When I worked as a reporter in besieged Sarajevo in 1994 and 1995, I sometimes fantasized (as many who experienced Serb shell and sniper fire did) about the eventual arrest of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. I imagined him in handcuffs, decked out in his camouflage military attire or in one of his trademark double-breasted suits, his silver plume of well-coiffed hair a reminder of the lifestyle he maintained even after he choked off water supplies to his former home city.
Yet when the bombastic poet-psychiatrist was arrested on July 21, the scene bore no resemblance to the one I had pictured. He wore his hair in a ponytail and sported giant spectacles and a beard. He feebly turned himself over to the Serbian police as soon as they approached him near Belgrade. It had taken 13 years to put Karadzic behind bars, but his final minutes of freedom give some indication of the degrading life he had been leading — and showed the value of international justice, which deserves far more credit than it gets.
The litany of rogues who once boasted of their impunity but later ended up in the dock is surprisingly long, and each has been rapidly emasculated by his fall. A few years ago, I visited the Hague courtroom where former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was being tried.
Unlike when he had engineered the dismemberment of Yugoslavia and forced more than 2 million Bosnians from their homes, Milosevic was not in charge. As he ramped up his rant against the judges to a fever pitch, the judge simply turned off Milosevic's microphone, leaving him gesticulating wildly and foolishly but emitting no sound.
Augusto Pinochet, the former Chilean dictator, made a mockery of his 1998 indictment by a Spanish judge for the kidnapping, torture and killing of more than 3,000 people. But when Chile refused to grant him immunity, Pinochet spent the remaining years of his life being wheeled into and out of court; after he died in December 2006, the government refused to host a state funeral or declare a national day of mourning.
Charles Taylor, the former Liberian President, was indicted in 2003 for savage crimes carried out in Sierra Leone — including the arming and training of the child soldiers. After the democratically elected Liberian President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf requested Taylor's extradition in 2006, he was finally nabbed in a vehicle loaded with cash and heroin, and he didn't put up a fight.
And yet despite such successes, international justice has gotten a bad rap over the past decade. The rap stems from the failure to arrest criminals like Karadzic and his military counterpart Ratko Mladic, the slow pace and steep expense of the trials at the ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia, and the delays to the start of trials at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
When Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the chief prosecutor at the ICC, requested a warrant to arrest Sudan's President Omar Hassan al-Bashir on charges of genocide a week before the Karadzic arrest, he was widely slammed. Critics claimed the step was meaningless and that, far from deterring al-Bashir, it would only enrage and embolden him, making life even worse for the people of Darfur.
But instead of writing off the relatively new judicial and diplomatic tool of international justice, skeptics should heed the three important lessons that recent cases can teach. First, while international courts may be the ones that issue the initial indictments and arrest warrants, it is the local authorities themselves — as we have seen in Serbia, Chile and Liberia and will eventually see in Sudan — who need to be convinced that the benefits of ridding their societies of global villains exceed the costs.
Second, that will is more likely to be created by concentrated regional action than by generic international pressure. It was African leaders like Thabo Mbeki and Olesegun Obasanjo who acceded to Liberia's demand to put Taylor behind bars, and it was the European Union that used its financial and political leverage to sway the Serbian government.
Third, and most important, international justice, when carried out, offers many benefits: it can help establish a historical record, provide dignity to victims, establish individual (rather than collective) responsibility so as to end cycles of violence, and — once prospective criminals begin to fear enforcement — deter. But the most crucial functions of international indictments and arrest warrants are ones that are rarely heralded: stigmatization and incapacitation of really bad people.
Even to the world's worst actors, that can be a powerful incentive to behave. It's revealing that since the ICC issued its request for an arrest warrant, Sudan's al-Bashir has improved humanitarian access to Darfur refugees.
And this before he got a glimpse of his future.
Thursday, July 31, 2008
When I worked as a reporter in besieged Sarajevo in 1994 and 1995, I sometimes fantasized (as many who experienced Serb shell and sniper fire did) about the eventual arrest of Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic. I imagined him in handcuffs, decked out in his camouflage military attire or in one of his trademark double-breasted suits, his silver plume of well-coiffed hair a reminder of the lifestyle he maintained even after he choked off water supplies to his former home city.
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
In a very real sense, 2009, truly will be the "hour of Europe." By that, I mean that if the chancellor of Germany, the prime minister of Great Britain, and the president of France—backed by their counterparts in southern Europe, Eastern Europe, and Scandinavia—were to walk into the White House on Jan. 21 and propose serious, realistic, new contributions to, say, the war in Afghanistan, the reconstruction of Iraq, the nuclear negotiations with Iran, and perhaps even climate change, the White House would listen.
Or perhaps I should put it more strongly: Not only would the White House listen, the new administration, Democratic or Republican, would immediately offer the Europeans the "leadership" and "partnership" they so often say they desire.
Between the sinking housing market and the soaring price of food, the high price of fuel and low growth, the new president is going to have so much on his plate that a group of Europeans who appear from across the Atlantic announcing, say, a plan to fix southern Afghanistan would be welcomed with open arms.
