|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
 Sat Sep 28, 2002 4:25 am
|
 |
|
Milestones on the Road to a Military Government in the United States
by Bill Christison
former CIA political analyst
"We have a war going on."
How many hundreds of times in the past year have you heard this tired excuse, mouthed as often by Democrats as Republicans to avoid serious debate? The speaker, generally self-righteous, always believes or at least pretends that he is supporting some policy vital to the fight against evil, either abroad or in the fatherland. The Bush administration itself chose to initiate open-ended, lengthy, and large-scale wars rather than treat the events of September 11 as a crime, and that opened the door. Since most U.S. citizens liked calling it war, our leaders then began using the "fact" of war to justify any other actions they wanted to take. At the same time they refused even to consider changing any of Washington's own provocative and hate-inducing foreign policies.
What happened first was that the U.S. military, taking few casualties itself, used its high-tech aerial firepower to kill many innocents in Afghanistan. Most of the bloodshed never appeared on U.S. boob-tubes. Because, one supposes, this first war continues and someone at a high level has decided that much of the information about it cannot yet be declassified, U.S. officials have publicly avoided even estimating the amount of this collateral bloodshed (although they do claim it is small). But no one in the U.S. considers the number killed in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to be small, and the number of innocents who died in Afghanistan from U.S. actions may well be higher.
Recently, the president and his handlers have been expanding their efforts to begin a second war, without bothering much to tie the expansion to terrorism. If they have their way, other wars will follow, and for years to come the U.S. will unless somehow the lunacy can be stopped spend untold billions beefing up the already bloated armed forces, the dozen or so redundant U.S. intelligence agencies, and the nation's flawed internal security organs. Deep deficits and an expanding national debt will surely result, but the Bush administration will accept them because "a war is going on". Washington will almost certainly pay no more than lip service to the poverty, health, water, food, and environmental problems facing both the global and the U.S. domestic economies, and in any case will allot only tiny resources to deal with them. As for future collateral bloodshed, the administration is unlikely to demonstrate any more concern than it has to date. And to date that concern has been almost wholly propagandistic.
Now a new development is emerging that threatens to change the structure and society of the United States itself. The Bush administration, consciously or unconsciously, is taking the first steps to create an out-and-out military government. Look at the current discussion in Washington. The question of U.S. policy toward Iraq should be a political issue, not a military one. Yet it is quite clear that the leadership in the Department of Defense (DOD) has more influence today over U.S. policy on Iraq than anyone in the State Department. We all know that the top officials at Defense are highly committed hawks on Iraq, and that these same ideologically committed hawks are also the strongest supporters in Washington of the right-wing Sharon government in Israel, which is about the only other country in the world committed to overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
This has not been the only warning of an effort to concentrate power over U.S. foreign policies in the Defense Department rather than the State Department. Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defense, recently made a public statement supporting both Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and the Jewish settlements in these areas. These are the settlements, of course, that the Sharon government regards as permanent and perpetually expandable. Rumsfeld's statement was definitely out of line with other recent U.S. policy statements on the Israel-Palestine problem, but scarce a corrective cheep came from the State Department .
Why did this happen? Perhaps it was just that Colin Powell mentally at least was on vacation. It was August, after all, and the president was on vacation, too. Maybe the lesson here is simply that if you're a good Washington in-fighter and bureaucratic risk-taker, as Rumsfeld certainly is, August is not a bad month to stick around the office and create a few little faits accomplis that might later pay you back handsomely. More likely, though, Rumsfeld already knew that both the president and the vice-president in their hearts, and particularly in this congressional-election year, would support his statement. Nevertheless, the result is still that the U.S. military establishment is playing a more dominant role than usual on a foreign policy issue that is distinctly political. The Israel-Palestine issue is one in which U.S. military forces are not even directly involved.
In the intelligence area as well, two moves are underway that Rumsfeld hopes will give Defense a larger role in foreign policy. One is a proposal that would give the military the power to carry out more covert operations independently of the CIA, and the other is a request that the Congress authorize a new, very senior slot for the DOD, a new undersecretary of defense to be responsible for all intelligence matters in the department. Both of these steps, if implemented, would further reduce the already limited influence that the Director of Central Intelligence has over the intelligence elements of the DOD, but that is not important.
Two points about these proposals, however, are vital. The first is particularly relevant to those of us who believe the U.S. should engage in less covert action, not more. Rumsfeld's proposal that the DOD be given greater authority to carry out covert actions would surely lead to more of them, especially since the CIA would continue executing such actions as well. Pressures would inevitably develop between the two agencies to compete and to duplicate. Rumsfeld's proposal should be rejected, but at the same time covert actions should also be removed from the responsibilities of the present CIA. What should happen is that the analytical half of the present CIA should be split from the operational, or spooky, half. Even without real control over the many other intelligence agencies, the CIA with its two halves is still too powerful. The operational half should become a smaller body with a new name and be run directly out of the White House, with the president by law personally responsible, along with others (see next paragraph), for every single covert action. No covert intelligence actions abroad, except for strictly tactical military intelligence collection during a declared war, should be carried out by any other intelligence agencies.
The second vital point is that the approval process for covert actions should by legislation be made intentionally more difficult. Every covert action should be approved personally, in writing and in detail, by the president and by the chairmen of the Senate and House committees responsible for intelligence, foreign affairs, and military affairs. An additional proposal, important to me but as yet accepted by no one else, is that all covert actions should be approved, also formally and in writing, by the chief justice of the Supreme Court. All three branches of the government should be involved, and each branch should have a veto power. The chief justice does not have to be an expert on foreign affairs. All he or no doubt in years to come, she needs is a knowledge of constitutional law and an understanding of behaviors that are or are not acceptable to decent people, both in this country and around the world. These proposals would almost certainly reduce drastically, in my opinion the number of covert actions undertaken by the government and give greater legitimacy to the few that survived the complete approval process.
The intention here is less to argue that the Bush administration is intentionally driving to create a military government in this country, than to predict that its actions, unless countered, will inevitably lead to this result. We have a president with little experience, lots of machismo, a correct belief that "war" has made him popular, and a mindset strong on blacks and whites but weak on grays and pastels. We have a secretary of state inordinately loyal to the president's family and apparently unwilling to confront the president on any substantive matter. And then we have a group of committed ideologues headed by two close friends, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, and supported by the number-two and number-three men at the DOD, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith, as well as others in and out of government. All are rabid supporters of right-wing conservatism, vast military spending, U.S. unilateralism, imperialism, and global domination; and most are equally fanatice supporters of Israel.
Strengthened by the events of September 11, this group has come to dominate the views of the president and therefore the foreign policies of the U.S. It is serendipitous that both Cheney and Rumsfeld have had lengthy experience in heading the DOD over several decades. They naturally put some of their trusted advisers including Wolfowitz and Feith in top positions under Rumsfeld. And that made the DOD the natural bureaucratic base for the group now dominating U.S. foreign policies.
