From: L' Ermit (lhermit@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 - 09:48:33 MST
[Hermit 7] Just sniping and scrawling...
[Joe Dees 7*] Does the logical phrase "it does not follow" mean anything to
you? The errors in communication that the US might have made vis-a-vis Iraq
have nothing to do with iraq's intent, aside from encouraging it; certainly
they dis not modify it as to what it indeed was - the intent to conquer
Kuwait, and further, to continue down the Arabian Peninsula. In fact,
Hermit's info. regarding the war debt Iraq owed to Kuwait furnishes it with
another reason to embark on such a course. I accuse Hermit of not knowing
what logical inconsisEncy means.
[Hermit 7] As I have already shown, the US regarded Iraq if not as an ally
then as a very important interest in containing Iran. Iraq knew that and
wished to preserve their "special relationship." My reading is that Iraq
would not have invaded Kuwait had the US not given her the go ahead. Iraq
had a claim to Kuwait (historically it was part of Iraq), a major (and
undisputed) incentive (Kuwait was stealing from Iraq), and Iraq knew that
the US was purely pragmatic (having been supported by the US (including the
provision of biowarfare agents and satellite data) throughout the Iranian
border war). Call it naivety, but I am certain that Iraq did not anticipate
the US reaction.
[Joe Dees 7] Not being dismayed that two fanatical regimes are at war with
each other rather than aggressing their more moderate neighbors is most
definitely not in the same category as BEING one of those fanatical regimes;
it is light-years better.
[Hermit 7] The US provided information and weapons to both sides during that
conflict and acted to prolong it (as it provided additional leverage on the
USSSR) rather than acting to terminate it. The only US motivation was
callous self-interest. And everyone not in the US was aware of this.
[Joe Dees 7] The Palestinian decision to back the bloodthirsty Saddam was
the palestinians' not the US's; likewise, the decision to expel hostile
Palestinian refugees within their borders (hostile because they supported
Kuwait's invader) likewise was not the US's, but Kuwait's; it was also an
eminently logical one, given the circumstances. It is doubtful that any of
the invading Iraqi forces who did not leave Kuwait survived when they were
repulsed by the coalition. There are differing figures as to how many
Kuwaitis are dead and missing. To criticize a country for expelling the
allies of its invaders is illogical, biased, and in poor taste.
[Hermit 7] The Palestinian refugees in Kuwait possibly preferred Iraqi
treatment to Kuwait's (as did the Kuwait opposition). But the reason they
were ejected referred to Palestinian opinion from Ghaza, not the local
population. The problem here is that the Palestinians that were in Kuwait
were there as displaced persons but their "right of return to Palestine",
courtesy of UN resolutions passing back to 1948/49 prevent the Palestinians
from having the normal rights and protections of displaced persons (which
would have prevented their ejection). The US asserts (by its actions and by
condoning the Israeli position) that the "right of return" resolution is now
worthless, but also asserts (by condoning Kuwait’s actions) that the
Palestinians are not covered by the 1952 protocol on displaced persons. Yet
another example of having your cake and eating it. Meanwhile, when the
government of Kuwait asserts "400 Kuwaitis killed by the Iraqi occupation
forces and another 600 missing" and Joe Dees asserts "tens of thousands of
Kuwaiti civilians were killed in the Iraqi takeover, and another 7000 simply
disappeared." this is not simply a matter of "differing figures", but of
different planets.
[Joe Dees 7] I maintain that saddam's word has been shown to be worth about
as much as his magnanimity, that is, nothing, and the reason that Iraq's
aggression was limited is because the coalition limited it.
[Hermit 7] I think that exactly the same could quite validly be said about
the US - or most any other government.
[Joe Dees 7] Iraq was not after excising evil in Kuwait, but after
assimilating them; the war debt owed could only be permanently cancelled in
the event that Kuwait ceased to exist as a sovereign nation, and such was
indeed Iraq's intention, bugled the world over with their annexation
announcement.
[Hermit 7] Evil is in the eye of the beholder. Which is what I was
asserting. Who is it talking about "evil" today? Iraq was aware that their
action would require UN sanction to be valid. With them under the impression
that the US would support them, it must have looked like a wash. The fact
that the US changed her mind or fucked-up or what-ever to lead to Iraq
holding that opinion leaves the "moral culpability" firmly in Washington for
providing that opinion (which you might recall was strenuously denied by
Washington until the proof refuting their denials became overwhelming). At
which point they said that "they made a mistake." Bingo. If it were a simple
traffic insurance claim we were fighting about, the case would be over. Iraq
and the US were guilty.
[Joe Dees 7] I fully agree that we should have rebuilt Iraq, but not for
Saddam to use against us. The only way to both alleviate the sufferings of
the Iraqi people and end the threat that Saddam poses to the region and the
world is to depose him prior to reconstruction. That's what we should have
done; luckiny, that error can still be
corrected.
[Hermit 7] See the Moscow Times articles below for their opinion. Your
unsubstantiated assertion (resting on an insubstantial sea of unstated
assumptions) is no more valid than asserting that world peace will only be
established when Washington is overthrown, the US is disarmed, or even that
it would depend on the Bush regime being deposed and the restoration of an
elected president.
[Hermit 7] You also failed to address [GWT 7] "The authors soundly criticize
the U.S. for creating enormous devastation and misery in Iraq and not
following through with post-war reconstruction and aid." and "Its peculiar
vice is that it enables us to go to war with far greater precipitancy than
we otherwise might while simultaneously allowing us to walk away from the
ruin we create without feeling a commensurate sense of responsibility. It
creates anarchy and calls it peace. In the name of order, it wreaks havoc.
It allows us to assume an imperial role without discharging the classic
duties of imperial rule." and even "Clearly, U.S. measures to overthrow
Saddam constituted a substantial intervention in Iraqi internal affairs"
(illegal) and “that had the United States refrained from destroying Iraq’s
infrastructure and had it not called for the overthrow of Saddam by the
people of Iraq, the weight of the obligation to reconstruct and rehabilitate
would have been considerably lessened.” Your source. You cannot validly
impeach it.
[Joe Dees 7] UN support only shrank by a few countries, mostly Islamic ones,
during the war; support for the sanctions is still quite strong, and is
indeed the UN position presently.
[Hermit 7] Wrong. How many billion Islam are there? Citizens in the PRC? In
the C.I.S.? In Europe? Most of them oppose the sanctions (except on military
products) and the vast majority opposes further US military adventures in
the region. In any case, the sanctions were not generally supported until
911, and the momentary support generated by that attack is bleeding away as
the US proves that she cannot be trusted in International affairs. Seeing as
you seem to have faith in Mr Ritter refer e.g.
[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec98/iraq_8-14.html[/url].
[quote]Of course, the reason there was "I think what they’re doing is
accomplish two things: one to contain Iraq and two to preserve the American
position in the Middle East. They realized in the last crisis, when they
announced early that they were going to use force, that there’s very little
support for it, that we were going to damage our position in the region,
that we had little support among our allies, and that they needed to bolster
the coalition. I think that they’re not making the mistake this time that
they made the last time of speaking before they made sure that they had
people lined up behind them. And I think that a lot of the criticism of this
makes the assumption the United States could use force simply because no one
opposes us, and that we don’t have to worry about the political and
diplomatic consequences of what we do. I think the administration realizes
we do have to worry about those consequences; we have to make sure that we
have the support before we take action."[/quote] As for supposed UN support
[url]http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june98/annan_3-4.html[/url]
[quote]Well, these are rather strong and harsh words (Sen Loft. And I'm not
even sure if I can comment because I don't know what is behind those
statements, because I think what I did was to try to save lives, to try and
get Iraq to comply in accordance with the Security Council resolutions. And
I think if this effort, which was not an easy one, which entailed quite a
lot of risks, to try and get Iraq to comply, to save lives, and to prevent
explosion in the Middle East--is going to be described in those terms, then
of course we have different objectives. I know that some people on the Hill
have a different idea as to how Iraq and President Saddam Hussein should be
handled. That is not my concern. I am guided by Security Council
resolutions. Yesterday, on the Larry King Show I was asked: Some people say
the President must be taken out. And I explained, quite candidly, that the
U.N. is not in the business of taking out any president, this or that
president out. In our organization that is illegal. And I have no mandate
from the Council. And so for those who think that should be the objective,
whatever you do short of that is failure, is appeasement, and is weakness.
And so I don't think there is anything else I can say.[/quote]
Kofi Annan: “It is a sad day for the UN.” December 1998 after the US and UK
had acted without a mandate and dropped a greater tonnage of bombs on Iraq
in the 70 hours of the “Wag the Dog Campaign” than they dropped during the
entire 1991 war.
[Hermit 7] It seems that Kamel Abu Jaber was right [quote]If the United
States continues with what it’s doing…, there is no question that the region
is in for a long period of terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, and terrific
hatred.[/quote] How would what he said then, not be applicable today?
[Joe Dees 7] The so-called 'fury if the streets' is highly overrated; it
subsided after Iraq was defeated, just as it did when the Taliban were
overthrown. We intended to continue bombardment - and did - until we could
mop up with ground forces with a minimum anount of loss of life on our side.
This is the way wars are fought and won - by minimizing your own military
casualties and, if necessary (and it often is) maximizing your adversary's
military casualties. By allowing the Republican guards to drive their tanks
back to Iraq to kill again (and they did), we violated this principle, and
Shiites and Kurds paid for this violation with their lives.
[Hermit 7] If Joe Dees wishes to impeach his own sources, then he has no
arguments left. If he wishes to lecture me on military affairs, I would like
to see his credentials. As it is, his own source contradicts all of his
assertions here. Refer
[url=http://papers.maxwell.af.mil/projects/ay1999/awc/99-149.pdf]"GULF WAR
TERMINATION REVISITED", Stanley T. Kresge, Lt Col, USAF, April 1999[/url]
The US flew an average of 2,555 bombing sorties a day during the Gulf War
and over 100,000 sorties altogether, stretching maintenance facilities to
the limits and drastically reducing expected airframe lives. It took the use
of cruise missiles to deliver a greater tonnage – at a much greater
immediate cost (but probably a long term savings), to increase that (Source:
FAS).
[Joe Dees 7] The fact is that there was no effort to withdraw before we
attacked, and Iraq had six months in order to do so. In addition, the
annexation remained in place throughout. Quite simply, Saddam Hussein is not
to be believed, and we did not believe him.
[Hermit 7] Who do you believe in order to make your determinations?
Evidently not your own sources cited here, as you now accuse them of lying
or ignorance or both. As you have never claimed personal experience in this
issue, there must be some source you derived your opinions from. Or did you
merely have a brainstorm?
[Joe Dees 7] Hermit did not respond to my assertions concerning Iraq's
duplicity, as trumpeted by Scott Ritter. Sanctions are to remain in place
as long as conditions for them to be withdrawn are not met in good faith;
they were definitely not so met. This places the blame for the continued
presence of the sanctions clearly and uncontestably on the person who could
have acted to have them removed, and didn't; namely Saddam hussein.
[Hermit 7] The same hawkish Mr. Ritter, a former U.S. Marine Corps captain,
as admits exchanging information about Iraq with Israel, and who blames the
US for the failure of his "inspections"? [quote]Ritter charges that UNSCOM's
mission was undermined by infiltration by the CIA and lack of support from
Washington and the UN Security
Council"[/quote][url]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/unscom/interviews/ritter.html[/url].
So do I really need to address him? The FBI are still AFAIK investigating
espionage charges against him for this. He knows it and has acknowledged as
much in TV interviews.
[Hermit 7] So Scott Ritter blames the US too. Do you now wish to discard him
as well? At least he was not as bad as Richard Butler who bypassed the
Security Council to report directly to the US.
[Joe Dees 7] The person who is guilty of the genocide of his own people is
Saddam Hussein, by refusing to in good faith meet the conditions necessary
for the sanctions to be lifted. Period.
[Hermit 7] The “period” is only in your mind Joe. The US has stated that
until Saddam Hussein is removed from office, that the sanctions will remain.
As Kofi Annan has explained [supra] this is illegal. As Scott Ritter has
explained [supra], this made his mission futile. Mr. Hussein cannot prevent
the needed equipment and supplies from arriving, only the US is able to do
this. Your assertion is (as usual) unfounded, unwarranted and plain
old-fashioned incorrect. Only somebody with the power to cause harm can bear
the blame if harm is caused by the exercise of that power. No matter how
much they might assert that somebody else is responsible. It is one of the
inseparable responsibilities of having such power.
[Joe Dees 7] The Iraqis devastated the Kuwaiti infrastructure before they
left, and perpetuated an ecological disaster by torching the entire Kuwiti
oilfields. Civilian infrastructure is not something I would attack, but if
military resources are placed in close proximity to such infrastructure in
order to shield it from attack, then that strategy can not be allowed to
succeed.