In fact, I'll wager I could find a dozen future members of either administration who would roll out the red carpet and greet them like envoys of a fellow superpower if the Europeans so desired.
Yet at the same time, I'd also wager that I could not find a dozen current members of any European government who have even thought about coming up with any ideas at all.
This is the hour of Europe—but do the Europeans even know it?
Judging by the press and the popular reaction to Barack Obama's visit there last week, they don't. Just about every account of the speech noted the dearth of applause for its single line encouraging European participation in world events.
"America cannot do this alone. … The Afghan people need our troops and your troops" was not a crowd pleaser. Neither was "We can join in a new and global partnership" to fight terrorism.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel, meanwhile, spoke tartly of "the limits" of Germany's contributions to the Afghan cause, making it clear she didn't favor such upbeat talk, while another senior German official worried that his colleagues "will have trouble meeting [Obama's] demand to assume more common responsibility."
In a narrow sense, their reserve is understandable: Nobody is going to break new ground with a visiting presidential candidate. Still, the public reactions to Obama struck me as significant because they match private opinions I've been hearing for months. "Nobody has thought about this yet," said one European diplomat when I asked what plans might be presented to the new administration.
The truth, revealed by the brief Obama visit, is that few European statesmen look on changes in Washington as an opportunity to propose something new. Most simply feel relief that Bush will be gone, coupled with anxiety about what is to come next.
And as the election gets closer, the anxiety will grow. In a strange sense, Bush's catastrophic diplomacy was a gift to Europe's politicians. "Bush allowed them to explain away radical Islam as an understandable, even legitimate, response to the hypocrisies and iniquities of American policy," wrote one British columnist this week. Bush also allowed them to blame American "unilateralism" for their own lack of initiative, to use bad American diplomacy as an excuse for doing nothing.
No wonder the adulation of Obama was tempered by a note of unease. What with one presidential candidate talking of "global partnership" and the other reminding Americans that "the United States did not single-handedly win the Cold War," the potential for the renewal of the trans-Atlantic alliance is terrifyingly real—and the election isn't even over.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Iran's Culture Ministry on Sunday announced the closure of nine cinema and lifestyle magazines for publishing pictures and stories about the life of "corrupt" foreign film stars and promoting "superstitions."
The Press Supervisory Board, a body controlled by hard-liners, also sent warning notes to 13 other publications and magazines on "observing the provisions of the press law," the ministry said on its Web site.
It was not clear why the nine magazines were targeted for closure. They do not deal with politics, focusing on light lifestyle features, family advice, and news of celebrities.
They regularly publish photos of Iranian actresses in loose headscarves and stylish clothes, as well as foreign female film stars without head coverings — but nothing more revealing than what is tolerated on some state media.
The ministry said it shut them down for "using photos of artists, especially foreign corrupt film stars, as instruments (to arouse desire), publishing details about their decadent private lives, propagating medicines without authorization, promoting superstitions."
It did not elaborate. Such magazines often have small adds for vitamins and remedies, including pills to treat impotence.
Mohsen Ahmadi, editor of one of the closed magazines — Sobh-e-Zendegi, or Morning of Life — condemned the order.
"It is deplorable that a family lifestyle magazine is ordered closed. It means 70 people have lost their job," he told The Associated Press.
Ahmadi said he received the closure order from the Culture Ministry on Sunday, but it was dated March 10. He said he suspected authorities waited to implement the order until after Friday's parliament elections to avoid raising anger.
The other magazines closed down were Donya-e-Tasvir, Baznegari, Talash, Be Sooy-e-Eftekhar, Neday-e-Iran, Haft, Shooka and Havar.
Iran saw a wave of newspaper closures amid a confrontation between reformers and hard-liners during the 1997-2005 tenure of former reformist President Mohammad Khatami.
The judiciary has shut down more than 100 pro-reform newspapers and jailed dozens of editors and writers on vague charges of insulting authorities since 2000.
AP and Times Of India
art by Kathy Schicker
Saturday, July 26, 2008
One of Great Britain's cool speaking, articulate couture chicing pro proponents of the Queen's English is Edward Beaman. Right up there with Oscar Wilde, Sir Winnie and Uncle Tony, Beaman consistently brings the bling to the Eng.
Thanks to the miracles of high tech, such wordsmithery wizardry can be easily applied on a global scale. And with a unique, one of a kind, personal touch.
Pen Me A Poem is Brit Cat Beaman's literary site that allows poetry and prose to be commissioned for any occasion - for loved ones - THE loved one (and frienemies and enemies too).
"If you are looking for a unique personalised poem for a friend or loved
one, then you have arrived at the right place. The work I create for you will be built from scratch and will not be found anywhere else.
At all times during the process of drafting your piece, I will be in contact with you via email from where you can be in the front seat regarding the
direction in which your order progresses. "
This is significant. In a millennium of Hallmarx, Shoeboxes and mass produced cards, sentiments and emotions printed by robots en masse, tend to lose much of the moment - the meaning - that truly makes events and people especial, endearing and essential.
For custom, commissioned works of art in word - Pen Me A Poem is designer class.