President Bush probably has not given the slightest thought to the question of whether he is helping to set up a nucleus inside the DOD that might control the country's foreign policy as long as he is president. It's very likely that Rumsfeld has thought about this, however, and probably regards the prospect with pleasure. If Bush becomes a two-term president, Rumsfeld can look forward either to another six years, or as long as he wants until retirement, of being an extraordinarily powerful person. There will be Bush, good friend Cheney (or a much less powerful VP if Cheney departs the scene), and below them no one else matching Rumsfeld's own power. He could be excused for anticipating that he would pretty much dominate all aspects of the foreign policy and military scene. He is probably not even very worried about competition from the only other power center that might emerge the group that coalesces around the head, whoever it will be, of the new Homeland Security Department.
Rumsfeld has already set up a new command within the DOD that covers the continental U.S., and this alone will give him major influence over the issue of homeland security. In any domestic emergency, he will control more resources, equipment, and personnel than even the ballyhooed new department. As mentioned above, he is also already working hard to strengthen his influence over the U.S. intelligence establishment, which is another arena in which he might expect some competition from the head of the new department. Since he's on the ground and already running, he has a leg up in this competition.
In any event, if things go Rumsfeld's way, by the time he ends his term in office, he may well have so jiggered and reorganized the foreign affairs bureaucracy and its procedures that he will have established a new status quo in Washington. It won't really matter that George W. Bush, Richard Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld perhaps didn't do it all deliberately, and that maybe in part it just happened. We will be far closer to a military government than we are now, and reversing the trend won't be easy. Voters in this country had better start reversing this process in the 2002 election and finish the job in 2004.
Otherwise, pity the poor State Department. And the next president, whoever he may be. And pity the rest of us, too.
* * * * * * *
RIGHT NOW IS THE TIME TO GET OUT AND DEMONSTRATE AGAINST THE WARS OUR GOVERNMENT IS LEADING US INTO. Kathy and I can't think of another time when our own government has made as critical a mess in the world as the one we now face. Even demonstrating on busy street corners with a group of friends for an hour once a week can be helpful. We have two signs that have elicited more reactions than most others we've tried, and maybe you'll enjoy them.
One reads:
WAR AGAINST IRAQ
MAKES YOU THE
EVIL-DOER,
MR. BUSH
The other reads:
NO TO WAR
HONK FIVE TIMES
(LONG, SHORT, LONG, LONG, LONG)
-- _ -- -- --
("NO" IN MORSE CODE)
Many people slow down to read both of these signs, and we receive many thumbs-up and honks of NO in Morse. Of course, we also get a few yells of "Nuke 'em" and "F--- you." But that's life in the slow lane of Santa Fe, NM.
Bill Christison joined the CIA in 1950, and served on the analysis side of the Agency for 28 years. From the early 1970s he served as National Intelligence Officer (principal adviser to the Director of Central Intelligence on certain areas) for, at various times, Southeast Asia, South Asia and Africa. Before he retired in 1979 he was Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis, a 250-person unit. His wife Kathy also worked in the CIA, retiring in 1979. Since then she has been mainly preoccupied by the issue of Palestine.
[Edited 5 times, lastly by Mech on 09-28-2002] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Sep 28, 2002 5:13 am
|
|
|
PHOTOS 9/28/2002 WASHINGTON DC IMF/IRAQ PROTEST
What First Amendment Rights?
POLICE STATE AMERICA...Are You safe now?
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 09-28-2002] |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Sat Sep 28, 2002 4:34 pm
|
|
|
 The Massacre of Withdrawing Soldiers on "The Highway of Death"
International War Crimes Tribunal"
Abdali Road - Kuwait -Pictures"
quote:
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/Human_Rights/geneva1.html
quote:
According to U.S. Army estimates, 25,000 hapless people were massacred on these highways.31 "Iraq accepted UN Resolution 660 and offered to withdraw from Kuwait through Soviet mediation on February 21, 1991. A statement made by George Bush on February 27, 1991, that no quarter would be given to remaining Iraqi soldiers violates even the U.S. Field Manual of 1956. The 1907 Hague Convention governing land warfare also makes it illegal to declare that no quarter will be given to withdrawing soldiers." The intent obviously was to destroy Iraq’s military once and for all, not to force it out of Kuwait--something already accomplished.
http://www.renaissance.com.pk/mjunrefl961.html
"THE UNITED STATES ARMY FIELD MANUAL - The Law of Land Warfare, 1956"
________________________________________________________________
War Crimes Court Opens for Business
________________________________________________________________
Published on Thursday, May 23, 2002 in the Boston Globe
US Pushes to Keep Its Troops Exempt From World Court
______________________________________________________________
Bush says U.S. will try to end stalemate over international court, won't join
Tue Jul 2,12:13 PM ET
By RON FOURNIER, AP White House Correspondent
___________________________________________________________________
Today: July 10, 2002 at 18:45:11 PDT
U.S. Backs Down From Immunity Demand
__________________________________________________________________
Today: July 12, 2002 at 10:55:18 PDT
U.N. Nears Deal on Crimes Tribunal
__________________________________________________________________
Today: July 12, 2002 at 19:25:10 PDT
U.N. Passes Deal on War Crimes Court
ASSOCIATED PRESS ___________________________________________________________________
Europeans open door to world court immunity
By Betsy Pisik
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
____________________________________________________________________
http://www.chemtrailcentral.com/ubb/Forum6/HTML/000712.html
[Edited 16 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 09-28-2002] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Sep 28, 2002 6:26 pm
|
|
|
US Adviser Warns of Armageddon
by Julian Borger in Washington and Richard Norton-Taylor
One of the Republican party's most respected foreign policy gurus yesterday appealed for President Bush to halt his plans to invade Iraq, warning of "an Armageddon in the Middle East".
The outspoken remarks from Brent Scowcroft, who advised a string of Republican presidents, including Mr Bush's father, represented an embarrassment for the administration on a day it was attempting to rally British public support for an eventual war.
The US national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, yesterday spelled out what she called the "very powerful moral case" for toppling Saddam Hussein. "We certainly do not have the luxury of doing nothing," she told BBC Radio 4's Today program. She said the Iraqi leader was "an evil man who, left to his own devices, will wreak havoc again on his own population, his neighbors and, if he gets weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, all of us".
But while Ms Rice was making the case for a pre-emptive strike, the rumble of anxiety in the US was growing louder. A string of leading Republicans have expressed unease at the administration's determination to take on President Saddam, but the most damning critique of Mr Bush's plans to date came yesterday from Mr Scowcroft.
The retired general, who also advised Presidents Nixon and Ford, predicted that an attack on Iraq could lead to catastrophe.
"Israel would have to expect to be the first casualty, as in 1991 when Saddam sought to bring Israel into the Gulf conflict. This time, using weapons of mass destruction, he might succeed, provoking Israel to respond, perhaps with nuclear weapons, unleashing an Armageddon in the Middle East," Mr Scowcroft wrote in the Wall Street Journal.
The Israeli government has vowed it would not stand by in the face of attacks as it did in 1991, when Iraqi Scud missiles landed on Israeli cities. It claims it has Washington's backing for retaliation.
Mr Scowcroft is the elder statesman of the Republican foreign policy establishment, and his views are widely regarded as reflecting those of the first President Bush. The fierceness of his attack on current administration policy illustrates the gulf between the elder Bush and his son, who has surrounded himself with far more radical ideologues on domestic and foreign policy.