[Hermit 7] But your source,
[url=http://papers.maxwell.af.mil/projects/ay1999/awc/99-149.pdf]"GULF WAR
TERMINATION REVISITED", Stanley T. Kresge, Lt Col, USAF, April 1999[/url]
states that this was done to provide a smoke-screen (a legitimate military
purpose), and you are confabulating legitimate collateral damage with, the
deliberate targeting of civilian facilities (as I have proven was the
intention of the US) which is a war crime. In addition, the use high
altitude bombers to cluster bomb civilian areas is a different proposition
to precision targeting of legitimate military targets. More than half of the
bombs delivered on Iraq during 1991 and 1998 were dropped by high-altitude
bombers. Many of these were 2,000 pound non-guided bombs. One missile landed
near the Iranian city of Kurramshahr. None of this speaks to me of precision
bombing. The evidence of witnesses, including BBC reporters who
categorically discussed the bombing of civilian areas, even while CNN’s
Christiane Amanpour talked about precision bombing and callously described
the "fireworks over Baghdad” during “another exciting night for Iraq"
contradicts your assertions, as does US military and FAS analysis, satellite
photographs and the fact incontrovertible fact of massive civilian
casualties. All these things conspire to totally and resoundingly confound
your presumably media inspired idea. I really suggest that if you wish to
discuss this sensibly that you join the FAS
[url=http://www.fas.org]Federation of American Scientists[/url] and read
their analyses for yourself, look at the photographs (before and after) and
then discard whatever does not match the evidence. It seems to me that you
have a lot of discarding to do.
[Joe Dees 7] Civilian infrastructure may have been targeted, mainly in cases
where it was suspected that this infrastructure had military applications
(such as chemical weapons manufacture or the storage of weapons), but the
civilian population of Iraq clearly was NOT targeted during the war.
[Hermit 7] I have shown, as have your own sources, that civilian
infrastructure was indubitably targeted, not once, but twice. I have also
shown that this is a war crime. There is no way to excuse it, no
justification that allows it. That is why we have war crimes. They are lines
over which we have agreed we will not step. Remove these rules and 911
becomes a legitimate attack. You can't scoff and keep your cake. You can't
be a scofflaw and demand either the laws protection, or the right to enforce
it. The US is currently in that position. In every UN resolution, Iraq's
sovereignty has been acknowledged. Which is why, at this time as in 1998,
Iraq is apparently in the right and the US apparently in the wrong.
[Joe Dees 7] As to, the Red Crescent, it is well known that many so-called
humanitarian organizations the Islamic world over funnel monies to terrorist
organizations; I would not naively trust Red Crescent figures that possess
obvious propaganda value.
[Hermit 7] The Red Crescent is not a "so-called humanitarian organization."
They are licensed by the UN and regarded as being in every way equivalent to
the ICRC - who also, recognizing that the "terrorist" label is very
dependent on the perspective of the labeler, but that suffering is
universal, supply aid to "terrorist organizations". As does the US. 5.5
Billion a year (on average) to the State of Israel is one readily apparent
example. $40 million to the Taliban (last year) as another. I hate to make
accusations of blatant bias, but yours is now to obvious to discard.
Evidently anyone sourcing anything counter to what you believe (in the face
of the evidence), including your own sources apparently cannot be trusted.
In the face of this blatant inability to deal with evidence, why should you
be believed?
[Hermit 6] I would further observe that the War Crimes tribunal has accused
Slobodan Milosevic of “willful killing of civilians”
[Joe Dees 7] Not the case with the US war action. Great care was taken
during the bombing campaign to minimize civilian Iraqi war casualties.
[Hermit 7] Asserted by you above. Refuted by me and your own sources above.
Repeating an untruth does not improve it.
[Hermit 6] “extensive destruction of property not justified by military
necessity”
[Joe Dees 7] This is a judgment call, and not all judgments are perfect,
especially when obscured by the fog of war, and when one is aware that one's
adversary will hide anything anywhere.
[Hermit 7] When you are claiming the ability to perform "precision attacks"
and "complete air superiority" (both true) then you completely invalidate
whatever legitimacy you might have been able to invent to justify the
saturation bombing of civilian areas. That moves it from the realm of a
"judgment call" into requiring a call for judgment.
[Hermit 6] “wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages
[Joe Dees 7] This also cannot be claimed of the US attack. Residential
areas were not specifically targeted.
[Hermit 7] The fact of that multiple residential areas were indisputably and
repeatedly hit until obliterated is not disputable. If this was by accident,
it was wanton. If it was deliberate, then it was not merely wanton it was
with malice aforethought. Which is worse. Take your pick. You cannot
legitimately deny facts, only interpretations of them. And as shown above,
the claimed ability to hit legitimate military targets with "pinpoint
precision" removes the only possible defense for civilian bombing-
justifying it as a necessity of war.
[Hermit 6], or devastation not justified by military necessity”
[Joe Dees 7] This is, once again, a judgment call lacking the 20/20 benefit
of hindsight but not permitting the risk to one's own forces of mistaken
forbearance.
[Hermit 7] Deliberate targeting of infrastructure that would only impact the
population long after the combat is over voided this defense.
[Hermit 6] and “attacks on undefended towns or buildings”
[Joe Dees 7] If there are military supplies in an undefended building in the
heart of a hostile nation, it is eminently reasonable to destroy them. If
an undefended town is helping to manufacture or store materiel for the war
effort, it is eminently reasonable to attack the sites where such
manufacture or storage are occuring.
[Hermit 7] Military (and dual-use) supplies are legitimate targets. Leaving
aside the fact that International observers noted no sign of such materiel,
so far as I am aware, nobody is suggesting that Mr. Hussein distributed his
armory in the residential areas of Iraq. Given the claims about the
likelihood of revolution, this would seem to be patently absurd.
[Joe Dees 7] As I have answered the above charges point by point, the
hysterically biased j'accuse may be placed in the unfavorable light it
richly deserves.
[Hermit 7] And granted that your purported defense is shown to be as leaky
as an old whore, what do you conclude now?
[HJS 7] Hermit observed that it made no military sense for Iraq to withdraw
from Kuwait, knowing that they would in any case be attacked.
[Joe Dees 7] No; if the reason that the adversary is contemplating
*counter*attack is because you have occupied a neighboring country, to
withdraw unilaterally from that country removes the rationale for the
contemplated expulsion. If you are not going to be able to hold onto
conquered territory logic demands that you vacate it.
[Hermit 7] I previously showed that the US had stated that they would attack
anyway. Your repeated assertions on this issue reflect that you have no
understanding of either strategy or even field tactics. Consult Sun Tzu,
Carl von Clausewitz or any current national doctrine to repair your
comprehension. If you are going to be assaulted, forcing your enemy to waste
resources on the conquered territory leaves less for your homeland. It also
causes less damage to your homeland. It also gives you the opportunity to
perform a tactical (i.e. fighting) retreat hopefully forcing your enemy to
take casualties, and possibly leading to a negotiation where yielding the
territory avoids more serious repercussions. That's logical.
[Joe Dees 7]In other words, Saddam wanted his worthless troops to die while
pulling out the valued ones, to gain maximum sympathy in the Muslim
community while minimizing his military losses, and this is why he did not
move them ALL out? Or could it be that the RG's were a second line of
homeland defence?
[Hermit 7] Sound military tactics - and if the latter is true, then good
politics too. But I suggest that you flatter Mr. Hussein. His interests are
domestic, not International, except so far as the US has forced him to be
aware of International pressure. His regional aspirations were limited
before he invaded Kuwait. He could not afford to do much more than that.
[Joe Dees 7] Nevertheless, we DID surround the retreating Republican Guards,
and let them pass, tanks and all - a huge and horrendous mistake. We
should've let the WALK back.
[Hermit 7] Your perspective is flawed. According to every analysis I have
studied (including the one cited by you), the conclusion was that the US
killed those they could reach (by whatever means possible - including
expending $ 3 million anti-armor missiles on trucks - against which they are
not effective anyway (source General Schwarzkopf’s reports)), and those you
could not reach had already escaped. Those you killed were largely
conscripts, and had you continued to fight, US forces would have had to
overcome well entrenched, well trained forces, where you would have taken
heavy losses, and the majority of the RG that were exposed would have been
able to retreat in good order anyway. To have attempted to follow them into
Iraq would in any case have resulted in smashing the already tenuous
coalition.
[Joe Dees 7] They had six months in which to retreat, and did not. If we
had delayed, I have no doubt that forces would have remained until we kicked
them out, as we did. Saddam is not only psychopathic, aggrandizing,
megalomanic and bloodthirsty, he is a proven liar. If you are reduced to
basing your position on reports on what saddam Hussein is purported to have
promised, you your position is reduced to nothing.
[Hermit 7] My conclusion was based on UN, Russian and US analysis and cited
reports by American sources of meetings between the US, Moscow and Iraq, and
was additionally supported by the military analysis you provided. I’m not
sure where you got your impression that the US is superior to Hassein on any
score. Indeed we seem to leave him in the dust on most of the above.
[Joe Dees 8] In fact, Hermit rather conveniently forgets an unconveniently
unforgettable fact; Iraq invaded and conquered Kuwait in the first place,
and formally annexed it. This irretrieveably brands Iraq as the
belliegerents, and the coalition as those who restored sovereignty to an
invaded and conquered and formally assimilated country. In fact, if there
had not been a credible threat of expelling counterattack, and I believe, if
there had not been actual action, we would be left with a 'Greater Iraq'
that could have contained much more than Kuwait.
[Hermit 7] You are quite wrong. I agreed with the UN resolution condemning
Iraq's action, and agreed with the threat of military action to ensure that
they complied. I would have supported limited air strikes against military
and occupational targets designed to enforce compliance had it not been
forthcoming. I would have acted to take out identified projective
capabilities. I don't just believe, I am certain, that this could have been
accomplished rapidly and with little loss to anyone had it been required,
but analysis (particularly post hoc US analysis) shows that it would likely
not have been required. Instead, we "knocked Iraq back to the stone age and
are still killing 6,000 Iraqi children a month and have destabilized the
entire region (resulting in, amongst other things, [quote]a long period of
terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, and terrific hatred.[/quote][Kamel Abu
Jaber supra] including (if bin Laden is to be believed), the WTC atrocity.
How has this helped the US or the World?
[Joe Dees 7] We failed to trap them by design; we forbore to close the
pncers. I also point out that this citation puts the clear lie to your
assertion that NO Republican Guard forces were in a capturable or
destroyable forward position.
[Hermit 7] You appear to have missed that this was based on a quote from
your source (Note my emphasis):
[quote] As evidence of this “fog of war,” the 24 th Mechanized Infantry
Division (Mech) fought one of the biggest battles of the war two days after
the ceasefire. The “Battle of Rumalah” [Hermit] I would suggest slaughter
rather than battle] began when U.S. forces were suddenly engaged by an
“Iraqi brigade-sized armor and mechanized force (composite of Hamurabi and
regular forces) that was making an attempt to escape”.5 Historical accounts
of 3 rd Army’s operations during the final days and hours of the ground
campaign contain no mention of the location of the escaping Republican
Guards divisions, with the sole exception of part of the Hammurabi division,
reported in and around Basra on the morning of 1 March.6 In light of this
confusion, it’s hard to tell how many Iraqis, let alone particular units,
could have been prevented from escaping.
Race to the Euphrates At 73 Easting and Medina Ridge, VII Corps fought
Republican Guards units that had assumed blocking positions to allow other
Iraqis to escape through Basra. “The ‘Mother of All Battles’ had turned into
a race to the Euphrates, and the Iraqis had a big head start. The question
was whether CENTCOM could catch the Iraqis…”7 Major General Barry
McCaffrey’s 24 th Mech was in the best position to attack east toward Basra
and block the retreat of any Iraqi still in Kuwait.8 While the 24 th Mech
could have beaten a number of Iraqis to Basra, very few of them would have
been Republican Guardsmen.At the ceasefire, the 24 th Mech was still 40
miles from Basra.9 According to Army Lt. Col. John S. Brown, commander of an
armored battalion during Desert Storm: “Of the vehicles that escaped through
Basra, [b]most would have slipped the noose before the 24 th Infantry
Division could possibly have closed it.[/b] The bulk of three Republican
Guards infantry divisions, roughly aligned on the An Nasiriyah to Basra
highway, fled precipitously just ahead of the 24 th ’s advance.”10 [b]Based
on his experience and interviews with other Desert Storm veterans, Brown is
convinced that Iraqi units (including three Republican Guards infantry
divisions and perhaps the equivalent of one Republican Guards armored
division) couldn’t have been intercepted.[b] [GWT p4-5]
[Hermit 7] This matches exactly the conclusions of all the US, SADF and
Russian military analysts I have seen. Here is what I said:
[Hermit 6] Having read the article which is in fact cited here as GWT it is
clear that this was not a decision, but an effect of the “fog of war” and
that rather than letting “four divisions of Iraq's elite Republican Guards
ride out in their remaining tanks” the US failed to trap them. I’d add that
only 50% of Iraq’s tanks, and just over four divisions [Hermit omitted
"escaped" here]. So there was no question of “let” here.