Friday, July 25, 2008
The so last year playbook is still being played. The drill is: The world has turned againt Great Satan. Anti-American sentiments have swept the globe. Foreign leaders, pundits, and ordinary people decry the United States, at best proclaiming their heartbreak that the American values they once admired have vanished, and at worst condemning America as a criminal state beyond redemption.
Regime changing Iraq (defeating the largest Arab army in history in 20 days!) on a guess no less, blowing off Kyoto, the spread of American movies, American music, KFC and Mickey D's unto the ends of the earth. Not to mention the barbaric practise of executing killers, often after years of incarceration.
All this unbound wickedness piles up faster on a girl than uncles at a Thanksgiving game of touch football and tend to create
"... a feeling that the United States, once a force for good in the world, is
abusing its position as the world's sole superpower. "
Anglo American Bronwen Maddox is a hottie union jackie brainiac. Dot of Sir John and Lady Evelyn Maddox she gets to gig at Times Online UK - a new millennium adjunct of an ancient daily in Great Britain.
Bronwen cuts through some of the inappropriate and frankly boring, incorrect and weak (fact wise and mentally too) handwringing in her brand spanking new book "In Defense Of America" ( 232 pages Little, Brown & Company in Azure Frabrique with Gold gilt lettering design by Karen Horten at Art Resource NYC, ISBN-13: 9780316032230)
"Careful what you wish for" is a cool chapter that sweetly points out with all the subtlety of an M1 panzer that Great Satan's critics should carefully consider whether they truly want what they have wished for. Hoping for a bound Great Satan is self deluding if they think this would make them feel better off.
Like Joffre cannily connotates in the German version of dissing Eurobamagasms in "Short Term Relationship"
"This, of course, is Europe's favorite dream: a post-Bush America cut down to size and chastened, a meeker and more modest America, a more "European" (that is, a more social-democratic) America, which at last casts off some of its nastier capitalist habits. An America that is a lot more like us Europeans who have forgone power politics and sovereignty in favor of communitarian politics and integration."
A rowdy Russia and a chicanery coveting China may not be too particulary concerned about neighbors, internat'l accords struck in good faith, fair trading policies or free transit through the worlds oceans. Not to mention quaint ideas like human rights, free media or concepts like personal property.
Lucky for them despite all the threats Great Satan faces - she is most very likely to retain her position as top cat - uniquely powerful - the only one of her kind - the world's sole hyperpower.
Bronwen also has a few caveats for Great Satan. One in partic is actually a case that should repeatedly used against critics that bring it up like a nerf ball bat at a kids BDay party to capture and maintain attention (many times attention spans are roughly twice the length of whatever disciplinary device disciplinees are threatened with).
In "The Indfensible: Guantanamo And Tortue" Bronwen points out many foreign cats friendly and not so friendly are distressed that less than a 100 off shore Great Satan's sunny climes lies a new millennium Dachau - inmates hideously re nomenclatured as 'detainees' - a legal def btw that pretty much defines detainees as "...prisoners until..."
"Until when?" is the question that Maddox leaves hanging like Damocles' blade - just kinda hanging.
Actually, the answer is quite simple. If civilized states around the globe are truly concerned perhaps Gitmo could be used as a fun friendly reminder - that Americans are crazy and unpredictable. And downright scary and deadly in wartime.
Thus to avoid any other Gitmolike garrisons, secret prisons or exponentionally increasing 'detainees' the burden is on distressed states to flex their military, spy and police muscles to marginalize, incarcerate or kill unfree, unfun and unhinged intolerants.
Afghanistan would be a wonderful place to start. Troops on the ground, in harms way to protect tiny baby states from having their tiny baby heads choked plumb off would give tons more bling to what could be described as ingrate, idealistic, uninformed sour mouthings.
"In Defense Of America" is not all that - yet Bronwen shows how critics of America take the best of her for granted and exaggerate the worst.
They give Great Satan way too little credit for their own freedom and wealth, and struggle to fend off a monolithic American culture that does not exist.
Opponents often unfairly equate American mistakes with moral failings, and how Great Satan frequently could be said to make her own case badly, even when she is on strong ground.
Bronwen reinforces the fact of a world in danger of fighting to keep Great Satan at bay, when the harder task is to give Great Satan good reason to keep engaged.
There are some good bits to have on hand in a library - especially for Great Satan fans.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Syrians and the Iranians are on the verge of clashing with one another as a result of the intensity of the race towards America. The Syrian regime will not let any opportunity slip without seeking Washington’s affection. The Syrians sent numerous messages to the Americans in order to get closer to them.
Damascus’ last message stated that as long as there is no political relationship, there would be no security cooperation with Washington. It also referred to the importance of American sponsorship of the peace process [between Syria and Israel]. The Syrian went to France with his eye firmly on Washington.
Tehran was just the same both overtly and covertly; once Washington announced that it would take part in the Geneva meeting to discuss the Iranian nuclear crisis, the Iranians rushed to welcome the Great Satan i.e. America.
Two days ago, an Iranian official told Asharq Al-Awsat that his country “has come to the final conclusion that the nuclear file issue is the key to the solution with regards to America.” The official went on to explain that his country has helped America in Afghanistan and Iraq and Washington has not changed its position towards Tehran. Therefore Tehran now believes that the key to America lies in the nuclear issue.