In yesterday's article, Mr Scowcroft argued that by alienating much of the Arab world, an assault on Baghdad, would halt much of the cooperation Washington is receiving in its current battle against the al-Qaida organization.
"An attack on Iraq at this time would seriously jeopardize, if not destroy, the global counterterrorist campaign we have undertaken," Mr Scowcroft wrote.
Both the American and British governments are expected to time a public relations effort to rebuff the critics and build public support in the immediate run-up to an invasion.
Senior Whitehall figures say that crucial in that effort will be evidence that President Saddam is building up Iraq's chemical biological warfare capability and planning to develop nuclear weapons.
The US defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, confirmed yesterday that the Pentagon was considering a change in the status of a navy pilot shot down over Iraq 11 years ago. He is currently classified as "missing in action".
There have been reports that Lieutenant-Commander Michael Speicher was still being held by Iraq.
If he was reclassified as a prisoner of war, it would represent an additional source of conflict between Washington and Baghdad.
Guardian Newspapers Limited 2002
[Edited 2 times, lastly by Mech on 09-28-2002] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Sep 28, 2002 7:08 pm
|
|
|
BUSH Caught "red-handed" lieing!!!!!!!!!!
Agency disavows report on Iraq arms
By Joseph Curl
THE WASHINGTON TIMES September 27,2002
The International Atomic Energy Agency says that a report cited by President Bush as evidence that Iraq in 1998 was "six months away" from developing a nuclear weapon does not exist.
"There's never been a report like that issued from this agency," Mark Gwozdecky, the IAEA's chief spokesman, said yesterday in a telephone interview from the agency's headquarters in Vienna, Austria.
"We've never put a time frame on how long it might take Iraq to construct a nuclear weapon in 1998," said the spokesman of the agency charged with assessing Iraq's nuclear capability for the United Nations.
In a Sept. 7 news conference with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Mr. Bush said: "I would remind you that when the inspectors first went into Iraq and were denied — finally denied access [in 1998], a report came out of the Atomic — the IAEA that they were six months away from developing a weapon.
"I don't know what more evidence we need," said the president, defending his administration's case that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was building weapons of mass destruction.
The White House says Mr. Bush was referring to an earlier IAEA report.
"He's referring to 1991 there," said Deputy Press Secretary Scott McClellan. "In '91, there was a report saying that after the war they found out they were about six months away."
Mr. Gwozdecky said no such report was ever issued by the IAEA in 1991.
Many news agencies — including The Washington Times — reported Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 comments as referring to a 1998 IAEA report. The White House did not ask for a correction from The Times.
To clear up the confusion, Mr. McClellan cited two news articles from 1991 — a July 16 story in the London Times by Michael Evans and a July 18 story in the New York Times by Paul Lewis. But neither article cites an IAEA report on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program or states that Saddam was only six months away from "developing a weapon" — as claimed by Mr. Bush.
The article by Mr. Evans says: "Jay Davis, an American expert working for the U.N. special commission charged with removing Iraq's nuclear capability, said Iraq was only six months away from the large-scale production of enriched uranium at two plants inspected by UN officials."
The Lewis article said Iraq in 1991 had a uranium "enrichment plant using electromagnetic technology [that] was about six months from becoming operational."
In October 1998, just before Saddam kicked U.N. weapons inspectors out of Iraq, the IAEA laid out a case opposite of Mr. Bush's Sept. 7 declaration.
"There are no indications that there remains in Iraq any physical capability for the production of weapon-usable nuclear material of any practical significance," IAEA Director-General Mohammed Elbaradei wrote in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair on Sept. 7 cited an agency "report" declaring that satellite photography revealed the Iraqis had undertaken new construction at several nuclear-related sites. This week, the IAEA said no such report existed.
The IAEA also took issue with a Sept. 9 report by the International Institute for Strategic Studies — cited by the Bush administration — that concludes Saddam "could build a nuclear bomb within months if he were able to obtain fissile material."
"There is no evidence in our view that can be substantiated on Iraq's nuclear-weapons program. If anybody tells you they know the nuclear situation in Iraq right now, in the absence of four years of inspections, I would say that they're misleading you because there isn't solid evidence out there," Mr. Gwozdecky said.
"I don't know where they have determined that Iraq has retained this much weaponization capability because when we left in December '98 we had concluded that we had neutralized their nuclear-weapons program. We had confiscated their fissile material. We had destroyed all their key buildings and equipment," he said.
Mr. Gwozdecky said there is no evidence about Saddam's nuclear capability right now — either through his organization, other agencies or any government.
HOW MUCH ELSE IS HE LIEING ABOUT??!!!
|
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sat Sep 28, 2002 11:51 pm
|
|
|
Afghanistan Imperiled
by AHMED RASHID
The Nation Sept. 27, 2002
Lahore
There are mounting fears in Afghanistan that President George W. Bush's war against Iraq will seriously compromise further attempts by the US-led Western alliance to stabilize Afghanistan--even as the US Defense Department appears to be finally acknowledging its failures in helping to rebuild the country.
Almost a year after the defeat of the Taliban, President Hamid Karzai's government is weaker than it was a few months ago, ethnic and political rivalries plague the country, the military power of the warlords has increased and there is a new wave of anti-Americanism from the Pashtun tribes in the east and south, who feel alienated and victimized both by the Kabul government and US forces.
The fragile security situation was highlighted by the September 5 assassination attempt against Karzai in Kandahar, a car bomb in Kabul that killed twenty-six people and stepped-up rocket attacks against US forces. On September 14 Afghan police intercepted an explosives-laden tanker truck headed for the US air base outside Kabul, and two days later rockets were fired at a US garrison at Khost, in the largest artillery barrage by Al Qaeda forces since their defeat last November.
The success of the US-led Afghan war depends less on catching the remnants of Al Qaeda than on insuring that the escalating political crisis does not cause the demise of the Karzai government. Since last December the Bush Administration has primarily focused on its military and intelligence war against Al Qaeda rather than on a political and economic strategy, which would help stabilize the fragile government and kick-start reconstruction.
Karzai has been unable to extend the writ of Kabul's authority across the country or find a political formula to rein in the warlords. He has been stymied not just because of continuing ethnic and tribal tensions but by the stark failure of the international community to deliver on two key pledges made last December. The first was to mobilize an International Security Assistance Force to stabilize Kabul and five other cities. The ISAF still has only 5,000 troops, and only in the capital. Even more dangerous has been the world's failure to deliver on reconstruction funds.
Essentially, Washington has frozen the status quo following the December Bonn conference, which nominated the Karzai-led interim government. And even though Karzai was elected to a two-year term in June at the Loya Jirga, or grand tribal council, the United States has done little to strengthen the central government.
Washington has begun to help build a new national army, but this will take years to achieve. And this policy is directly undermined by continued US funding of the warlords. Even though the majority of the 1,500 delegates to the Loya Jirga harshly criticized the warlords, the Pentagon has renamed them "regional leaders," giving them a legitimacy that Afghans themselves are unwilling to bestow.
At the end of August the Pentagon finally appeared to be getting the message. "I do think increasingly our focus is shifting to training the Afghan national army, supporting ISAF, supporting reconstruction efforts--those kinds of things that contribute to long-term stability," Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told me in an interview at the Pentagon.