[Hermit 7] I would add that Joe Dees accusation that I am lying is not only
refuted by his source, but also by the fact that I did not say "that NO
Republican Guard forces were in a capturable (sic) or destroyable (sic)
forward position".
[Joe Dees 7] I place more credibility in my citation, and in the reports I
remember viewing and reading during the war itself.
[Hermit 7] You miss the point (again) that this [b]was[/b] your citation I
based this on. You cannot simultaneously reject it, and use it to support
your own arguments.
[Joe Dees 7] Baghdad itself is less than three hundred miles north of the
kuwaiti border; any 'reserve' troops in the south of Iraq could have been
driven in their trucks and tanks to the front quickly.
[Hermit 7] Do you understand what "complete air superiority" means? Any
moving vehicle is a highly visible target. The more massed, the more
effective the slaughter. Between the A10 Warthog and the Harrier, both
devastating in an undefended ground attack role, nothing would have been
left over for the troops to clean up had a forward movement been attempted.
Dug in troops can withstand most assaults, even fuel-air and tactical
nuclear blasts, if they have the time and materiel to prepare for it, troops
en route cannot. Because Iraq was denied air cover, they were essentially
immobilized, but because they were well dug in, digging them out (which
requires frontal assaults by trained men prepared to close with the enemy)
would have been hugely expensive.
[Joe Dees 7] And whatever chances the minority forces had against truckloads
of armed soldiers, they had vastly less chance against armored tank
divisions.
[Hermit 7] Civilians, going up against disciplined troops will die, it is
that simple. Whatever percentage of zero you wish to argue about, their
chances remain zero. It takes training to create a soldier.
[Joe Dees 7] It is indeed a sad and tragic consequence of a fecklessly
broken promise i formly beleve that we made to the Iraqi resistance, one
that everyone involved may pay dearly for, but that can still be rectified,
at greater cost the longer we delay.
[Hermit 7] If made (as the Kurds and your source appear to believe) then it
was a "promise" to break International law, shatter any hope of trust, and
ensure that cooperation will not be readily be offered again by any country.
That cost, in a dangerous world, is far greater than the cost of a few (or
even a lot of) Kurds - who in any case (rightly) don't trust the US and
(sensibly) don't want to be independent in a non-viable state.
[Joe Dees 7] Our error was in not assisting the Iraqi insurrection until it
deposed a criminal regime that has shown no compunction whatsoever about
occupying its neighbors, gassing and bombing its own people, and attempting
to assassinate foreign leaders, then rebuilding the country and arranging
for free and fair elections. Since we committed that error, we were not as
good as we should have been, for the sake of people both outside and inside
iraq, but there can be no doubt in the ratonal and intellectually honest
mind that Saddam Hussein's regime is VERY bad, and in fact, evil, if evil
can
be measured in savage actions and intentions. OTOH, since you mention
Chechnya, its Islamic guerillas were trained and financed by Al Quaeda and
Osama Bin Laden.
[Hermit 7] The US armed and supported Iran. Then the US made her collapse
inevitable. Then the US armed and supported Iraq. Then the US demolished
Iraq. Then the US intervened in Kurdish affairs leading to Turkey (a vital
US ally - with a history of genocide) to engage in far more action against
the Kurds than Iraq could or would - without a peep from the US, resulting
in the Kurds not wanting to see an American. The USA continues to issue
tirades against Baghdad, not a word about Istanbul. Well-done USA?
[Hermit 7] Chechnya was forcibly dismantled by the CIS and is still being
ruthlessly suppressed. If you lived in such a country you would, I'm sure,
either flee or take help where you found it. The US having proved that it
had no interest or concern in preventing a massive human tragedy. Why are
the Kurds different? Because Iraq does not have nuclear weapons and so does
not have the ability to prevent US aggression? Military analyst, Alex
Fishman, writing in the Yediot Aharonot newspaper yesterday characterized
President Bush as follows, "Bush will not let anyone set the region ablaze
and undermine the messianic task that he has taken upon himself, to root out
evil from the world in general and from Iraq in particular." I'd concur with
that analysis, and add that you sound more and more like President Bush. The
trouble with "seeing evil" is that it invariably blinds you to the logs in
your own eyes.
[Hermit 6] Notice how this source conflicts with [GWT], with both
Schartzkopf’s and Powell’s memoirs, and official state utterances and
records. Not the most valuable reference cited and one that does not speak
to the question at all.
[Joe Dees 7] In other words, you don't like it, so you dismiss it without
replying to it, even though it was critical of US (in)action; the boo-hooray
theory in full flower.
[Hermit 7] No, I ignored it because the authors obviously had as much of a
clue about the military as you, because they seemed to have no experience of
what occurred in Iraq, because they contradicted dozens of sources including
GWT (provided by you - and which cites the other sources I referenced
above), but mostly because they didn't speak to the issue at hand
(deployment of WMDs). I don't need to rebut Moby Dick either, in order to
address the issue - even if you were to bring it up - which given the
quality (or lack of it) in your other citations would not have amazed me -
as it does not speak to it.
[Joe Dees 7] One of the reasons that we did not continue to support the
Kurds was this very internecine warfare; some Kurds sided with and were
supplied by Iran, while the ones we were ostensibly with, after tasting
Saddam's brutality and US reluctance, unwisely decided to trust him and side
with him against their fellow Kurds. We should have attempted covert
negotiations to unite the factions and then supported a united front. One
also wonders if the Iranian initiative was intended from the first to throw
a monkey in the US works by splitting the Kurdish resistance.
[Hermit 7] The US has no standing in the matter, the proposed action would
breach International law and the Kurds don't want it. Next.
[Joe Dees 7] We decided not to stand behind this house divided against
itself, when we should have endeavored to unite the wings by reminding them
of their opposition to their common enemy, Saddam. We were able to do so
with the fractious factions of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan.
[Hermit 7] Excuse me if I giggle. How very "Stupid American" you can be.
Afghanistan did not have a legitimate (i.e. recognized) government, so the
explanation for the action there could be that you were somehow restoring
order. Yet the US still had to scrabble around to find some left-overs from
the totally trashed previous regimes, rejected by their own tribes to take
over the government assisted by the communists they previously ejected after
a long and brutal war, and who will need to be propped up for so long as you
want them to rule (refer also to the Moscow Times article below). How the
hell are you going to justify the degree of interference you will need in
Iraq, when the sovereignty of Iraq is recognized, you have no mandate from
the UN (and won’t get it just now) and your reluctant don't wannabe allies,
the Kurds, will never achieve even a significant minority in Iraq unless you
kill off about two-thirds of the rest of the population. Try saying "tribal
society" a few thousand times, and you may eventually get a clue. But, I'm
not too hopeful.
[HJS 7] Madeleine Albright should be up in the dock with the rest of the US
leadership
[Joe Dees 7] I will set out the logic behind such a position, and why it is
rapidly becoming a nonalternative, in another post.
[Joe Dees 7] Actually, villages are frequently found around radar sites and
antiaircraft batteries, but it has been the batteries and sites themselves,
niot the villages, that have been the targets of US and British bombs.
[Hermit 7] Not according to any of the International humanitarian groups in
the country - and not according to available satellite material and
reconnaissance/evaluation photographs I have seen.
[HJS 7] Hermit shows that the death toll from chemical weapons in Halabja
was miniscule.
[Joe Dees 7] And if they did it 15 times?
[Hermit 7] I don’t have to and won’t respond to hypothetical situations.
Either support your assertion or drop it. These are the figures reported by
the UN and Physicians for Human Rights. They match the other assertions I
have seen.
[Joe Dees 7] Next, you'll be saying something along those lines about the
WTC atrocity, and how our response against Al Quaeda is unjustified, because
we are big enough to simply absorb all the slaughter they deal out to us.
[Hermit 7] Did I say that? Or are you attempting to create your own little
strawman here? Before I respond, it is worth noting that the official death
toll from 911 is now 3001, so that it appears that the US is far more
effective at killing civilians than Al Q'aeda (500:1 just looking at Iraq vs
911) ever will be, that Afghanistan (and the entire Middle East) is, to my
mind, now vastly more unstable than before US intervention in Afghanistan,
and that the threat of terror to the US population has increased (Jane's and
FBI analysis) rather than decreased. Now, could the US have "absorbed" the
effects of 911? Easily. I said so, and justified it at the time when you
were asserting a vastly higher death toll. I still say so. That said, Al
Q'aeda are a menace, probably more so now they have dispersed than before
the Afghan action taken against them (less probability of infiltration or a
competent strike against clusters of them, more grounds to act against the
US, higher likelihood of recruitment from Muslim populations in other
countries) and had to be responded to. And it would have been very good for
the US economy had they responded rationally with international police
action (supported by commando units when required) and avoided the above
“own goal” effects. If current US assertions are to be believed, they now
assert that Al Q'aeda are dangerous criminals, not soldiers. Which is what I
have said all along, but which the US (and you) did not. If we accept your
view that they are soldiers, then the Geneva protocols come into play, and
the US is again guilty of war crimes for not treating them by those
protocols. I also argue (as you well know) that while US actions in the
mid-East did not justify Al Q'aeda's actions against the US, no more does Al
Q'aeda's actions against the US justify US actions against the civilians of
any other countries. Again, cakes are an either or phenomena and the US
seems to spend a lot of the time trying to have and eat them. I find this
unconvincing.
[Joe Dees 7] Nerve agents act that quickly.
[Hermit 8] Firstly this is not the case except under ideal deployment
circumstances (i.e. dry, cool, close and closed quarters, allowing very high
levels of gas to develop – very inefficient overkill). Secondly, as I
showed, there is insufficient evidence that nerve agents were responsible
for significant kill (most of those who died were victims of cluster bombs).
Despite the number of references you provided, you failed to provide any
sustainable [i]evidence[/i]. Indeed, the best material so far as to the use
of chemicals has been the material provided by me. Refer
[url]http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg00034.html[/url] previously
cited and repeated – and the best evidence is [quote]eyewitness testimony
collected by Physicians for Human Rights and by British filmmaker Gwynne
Roberts, who was in Halabja & captured the attack and aftermath on film,
confirms this: the PUK controlled all exits to the town, and were preventing
civilians from leaving as they thought that the Iraqis would not spread
their artillery bombardment of surrounding areas to the centre of the town
if it was fully inhabited (human shields).[/quote]
[Hermit 7] Note that although the use of chemical agents is a war crime
(whoever deploys them), that the town was occupied and controlled by
Iranians, demolishing your argument that this was an indiscriminate attack
against a civilian population. Until you provide some new (and better)
arguments, there is nothing substantive for me to reply to.
[Joe Dees 7] Once again, nerve agents kill rapidly, and the gist is that it
was the iraqis, not the Iranians, who launched the attack.
[Hermit 7] Your knowledge of "nerve agents" is apparently almost as limited
as their utility. I am not, and did not argue that Iraq did not deploy nerve
agents (that should be for a court to determine, if we establish a court
having jurisdiction (which the US will not readily do as the US is alleged
to have engaged in far more illegal activities than Mr. Hussein - or even
Mr. Milosevic)), but that Iraq was justified in attacking Halabja and
suppressing external attack and civil disorder in the region. The US was not
justified in deliberately acting to destabilize either Iran or Iraq. No
member of the UN is justified in doing this.
[Joe Dees 7] Allowing them [Hermit: The Kurds] to stew in their own juices,
under the control of three other not-too-friendly-with-each-other-nations,
who promise them things to get them to engage in proxy wars, then slaughter
them when they ask that the promises be kept, while killing the other uppity
ones from time to time is no solution; is that your alternative.
[Hermit 7] No, that is not my solution. We need, urgently, to understand
tribal thinking (something that the industrialized countries patently do
not) and recognize that the concept of "nations" as we are implementing
them, is not appropriate for much of the world. We need to create a new and
more appropriate structure and start working towards solving real problems,
rather than dealing ad hoc with the chaos caused by bundling tribes together
and calling them a state. This is what I would like to progress towards
discussion of, and which this unfinished and seemingly interminable argument
(because of your inability to view evidence dispassionately when the US is
involved?) is preventing.
[HJS 6] Joe Dees apologized for not breaking International law more
thoroughly on behalf of the Kurds and Hermit suggested that this was not a
good place for a homeland.
[Joe Dees 7] The best place for a homeland is always at home.
[Hermit 7] Not when it is non-viable and when it involves creating new
"states" of tribes that passionately hate one another and whom all their
neighboring tribes hate.
[Joe Dees 7] And where does Hermit think all those millions of Kurds are
gonna go?
[Hermit] I'll discuss that when we are done with this seemingly pointless
and apparently endless argument. If it were done correctly, many of them
wouldn't go anywhere. Some of them might have to move in order to neutralize
historic inter-tribal grounds for hatred.