In the race and scramble to get to Washington, it seems that there could be, or there already has been, a split between the Syrian and Iranian allies as during an interview with our newspaper, the Iranian official said, “When Syria chose the principle of peace with Israel the Iranian leadership realized that Tehran must make its own strategic decisions independently and separately from what Syria is doing.”
Here we must mention that Tehran and Damascus always believed that America and Israel are synonymous. But what is important from Iran’s recent comments is that they mean that Syrian mediation with Tehran, as requested by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, failed before it even began.
After the Mediterranean Summit, I asked an Arab official if Sarkozy was serious when he requested Syrian mediation regarding Iran’s nuclear file. The official said, “Sarkozy is either a genius and wants to involve [Syrian President Bashir] Al Assad or he is reckless. If Al Assad goes to Iran having adopted the European position then he would be part of the confrontation with Tehran. If he does not mediate, the suspicions that the Syrians are not serious would be confirmed.”
The reason behind the required coordination between Syria and Iran is very simple. As both countries are scrambling to reach Washington, we ask for whom will they leave behind Iranian-affiliated Hezbollah especially that [its Secretary General Sayyed] Hassan Nasrallah says that the fate of the entire Ummah is resistance?
So who will Nasrallah resist against if Syria and Israel, and Iran and America reconcile?
It was Nasrallah who cost us 1200 lives and 4400 wounded and billions of dollars worth of damage in order to retrieve five prisoners without learning from Syria and Iran, which are both negotiating without having to fire a single bullet or shed any blood. Remind us of any house in Syria or Tehran that smashed its own windows based on the pretext of resistance.
What we fear is that after Nasrallah’s supporters reach America and Israel, he will launch resistance against the Arab world similar to the “great resistance” upon which he embarked on May 7 in the heart of Beirut.
Therefore we say: Coordinate amongst yourselves gentlemen before we are embroiled with the Sayyed!
submitted by tArIq (for GsGf who is vacationing somewhere on the sunny shores of Lake Norman, NC)
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Taiwan is about a 100 miles off shore from the largest collectivist autocrazy ever in world history. Red China.
Such a sexyful, hot! democrazy sweetly swaying just out of reach for old school Maoists and new school auto dicts must be driving the old Red Dragon out of her mind. Flaunting those sexed up goodies like a honking economy, free speech, transparent and periodic elections - not to mention the uncommunist penchant for an independent judiciary and civie control of the military.
Everybody knows it. Instead of prepping for a war with fellow auto Russia over resource rich Siberia - China preps her future Navy for one thing> A D Day style invasion of Taiwan.
So far, Great Satan nurtures and protects her fun free BF 4 ever Taiwan the same way she hangs and watches over all her coven of daemonic democrazies sweetly blinging with free markets. Hot little tighties like SoKo, Nippon - even Little Satan all benefit from hooking up with Great Satan while living in scary hoods filled with retarded control freaks who cannot bear the thought of free choice.
Super fly smart guy Ed Ross gives a fast cool rundown of what all is in the hood over yonder while Great Satan is attracted and distracted with her quad annual Electile Dysfunctionalism.
"Among the many challenges facing the United States in an election year is the issue of arms sales to Taiwan. Before he leaves office, President Bush must decide whether or not to approve various major sales to the island, including 60 additional F-16s, Patriot PAC III missiles and Apache and Blackhawk helicopters. At present, the Department of State and the National Security Council are holding up these sales. This is an issue which deserves President Bush's immediate attention."
A little history helps illuminate what's going on. In 2001, shortly after President Bush took office, he approved in principle several billion dollars in new arms sales to Taiwan. This decision reflected the President's concern for China's military build-up and a continuing U.S. commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act, which obligates the U.S. to provide the island with weapons to defend itself.
During the eight-year tenure of former Taiwan president Chen Shui-bian, political infighting between the ruling Democratic Progressive Party and the opposition Kuomintang stalled the funding for these weapons purchases.
At the same time, Mr. Chen's independence-leaning policies angered China's leaders. Washington was displeased by Mr. Chen's inability to push through the arms purchases, and because his actions and outspokenness interfered with improving U.S.-China relations.
The damage those eight years did to U.S.-Taiwan relations was considerable. Taiwan's relative air, missile defense and antisubmarine warfare capabilities fell further behind as important Taiwan military acquisitions were postponed. China, however, purchased advanced weapons from the Soviet Union and increased funding for its own military research and development programs.
Equally important, mutual confidence between Taipei and Washington may have been permanently weakened. U.S. leaders lost confidence in Taiwan's leaders at a time when the U.S. was becoming increasingly dependent on improved U.S.-China relations.
In Taiwan, more than ever, domestic political considerations took precedence over national security issues. And although last year the Kuomintang-dominated legislature in Taipei finally passed a defense budget funding many new arms purchases, the damage to U.S.-Taiwan relations already had been done.
The U.S. had become increasingly reluctant to take the heat from China over weapons sales it was not confident Taiwan would follow through on.