Also, for the first time US officials appeared to be seriously concerned about lack of funds. "My single biggest concern is that the economic aid that was promised at the Tokyo conference, which I think is crucial not just for economic purposes but for political and security purposes, is just not coming through at the levels that were pledged," Wolfowitz said. The January Tokyo conference pledged $4.5 billion for reconstruction, of which donor nations promised to give $1.8 billion this year. "Barely 30 percent of what was promised for this year has been delivered," Wolfowitz added. He said the United States now had no objections to expanding ISAF beyond Kabul and would urge the Europeans to step up aid deliveries.
However, the Pentagon's apparent U-turn is only providing a halfway-house policy. It would like to see ISAF expand but wants others to do the job; Washington has ruled out using US troops as peacekeepers. It would also like others to provide more reconstruction money; in September several US officials, including Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, harshly criticized the Europeans for their slowness in providing funds.
Yet Washington's own contribution has been half that of the European Union. So far this year the United States has given $300 million, nearly all of which has been spent. In contrast, Washington is spending an estimated $1 billion a month on the Afghan war effort--a fact that has been strongly criticized by the UN's special representative for Afghanistan, Lakhdar Brahimi; the EU envoy to Kabul, Francesc Vendrell; and Karzai.
Given the lead US role in the war and the unilateralism that the Bush Administration has turned into a mantra vis-à-vis Iraq, other countries are unlikely to respond to either initiative unless Washington shows the way. "The United States has to play a leadership role in providing both greater security through contributions to ISAF and funding for reconstruction, if it wants other countries to step up to the line," says a European ambassador in Kabul. That appears increasingly unlikely as the US military machine prepares to attack Iraq. In his meeting with Bush at the UN General Assembly in mid-September, Karzai voiced fears--as do almost all Afghans--that war in the Middle East will lead Washington to forget Afghanistan, just as it did after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal.
The war against terrorism has shown notable successes with the breakup of Al Qaeda cells and large-scale arrests in Karachi, Singapore and Buffalo in September alone. But the Afghanistan/Pakistan region is the key to insuring that Al Qaeda does not re-emerge as a military force under a new Islamist or nationalist guise. Everywhere else in the world, Al Qaeda operates underground and in secret. In Afghanistan it rockets US troops in broad daylight.
Extremist forces are making a comeback in the Pashtun belt by coalescing around Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. An ethnic Pashtun, career warlord and former Afghan prime minister, Hekmatyar is now one of the biggest threats to Afghan stability. Afghan officials and Western diplomats in Kabul say there is clear evidence that Hekmatyar--who killed thousands of civilians in a vain bid to capture the city during the country's early 1990s civil war--has joined forces with Al Qaeda and Taliban remnants to destabilize the fledgling Karzai government.
The Pashtuns--the majority ethnic group--have serious grievances against the government. Because of the support of many Pashtuns for the Taliban, they feel they are being victimized by both the Americans and the Tajiks of the Northern Alliance, who dominate the army, police and intelligence apparatus in Kabul. Many Pashtuns consider Karzai, himself a Pashtun, to be a hostage to Tajik and US power and policies. Pashtun civilians have been the victims of US bombing raids, and the central government hasn't initiated a single reconstruction project in the Pashtun belt.
Hekmatyar is believed to have established contact with several disgruntled warlords, including Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, Afghanistan's leading proponent of Wahhabi Islam; former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, once the head of the Northern Alliance; and Ismail Khan, the governor of Herat in the west. Karzai is too weak to take action against any of them.
Significantly, in the early 1980s these leaders (and Hekmatyar) belonged to the Muslim Brotherhood, which emerged out of the Arab world and was the precursor to today's more extreme Islamist movements. Hekmatyar is now trying to revive those connections and the Brotherhood's ideology, which is stridently anti-Western and antidemocratic. He says "all true Muslim Afghans who want an Islamic government in their country must know it is possible only when the United States and allied soldiers are forced out."
Hekmatyar is also trying to whip up Pashtun nationalism. In tapes sent to journalists he accuses the United States and the Kabul government of beginning "a genocide of Pashtuns." He has a considerable network of supporters in Pakistan, including retired officers of that country's Inter-Services Intelligence. After the 1979 Soviet invasion, the ISI promoted Hekmatyar ruthlessly, until he was dumped in favor of the Taliban in 1995.
Clearly, President Bush's recent pledge that the United States, Saudi Arabia and Japan will provide $180 million to rebuild the key Kabul-Kandahar-Herat road, which cuts through the Pashtun belt, reflects Washington's awareness of the unrest in the south. Roads are certainly important, but the urgent need is for the United States to demonstrate that it wants to re-establish a central government with institutions, economic resources and military and political power that can give a sense of nationhood and a functioning state back to the Afghans. Only then can Al Qaeda and its allies be truly deprived of their former base for terrorism.
|
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Sun Sep 29, 2002 2:44 am
|
|
|
Iraq Rejects Push by U.S. to Toughen Inspection Rules; Lobbying Continues in U.N.
By JULIA PRESTON and PATRICK E. TYLER
UNITED NATIONS, Sept. 28 — Iraq rejected today a proposal by the United States and Britain for a Security Council resolution imposing tough weapons inspections, saying that it would not accept any new rules for the work of United Nations inspectors.
Diplomats from Washington and London shuttled to Moscow and Beijing today after consulting in Paris, trying to overcome strong objections to the draft resolution among the other three permanent, veto-bearing members of the Security Council.
The proposal gives Iraq 30 days to make full disclosure of its weapons of mass destruction and provides for intrusive inspections, authorizing a military attack if Baghdad does not comply.
In Baghdad, Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan of Iraq said that his government had agreed to allow the weapons inspectors to return under conditions laid down previously by the United Nations and would not accept new terms.
"The stance on the inspectors has been decided and any additional procedure that aims at harming Iraq will not be accepted," Mr. Ramadan told reporters. He rejected as "lies" the accusations by Bush administration officials of ties between President Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda.
Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, warned that the United States would sustain heavy losses in an attack and pledged that Iraq would fight a fierce war.
The Bush administration quickly responded that the resolution was up to the Security Council to decide.
"Iraq does not have a say in this matter," said Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary. "Even if they did, it again shows that they want to string things out, change their tune and build up their arms."
Even as the diplomacy continued, the United States and Britain signaled their determination to take military action if Iraq did not comply with their tough demands.
The resolution they have drafted would give Iraq one week to make an initial weapons declaration and accept the Security Council's terms, and a further 23 days to reveal all of its weapons programs, the start of disarmament under United Nations supervision.
In his weekly radio address today, President Bush lobbied for another resolution he needs before moving forward: a Congressional resolution authorizing the use of force.
"By passing this resolution we will send a clear message to the world community and to the Iraqi regime the demands of the United Nations Security Council must be followed: the Iraqi dictator must be disarmed," Mr. Bush said. "These requirements will be met, or they will be enforced," he said.
After several days of debate in which leading Democrats have spoken against giving Mr. Bush the free military hand he has sought, the president said he remained optimistic that Congress would in the end approve a war powers resolution."We're making progress, we are nearing agreement, and soon we will speak with one voice," he said.