[Joe Dees 7] Therer have been organized guerilla and terrorist groups
operating in the area [Hermit: Chechnya] for quite some time (Dagestan,
Ingushetia, Ossetia, Georgia, in fact, the entire region); this is the
second time that Chechnya has flared up in recent years. Their ties with Al
Quaeda have been heavily substantiated.
[Hermit 7] There was a civil war of independence in Chechnya as the Soviet
collapsed. Just as many other civil wars happened as other satellites
finally broke free of Soviet control in the implosion. In Chechnya the war
was worse than most other places, partly because the outside assistance they
received was minimal. They still trounced the Russian army, who were
fighting a lot of wars at the time, and in 1996, the CIS recognized them as
an effective "suzerain state," recognizing their Parliament and granting
them independence while still linking a number of areas (currency, foreign
policy, energy), and the war ended. In 1999, Putin used the Chechnyans (for
a lot of reasons, but if it had not been them, I would argue that it would
have been others), to create a credible external threat to develop support
for himself and his agendas, and the military, still smarting from the
trouncing they received in the first war were delighted to get a second
chance. This time there were no distractions and Chechnya was systematically
obliterated and the civilian population dispersed. Had the same brutality
been exercised in Bosnia we would be talking about actual, as opposed to
attempted genocide. Meanwhile, to reiterate a small point about Afghanistan,
(the terrain of Chechnya is similar, although the country is smaller) the
CIS is still losing 120 men a week to guerilla attacks. And I don't find it
in my heart to feel sorry for them except for their conscripts, who are
dying for a cause they don't understand, in a non-viable country that nobody
recognizes, executing orders which are patently illegal.
[Hermit 7] Your allegations about the surrounding regions are completely
spurious. The Hermitess, while a Russian citizen (and privy to more than
most as her father held a very senior position in the USSR), is also a
citizen of the area and spends a lot of time discussing it in various
forums. One of my best friends (2 minutes walk so we spend a lot of time
together) is also from the area. If this seems vague it is because it is
meant to be. History teaches us that there are very long arms and powerful
people involved. Both have family living in these area and talk with them -
a lot. Neither are alarmists, neither are stupid, both have taken
International law, and both are extremely concerned that the CIS intends to
overrun the entire region again. The last time that happened, some 32
million people were killed - and the West said not a word. Then we are
friends with a number of highly placed government officials and their
families from some of these areas. They share these concerns, but do not
know how to address them. All these people [i]know[/i] that the KGB/FSS/FSB
are extremely good at "directing perception" by “creating legends”, and
aside from personal experience dealing with Russian propaganda and security
personnel, I have a lot of Russian friends, who readily confirm this. Right
now Russia appears to be fostering the impression that the entire area is a
hot-bed of terrorism. It is simply not true. It is an economically
devastated area (courtesy of Russia), with a major crime problem (also
courtesy of Russia). Russia having destroyed Chechnya has created a refugee
problem in all these countries. Refugees are not terrorists, no matter how
passionately (and IMO justifiably) they would like to see Russians killed.
The West having seemingly decided that these people, being Muslims, are
disposable, should not be amazed when they make friends with extremists.
More tribalism. Which I see no reason to consider the West understands in
any measure whatsoever. If you don’t like my analysis try the Washington
Post
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/russiagov/putin.htm[/url].
[quote] Putin's role in the blatantly misleading information issued by the
government about the Chechnya offensive also has been criticized. His talent
for creating legends has been evident in his explanations about the war. For
example, Putin told the writers group that the military had been open with
the news media, when the military has in fact hidden information about
casualties, combat events, attacks on civilians and its goals and
methods.[/quote]
[Hermit 7] To grasp an idea of the seriousness of these concerns, consider
just that Russian "security forces" positioned (over Georgian protests) in
Georgia, already greatly outnumber the Georgian army.
[HJS 7] Back to Afghanistan.
[Joe Dees 7] Actually, we were able to target them much better than the
Soviets could; our bombe are entire levels more precise, and we had ground
targeters painting targets with lasers as well as high resolution satellites
pinpointing troop concentrations. Most of the Al-Quaeda are most likely
either out of the country or dead, as the native Afghans for the most part
resented and despised them.
[Hermit 7] Any bomb, falling from over 100 feet is not a precise munition
unless guided. The 2000 lb conventional bomb, which has the sole virtue of
being cheap, is a simple area denial and demolition munition, and we have
dropped tens of thousands of them on Iraq. A well drilled and very skilled
crew using modern navigation aids can almost certainly place such a bomb in
a 2km x 5km box from altitude, depending only on wind conditions. Which is
why they are dropped in patterns carefully designed to eliminate everything
in the target zone. That is not how I define precise. Then, a cluster bomb,
dropped from any altitude (usually 30m for "precise" deployment if "precise"
can be used to refer to any weapon with a lethal zone of about 250 x 75 m
but the US ROE in Afghanistan predicated bombing from 12,000 feet AGL
because of concerns about hand launched AA missiles) is an even more
effective area denial weapon, not a precision munition. Refer
http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/CBinYugo/ to learn more about them -
including why [quote]former U.S. President Jimmy Carter decried the use of
cluster bombs in Kosovo, noting: "The United States' insistence on the use
of cluster bombs, designed to kill or maim humans, brings discredit on our
nation."[/quote] Of course, we have used (extensively) both the RBL755 and
CBU series cluster bombs in Iraq, and most of the CBU family on Afghanistan.
Given that the SAAF CB-470, which I have deployed at low and mid altitudes,
and have evaluated the results of delivery, is substantially similar to US
munitions, I am speaking from experience and you, dear friend, are talking
through your hat. Precision munitions expensive and as such, are reserved
for special targets and situations. Imprecise weapons, when used in volume,
remain cheaper and are just as effective at performing their primary task.
[Hermit 7] In addition, the US deployed air-fuel bombs over Taliban lines
(and some over the Northern Alliance too, another oops), and as these rely
on raising air-pressure over a very wide area to kill via liquefaction of
organs and at greater distances by rupturing the carotid, if you think that
these weapons can be used “precisely” you need to notify us that you have a
new definition of precise.
[HJS 6] Hermit commented on the old-new communist government put into place
in Afghanistan by the same General who occupied the Kosovo airport ahead of
NATO just a few years ago, and mentioned the “old” communist Afghan leader,
Rashid Dostum.
[Joe Dees 6] Now there's a brute I'd just as soon see kept as far away from
the halls of power and influence as possible. They threw him the smallest
bone they thought he'd settle for, with his appointment as *deputy* defence
minister.
[Hermit 6] Who we have given the job of running the army on a day-to-day
basis. Confirmation of who is really managing the circus, I would have
thought.
[Joe Dees 7] I dinna think so, and you know no different. He only commands
the loyalty of Uzbeks; if he makes a wrong move, it will not get him far.
[Hermit 7] Refer
[url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/02/12/013.html]The Moscow
Times, Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2002. Page 3, Russia Backs Afghanistan Army
Plan[url] Mohammed Fahim and Rashid Dostum are visiting Defense Minister
Sergei Ivanov in Moscow as you claim that I don't know what I am talking
about... [quote]Ivanov told Afghanistan's interim defense minister, Mohammed
Fahim, who arrived in Moscow on Sunday night for a seven-day visit, that
Afghans could count on Russian military and technological assistance.
"Russia and Afghanistan are bound by centuries-old ties, and we hope that
Russia will make a contribution to the peaceful settlement in Afghanistan,"
Ivanov said after an 80-minute meeting with Fahim.
Following the 1979-89 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Kremlin was a
key supporter and arms supplier for the anti-Taliban forces in the late
1990s. Last year, Moscow supplied about $34 million worth of arms to
anti-Taliban forces, Interfax reported, quoting military sources.
Fahim said Afghanistan was not seeking more weapons but was interested in
military cooperation to set up armed forces that would ensure that
Afghanistan never again becomes a host for terrorist groups. "Stability and
peace in Afghanistan mean stability and peace in the world," he said. "We
are interested in creating such a national army that will win the trust of
all Afghans."[/quote]
[HJS 6] Whom Hermit mentioned had not lost his delicate touch with prisoners
– only aided by US forces instead of Soviets….
[Joe Dees 6] Those prisoners smuggled weapons into the compound and staged a
bloody revolt.
[Hermit 6] Just after the US had announced that they wanted no prisoners.
Convenient. The only problem with this plan was that it hit the headlines
too early. It is happening all over Afghanistan.
[Joe Dees 7] Taliban and Al Quaeda surrendered at Konduz, then smuggled
small arms into the Mazar-I Sharif compound in their turbans. It's all in
Jonathen Walker's interview.
[Hermit 7] The ICRC has eyewitness reports to the execution of prisoners
(usually by driving tanks over them) while US forces watched. Reporters,
ICRC and UN personel going to interview prisoners are regularly told that
they have all died. Of old age no doubt.
[Hermit 7] A military prison that allows prisoners to "smuggle in arms," and
then to overrun the guards, and then wipes out all the prisoners (and I mean
dead, not injured) while taking almost no casualties is just not believable.
Period. Injuries run at 20 to 60 to each fatality caused in modern combat.
In any case, the interview with John Walker apparently was taken while he
was on morphine, and had refused the interview. "Nice" ethical questions
there, aside from the fact that I suspect that he knows little and
understands less (or he probably wouldn't have been there). Meanwhile ex-US
Taliban prisoners are complaining that they were beaten while in US custody
– and have the makings to sustain that they were beaten by somebody - which
does nothing for the already rather nasty smell most Europeans suspect is
emanating from the US – as Mr. Ashcroft is discovering.
[Joe Dees 7] As long as he brings the bacon back to Afghanistan, that bacon
being aid/assistance, he'll be there (but maybe not for longer than the six
months he is slated to lead the interim government for). Whomever is chosen
to lead them then - and I'll bet it will be Hamid Karzai - will have loya
jirga support. As far as him being a sell-out, that's supposedly a national
pastime there, but considering that he led the Pashtun insurrection that
aided in toppling the southern Taliban, he obviously commands a good deal of
loyalty.
[Hermit 7] He will last as long as he receives support – which will be for
so long as he is funded. As I have shown above, it seems that the C.I.S.
seems fairly confident that they can now apply a "Chechnyan solution" to
Afghanistan, and the US seems perfectly happy with this prospect. From my
perspective, Mr Bush's (and apparently your) "moral high horse" appears to
look more and more as if it would fit right in outside the local Walmart.
[Joe Dees 7] A multinational force with teeth that will disarm the lawless
outlying areas is indeed sorely needed.
[Hermit 7] It seems that the CIS is going to play the role, the US is to
busy planning on what to do to Iraq when they beat them up for the third
time [Refer [url=http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/02/07/009.html]
'Evil Axis' Tests Relationship[/url], while the rest of NATO is still too
involved in Kosovo - the last place the US purportedly cleaned up. Meanwhile
Pakistan, Israel and Korea seem also to be experiencing the Great USA déjà
vu feeling.
[Joe Dees 7] The people I am referring to are not great democrats; it is my
hope that such values may be somehow instilled in them. And Hamid Karzai,
the Afghan president, is himself Pashtun.
[Hermit 7] Hope is futile when it flies in the face of history. Couldn't
anyone think up a better plan than mixing communism and Sharia in a
conventional government of parties who don’t understand compromise and who
hate each other only a little less than they hate outsiders? This is exactly
what I meant by a “failure of imagination”.
[HJS 7] Hermit notes the very strange demography of the “transitional”
government, and notes that Afghans are beginning to notice the same. Joe
Dees responds that he believes that the Loya Jirga will solve everything and
that Hamid Karzai owns a white hat.
[Hermit 6] Thinks this paragraph speaks for itself.
[Joe Dees 7] It sure does. You'd prefer maybe Dostum or Rabbani?
[Hermit 7] No. Read my earlier suggestions on Afghanistan. I think that if
we had the balls to do the job properly, that we would be establishing a
very temporary, but massive presence, deploying a few construction regiments
and mine clearing blimps to make an initial stab at fixing the mess, paying
Russia and China to supply materials and equipment, while training Afghans
to help themselves. I would break the country into tribal areas, each
electing a council and headman who would be personally responsible for his
own fiefdom (and personally answerable to an International court for the
actions of his tribe), banning all heavy weapons (irrespective of the
owners), and with the Security council guaranteeing the territorial
integrity of each tribe, but assisting each tribe to establish effective
defensive perimeters. That we would establish the Helsinki Declaration as
the principle law, but allow each tribe to establish its own laws in its own
territory so long as they do not conflict with the declaration. That we
would establish a UN managed International court of redress, which would act
as the appeal court. At least initially, education, health and humanitarian
assistance would be supervised by the UN acting through the local councils.
