt It has taken almost a decade for us to comprehend the true nature of this new threat. Given the goals of rogue states and terrorists, the United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive posture as we have in the past. The inability to deter a potential attacker, the immediacy of today's threats, and the magnitude of potential harm that could be caused by our adversaries' choice of weapons, do not permit that option. We cannot let our enemies strike first. In the Cold War, especially following the Cuban missile crisis, we faced a generally status quo, risk-averse adversary. Deterrence was an effective defense. But deterrence based only upon the threat of retaliation is far less likely to work against leaders of rogue states more willing to take risks, gambling with the lives of their people, and the wealth of their nations. In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. For rogue states these weapons are tools of intimidation and military aggression against their neighbors. These weapons may also allow these states to attempt to blackmail the United States and our allies to prevent us from deterring or repelling the aggressive behavior of rogue states. Such states also see these weapons as their best means of overcoming the conventional superiority of the United States. Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents; whose so-called soldiers seek martyrdom in death and whose most potent protection is statelessness. The overlap between states that sponsor terror and those that pursue WMD compels us to action. For centuries, international law recognized that nations need not suffer an attack before they can lawfully take action to defend themselves against forces that present an imminent danger of attack. Legal scholars and international jurists often conditioned the legitimacy of preemption on the existence of an imminent threat -- most often a visible mobilization of armies, navies, and air forces preparing to attack. We must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries. Rogue states and terrorists do not seek to attack us using conventional means. They know such attacks would fail. Instead, they rely on acts of terrorism and, potentially, the use of weapons of mass destruction -- weapons that can be easily concealed and delivered covertly and without warning. The targets of these attacks are our military forces and our civilian population, in direct violation of one of the principal norms of the law of warfare. As was demonstrated by the losses on September 11, 2001, mass civilian casualties is the specific objective of terrorists and these losses would be exponentially more severe if terrorists acquired and used weapons of mass destruction. The United States has long maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of inaction -- and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place of the enemy's attack. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively. The United States will not use force in all cases to preempt emerging threats, nor should nations use preemption as a pretext for aggression. Yet in an age where the enemies of civilization openly and actively seek the world's most destructive technologies, the United States cannot remain idle while dangers gather. **end excerpt*** JDG = --- John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] First... to clarify what we stand for: the United States must defend liberty and justice because these principles are right and true for all people everywhere. No nation owns these aspirations, and no nation is exempt from them. -US National Security Strategy 2002 __ Do you Yahoo!? Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos More http://faith.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Iraq: Take This Reso and Shove It
Iraq Vows Not to Abide by Any New U.N. Vote Limiting Agreement to Existing Terms Suggests Baghdad By Rajiv Chandrasekaran Washington Post Foreign Service Sunday, September 22, 2002; Page A28 BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 21 -- Iraq said today that it would not abide by any new U.N. Security Council resolution that differed from the country's prior agreements with the world body. The announcement suggested that Baghdad would refuse to comply with weapons inspections if the council authorized the United States and other nations to use military force against Iraq. The American officials are trying, according to the media, to issue new, bad resolutions from the Security Council, the government said in a statement read on state-run Baghdad radio. Iraq declares that it will not cooperate with any new resolution that contradicts what has been agreed upon with the [U.N.] secretary general. The announcement said top Iraqi leaders made the decision during a meeting chaired by President Saddam Hussein. Iraq said on Monday that it would accept the unconditional return of U.N. weapons inspectors, who were authorized under the terms of the 1991 Persian Gulf War cease-fire agreement to search for weapons of mass destruction. The inspectors left Iraq in 1998 after a dispute over the facilities they could visit. Today's statement suggests that offer would be rescinded in the event of a new resolution. The announcement also appeared to be designed to pressure Russia, China and France -- which have veto power on the Security Council -- to oppose the Bush administration's effort to pass a new resolution permitting military action if Hussein fails to comply with existing council resolutions mandating weapons inspections and other actions by the Iraqi government. All three nations have voiced skepticism about the need for a new resolution. At the White House, Sean McCormack, a National Security Council spokesman, said Iraq's position that it will not comply with future resolutions is very disappointing, the Associated Press reported. We are working very hard within the international community and specifically in the United Nations to address in an effective way the issue of Iraqi noncompliance, he said. Iraq's state-run media did not provide any interpretation of the announcement, and Iraqi officials were not immediately available for comment. Hussein, in a letter read to the U.N. General Assembly on Thursday, declared that Iraq is clear of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. He claimed the United States had fabricated charges that his government was secretly building weapons of mass destruction. The chief U.N. weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has said some of his deputies could arrive here by Oct. 15. © 2002 The Washington Post Company = -- John D. Giorgis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ba'atha delenda est!