When Taiwan's current president, Ma Ying-jeou, assumed office in May, he ushered in a policy of Taiwan-China détente and subsequently has expressed his desire for resumed purchases of U.S. arms. Still, the lingering fallout from the previous eight years and President Bush's personal reluctance to anger Beijing continue to hold up various pending arms sales.
Whether or not President Bush approves some or all arms sales after the Beijing Olympics in August -- he will attend the opening ceremony -- remains an open question. High-ranking officials at State and the White House fear major U.S. arms sales, even then, would undermine Taiwan-China détente and do major damage to U.S.-China relations.
They also ask why Taiwan needs more weapons packages now. Why not let the next U.S. President address this issue, while the sale of other, less provocative systems, training and spare parts continue?
Herein lies the crux of the problem. How much risk can the U.S. take with Taiwan's security? If it was certain that Taiwan-China détente would go forward without sacrificing Taiwan's young and still fragile democracy, none of this would be of concern.
Beijing has proven all too often, however, that it will demand much and give little and that it sees the use and threat of force as an instrument of diplomacy. Has it demonstrated otherwise? Taiwan democratically elected a president who ran on a platform of détente with China. What has changed on the China side of the equation?
Until Beijing removes short- and medium-range ballistic missiles targeting Taiwan and reduces the number of combat aircraft and troops on its side of the Taiwan Strait, why should the U.S. delay in responding to Taiwan's requests for arms purchases? It will take months for the next administration to sort out its China/Taiwan policies, only delaying important decisions further.
In the meantime, China's pressure on the U.S. will only increase as it continues to finance U.S. debt and leaves Washington worried that it won't cooperate with it in the international arena if the U.S. proceeds with major arms sales.
As Taiwan enters this challenging period of détente with China, it needs strong U.S. moral and material support more than ever. By taking action on U.S. arms sales to Taiwan before he leaves office, President Bush would bolster a democratic Taiwan and make it much easier for his successor to withstand pressure from Beijing as arms sales contracts are concluded and weapons systems are delivered.
At the same time, President Ma must assure Washington that he is committed to Taiwan's defense and that if Washington approves the sale of F-16s and other major weapons, Taiwan will follow through with signed contracts and adequate funding.
It is time to demonstrate clearly that, while the U.S. supports Taiwan-China détente, it stands firmly behind Taiwan's democracy."
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Like Max Boot (love that name!!) once implied, neoconservatism is like a girls cabin at summer camp. Tons of drama, intellectual girls gone wild, crazy pillow fights and dangerously confidantic trysts of 'Truth or Dare'.
Hanging with neos is like hanging in one gigantic tent that houses tons of differing domestic beliefs and hosts a host of conservatives, liberals, America Firsters, Straussians, old school neocons, interventionists (humanitarian only to be fair), regime changing fans and the Pentagon Vulcans.
Functioning a lot like an energy drink laced with mind candy is Dr Donald Douglas (Oh! He got game!) and his constantly expanding site "American Power." Am Pow (for the magically hip) is slicing thru neo circles a lot like "Rock of the Marne" sliced thru the Nebuchadnezzar Panzer Grenadier Division after shooting thru the Karbala Gap way back in '03.
Currently the good doctor shared some killer insight into neoism that has sparked a full blown intellectual neogasm.
Kicking things off this week with a critical look into Brian Rathbun's trifecting triad RE: Realism, Neoism and Immoral Isolationalism, the cool Cali PHD delves into putting the 'bust' in 'robust American Power" with an almost spiritual look and quiz into Great Satan's all original Foreign Policy philosophy - neoconservatism.
And it has been a hoot.
Brainiac responders have responded like Dr Paddy Jackson of The Journal of International Relations and Development. More of a new school semi realist (wonder how he and Dr Fred Kaplan hang?), Dr J takes on Rathbun (a self proclaimed liberal non neocon) and Dr D.
Am Pow has certainly siezed the fun friendly gauntlet and the squeeze tease is sure to please.
Great mindcandy to absorb and reflect.
Dr Douglas has graciously consented for an Iview with GsGf and will be available soon.
In the meantime - pursue and enjoy - learn and devour a philosophical give and take on neoism.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Yes, no, may be! Here we go again. Humanist diplomacy is back at work and, if the current signs are correct, quite a few simpletons are tempted to fall for it again.
The while show, of course, is about the Islamic Republic’s dispute with the United Nations over the nuclear issue. The Un Security Council has passed a series of resolutions demanding that the Islamic Republic take a number of specific actions or face economic and diplomatic sanctions. In time, the process could lead to the adoption of a resolution under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, opening the way for military action against the Khomeinist regime.
To prevent war one of two things must happen. The first is full compliance by Tehran with the UN resolutions already passed. Such a move would stop the clock of war from ticking, setting in motion the clock of negotiations. The other thing that could stop war is for the UN to surrender to the Khomeinists by withdrawing its demand for specific action on the part of Iran.
Both options have a number of supporters and opponents on both sides.