In Moscow today, Marc Grossman, the American under secretary of state for political affairs, worked to persuade Russian officials, including Foreign Minister Igor S. Ivanov, to accept the new resolution. After the discussions, which lasted for more than two hours, Mr. Grossman expressed optimism, although he did not mention any details about the American and British draft proposal.
"Everyone agreed that there is a challenge to the United Nations," he said. "I think all members of the Security Council want to see if we can solve it."
Russian officials, however, were more reserved.
Mr. Ivanov, in an official statement after the meeting, reiterated Russia's position that weapons inspectors should return to Iraq immediately on the basis of existing Security Council resolutions.
Only international inspectors "should give the answer to whether there are weapons of mass destruction there," he said, referring to Iraq, in the statement.
British officials said today that the Defense Ministry was pulling up to 4,000 of its front-line troops off domestic assignments and placing them in a high state of readiness to join more than 60,000 American forces based in the region or heading there. These forces are expected to double by December, American officials say, if Mr. Bush goes forward with a large call-up of reserves followed by the deployment of major air and ground forces to the gulf.
The Iraqi foreign minister, Naji Sabri, traveled to Tehran today to seek support from Iran, which had been one of Iraq's most bitter enemies after a war from 1980 to 1988.
Arriving at the airport in Tehran,Mr. Sabri said the real "axis of evil" was Washington and Tel Aviv, borrowing President Bush's phrase for Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Mr. Sabri noted the rift on the Security Council over Washington's proposal.
Hans Blix, leading the team of United Nations inspectors preparing for a return to Baghdad, departed today for Vienna, where on Monday morning the team will sit down with three Iraqi military officials and make an initial set of demands to smooth the transport of more than 280 inspectors into the country around the middle of October.
An official from the inspection team said Mr. Blix was not concerned that his mandate from the Security Council would not be clear by Monday since this meeting was about "practical arrangements" relating to transportation, housing and communications. Still, given the attention riveted on Iraq, Mr. Blix's encounter will be an early test of Baghdad's willingness to allow unconditional and unfettered access.
French officials said today that President Bush had thus far failed to persuade President Jacques Chirac to back the stringent American and British draft resolution that would demand that the Iraqi leader admit his "material breach" of past disarmament resolutionsRussian and French diplomats have said they fear that Washington wants to increase the Council's demands so sharply that Baghdad will balk, and the weapons inspections will never get under way.
It was too early to determine whether Russia, China and France would be able to force a compromise on Mr. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, representing the other two permanent members of the Security Council, or would offer a competing proposal.The compromise France was seeking would give the 15-member body a role in authorizing war through a second resolution should Mr. Hussein reject or obstruct the return of United Nations inspectors.
Mr. Bush and his national security advisers oppose the two-resolution approach, but much was still under discussion, including how Security Council members might travel to Iraq with a military guard to protect them, diplomats said, and directly supervise the work of inspectors.
Mr. Grossman was in Moscow today after stopping in Paris, to press the American and British draft. The precise text was being tightly held to preserve room for compromise, diplomats said. Separately, Britain dispatched two senior diplomats, Peter Ricketts, to Paris and Moscow, and William Ehrman to Beijing, for negotiations.
Meanwhile, Iraqi opposition forces in northern Iraq observed Iraqi military forces pulling back from front-line positions facing the Kurds. In one area near Erbil, the Kurdish capital, Iraqi forces had retreated 10 miles. Kurds speculated that Iraqi commanders were widening the distance to prevent defections. Control points between the Kurdish enclave and central Iraq were also being tightened to prevent defections and infiltrations, officials said.
Mr. Hussein was also said to have replaced several key governors, including in the southern Basra region, with officers from his security forces to bolster discipline against defections and betrayal.
Iraqi opposition members were lining up to volunteer for American training as fighters, interpreters, spies and target spotters, after the State Department announced that it would use part of the $92 million allocated under the Iraq Liberation Act to train thousands of recruits from the Iraqi opposition, as well as members of the Kurdish minority in northern Iraq.
The United States has also increased the tempo of patrols and bombing missions into Iraq, administration officials said. These patrols were authorized by the United Nations to enforce no-flight zones to prevent Iraq's air forces from attacking Shiites in the south and Kurds in the north.
There have been 42 such bombing missions this year, Pentagon officials said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/29/internati onal/middleeast/29NATI.html?ex=1033876800&en=ea3a59bf3ba2b518&ei=5006&partner=ALTAVISTA1
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 09-28-2002] |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Sun Sep 29, 2002 7:25 pm
|
|
|
Top News
Sunday, Sept. 29, 2002
U.S. Split on Iraq Despite Bush Hope
WASHINGTON(AP) - Despite President Bush's predictions of unity on Iraq, members of Congress voiced sharply divergent views Sunday on military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Two Democratic congressmen, speaking from Baghdad, said Iraqi officials have assured them that they will allow weapons inspectors unfettered access. The lawmakers accused Bush of wrongly pushing the United States toward war.
``They said they would allow us to go look anywhere we wanted,'' said Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., on ABC's ``This Week.''
``Let the U.N. inspectors do their job,'' added Rep. David Bonior, D-Mich. He said that Iraqi officials told them that they would allow ``unrestricted, unfettered'' access, though they do want ``their sovereignty respected.''
Iraq has made similar statements, though on Saturday made clear that it would allow inspectors only under terms of previous U.N. resolutions, suggesting inspectors would not have access to presidential palaces and other sites.
The Democrats' comments were quickly dismissed by the Senate's second-ranking Republican, Don Nickles of Oklahoma.
``They both sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government,'' Nickles said.
Nickles said Bush simply is trying to enforce resolutions that Iraq has defied. He said Iraq has continued to build weapons of mass destruction.
``And there's new terrorist threats that we found out the hard way that are very deadly to the United Nations and our interests,'' he added, invoking the Sept. 11 attacks, though he did not explain how Iraq might be linked to the al-Qaida network involved in the U.S. strikes.
For Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, R-Miss., ``the threat from Iraq is part of the overall war on terror.''
With such divided views, Bush must make his case for military action, said Sen. John, Breaux, D-La.
``We don't want to get into a situation LIKE VIETNAM, for instance, where we had a house divided, the Congress was divided, the American people were divided,'' he said on ``Fox News Sunday.''
``Anything the president can do to meet with the congressional leaders, to address a joint session of Congress, to bring about unanimity, I think would be very important and very positive,'' he said.
After a week of political sniping over Iraq, Bush on Saturday predicted that Congress soon would pass a resolution giving him authority to take military action against Iraq.
``We're making progress, we are nearing agreement, and soon we will speak with one voice,'' the president said.
While some vocal Democrats oppose military action, others support the White House, and few doubt that a resolution ultimately will pass.
On a fact-finding trip to Baghdad, Bonior and McDermott said there is no reason to consider military action until Iraq fails to live up to its word. For now, McDermott said, there is no need for resolutions by Congress or the U.N. Security Council authorizing force.
``You don't start out by putting the gun to their head and saying we're going to shoot you if you blink,'' McDermott said.