That we establish a virtual “parliament of peers,” allowing each village
state to elect or appoint their own members to such a parliament. This is
pretty much the pattern for what I would establish for many hot-spots around
the world and where the International infrastructure would be shared. Where
a country declined to adopt this course, and was harming its citizens, I
would blockade it, allowing only humanitarian supplies through, while
assisting its threatened citizens to leave (and when possible, paying for
this via whatever exports were permitted). Thirty years of deliberate effort
along these lines would, I think, resolve almost all of the worlds troubles
- permanently - and leave the planet a much better place to live. We have to
start do something like this somewhere, unless we intend to act as policeman
to an increasingly hostile world until the cost leaves us as bankrupt as the
Soviets. Afghanistan would have been an ideal location as it could be a
"bread-basket" if the fighting stopped and effective technical techniques
were used to improve farming and drought resistance. Which would rapidly
create a more prosperous environment where everyone would have something to
lose if fighting occurred. So it wouldn't.
[Hermit 7] Instead, we have made a lot of noise, ridden in to town on our
wind-up toy horses, shat on their heads, and are riding out again having
perpetuated exactly the same system as is well proven not to work everywhere
that it has been tried outside of the Western, industrialized nations...
[Joe Dees 7] He's [Hermit: Zahir Shah] a piece of work, all right, and the
US is warning Iran not to try to use him as a proxy destabilizer. He shares
most of the Taliban's social positions.
[Hermit 7] He is nasty and smart and influential. And a lot of Afghans are
now looking at the structure which has been put in place, noticing they are
not a part of it – and who is, getting a 1970’s déjà vu feeling, and
starting to make exactly the same noises. Each tribal leader wants to be the
cock of the dunghill. By making one dunghill, we ensure this can’t happen
and that they have to fight it out. That is vastly more destabilizing than
anything that Zahir Shah – or Iran (Abetted by the PRC in case you don’t
know) can do.
[Joe Dees 7] Voting worked before the '50's elsewhere; they DO have radio
there, and TV in the villages. People are sure to gather round the
electronic hearth and consider what they can glean there. They should be
able to glean, and discuss, quite a lot, since freedom of speech rights have
recently been restored to Afghanistan.
[Hermit 7] I should offer you the same bridge as I offered Mermaid.
Television requires electricity… which is in such short supply as to be
effectively unavailable. The TV sets and VCRs (and even cassette players)
were largely destroyed by the Taliban (people were executed just for having
them in their houses). And I doubt that a better prototype for an oxymoron
exists, than the idea of “freedom of speech” in (another oxymoron) a
Stalinist Muslim society. Truly we have reinvented the camel.
[Hermit 6] We now openly support brutal repression and the flaunting of
International law, rather than looking for stooges to engage in it on our
behalf.
[Joe Dees 7] From what Orwellian through-the-looking-glass universe do you
hail? The flaunting of international law took the form of Al Quaeda terror
flyers hijacking planes full of cliueless civilians and crashing them into
skysceapers filled with other clueless civilians like them; the brutal
repression was perpetuated upon the people of Afghanistan, men and women, by
the Taliban. They turned their soccer stadium into
a killing field, and executed people for teaching women. They beat women
who let an ankle show or who accidentally laughed, and anyone who dared to
listen to music. Talk about fucking rePRESSion!!!
[Hermit 7] I suggest that “Al Quaeda terror flyers hijacking planes full of
cliueless civilians and crashing them into skysceapers filled with other
clueless civilians like them” was a breach of private and national law (the
flights originated – and ended – within the territory of the US) and it
remains to be seen whether other US or other nations laws where broken in a
way which will sustain prosecution. This may be one very important reason
why the US is denying the Taliban and Al Q’aeda prisoners recourse to
anything but drumhead law. In so far as the terror was sponsored by another
country (which it seems it was not, as we appear to be denying the Taliban
the legal status of a government) that would be a breach of International
law. Current International law demands that intergovernmental disputes be
resolved by means of the UN. Which means that unilateral US actions are
probably de juris, if not actionably (due to the US veto), illegal.
[Hermit 7] The government of any country is, under current law, entitled to
do what it likes with its own citizens – and is entitled to establish itself
in any way it likes. That is why countries are sovereign. Any interference
with their sovereignty (including attempted destabilization) is in itself an
illegal act, and theoretically answerable to, before the UN.
[Hermit 7] I personally would argue that when any country engages in
practicing horrors on its own population, that it is time to change that
country’s government. The trouble is that there is no mechanism to do this,
and because of that, even when intervention occurs – usually in a technical
breach of International law, what ends up happening is “more of the same.”
The trouble is that passing any “law” to prevent this would threaten the
sovereignty of existing nations – which is why, unless it is made a
voluntary affair, it is not going to fly. So a good first step is to
establish an international “standard of treatment” and we already have that
courtesy of the Helsinki declaration (even if it is observed more in the
breach than through observation). A second step might be the constitution of
an appropriate court of redress, and the third, the establishment of an
“alternative” structure into which countries suffering this sort of problem
could enter. A good first step would be the use of International aid money
to construct such a network of village states in an area that could sustain
a significant population. As I have repeatedly suggested, large areas of
Africa, which are currently all but depopulated, might be suitable and
would, I would suggest, be purchasable at an affordable price.
[Hermit 7] Meantime, to imagine that anything is going to be different for
the people of Afghanistan under a replacement regime is, I would suggest, to
be living in a pipe-dream. The trouble is that by returning to this
structure, we are ensuring that unrest or change in any area will drag
others into opposition to it – and it has been repeatedly proved in the last
35 years at least, that this will not work.
[Hermit 6] Do you think I am surprised? It is worth remembering that (as I
pointed out long before we started bombing Afghanistan) that it took the
Soviets less than a week to capture Kabul last time around, and ten years of
bleeding to decide that it wasn’t worth owning the rest of it due to the
huge cost and negative world reaction. They are presumably hoping that this
time it will stay bought as rather than complaining, the rest of the world
will cheer them on as they kill enough freedom-fighters, oh sorry,
“terrorists” to keep it under control.
[Joe Dees 7] Just who are you calling freedom fighters? The Taliban? And
whose freedom were they fighting for? They were archetypical
OPPRESSORS/DENIERS of freedom, and even a blind squirrel would have a hard
time missing that nut, but not the hermit. Or are you calling the Al
Quaeda, who wish to establish global sharia law, freedom fighters?
Obviously, you are failing to check with reality here.
[Hermit 7] Why yes. The Taliban. The United States called them Freedom
Fighters right through the 1980s while they supplied them with money and
arms to overthrow the recognized (no matter how illegitimate we felt it was)
government of the day. What has changed? The Afghans haven’t, that I can
see. Unless for the worse, but “worse-to-worser” is difficult to evaluate.
Their primitive and rather unpleasant habits have not changed (but it must
be noted that it seems to be their choice). Neither oppression nor denial of
freedom seems to have shifted much if at all. Stalin would be proud of them.
Sharia is not different, except in so far that they plan to cut up or squash
or batter their victims in private, instead of in front of the crowds. Nor,
for that matter, has the master they were fighting to overthrow and that we
have now resurrected changed much.
[Hermit 7] Who, exactly, is missing a reality check?
[Joe Dees 7] That's a future i would not like to see, mainly because of the
mutual antipathy between Afghans and the old USSR; I do not think that the
US wishes it, either. I'm betting on NATO or UN troops, probably the
latter, or even troops from moderate Islamic nations, most likely Turkey
(which also fits with the first two alternatives).
[Hermit 7] What was it you were saying again? "Russia and Afghanistan are
bound by centuries-old ties" indeed... [supra]
[Joe Dees 6] I think that Afghanistan would welcome such industry and the
jobs and money it would provide. as for the 'communists', I guess you
forgot that they're a democracy now, and performing a facilitative, not a
commanding, role. If it looks like it's gonna change, the US would be the
first to honk the horn, and it hasn't happened yet.
[Hermit 6] It would be well to study some geography – and some history too,
while you are about it. The Soviet Union always was a democracy. And the US
was and is not a democracy, but a Republic.
[Joe Dees 7] One-party systems where one has to belong to the party to vote
are not democracies. And the 'R' in USSR stands for Republic.
[Hermit 7] As far as the USSR was concerned, I didn’t assert that it was not
a Republic, but I have read all of their constitutions, and in all of them,
they established that they were a democracy. And who am I – or you – to
argue with them – and for you to have said, “They are a democracy now” is
to assert that they were not a democracy before, just as if your opinion
were meaningful, and actually illustrated something. About a year ago, the
US demonstrated that the person with by far the most votes, need not be the
winner of an election - in what you seem to think is a democracy. It doesn’t
match my definition of democratic… any more than the USSR matched it. But I
accept that my opinion doesn’t matter much to anyone else but me. The
average US citizen does not seem to realize the vagueness of the definition
at all, asserting that however they understand the US to define democracy to
be “god given” and perhaps this is an important component of why they are
regarded as arrogant in most parts of the world (and by this argument, you
seem more and more average everyday).
[Hermit 7] So it seemed to me that you were defining “democracy” the way you
wanted to. And I was pointing out that there is a good deal of precedent on
your side, but by that standard the USSR most certainly was a democracy. It
said so right on the label. Multiple parties and universal franchises are
very modern (and in my opinion silly) concepts. In Athens, the home of
democracy, only one in five had the vote. And until the late 1960s American
Negroes generally did not. Did that mean that the USSR where everyone had a
vote, but the choices were restricted was less of a democracy. Don’t ask me.
Ask them. Their positive answer will probably surprise you. The simple fact
that the term has such a broad range of meanings means, I think, that it is
essentially meaningless, and certainly provides no reason to sneer at others
who do things differently to you.
[Hermit 3] the south of Afghanistan is in chaos
[Joe Dees 6] It's being progressively sorted out; impatient, are we? Is it
part of the MTV generation thingie?
[Hermit 6] No. I am not impatient. And while impatience might well be an
“MTV thingie” the premature assumption of having achieved ones goals is more
likely to be one. I am the one saying “wait”, before you make a noise,
evaluate whether your goals have been met and determine whether what you see
matches what you are being told. You have been told that Afghanistan is
under control. But the Pushtun South is still in chaos, the Taliban are not
“defeated” only waiting, there is still “evil” in the world, along with tens
of thousands of terrorists and a certain Mr. Bin Laden.
[Joe Dees 7] From every silver lining, hermit will spin a cloud
[Hermit 7] And Joe Dees will open a dance floor on it and sell futures in
the silver?
[Hermit 7] When I hear others talking of silver linings, I look up and if I
see clouds, I reach behind the door and take an umbrella with me.
[Hermit 6] If he [Hermit: Musharraf of Pakistan) lasts that long. India is
impatient.
[Joe Dees 7] It's a situation that bears watching, but the initial signs are
favorable.
[Hermit 7] That is how, in our experience to date, World Wars begin.
[Hermit 6] Hope is such a forlorn thing in comparison to history. When it
comes to making predictions, I prefer history. And history shows that the US
prefers others to pay for her “mistakes” – and she has her own economic
troubles these days, or hadn’t you noticed?
[Joe Dees 7] And does not want to leave a base from which more 'economic
troubles' might be launched.
[Hermit 7] It seems to me, more like a case of “All your base are belong to
us.”
[Hermit 3] and Mssrs Vladimir Putin and Ariel Sharon are happily killing
their own "terrorists".
[Joe Dees 6] The term does not deserve qualifying quotes when applied to the
suicide bombers and machine-gunners of massed civilians.
[Hermit 6] Ask the missing population of Chechnya – if you can find them.
After all, their cities have been demolished. Or ask the missing population
of the Palestine – remember there are 6 million Palestinians sitting around
as “Displaced Persons” in other Arab countries. And Mr. Arafat has just told
them that they won’t be going home. In contrast to International law, the
Israelis won’t let them. And the US is going along with that. In any case,
every Israeli, man and woman, from 18 to 55, is a soldier. Does a soldier
count as a civilian when wearing civilian clothes? Meanwhile the
Palestinians left in the Palestine are not soldiers. They are disarmed
civilians, herded into 20% to 30% of a country that once was theirs,
embargoed and blockaded, regularly attacked by ground attack fighters,
helicopters and tanks, helpfully paid for or provided to Israel by the US
government. In both cases, the quotations are deserved.
[Joe Dees 7] Oh, exCUUUUUSE me; I was under the impression that those
suicide bombings and machine-gunnings of Israelis that happens almost daily
was perpetrated by ARMED Palestinians! Obviously, the li'l Palestinian
david's must be tossing bullets at the big, bad Israeli goliaths with
slingshots! And what are the Israelis attacking? "Security installations"
where the snipers/palestinian authoriti police run to hide, "legitimate
factories" busy turning out mortars, and "innocent civilians" who are in the
business of wiring up the faithful to blow themselves to paradise.