On the UN sides, some powers such as Russia and China, both of whom voted for the Security Council resolutions, would be prepared to eat quite a bit of humble pie to avoid military conflict. Their stance is not entirely prompted by their love of peace. They know that military conflict could lead to regime change in Tehran, and that a future regime might restore Iran’s close ties with the US.
If that happens, Russia and China, now major influences in Tehran, could end up like bridesmaids holding silly bouquets. In contrast, the United States, and possibly the new French administration under President Nicolas Sarkozy, appears determined to force Tehran to comply even at the risk of war.
Washington and Paris are convinced that, without bringing Iran on board, the Middle East cannot develop a new architecture of security. Iran is the biggest piece in a jigsaw puzzle that cannot be solved unless it finds its proper place.
On the Iranian side, some of the factions opposed to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s radical posture also wish to reach an accommodation with the UN. These factions know that if Ahamdinejad wins his battle against the UN he would achieve almost cult status within the Khomeinist sect.
That, in turn, would assure Ahmadinejad of victory in next year’s presidential election. His opponents would have to wait four more years to make a bid for power, by which time many of their leading figures would be too old or too discredited by corruption charges to bring against them to mount a serious challenge.
If Ahmadinejad wins there will be no room for “half pregnant” Khomeinists, those who talk like revolutionaries but live luxury lives, including prolonged sojourns in Europe and North America. Ahmadinejad's victory could mobilize the still considerable energies of the Khomeinist sect for a project of world conquest which might look fantastic to outsiders but holds strong appeal to those convinced that the “Hidden Imam” is about to reappear.
It is precisely that prospect that prompts Ahmadinejad and his radical revolutionary base to continue defying the UN in the belief that steadfastness will be rewarded with victory.
All these divisions and conflicts of ideology and interest on both sides have created a tangled web that cannot be easily disentangled.
If the UN were to cave in and hand Ahmadinejad a clear victory, whatever is left of the so-called “international authority” will evaporate, at least for the foreseeable future. If, on the other hand, Ahmadinejad were to be pushed aside so that the Islamic Republic could surrender, the countdown for the Khomeinist movement’s domination of Iranian politics would begin in earnest.
In other words, this is no longer about uranium enrichment or even the Iranian nuclear program as a whole. Right now eight countries enrich uranium and at least 20 others have the scientific and industrial means needed to do so without provoking an international crisis with the threat of war at its end. Also at least eight countries have nuclear weapons while a further 15 have the scientific and industrial means needed to make the bomb. Again, none of that generates any crisis or the risk of war.
The Iranian case is different because the regime in place in Tehran does not look like its neighbors. Indeed, it does not look like any of the 192 other regimes that together make the United Nations. The real question, therefore, is whether or not the Islamic republic is prepared, or indeed capable, of becoming like everyone else or, as Ahmadinejad apparently believes, is in a position make everyone else like itself.
A safe bet is that the dispute over uranium enrichment will not be solved until one of two things happens. First, Iran decides to try a major change of its domestic and foreign strategies, thus emptying the nuclear issue of its symbolic charge. Secondly, a new US administration under President Barack Obama decides that a nuclear-armed revolutionary Iran is no immediate, or even mid-term threat to the United States.
This is why everyone is playing for time. And, in the meantime, the Islamic Republic produces more enriched uranium with which more bombs could be made.
submitted by aMiR
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Christopher Hitchens has an awesome bit in Slate that zeros in on the flippantly weak minded and weak willed or any inappropriate handwrings:
If there is one element of moral and political certainty that cements the liberal consensus more than any other, it is the complacent view that while Iraq is "a war of choice," it is really and only Afghanistan that is a war of necessity.
The ritualistic solidity of this view is impressive. It survives all arguments and all evidence.
Just in the last month, as the Iraqi-based jihadists began to beat a retreat and even (according to some reports) to attempt to relocate to Afghanistan and Pakistan, it still seemed to many commentators that this proved that no U.S. forces should have been wasted on Iraq in the first place. This simplistic view ignores, at a minimum, the following points:
1. Many of the al-Qaida forces—most notably the horrific but now deceased Abu Musab al-Zarqawi—made their way to Iraq in the first place only after being forcibly evicted from Afghanistan. Thus, if one did not want to be confronting Bin Laden fans in Mesopotamia, it was surely a mistake to invade Afghanistan rather than Iraq.
2. The American presence in Afghanistan is not at all "unilateral"; it meets every liberal criterion of being formally underwritten and endorsed and armed and reinforced by our NATO and U.N. allies. Indeed, the commander of the anti-Taliban forces is usually not even an American. Yet it is in these circumstances that more American casualties—and not just American ones—are being experienced than are being suffered in Iraq. If this is so, the reason cannot simply be that our resources are being deployed elsewhere.
3. Many of the most successful drives against the Taliban have been conducted by American forces redeployed from Iraq, in particular from Anbar province. But these military victories are the result of counterinsurgent tactics and strategies that were learned in Iraq and that have been applied triumphantly in Afghanistan
In other words, any attempt to play off the two wars against each other is little more than a small-minded and zero-sum exercise.
And consider the implications. Most people appear now to believe that it is quite wrong to mention Saddam Hussein even in the same breath as either a) weapons of mass destruction or b) state-sponsored terrorism.