Asked about Iraq's history of denying access to inspectors, Bonior said the United States should not ``play the blame game.''
Bonior said they he and his colleagues met with Iraqi ministers, who assured them that weapons inspectors could ``come any time you want, anywhere you want.''
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Mech on 09-29-2002] |
| |
|
|
Dan Rockwell
Joined: 10 Dec 2001
Posts: 1988
Location: Stamford, CT, USA |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 2:51 am
|
|
|
Nation & World 10/7/02
Ready. Aim. Fire first
But is the U.S. military a little gun-shy about starting wars?
BY MARK MAZZETTI
It was a "what if" scenario–the sort that military planners are paid to imagine–and it was not nearly ready for prime time.
Earlier this summer, a top aide to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld outlined for his boss a concept for striking North Korea's weapons of mass destruction–a case study in the application of the Bush administration's new doctrine of pre-emptive military action.
The hypothetical scenario envisioned a swift attack, carried out without consulting South Korea, America's ally on the peninsula.
When word of the briefing spread, administration heavyweights, including Secretary of State Colin Powell and Adm. Thomas Fargo, commander of U.S. forces in the Pacific, worked to bury the scheme.
Consider it a clumsy way to ring in the age of pre-emption, which officially debuted with the recent release of the Bush administration's National Security Strategy.
In what may be the boldest rethinking of American foreign policy since Harry Truman, the document makes the case that Cold War logic no longer applies in a world where terrorists, possibly armed with weapons of mass destruction, strike at civilians without warning.
"This kind of enemy will not be deterred or contained the way, perhaps, the Soviet Union might have been," Powell said last week.
Breaking from the deep-rooted American instinct to strike only if attacked first, the so-called Bush Doctrine advocates pre-emptive military action against practitioners of terrorism–including overthrowing governments that support them–and it may soon provide the justification for an American attack on Iraq.
U.S. officials insist that the Bush Doctrine is not a one-trick pony meant solely to justify an Iraq invasion. "Any state that has a weapons-of-mass-destruction program and has an irresponsible dictator falls within the president's paradigm shift," says one Bush administration official. "This is a historic moment."
But as the dust-up over the Pentagon's North Korea briefing illustrates, laying out a broad strategic vision is one thing; applying it in the real world is quite another. In short: It is not at all clear where, besides Iraq, the Bush Doctrine could really be put into practice.
The military gets to weigh in now; the admirals and generals are putting finishing touches on the National Military Strategy, a practical blueprint for implementing the White House's grand vision.
Early indications are that those in uniform are far less enamored of pre-emption than their civilian bosses: A draft of the document, which had not yet made it to Rumsfeld's desk, all but ignored the concept, U.S. News has learned.
The generals aren't dead set against striking first; after all, the notion of pre-empting an enemy attack ("anticipatory self-defense," in the Bush administration lexicon) is as old as warfare. But the White House version is new and different.
It advocates taking military action before the adversary even has the capacity to attack. It calls for action, even without ironclad evidence of danger. And it suggests that U.S. power might "dissuade" other nations from trying to match American military might.
In the words of one senior officer, "there is a brave new world coming with this new defense policy."
Hit 'em. There is little debate about the appeal of going on the offensive to dismantle terrorist networks before they can strike. The approach gives planners the advantage of tactical surprise and permits them to strike with a smaller force.
"Obviously, taking the offensive under the rules of war is something the military would love to do," says Gen. Gregory Martin, commander of U.S. air forces in Europe.
Case in point: The Pentagon is drawing up plans to send special operations forces into states like Yemen that are harboring senior al Qaeda leaders.
Applying the doctrine to rogue states is where the water gets muddied. It has certainly been done before.
Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981, before it became operational, and many in the military consider the 1989 invasion of Panama another example. But top commanders, including some whose job it has been to devise war plans, are struggling to understand how hitting states first makes military sense.
These officers say that even when confront- ing countries the president designated as an "axis of evil"–Iraq, Iran, and North Korea–the containment calculus still works.
"Personal survival is what matters to the Kim Jong Ils and Saddam Husseins of this world," says one former four-star officer. "This [pre-emption] absolutely is the right doctrine to deal with enemies that are not organized into states. When it comes to dealing with other countries I'm not so sure."
Even big-think objections to the Bush Doctrine offered by academics have practical consequences that get the military's attention.
The doctrine imagines that the United States would not "allow an adversarial military power to rise," as one Bush official put it.
That "confirms the notion that America is now embarking on an imperial role," argues James Chace, a specialist in international relations at Bard College. "The great danger of American power nowadays is that it will prompt other powers to combine against us."
What that means to the generals is that strategic alliances built up over the years could be ruptured.
Like it or not, the military may have to change the way it goes about its business. At a recent gathering of combatant commanders–the brass in charge of forces deployed outside the United States–Rumsfeld challenged them to adapt to the new terrorism threat.
The military will have to reassess where it bases forces, so it will not have to move troops and equipment into a region before a strike–and risk telegraphing its punch. The Pentagon will rely heavily on special operations forces that can deploy in smaller numbers and move without being detected, and on precision bombers that can strike a target from long range.
Gathering reliable intelligence will become even more important. "If we are going to be pre-emptive in nature, we better be pretty damn sure we understand their intent," says a senior Air Force official. Satellites in space can't do that very well, putting a premium on spies on the ground who can help predict what an enemy will do.
Do as I say. These are just nuts-and-bolts problems, compared with objections to pre-emption being raised abroad and at home.
"We'll be putting ourselves in the position of a rogue nation," says Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat, who argues that the strategy might inspire copycats.
While the Bush National Security Strategy warns that other countries should not "use pre-emption as a pretext for aggression," the new doctrine might give ideas to China in its struggle against Taiwan or to Russia in its fight against Chechen rebels in Georgia.
This pattern was clearly on Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's mind when he warned India not to mimic the new U.S. policy.
"Pakistan is not Iraq, and India is not the United States," he advised his adversary to the south. "They had better not try it."
Musharraf may have reason to put down a marker.
"India has a history of mirroring the U.S. rhetoric, and even trying to mirror U.S. actions on issues ranging from terrorism to nuclear strategy," says a Senate Democratic official who deals with South Asia policy. "We can't think we are planning our own doctrine in a vacuum."
The White House is billing the Bush Doctrine as the first coherent strategy to confront the dangers of the post-Cold War world. This might be so, but much will depend on how the United States acts upon the doctrine's muscular rhetoric and how the world reacts.
"The ripple effects from this are really hard to gauge," says Andrew Krepinevich of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. "These fundamental shifts in our defensive posture don't come around very often."