[Hermit 7] Some small percentage of the Palestinians are armed. Almost every
Israeli is, despite some of the strictest gun laws on earth. But these laws
apply primarily to the Palestinians. Most Jews are in army or civil guard
units. Refer e.g. [url]http://www.jpfo.org/school.htm[/url] for more.
[Hermit 7] I notice that you don’t mention the Chechnyans or assert that the
Israelis are defenseless any more. I’ll take that as an improvement.
Meanwhile, I recommend you read today’s news
[url=http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-021202izpals.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dtodays%2Dtimes]Israel
Strikes Palestinian Compound in Gaza[url] to learn more about Israeli raids.
[quote] Apache helicopters carried out Monday's first strike shortly before
noon as the morning session of the school day ended and the afternoon
session began. Hundreds of schoolchildren were on streets crowded with
pedestrians when the first missiles slammed into the compound.[/quote] and
Israeli’s are now talking about their own, “final solution” despite the fact
that the intifada has seen 10 Palestinians killed and 100s maimed and
injured (frequently children) for every Jew. Here, read it for yourself,
[quote]"Our final goal should be to destroy the Palestinian Authority's
military capability and to break the terrorists' and the Palestinian
leadership's will to fight us," said Uzi Landau, public security minister.
"These things will be achieved through our continuous, extensive and
unrestricted action."[/quote] [supra]. Ask yourself what “unrestricted
action” could possibly mean in this context. Delightful, isn’t it.
[Joe Dees 7] There still has to be a few people who are aware of a majority
of the cells; we are particularly interested in Zubadayev (sp.?)
[Hermit 7] Ayman Zawahiri? The alleged “number two” man? We don’t even know
if he is alive or dead. The rumor is that he is dead, but nobody knows for
sure. And using Fuel-Air bombs that collapse the cave systems, as we are
doing, is going to make the job a great deal more difficult as in the long
term, as we will have to rely on the absence of rumors of the presence of
people to infer a kill. Not very reassuring at all. Of the FBI’s top 40
list, we have confirmed kills on at most 6. And as every anti-terrorism
expert knows, even had they all been killed, it would not seriously have
hindered their operations. E.g. [url]
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1716000/1716004.stm[url][quote]
For one thing, few of the al-Qaeda leaders have been apprehended or killed.
"The leadership is still at large. Only six or seven of the 30 senior
leaders have been eliminated," says Dr Magnus Ranstorp, deputy director of
the Centre for the Study of Terrorism and Political Violence at St Andrews
University in Scotland. Analysts warn further that - even if the al-Qaeda
leadership is somehow smashed - militant cells in the field can operate
without leadership from the top. They point out that modern terrorism tends
to be networked, with self-motivating groups. Only the leaders - not the
operatives - of the al-Qaeda network were in Afghanistan… Cells exist in
many countries around the world," he said - and those cells can operate
without instructions from a central commander…. "Localised cells have the
ability to launch operations without the leadership," he pointed out. … He
said there were 4,000 to 5,000 people worldwide who had been through highly
specialised terrorist training provided by al-Qaeda, and "at least 20,000 to
30,000 individuals able to impart some training, advice and experience to a
new generation" of militants… "It is a mammoth task to unearth all these
networks," he said. … It would be a misnomer to think that the US can win
the war on terrorism," he said.[/quote]
[HJS 6] Joe Dees argued that preventing possible but unlikely conversion of
desperately needed water purification and sewage processing equipment into
chemical weapons that might (no matter how unlikely) be used against the US,
was and is more important than the thousands of children dying a day because
the US destroyed the infrastructure needed to sustain civilian health in
Iraq not once, but twice over. I am not going to summarize the following, as
nobody will believe it.
[Joe Dees 7] Not just the US, but Saddam's own citizens and those of
neighboring nations.
[Hermit 7] Why don’t we “kill them all” in case some of them try to revenge
themselves on a people who can attempt to justify this kind of insanity.
Where exactly is he going to bulk produce poison gas? In the palace
kitchens? How is he going to deliver poison gas in any kind of volume?
Flying saucers? For his own population, if he wanted to kill them, bullets
are a much more effective and vastly cheaper proposition. So far the
evidence points to the fact that is the USA who wishes to kill Iraqis, not
Mr. Hussein.
[Hermit 2] A slippery slope argument from you? The fact that this decision
[Hermit 6: Not to allow access to water purification equipment] results
directly in the death of hundreds of thousands of children does not bother
you at all? You agree with the immortal words of Madeleine Albright when she
told CBS in 1996 that containing Iraq was worth the death of 500,000 Iraqi
children? [url]http://home.att.net/~drew.hamre/docAlb.htm[/url]
[Joe Dees 3] It might sound heartless and cruel, but we are facing a
heartless and cruel adversary; better theirs than mine, and they are
actively seeking to reify the second alternative.
[Hermit 7] Does all this mean that your answer is “Yes”?
[Hermit 3] If they are reciprocating, it is difficult to blame them.
[Joe Dees 7] I just want to prevent Saddam from doing what he so badly wants
to do to us, by all means necessary and sufficient.
[Hermit 7] How do you know that this is his intention? Although, as above, I
wouldn’t blame him if it were. After all, you still haven’t answered the
question. Do you consider killing Iraqi children to be necessary and
sufficient to this purpose? If so, I think this may be the most evil and
certainly the most insane thing I have heard in years. Did you know that
Jewish mothers are considered to be protective? Did you know that Arab
families as a whole have a reputation for being more than a little that way
inclined? How the hell would the US react if you heard that Mr. Hussein had
said the above about the children of the US? Would you liken him to Hitler?
Or worse? Would you dare to attempt to deny it? Given what seems to be the
gist of your assertions here, how can you possibly imagine that he is wrong
in his opinion of the US?
[Joe Dees 6] The WTC attack came BEFORE we went after the perpetrators; if
anything, WE are reciprocating, so i guess you can hardly blame us, ayy?
[Hermit 6] 500,000 plus dead Iraqi children, a million plus dead Iraqi
adults. This was between 1990 and 2001, but is continuing. 3,000 plus dead
Americans on 2001-09-11. I think Joe Dees has before and after mixed up – as
well as scale – as well as having provided the most compelling reason I have
heard to date why sympathy is wasted on Utic Americans.
[Joe Dees 7] I think that you are intentionally mixing unrelated things
(Iraq and Afghanistan) purposefully here to cover your own lacunae. Osama
Bin Laden did not attack the US because of Iraq; JAYZUS!, he offered his
mujaheddin to Saudi Arabia in a jihad AGAINST Iraq in the Gulf War (they
wisely rebuffed him and requested US assistance instead). He also did not
attack us because of the Palestinian issue,
which he had not mentioned until he thought he could gain some sympathy from
it in 1997. His most concentrated gripe is that the soles of infidel shoes
dared to soil the sacred soil of Saudi arabia, the nation housing the
holiest shrines of Islam. And his more general gripe is that nonmuslims not
only exist, but are not under the dhimmitude of good Muslims and sharia law.
These issues caanot be negotiated with him.
[Hermit 7] If you assume that US actions against one group of Muslims does
not affect the attitude and feelings of others, then you have a serious
reality gap. If you assume that these things are unrelated then you can’t
have thought much about bin Laden. Look especially at 1967, 1974, 1989 and
1990, and then dig back to your own recent post where you attempt to tie 911
to an Iraqi Intelligence Officer. See your trouble? Consider that his
introduction to fanatical Islam was at the hands of an embittered
Palestinian. Consider his perception of betrayal of Afghanistan at the hands
of the US. Consider that for hundreds of years, it was death for a kaf’ir to
set foot in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holy of holies – as it would have been
for a Muslim to step into a church. Consider how he felt about being tossed
out of Saudi Arabia – at American instigation. Then tell the above to the
marines. Kamel Abu Jaber predicted it in 1990, “If the United States
continues with what it’s doing…, there is no question that the region is in
for a long period of terrorism, Islamic fundamentalism, and terrific
hatred.” How come the US was unable to see the likely outcome of their
murderous choices? How come you still can’t see it? And no, before you
attempt to impugn me again, I am not saying that 911 is justified by the
above, I am saying that bin Laden, and Saddam Hussein both have “rational”
reasons driving them, just as President Bush presumably has “rational”
reasons behind his “messianic” campaign, and presumably, as you have driving
yourself. Recognizing this will allow negotiation. And in the absence of any
other route that will not lead to more harm and bitterness, negotiation is a
good step to attempt.
Apropos of something, can you give me a source for your oft-repeated
assertion that he wished to defend Saudi Arabia against the infidel Saddam
Hussein?
[b][u]Hermits Modern Middle East Time Line (Iraq/bin Laden)[/b][/u]
1920 April 25 - Iraq is placed under British mandate.
1921 August 23 - Faysal, son of Hussein Bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca, is
crowned Iraq's first king.
1932 October 3 - Iraq becomes an independent state.
1957 Osama bin Laden is born in Saudi Arabia. He is the 17th of 52 children
of construction magnate Muhammad Awad bin Laden, an immigrant from
neighboring Yemen, who runs a construction company, the Saudi bin Laden
Group. His mother, one of four wives of Muhammad bin Laden, was Syrian by
some accounts, Palestinian by others.
1958 July 14 - The Iraqi monarchy is overthrown in a military coup led by
Brig Abd-al-Karim Qasim and Col Abd-al-Salam Muhammad Arif with CIA
involvement. Iraq is declared a republic and Qasim becomes prime minister
1961 Kuwait becomes independent
1963 February 8 - Qasim is ousted in a coup led by the Arab Socialist Ba'th
Party (ASBP) with CIA involvement. Arif becomes president. 18 November - The
Ba'thist government is overthrown by Arif and a group of officers.
1966 April 17 - After Arif is killed in a helicopter crash on 13 April (CIA
involvement?), his elder brother, Maj-Gen Abd-al-Rahman Muhammad Arif,
succeeds him as president.
1967 bin Laden’s father dies in a helicopter accident when he is 10. He
eventually inherits a share of the family fortune. June 5, Israel launches
the six-day war against Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq.
1968 July 17- A Ba'thist led-coup again with CIA involvement ousts Arif and
Gen Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr becomes president.
1970 March 11 - The Revolution Command Council (RCC) and Mullah Mustafa
Barzani, leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), sign a peace
agreement.
1972 - A 15-year Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation is signed between Iraq
and the Soviet Union. Iraq nationalizes the Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC).
1974 In implementation of the 1970 agreement, Iraq grants limited autonomy
to the Kurds but the KDP rejects it. bin Laden marries for the first time
at age 17 to a Syrian cousin. Bin Laden attends King Abdul Aziz University
in Jidda, studying for a degree in civil engineering, achieving high grades
in everything he attempts. One of his teachers is Abdullah Azzam, a
Palestinian (and the first major link to the Palestine) who played a large
role in his assumption of a fanatical Islamic stance.
1975 March - At a meeting of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting
Countries (OPEC) in Algiers, Iraq and Iran sign a treaty ending their border
disputes.
1979 July 16 - President Al-Bakr resigns and is succeeded by Vice-President
Saddam Hussein. bin Laden goes to Afghanistan to help Afghan resistance
fighters, known as the mujahedeen, repel the Soviet invasion of the country.
Abdullah Azzam founds an organization to provide assistance to the
mujahedeen. Bin Laden becomes the chief financier of the organization, which
evolves into a group known as al Qaeda (the base). The Arabs assisting the
mujahedeen become known as "Arab Afghans."
1980 April 1 - The pro-Iranian Da'wah Party claims responsibility for an
attack on Deputy Prime Minister, Tariq Aziz, at Mustansiriyah University,
Baghdad. 4 September - Iran shells Iraqi border towns (Iraq considers this
as the start of the Iran/Iraq war). 17 September - Iraq abrogates the 1975
treaty with Iran. 22 September - Iraq attacks Iranian air bases. 23
September - Iran bombs Iraqi military and economic targets.
1981 June 7 - Israel attacks an Iraqi nuclear research centre at Tuwaythah
near Baghdad.
1988 March 16 - Iraq is accused of having used chemical weapons against
Iranian troops in the Kurdish town of Halabjah. 20 August - A ceasefire
comes into effect to be monitored by the UN Iran-Iraq Military Observer
Group (UNIIMOG).
1989 After the Soviets pull out of Afghanistan, bin Laden returns to Saudi
Arabia to work for the family construction firm. He uses his network to
raise funds for veterans of the Afghan war.