Just for an experiment, let us imagine that some regime did exist or did arise that posed such a combination of threats. (Actually, so feverish is my imagination that I can even think of one whose name also begins with I.) Would we be bound to say, in public and in advance, that the Western alliance couldn't get around to confronting such a threat until it had Afghanistan well under control?
This would be rather like the equivalent fallacy that nothing can be done in the region until there is a settlement of the Israel-Palestine dispute.
Not only does this mean that every rogue in the region can reset his timeline until one of the world's oldest and most intractable quarrels is settled, it also means that every rogue has an incentive to make certain that no such settlement can ever occur. (Which is, of course, why Saddam threw, and now the Iranians throw, their support to the suicide-murderers.)
It would also be very nice to accept another soft-centered corollary of the Iraq vs. Afghanistan trade-off and to believe that the problem of Afghanistan is a problem only of the shortage of troops.
Strangely, this is not the view of the Afghan government or of any of the NATO forces on the ground. The continued and, indeed, increasing insolence of the Taliban and its al-Qaida allies is the consequence of one thing and one thing only. These theocratic terrorists know that they have a reliable backer in the higher echelons of the Pakistani state and of its military-intelligence complex and that while this relationship persists, they are assured of a hinterland across the border and a regular supply of arms and recruits.
So, the question for Sen. Barack Obama and his glib supporters is this: Would they solve this problem by removing the American forces from Iraq and putting the thereby-enhanced contingent there to patrol a frontier where one of our main "allies" is continually engaged in stabbing them in the back? (At one point last year, Obama himself appeared to accept the illogic of his own position and spoke hotly of the possibility of following the Taliban onto Pakistani soil. We haven't heard much of that lately. Did he mean to say that, come to think of it, we had enough troops to occupy three countries instead of the stipulated and solitary one?
Or would he just exchange Iraq for Pakistan? At least we do know for sure that Pakistan has nuclear weapons acquired mainly by piracy and is the host and patron of the Taliban and al-Qaida.)
Another consideration obtrudes itself. If it is true, as yesterday's three-decker front-page headline in the New York Times had it, that "U.S. Considering Stepping Up Pace of Iraq Pullout/ Fall in Violence Cited/ More Troops Could Be Freed for Operations in Afghanistan," then this can only be because al-Qaida in Iraq has been subjected to a battlefield defeat at our hands—a military defeat accompanied by a political humiliation in which its fanatics have been angrily repudiated by the very people they falsely claimed to be fighting for.
If we had left Iraq according to the timetable of the anti-war movement, the situation would be the precise reverse: The Iraqi people would now be excruciatingly tyrannized by the gloating sadists of al-Qaida, who could further boast of having inflicted a battlefield defeat on the United States. I dare say the word of that would have spread to Afghanistan fast enough and, indeed, to other places where the enemy operates.
Bear this in mind next time you hear any easy talk about "the hunt for the real enemy" or any loose babble that suggests that we can only confront our foes in one place at a time.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Imran Raza, writer, director and exec producer (another triple threat cat) of the recently unleashed true life docu drama "Karachi Kids" played a major role in getting 2 American brothers the heck out of a Pakistani madrassa that tends to crank out combative, intolerant, easily offended, fast provocable Taliban fan boys at a rate nigh comparable of a dunkin Doughnuts.
Online, Jamia Binoria Madrassa's site is deceptively modern - featuring the Binora resturant that specializes in internat'l cuisine like Afghani, Pakistani, Indian and even Chinese (rumour has it though the moo goo gai pan is somewhat suspect).
Though the Women's health centre involuntarily gives one the creeps (shudder):
"Medical, surgical and diagnostic facilities in the state-of-the-art situation to cater the needs of the Ummah, nationally and internationally. "Binoria's 'Hot Articals' page about mohammedist ho's, hotties and hootchies is particularly rich.
"Since the height of the feminist movement in the late 70's there has
been a magnifying glass placed over the status of Muslim women. Unfortunately, the magnifying glass that has been used is an unusual one.
"Unusual in the sense that it is very selective about which itemsRaza discovered the two boys from Atlanta while filming a documentary about madrassas. He returned to the madrassa three times in four years to film their Xformation in the hands of mullahs.
it will magnify; other items it will distort to such a degree that they will no longer look familiar."
The kids in “The Karachi Kids” describe beatings and human rights violations for those who reject the rad teachings of their Taliban masters. Guys from California and Georgia are interviewed in the film from inside the madrassa and discuss heading home to Great Satan to spread their indoctrination.
“I have been working for months to secure their exit from the Madrassa and from Pakistan. This is great news, but we need to get the other American children out of there, now. There are nearly 80 other Americans currently at this Jamia Binoria madrassa — that teaches Deobandism — the religion of the Taliban.
Our government, and the Pakistani government, has more work to do to get the other American children out of there.”
Binoria's Ayatollah has high hopes for spreading the luv.
“We work on altering the mindset of the students we are training, so when they return to their home countries, their mindset is such that they will work on altering the minds of others. That is why I’m appealing to you that at least 1000 to 2000 boys come to us so we can train them and they will go back to their home countries and do the work and make people understand.”