With Thomas Omestad
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/021007/usnews/7strike.htm
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Dan Rockwell on 09-29-2002] |
| |
|
|
GAS_MASK
Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 151
|
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 6:03 am
|
|
|
United Nations Security Council Resolutions Currently Being Violated by Countries Other than Iraq
A partial list compiled by Stephen Zunes, University of San Francisco
252 (1968) Israel-- “Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind” measures which “change the legal status of Jerusalem, ” including the “expropriation of land and properties thereon”
262 (1968) Israel-- Calls upon Israel to pay compensation to Lebanon for destruction of airliners at Beirut International Airport
267 (1969) Israel-- Urgently calls upon Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem
271 (1969) Israel --- Reiterates calls to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem and calls on Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying powers
298 (1971) Israel--- Reiterates demand that Israel to rescind measures seeking to change the legal status of occupied East Jerusalem
353 (1974) Turkey --- Calls on nations to respect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Cyprus and for the withdrawal without delay of foreign troops for Cyprus
354 (1974) Turkey ----- Reiterates provisions of UNSC resolution 353
360 (1974) Turkey----Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus “without delay”
364 (1974) Turkey ---- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
367 (1975) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
370 (1975) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus-
377 (1979) Morocco --- Calls on countries to respect the right of self-determination for Western Sahara
379 (1979) Morocco --- Calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Western Sahara
380 (1979) Morocco -- Reiterates need for compliance with previous resolutions
391 (1976) Turkey ---Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
401 (1976) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
414 (1977) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
422 (1977) Turkey -- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
440 (1978) Turkey --- Reaffirms need for compliance with prior resolutions regarding Cyprus
446 (1979) Israel --- Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power, that it rescind previous measures that violate these relevant provisions and that, “in particular, not to transport parts of its civilian population into the occupied Arab territories.”
452 (1979) Israel --- Calls on the government of Israel to cease, on an urgent basis, the establishment, construction and planning of settlements in the Arab territories, occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem
465 (1980) Israel --- Reiterates previous resolutions on settlements policy
471 (1980) Israel --- Demands prosecution of those in assassination attempts of West Bank leaders and compensation for damages, reiterates demands to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention
484 (1980) Israel--- Reiterates that Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention
487 (1981) Israel --- Calls upon Israel to place its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency
497 (1981) Israel --- Demands that Israel rescind its decision to impose its domestic laws in the occupied Syrian Golan region
541 (1983) Turkey --- Reiterates need for compliance with prior resolutions and demands that the declaration of an independent Turkish Cypriot state be withdrawn
550 (1984) Turkey --- Reiterates UNSC resolution 541 and insists that member states may “not to facilitate or in any way assist” the secessionist entity
573 (1985) Israel --- Calls on Israel to pay compensation for human and material losses from its attack against Tunisia and to refrain from all such attacks or threats of attacks against other nations
592 (1986) Israel --- Insists Israel abide by the Fourth Geneva Conventions in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories
605 (1987) Israel --- “Calls once more upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide immediately and scrupulously by the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Times of War, and to desist forthwith from its policies and practices that are in violations of the provisions of the Convention.”
607 (1986) Israel --- Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories
608 (1988) Israel --- Reiterates call for Israel to cease its deportations
636 (1989) Israel -- Reiterates call that Israel to cease its deportations
641 (1989) Israel --- Reiterates previous resolutions calling on Israel to desist its deportations
658 (1990) Morocco --- Calls upon Morocco to “cooperate fully” with the Secretary General of the Unid Nations chairman of the Organization of African Unity for “in their efforts aimed at an early settlement of the question of Western Sahara.”
672 (1990) Israel--- Reiterates calls for Israel to abide by provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories
673 (1990) Israel --- Insists that Israel come into compliance with resolution 672
681 (1990) Israel --- Reiterates call on Israel to abide by Fourth Geneva Convention in the occupied Arab territories
690 (1991) Morocco --- Calls upon both parties to cooperate fully with the Secretary General in implementing a referendum on the fate of the territory
694 (1991) Morocco -- Reiterates that Israel “must refrain from deporting any Palestinian civilian from the occupied territories and ensure the safe and immediate return of all those deported.”
716 (1991) Morocco --- Reaffirms previous resolutions on Cyprus
725 (1991) Morocco -- “Calls upon the two parties to cooperate fully in the settlement plan”
726 (1992) Israel --- Reiterates calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention and to cease its practice of deportations from occupied Arab territories
799 (1992) Israel --- “Reaffirms applicability of Fourth Geneva Convention…to all Palestinian territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including Jerusalem, and affirms that deportation of civilians constitutes a contravention of its obligations under the Convention.”
807 (1993) Croatia --- Demands return of heavy weapons seized from UN storage areas
809 (1992) Morocco --- Reiterates call to cooperate with the peace settlement plan, particularly regarding voter eligibility for referendum
815 (1993) Croatia -- Reaffirms UNSC resolution 807
822 (1993) Armenia ---Calls for Armenia for “immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan”
853 (1993) Armenia --- Demands “complete and unconditional withdrawal of the occupying forces” from Azerbaijani territory
874 (1993) Armenia --- Reiterates calls for withdrawal of occupation forces
884 (1993) Armenia -- Calls on Armenia to use its influence to force compliance by Armenian militias to previous resolutions and to withdraw its remaining occupation forces
896 (1994) Russia --- “Calls upon all concerned to respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Republic of Georgia”
904 (1994) Israel --- Calls upon Israel, as the occupying power, “to take and implement measures, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by settlers.”
973 (1995) Morocco -- Reiterates the need for cooperation with United Nations and expediting referendum on the fate of Western Sahara
995 (1995) Morocco --- Calls for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts to move forward with a referendum
1002 (1995) Morocco --- Reiteration of call for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts
1009 (1995) Croatia Demands that Croatia “respect fully the rights of the local Serb population to remain, leave or return in safety”
1017 (1995) Morocco --- Reiterates the call for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts and to cease “procrastinating actions which could further delay the referendum.”
-
1033 (1995) Morocco -- reiterates call for “genuine cooperation” with UN efforts
1044 (1996) Sudan Calls upon Sudan to extradite to Ethiopia for prosecution three suspects in an assassination attempt of visiting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and to cease its support for sanctuary and offering of sanctuary to terrorists
1054 (1996) Sudan -- Demands that Sudan come into compliance with UNSC resolution 1044
1056 (1996) Morocco -- Calls for the release of political prisoners from occupied Western Sahara
1070 (1996) Sudan --- Reiterates demands to comply with 1044 and 1054
1073 (1996) Israel --- “Calls on the safety and security of Palestinian civilians to be ensured.”