- Freedom is Not Free __ Do you Yahoo!? New DSL Internet Access from SBC Yahoo! http://sbc.yahoo.com ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
US Releases National Security Policy Statement
The actual statement is available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html Bush Describes Tough Foreign Policy Vision Government: Doctrine submitted to Congress emphasizes the need for preemptive attacks and reserves the right for U.S. to take unilateral action By EDWIN CHEN, LA TIMES STAFF WRITER WASHINGTON -- President Bush formally laid out his strategic global doctrine Friday, advancing a distinctly American internationalism that asserts the right to launch preemptive attacks on terrorists and regimes whose weapons of mass destruction pose a threat to the United States. The president also declared his intention to dissuade potential rivals from trying to equal or surpass America's military might. The toughly worded 31-page document pulls together the major themes of Bush's foreign policy addresses in the year since the Sept. 11 attacks. It was sent to Congress to meet a 1986 law that requires such an assessment from each president. But Bush's plan drew special attention because of the highly charged atmosphere surrounding his administration's effort to enlist the United Nations in a new confrontation with Iraq. He also used the document to spell out his view of U.S. strategy in a post-Cold War world where terrorists, rather than other superpowers, are thought to pose the biggest threat to America. Bush made clear that he believes the Cold War tactics of containment and deterrence are no longer adequate to protect U.S. interests. Traditional concepts of deterrence will not work against a terrorist enemy whose avowed tactics are wanton destruction and the targeting of innocents, the document said. In the Cold War, weapons of mass destruction were considered weapons of last resort whose use risked the destruction of those who used them. Today, our enemies see weapons of mass destruction as weapons of choice. Vowing to take unilateral action against perceived threats, the Bush administration pledged to protect the United States and its interests abroad by identifying and destroying the threat before it reaches our borders. While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and our country By articulating an aggressive, go-it-alone-if-necessary doctrine, Bush distanced himself from his recent predecessors, including his father, the 41st president. He's at the start of a new era, said Bruce Buchanan, a presidential scholar at the University of Texas. It's comparable to what happened on President Truman's watch at the beginning of the Cold War and containment. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and other top administration officials argued Friday that Bush's first-strike doctrine is a long-standing U.S. option. But Buchanan disagreed. It is really a significant departure, not just from the containment doctrine but from widely accepted American principles such as: America will not strike first, Buchanan said. And to elevate it to the status of a doctrine--without incorporating specific examples of a clear and present danger--that's a novelty. It's going to take a while to sell it to the foreign policy establishment. On Capitol Hill, some Democrats were skeptical. Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) accused the Bush administration of having a political personality disorder. They've moved from enforceable treaties as an American strategy to military invasion as a nonproliferation strategy, he said. Said Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), a potential candidate for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination: I'm not at all convinced that the new doctrine from the administration--which seems to ignore the fact that we live in a globalized world where allies and partnerships are more important than ever--will actually advance our interests. Kerry termed it a highly ideological doctrine. But Rep. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) praised the Bush doctrine, noting that it also stresses the need for alliances. The notion is, preserving the peace requires us to work carefully with the great powers, he said. The national security policy statements sent to Congress by previous presidents have been routine and have drawn little attention, said John Lewis Gaddis, a foreign policy scholar at Yale. There were really no definable crises forcing a reassessment of the grand strategy, he said. But Bush clearly is thinking about revisions of the grand strategy. The forceful words in the document are also likely to rankle some U.S. allies, who were already reluctant to join Bush's campaign against Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. There was little official reaction around the world to the document as of late Friday. But the question of use of force against Iraq has become a major issue in the neck-and-neck German campaign for chancellor that culminates in elections