1990 March 15 - Farzad Bazoft, an Iranian-born journalist with the London
Observer newspaper, accused of spying on a military installation, is hanged
in Baghdad. August 2 - Iraq invades Kuwait and is condemned by United
Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 660 which calls for full
withdrawal. August 3 - The House of Saud allows U.S. troops to be stationed
in Saudi Arabia following US threats to terminate air defense flights if
this is not granted. Bin Laden, outraged by the U.S. military presence in
Saudi Arabia, begins to write complicated religious arguments against the
Saudi regime and US support for Israel. August 4 - The European Community,
an alliance of 12 nations, ban imports of Iraqi oil. August 5 - US deploys
first US aircraft in Saudi Arabia. August 6 - UNSC Resolution 661 imposes
economic sanctions on Iraq. August 7 - US announces “Operation Desert
Shield” to deploy some 230,000 troops to Saudi Arabia (when Iraq continued
to build up forces (approaching 300,000 men), George Bush deployed an
additional 200,000 troops for a offensive action by the U.S. August 8 - Iraq
announces the merger of Iraq and Kuwait. August 10 The Arab League, a
coalition of Middle Eastern nations, votes to send troops to aid the U.S.
operation. August 15 - Saddam Hussein announces that the 9,000 North
American, European, and Australian citizens in Kuwait are now prisoners of
Iraq. August 22 - President Bush activates Reserve forces, the first such
call-up since the Vietnam War. August 25 The UN Security Council authorizes
American naval forces in the Persian Gulf to enforce the trade embargo.
November 29 - UNSC Resolution 678 authorizes the states cooperating with
Kuwait to use "all necessary means" to uphold UNSC Resolution 660 and sets a
deadline of January 15, 1991 for Iraq to withdraw totally and
unconditionally from Kuwait. This leads directly to the Persian Gulf War.
December 6 - Hussein frees the 9,000 hostages.
1991 January 9 - Peace talks between U.S. Secretary of State James A. Baker,
III and Iraqi representative Tariq Aziz end in a stalemate due to US refusal
to agree not to attack Iraq in the event of an unconditional withdrawal.
January 10 - Congress begins debate on a resolution authorizing President
Bush to use force to expel the Iraqis from Kuwait. January 12 - The
resolution passes in both houses of Congress by narrow margins. January 16
-17 - The Gulf War starts when the coalition forces begin aerial bombing of
Iraq ("Operation Desert Storm"). February 13 - US planes destroy an air raid
shelter at Amiriyah in Baghdad, killing over 300 people. February 15 –
Saddam Hussein proposes a peace plan. George Bush calls the proposal "a
cruel hoax." February 22 George Bush rejects a peace plan designed by
Scharzkopf and the Soviets calling for a gradual withdrawal, which Iraq has
accepted, and instead gives Iraq an impossible ultimatum to withdraw from
Kuwait by noon the following day. February 24 - The start of a ground
operation. February 25 - An Iraqi Scud missile hits an American military
barracks in Saudi Arabia, killing 28 soldiers and injuring 97 more. February
26 Allies enter Kuwait City. Iraqi troops try to take the main road out,
causing a huge traffic jam. Coalition aircraft bomb the road, killing in
excess of 10,000 Iraqi troops. Iraqi army sets fire to over 500 of Kuwait's
oil wells in an attempt to provide smoke cover for chaotic retreat under
devastating fire. February 27 Kuwait liberated Bush orders a unilateral
cease-fire. The largest tank battle since World War II takes place. Hundreds
of Coalition tanks, armored infantry vehicles, and combat helicopters
destroy 200 Iraqi tanks. No Coalition losses are reported. February 28 –
Saddam Hussein accepts a peace fire. March 3- Iraq formally accepts the
terms of a ceasefire. March 4. First allied prisoners released.
Mid-March/early April - Iraqi forces suppress rebellions in the south and
the north of the country. April 3 - The UN Security Council orders Iraq to
cancel its annexation of Kuwait, assume liability for war damages, and
disclose all stocks of nuclear and chemical weapons. April 6 – Formal
Peace-fire signed. April 8 - A plan announced by the US for the
establishment of a UN safe-haven in northern Iraq, north of latitude 36
degrees north, for the protection of the Kurds, is approved at a European
Union meeting in Luxembourg. April 10, the USA orders Iraq to end all
military activity in this area. Bin Laden is expelled from Saudi Arabia due
to the CIA providing evidence of his anti-government activities. He takes
refuge in Sudan. Eventually, Saudi Arabia revokes his citizenship, and his
family disowns him as well.
1992 August 22 - A no-fly zone, excluding flights of Iraqi planes, is
established in southern Iraq, south of latitude 32 degrees north.
1993 In February, a bomb at the World Trade Center kills six and wounds
hundreds. Six Muslim radicals, who U.S. officials suspect have links to bin
Laden, are eventually convicted for the bombing. 27 June - US forces launch
a cruise missile attack on Iraqi intelligence headquarters in Al-Mansur
district, Baghdad in retaliation for the alleged proposed assassination of
US President, George Bush, in Kuwait in April..October, 18 U.S. servicemen
who are part of a humanitarian mission to Somalia are killed in an ambush in
Mogadishu. Bin Laden later says that some of the Arab Afghans were involved
in the killings and calls Americans "paper tigers" because they withdrew
from Somalia shortly after the soldiers' deaths.
1994 November 10 - The Iraqi National Assembly recognizes Kuwait's borders
and its independence.
1995 14 April - UNSC Resolution 986 allows the partial resumption of Iraq's
oil exports to buy food and medicine ( the "oil-for-food programme"). A
truck bombing at a military base in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, kills five
Americans and two Indians. August - Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Gen Hussein
Kamil Hasan al-Majid, Minister of Industry and Minerals, as well as Director
of the Military Industrialization Organization (MIO), his brother, Saddam,
and their families, leave Iraq and are granted asylum in Jordan. 31 August -
Iraqi forces launch an offensive into the northern no-fly zone and capture
Arbil. October 15 - Saddam Hussein wins a referendum allowing him to remain
president for another 7 years.
1996 February 20 - Hussein Kamil Hasan al-Majid and his brother, promised a
pardon by Saddam Hussein, return to Baghdad and are killed on February 23.
May 21, The "oil-for-food programme" is accepted by Iraq. Under pressure
from the United States and Saudi Arabia, the Sudanese expel bin Laden from
the country. Bin Laden moves with his 10 children and three wives (he is
rumored to have since added a fourth) to Afghanistan. Bin Laden declares a
jihad, or holy war, against U.S. forces. Nineteen U.S. soldiers die in a
bombing of the Khobar military complex in Saudi Arabia. The United States
indicts bin Laden on charges of training the people involved in the 1993
attack that killed 18 U.S. servicemen in Somalia. August 31 - In response to
a call for aid from the KDP, Iraqi forces launch an offensive into the
northern no-fly zone and capture of Arbil. September 3 - The US extends the
northern limit of the southern no-fly zone to latitude 33 degrees north,
just south of Baghdad. 31 October - Iraq ends all forms of cooperation with
the UN Special Commission to Oversee the Destruction of Iraq's Weapons of
Mass Destruction (Unscom). November 22 - Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri,
Vice-Chairman of the RCC, escapes an assassination attempt when visiting
Karbala. December 12 - Saddam Hussein's elder son, Uday, is seriously
wounded in an assassination attempt in Baghdad's Al-Mansur district.
December, the "oil-for-food programme" is implemented.
1998 Bin Laden declares that Muslims should kill Americans, civilians
included, wherever they can find them. On August 7, a pair of truck bombs
explodes outside the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania, killing 224 people. On August 20, U.S. President Clinton orders
cruise missile attacks against suspected terrorist training camps in
Afghanistan and a pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan, that he says is
owned by bin Laden and involved in making chemical weapons. Subsequent
evidence shows the accusations to have been seriously flawed. October 31 -
Iraq ends all forms of cooperation with the UN Special Commission to Oversee
the Destruction of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction (Unscom). November,
The United States indicts bin Laden on charges of masterminding the attacks
on the U.S. embassies. December 16-19 - After UN staff are evacuated from
Baghdad, the USA and UK launch a bombing campaign, "Operation Desert Fox",
to destroy Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programmes.
1999 January 4 - Iraq asks the UN to replace its US and UK staff in Iraq.
February 19 - Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, spiritual
leader of the Shi'i sect, is assassinated in Najaf. December 17 - UNSC
Resolution 1284 creates the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection
Commission (Unmovic) to replace Unscom. Iraq rejects the resolution.
2000 March 1 - Hans Blix assumes the post of Executive Chairman of Unmovic.
March 27 - In the National Assembly elections, Saddam Hussein's son, Uday,
becomes a member for Baghdad Governorate's fifth constituency. Algerian
Ahmed Ressam pleads guilty in connection with a failed plot to bomb Los
Angeles International Airport during the millennium celebrations. He claims
he was trained in urban warfare and explosives at an Afghanistan camp run by
bin Laden. August - Reopening of Baghdad airport, followed by a stream of
international flights organized by countries and organizations to campaign
against sanctions. The flights are labeled humanitarian missions to comply
with UN sanctions on commercial flights into and out of Iraq. October Iraq
resumes domestic passenger flights. The Iraqi Airways flights are the first
since the 1991 Gulf War. The airliners take off from Baghdad and fly through
the no-fly zones imposed by the US and UK. November - Deputy Prime Minister
Tariq Aziz rejects new weapons inspection proposals. December 1 - Iraq halts
its oil exports after the United Nations rejected its request that buyers
pay a 50-cent-a-barrel surcharge into an Iraqi bank account not controlled
by the UN. December 31 - Despite rumors surrounding his health, Saddam
Hussein stages a huge show of military strength two weeks before the 10th
anniversary of the Gulf War.
2001 January 20 - On becoming 43rd president, George W Bush signals a new
get-tough policy and vows to "re-invigorate" sanctions against Iraq.
February - Britain, United States carry out bombing raids to try disable
Iraq's air defence network. The bombings have little international support.
Iraq complains about ongoing raids. February, bin Laden appears in public
at his son's wedding in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where the Taliban's spiritual
leader lives. Iraq establishes free-trade zone agreements with neighbouring
countries. Rail link with Turkey re-opened in May for first time since 1981.
May - Saddam Hussein's son Qusay elected to the leadership of the ruling
Baath Party, fuelling speculation that he's being groomed to succeed his
father. May 29 Four of bin Laden's alleged supporters are convicted of the
1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Africa. Following the September 11
terrorism attacks in the United States, the U.S. government names bin Laden
as a prime suspect.
2002 January - Iraq invites a UN human rights expert to visit for the first
time since envoys were banned from the country in 1992.
[hr]
[HJS 6] Hermit argues for the rule of law, and the same law for everyone,
including the US, in a public court so that justice can be seen to be done.
[Joe Dees 7] And that would be sharia law, the only kind that certain
parties would accept, judged by accredited mullahs?
[Hermit 7] While this impinges on the Virian Politics issue, I will try to
sketch out the envisaged functioning (borrowing from a document in
progress).
[Hermit 7] No. It would not be that kind of a court, any more than it would
act as any other kind of national court. After all, European nations won’t
release accused to the US courts where there is any probability that the
prisoners will receive a death sentence unless the US agrees not to apply it
before hand, as they have determined that the US courts can be as barbaric
as the US finds Sharia (and they may be right). Think on it. Any court of
this sort, to be workable, will have to operate in a fashion that everyone
perceives as equitable and just. And that hasn’t happened yet and is
unlikely to happen any time soon. So compromise will be needed.
[Hermit 7] The principle compromise will have to be on sentencing and agreed
crimes. Nobody responsible is going to hand somebody over to be treated in a
way they consider to be barbaric, yet everyone agrees that certain actions
hurt society. That creates a bolus of law that can be applied today, and
hopefully will be extended over time. Creating an organization that takes
rights and norms into account and deals only in matters that affect the
International community is what makes this feasible.
[Hermit 7] If we ever stop rehashing this topic, I can, I think show you how
we can achieve a lot more than the above using the same system.
[Hermit 7] The proposed court system is a three level system designed to
establish an International capacity to rapidly and fairly ensure the
implementation of agreed human rights to all people, to balance individual
rights and the exigencies of society and circumstance and to act on behalf
of mankind to regulate the interactions of nations in order to minimize
suffering. On the one hand, they act in equity, guided by the Helsinki
declaration and evaluate and attempt to balance any alleged denials of
rights public and private. On the other hand, they adjudicate, in law, any
supposed contravention of the various existing Internationally agreed laws,
including “Crimes against Humanity” (including “Genocide” and “War crimes”)
as well as “Crimes against Peace” (which involve transgressions against the
UN articles), determining if such a crime has been committed and the degree
of guilt of any party. These courts are entitled to assume jurisdiction on
any regulations propagated by the UN from time to time, which the court
determines is appropriate for it to deal with, or to delegate its powers.
International terrorism and broadly recognized international crimes (e.g.
slavery) might be examples of appropriate issues for this court to consider.
[Hermit 7] In the event that a party is judged guilty of some infringement,
remedies and sentences and fines would normally be assessed by the country
where an alleged crime had occurred or the country of citizenship of a
defendant, unless it involved a reversal of a national court decision or a
judgment against a country, in which case the superior court would make a
decision on the first, and ultimately, the UN on the second. The existing
Luxembourg courts might provide both a role model and a potential starting
point.