1079 (1996) Croatia --- Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia
1092 (1996) Turkey/Cyprus --- Calls for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step towards a total withdrawal troops as well as a reduction in military spending
1117 (1997) Turkey/Cyprus -- Reiterates call for a reduction of foreign troops in Cyprus as the first step towards a total withdrawal troops and reduction in military spending
1120 (1997) Croatia --- Reaffirms right of return for Serbian refugees to Croatia and calls of Croatia to change certain policies that obstruct it and to treat its citizens equally regardless of ethnic origin
1145 (1997) Croatia --- Reiterates Croatian responsibility in supporting the political and economic rights of its people regardless of ethnic origin
1172 (1998) India, Pakistan -- Calls upon India and Pakistan to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles
1178 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus ---Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending
1185 (1998) Morocco -- Calls for the lifting of restrictions of movement by aircraft of UN peacekeeping force
1215 (1998) Morocco -- Urges Morocco to promptly sign a “status of forces agreement”
1217 (1998) Turkey/Cyprus -- Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending
1251 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus --- Reiterates call for a substantial reduction of foreign troops and reduction in military spending
1264 (1999) Indonesia -- Calls on Indonesia to provide safe return for refugees and punish those for acts of violence during and after the referendum campaign
1272 (1999) Indonesia ---- Stresses the need for Indonesia to provide for the safe return for refugees and maintain the civilian and humanitarian character of refugee camps
1283 (1999) Turkey/Cyprus --- Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251
1303 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus -- Reiterates UNSC resolutions 1283 and 1251
1319 (2000) Indonesia -- Insists that Indonesia “take immediate additional steps, in fulfillment of its responsibilities, to disarm and disband the militia immediately, restore law and order in the affected areas of West Timor, ensure safety and security in the refugee camps and for humanitarian workers, and prevent incursions into East Timor,” stresses that those guilty of attacks on international personnel be brought to justice and reiterates the need to provide safe return for refugees who wish to repatriate and provide resettlement for those wishing to stay in Indonesia
1322 (2000) Israel --- Calls upon Israel to scrupulously abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention regarding the responsibilities of occupying power
1331 (2000) Turkey/Cyprus -- Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and subsequent resolutions
1338 (2001) Indonesia --- Calls for Indonesian cooperation with the UN and other international agencies in the fulfillment of UNSC resolution 1319
1359 (2001) Morocco --- Calls on the parties to “abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law to release without further delay all those held since the start of the conflict”
1384 (2001) Turkey/Cyprus --- Reiterates 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus
1402 (2002) Israel -- Calls for Israel to withdraw from Palestinian cities
1403 (2002) Israel -- Demands that Israel go through with “the implementation of its resolution 1402, without delay”
1405 (2002) Israel -- Calls for UN inspectors to investigate civilian deaths during an Israeli assault on the Jenin refugee camp
1416 (2002) Turkey/Cyprus --- Reiterates UNSC resolution 1251 and all relevant resolutions on Cyprus
1435 (2002) Israel --Calls on Israel to withdraw to positions of September 2000 and end its military activities in and around Ramallah, including the destruction of security and civilian infrastructure
[Edited 1 times, lastly by GAS_MASK on 09-29-2002] |
| |
|
|
rainheart
Joined: 03 Oct 2001
Posts: 175
|
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 7:38 pm
|
|
|
Scott Ritter Interview EXCLUSIVE to Indymedia
(originally posted on IMC by
Felix 6:16am Mon Sep 30 '02
felix@newsvalues.com
Having just given his speech to 400,000 people at the 'Stop The War' coalition in London. Scott Ritter gave me this interview on the subject of American Imperialism. This is exclusive to Indymedia
ritter_intu0evv2.mov (mimetype: video/quicktime )
SR"If Bush goes to war against Iraq, in violation of international law, that's the birth of an American empire.... we'll be in the period of American Imperialism."
Felix" If people tolerate this, then what will be next?"
SR" The demise of the United States of America..."
|
| |
|
|
Thermit
Joined: 08 Jul 2000
Posts: 3136
Location: Texas |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 8:22 pm
|
|
|
Your E-Invitation to GWII...
http://www.defectiveyeti.com/iraqevite/
[Edited 1 times, lastly by Thermit on 09-30-2002] |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 8:59 pm
|
|
|
Gulf War II : The Sequel
Brought to you by---BushLaden Productions
See CIA agents become mavericks, turning against the country that loved and nurtured them.
Starring
Gee Dumbya as the Dry Drunk
Chained Dick as Electro-Heart
Jack AssCrack as The Witchfinder General
Balls Wolfkovitz as Killer Kowalsky
Power Colon as The Almost Sane One
Condom Lice as The Fashion Queen
Big George Sr. as The Watcher in the Woods
Arid Shaboom as The Butcher Shop Owner
Tony Bland as Bowzer
Arid Fluctuater as The Minister of Poppagander
Richard Nicswine as The Ghost |
| |
|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
|
Mon Sep 30, 2002 9:31 pm
|
|
|
U.S. Supplied Germs to Iraq in '80s
Mon Sep 30, 2:31 PM ET
By MATT KELLEY, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iraq's bioweapons program that President Bush wants to eradicate got its start with help from Uncle Sam two decades ago, according to government records getting new scrutiny in light of the discussion of war against Iraq.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention sent samples directly to several Iraqi sites that U.N. weapons inspectors determined were part of Saddam Hussein's biological weapons program, CDC and congressional records from the early 1990s show. Iraq had ordered the samples, claiming it needed them for legitimate medical research.
The CDC and a biological sample company, the American Type Culture Collection, sent strains of all the germs Iraq used to make weapons, including anthrax, the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and the germs that cause gas gangrene, the records show. Iraq also got samples of other deadly pathogens, including the West Nile virus.
The transfers came in the 1980s, when the United States supported Iraq in its war against Iran. They were detailed in a 1994 Senate Banking Committee report and a 1995 follow-up letter from the CDC to the Senate.
The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.
"I don't think it would be accurate to say the United States government deliberately provided seed stocks to the Iraqis' biological weapons programs," said Jonathan Tucker, a former U.N. biological weapons inspector.
"But they did deliver samples that Iraq said had a legitimate public health purpose, which I think was naive to believe, even at the time."
The disclosures put the United States in the uncomfortable position of possibly having provided the key ingredients of the weapons America is considering waging war to destroy, said Sen. Robert Byrd , D-W.Va. Byrd entered the documents into the Congressional Record this month.
Byrd asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld about the germ transfers at a recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. Byrd noted that Rumsfeld met Saddam in 1983, when Rumsfeld was President Reagan's Middle East envoy.
"Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?" Byrd asked Rumsfeld after reading parts of a Newsweek article on the transfers.
(RUMSFELD'S DENIAL)...LIE
"I have never heard anything like what you've read, I have no knowledge of it whatsoever, and I doubt it," Rumsfeld said. He later said he would ask the Defense Department and other government agencies to search their records for evidence of the transfers.
Invoices included in the documents read like shopping lists for biological weapons programs. One 1986 shipment from the Virginia-based American Type Culture Collection included three strains of anthrax, six strains of the bacteria that make botulinum toxin and three strains of the bacteria that cause gas gangrene. Iraq later admitted to the United Nations that it had made weapons out of all three.
The company sent the bacteria to the University of Baghdad, which U.N. inspectors concluded had been used as a front to acquire samples for Iraq's biological weapons program.
The CDC, meanwhile, sent shipments of germs to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission and other agencies involved in Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. It sent samples in 1986 of botulinum toxin and botulinum toxiod — used to make vaccines against botulinum toxin — directly to the Iraqi chemical and biological weapons complex at al-Muthanna, the records show.
Botulinum toxin is the paralyzing poison that causes botulism. Having a vaccine to the toxin would be useful for anyone working with it, such as biological weapons researchers or soldiers who might be exposed to the deadly poison, Tucker said.
The CDC also sent samples of a strain of West Nile virus to an Iraqi microbiologist at a university in the southern city of Basra in 1985, the records show.
___
On the Net:
The documents are available at: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_cr/s092002.html
CDC: http://www.cdc.gov
ATCC: http://www.atcc.org
HOW RECKLESS CAN YOU GET??!! |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30,
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60,
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 7:11 am
|
|
|
|
|
Login