[Joe Dees 6] Or giving homicidal nobodies a chance to make a public name for
themselves whilst they preach their cause in the media, like we did with Bin
Laden himself. The difference is that he had money; a lot of fanatics would
give their lives to take out a bunch of infidels, and the chance, if they
survive, to denounce the hated and despised unbelievers on a soapbox for all
their fundie droogies to hear, applaud and aspire to is just gravy to them.
[Hermit 6] I watch the arguments put forward by Joe Dees, who above argued
why democracy won’t work,
[Joe Dees 7] I never argued that democracy wouldn't work, only that it takes
time for people who have lived their lives under religious hegemony, tribal
semi-anarchy, fascist military juntas, or weird combinations of the above,
to learn enough about what it is to make it work.
[Hermit 7] Reminds Joe Dees:
[list]
[HJS 6] Hermit notes that 40% of the country are now unrepresented.
[Joe Dees 6] One of the reasons for that is the fear that Pashtuns would be
sympathetic to and shielding of the Taliban, who were, like their leader
Omar, predominately Pashtun, and got their start in Pashtun Kandahar.
[/list]
[Hermit 7] And asks, is this democracy? You did not say the above before.
How many centuries do you think it will take in the Sudan before they are
ready for Democracy? In Rwanda? In Afghanistan? In Iran? In the United
States?
[Hermit 7] Democracy is dependent on an economic environment as well as upon
education.
[Hermit 6] then argued that deliberately killing children is acceptable,
[Joe Dees 7] That's Saddam's position; release me to kill you are I'll let
them die.
[Hermit 7] Reminds Joe Dees:
[list]
[Hermit 2] A slippery slope argument from you? The fact that this decision
[Hermit 6: Not to allow access to water purification equipment] results
directly in the death of hundreds of thousands of children does not bother
you at all? You agree with the immortal words of Madeleine Albright when she
told CBS in 1996 that containing Iraq was worth the death of 500,000 Iraqi
children? [url]http://home.att.net/~drew.hamre/docAlb.htm[/url]
[Joe Dees 3] It might sound heartless and cruel, but we are facing a
heartless and cruel adversary; better theirs than mine, and they are
actively seeking to reify the second alternative.
[/list]
[Hermit 7] This is not an argument justifying the deliberate targeting (we
knew that children would be the primary victims of our genocidal actions*)
and killing children is acceptable?
[Hermit 7] * Before you attempt to argue that we are not engaged in
genocidal actions, the deliberate destruction of life sustaining civilian
equipment and prevention of access to life sustaining necessities are both
defined as genocidal in the International treaty definition of Genocide
which we signed in the 1970s.
[Hermit 6] and now argues that the institution of law is counterproductive,
[Joe Dees 7] If it is the same, fair law, not hermit's version.
[Hermit 7] I remind Joe Dees:
[HJS 6] Hermit argues for the rule of law, and the same law for everyone,
including the US, in a public court so that justice can be seen to be done.
[Hermit 7] I wonder what it is about the law I suggested that Joe Dees does
not like?
[Hermit 7] I remind Joe Dees:
[Joe Dees 6] Or giving homicidal nobodies a chance to make a public name for
themselves whilst they preach their cause in the media, like we did with Bin
Laden himself. The difference is that he had money; a lot of fanatics would
give their lives to take out a bunch of infidels, and the chance, if they
survive, to denounce the hated and despised unbelievers on a soapbox for all
their fundie droogies to hear, applaud and aspire to is just gravy to them.
[Hermit 7] Arguing that courts should not be public and asserting that there
are different laws for rich and poor is to say that the institution of law
is counterproductive,
[Hermit 6] and wonder why I am wasting my time… I very much doubt that
anybody else agrees with this kind of argument anyway.
[Hermit 6] Which is why I will end this rebuttal here, despite the fact that
with a single exception, I have already done the work to rebut, no
devastate, Joe Dees' self-contradictory arguments. But in fact they don't
need rebuttal. It should be quite clear to anyone that if we hold ourselves
unaccountable to anyone, consider that no harm we do to others is
unjustifiable if we think that some threat might exist, and if we use
different rules for ourselves than we demand of others, then we are not
being just, we will create united opposition to ourselves and when our
society self-destructs, history will not be kind to us.
[Joe Dees 7] We have been for some time now the single strongest force for
democracy, egalitarianism, freedom of religion, speech and
self-determination, and the forces of progress and modernity in the world.
We remain so. If such people as Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein were indeed to
wield the global power that the US presently possesses, the world would be
such a hellhole that, from that parallel dystopia, the definition of utopia
would be here.
[Hermit 7] I would suggest that the above is unproven, and that the
combination of proven US behavior in Iraq and Joe Dees’ arguments together
make a far more devastating case against the veracity of the above, than any
enemy of the USA could come up with. The USA could be all the above and
more, but it would take a massive shift in attitude if Joe Dees is
representative of the current attitude. Certainly, so far as I can see,
Saddam Hussein has done nothing that the US has not done. The difference is
principally that he is not a superpower, so the US has done worse to more
people.
[Hermit 6] Fortunately, the above perspective is far from typical, even in
the United States.
[Joe Dees 7] In the US, many perspectives are allowed, unlike in Iraq and,
until recently,
Afghanistan.
[Hermit 7] Will Joe Dees dare to visit Afghanistan, stand on a street corner
and say, “There are no gods, Mohammed was a crude barbarian with primitive
ethics and Islam is the worst religion to exist in the world today?” Would
he dare to visit Tulsa Oklahoma and ask “Were President Bush's gods sleeping
on 911, or were they not powerful enough to stop the attack, or did they
just hate the US as much as bin Laden? Why do we still give these useless
but expensive gods still get shelf space.” Or even “What is wrong with
homosexuality with boys? If you are a Christian give me your children so
that I can show them what Jesus was doing with the ‘naked young man’ in the
Garden of Gethsemane!”
[Hermit 7] I wonder which of these three he would be most likely to survive?
If any.
[Hermit 6] The single issue which remains open is that of Nuclear
proliferation. I have not yet finished my research on that. And seeing that
I am currently working through the "Doomsday Clock" site, I think I will
finish this letter with a quote from one of its editors, Eugene Rabinowitz.
[quote]But American leadership--particularly the administration of Lyndon B.
Johnson--had not been up to the task. The great U.S. failure of the 1960s,
said Rabinowitch, was not so much a "sin of commission"--the Vietnam War--as
a "sin of omission," a failure to use American power and wealth in
imaginative ways to lead a worldwide mobilization of technical, economic,
and intellectual resources for the building of a viable world community.
The day of reckoning may be approaching, not in the form of American
withdrawal and communist takeover in the Far East, but in a wave of world
hunger, and the accompanying surge of world
anarchy."[/quote][url]http://www.thebulletin.org/clock.html[/url]
[Hermit 6] I argue that this is still true today, and that the arguments
made by Joe Dees are symptomatic of the mindset that created that earlier
failure, a failure of the imagination and a willful rejection of the lessons
of history.
[Joe Dees 7] I will address the Nuclear problem in another post, as I
maintain that it is the single overriding and irrefuteable consideration
logically entailing that we MUST topple
Saddam Hussein while we can do so conventionally, without finding ourselves
obliged to engage in a nuclear response to a nuclear attack.
[Hermit 7] Hermit suggests that nuclear attacks are so unlikely that the US
has permitted the construction of a new reactor in Iraq, even while we deny
them the equipment and supplies to purify water. Makes you think, doesn’t
it.
MemeTag*: 3001 < 500,000
*3001=Official WTC Death Toll : 500,000 = Less than the total number of
Iraqi children killed by US action to date. More Iraqi children die a month
because of our sanctions than the total number of people killed in the WTC
atrocity. Yet some Americans still think that it is worthwhile. Makes you
think. Doesn’t it?
[hr]
[url]http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/02/12/015.html[/url]
Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2002. Page 4
Putin Warns U.S. Not to Strike Iraq
The Associated Press
President Vladimir Putin warned against U.S. military action against Iraq,
saying that the situation in the Persian Gulf nation was different from
Afghanistan and that only the UN Security Council could sanction any attack.
In an interview published Monday in The Wall Street Journal, Putin called
his nation's partnership with the United States the key to stability in the
world. The two powers have reached a "new level of trust," he was quoted as
saying.
"This trust allows us, despite any differences or arguments on specific
issues, to avoid confrontation," Putin said.
Putin objected to U.S. President George W. Bush's inclusion of Iraq, Iran
and North Korea in what Bush called an "axis of evil" last month. Numerous
U.S. officials have suggested that Iraq could be next on the list of
countries to be attacked in the counterterrorism drive.
"We oppose the drawing up of blacklists," Putin told The Wall Street
Journal. He admitted that Iraq presented a "problem," but said, "Such
problems cannot be solved by one country alone."
He also defended the criminal cases opened recently against prominent
Russian business executives -- which some in the business community have
called politically motivated -- though he conceded that prosecutors and
police sometimes make mistakes.
"Naturally we have to improve the activity of our law enforcement
authorities, but the worst way of improving their work is to block all
action," Putin said.
[hr]
And:
[url]http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2002/02/12/013.html[/url]
Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2002. Page 3
Russia Backs Afghanistan Army Plan
The Associated Press
Maxim Marmur / AP
Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said Monday that Russia was ready to help
Afghanistan build a national army that would unite the country and be
deserving of trust from all Afghans.
Ivanov told Afghanistan's interim defense minister, Mohammed Fahim, who
arrived in Moscow on Sunday night for a seven-day visit, that Afghans could
count on Russian military and technological assistance. "Russia and
Afghanistan are bound by centuries-old ties, and we hope that Russia will
make a contribution to the peaceful settlement in Afghanistan," Ivanov said
after an 80-minute meeting with Fahim.
Following the 1979-89 Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Kremlin was a
key supporter and arms supplier for the anti-Taliban forces in the late
1990s. Last year, Moscow supplied about $34 million worth of arms to
anti-Taliban forces, Interfax reported, quoting military sources.
Fahim said Afghanistan was not seeking more weapons but was interested in
military cooperation to set up armed forces that would ensure that
Afghanistan never again becomes a host for terrorist groups. "Stability and
peace in Afghanistan mean stability and peace in the world," he said. "We
are interested in creating such a national army that will win the trust of
all Afghans."
Ivanov said Russia was eager for Afghanistan to develop into a stable,
democratic nation, and he promised that Russian assistance would come "not
only in military cooperation, but also in economic cooperation and
humanitarian help." Russia has already offered technical assistance in
setting up health-care facilities in Kabul and in repairing the Salang
Tunnel, which connects Afghanistan's north and south.
Fahim also met Monday with Emergency Situations Minister Sergei Shoigu to
discuss future joint projects, such as assistance in mine-clearing and help
in bringing electricity to Afghanistan's northern regions, Interfax
reported.
[hr]
The following is an interesting viewpoint – also from the Moscow Times. It
seems that American law is seen as being at least as bad as Sharia:
Friday, Nov. 23, 2001. Page VIII
Global Eye -- A Thirsty Evil
By Chris Floyd
Are you a terrorist? If you don't know, you'd better find out fast. Because
Uncle Sam's made a list and he's checking it twice -- "40 to 50 countries"
targeted for possible "U.S. action," according to America's securely-located
vice president, Dick "Chicken Hawk" Cheney. As the man says, a hard rain's
a-gonna fall.
So here's a simple test to check your moral worthiness and see if you can
escape God's -- sorry, Bush's -- all-devouring wrath. Have you ever gone out
for a beer and bought a Stella Artois instead of a Bud? Then you, my friend,
have engaged in a conspiracy to cause "adverse effects" to the economy of
the United States. And that makes you one of the evildoers.
So says the great Oval Object in his latest executive order, in which he
grants himself the power to have anyone he designates as a terrorist to be
tried by secret military tribunals and executed without appeal. Bush's dread
edict -- which of course takes effect without any input from that useless
appendage of a bygone era, the U.S. Congress -- covers anyone who "causes,
threatens to cause" or even "has as their aim" to cause "adverse effects"
on, among other things, the American economy or U.S. foreign policy.
As always, Bush alone retains the right to decide who is and who is not a
terrorist, just as he alone decides what constitutes an "adverse effect" on
the United States. Could be a bomb, a boycott, a protest, a tariff -- or the
wrong beer: it's his call.
The edict gives him the power to seize any non-U.S. citizen, in any country
on earth, and to subject him or her to secret summary justice. There is no
outside check or oversight of this exercise of universal dominion, and no
legal recourse for the accused -- not even to the laws of their own country.
Never has a single person in the history of the world laid claim to such
absolute power -- and commanded the military might to back it up. For we
should also note that Bush now has the authority to launch attacks against
any nation he chooses, at his own discretion, without a vote by Congress or
that other withered appendage, the United Nations.
And if you don't like it, pal, you can tell it to the judge. The military
judge. Just before he puts a bullet in your brain.
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 25 2002 - 13:28:43 MDT