Bernie Kerik, the contributing editor of FamilySecurityMatters.org and NYC 911 hero, points out
''It is believed that there are another 600 American boys currently being
educated in 22 madarsas throughout Pakistan. They are known to mass-produce extremists with a political agenda, including a cripplingly narrow view of society and zero tolerance of western culture. They radicalize Muslim youth and are seminaries for violent jihad.''
Original art by Mahboob Elahi Khan "We don't like our room, there's no school in English and I just miss the good stuff. Americans. English. Bunk beds. I wish I were on a plane on my way home"
Monday, July 14, 2008
Nazanin Afshin-Jam is what is known in the New Millennium as a triple threat. Drop dead gorgeous, artistically talented as a singer and is also a super brainiac with a mission.
Exiled in Canada from her native Persia - Nazanin is using her 2003 Miss Canada bona fides to take on the intolerant time traveling mullahs and their regime that have strangled her homeland almost to death.
I was born in a country where I am not allowed to sing or perform.I was
born in a country where I am not allowed to wear what I want. I was born in a country where I would be killed for my religious beliefs.
I was born in a country where I would be tortured for advocating
democracy.I was born in a country where, as a woman, my life is considered worth half of a mans.
I was born in Iran.
The year I was born, a revolution took place in my birth place. The country changed names from Iran to the "Islamic Republic of Iran". Women were immediately forced to veil themselves. Since that time there have been gross violations of human rights. While it is one of the richest countries in the world, millions are below the poverty line and children are forced to work instead of going to school.
Iran is the only country in the world that officially continues to execute
children. This must end immediately. I have started a campaign to help end executions of minors. Now I need your help.
Under its repressive clerical regime, Iran regularly sentences women to death by stoning for crimes such as adultery, executes children and has a president who claims it has no gays. Arbitrary decisions occur regularly.
Last week for example, a female student who alleged that a senior male
lecturer had sexually harassed her was arrested for ‘publicising a crime’ when she and fellow students protested against the incident.
The dismal state of Iran’s human rights – which includes the regime’s
hostility towards ethnic minorities such as the Ahwazi Arabs of Khuzestan province and religious minorities such as the Bahai – makes it obvious that international attention is needed.
Britain’s Foreign & Commonwealth Office agrees. Its Office Annual Human Rights Report of 2007 was particularly damning of Iran’s record in this regard, stating that "Against a global decreasing trend in the use of the death penalty, the total number of executions in Iran is increasing year on year.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
If you've ever seen one of Great Satan's Army drill sergeant NCO's on TV or in the flesh - you'll notice a really cool badge they wear that shows Great Satan's Constitution as an ancient body armour breast plate, a torch, a vigilant serpent and 13 stars repping the 13 colonies emblazoned with the totally correct and historically proven motto "This We'll Defend"
And it really hits home. Great Satan truly faces a despicable enemy.
There are moments that throw the nature of America's enemies into the sharpest possible relief.
One such moment came this week, as the Army revealed that it had identified the remains of two US soldiers taken captive in Iraq.
Pfc. Byron Fouty, 19, and Queens-born Sgt. Alex Jimenez, 25, were captured last May after heavy fighting in Iraq's then-explosive Sunni Triangle.
The body of a third captured GI, Pfc. Joseph Anzack Jr., was found not long afterward - but Jimenez and Fouty's families held out hope for their return.
It's the smallest of comforts that the country may now never know what, precisely, the pair endured in captivity.
Captured Americans in Iraq have been subject to all means of torture - including public beheading - in the furtherance of militants' sick propaganda aims.
Such brutality turned Iraqis against al Qaeda en masse - as soon as American resolve gave them the chance.
It also gives lie to the tired cliché that America somehow loses its "moral standing" by, say, keeping terrorists locked up at Gitmo.
That facility, of course, has been the subject of dozens of front-page New York Times profiles - alleging everything from stressful interrogation techniques to the violation of prisoners' religious sensibilities.
(This is the same paper, mind you, that devoted barely eight Associated Press paragraphs - on Page B6 - to the discovery of Jimenez and Fouty's remains.)
Left unsaid is that detainees - despite, as non-uniformed combatants, having no standing under the laws of civilized warfare - are given free access to medical care and religious accoutrements.
Not to mention, freedom to return to the battlefield - and kill Americans - provided there's insufficient evidence that they intend to do so.
Heck of a way to run a war, huh?
Actually, it speaks to the night-and-day difference in honor and decency between America and her enemies - a difference that Sgt. Jimenez and Pfc. Fouty gave their lives to defend.
Rest in peace.
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Bloggin' about in the big bad blogosphere can be be fun, safe as milk and maddenly maddening too.
Like over in Great Britain. Sick to death of retarded, intolerant jerks and retards that make up the world's first freely elected suicide regime that play the tolerance game in free foreign lands like a scimitar to silence free speech, fun, honest quizes and Straussian concepts like "Which one of these is not like the other?"
Harry's Place is fully crunk with the hot! sweet sticky, tingly tangy sexyful ideas that appeal appealing to people everywhere. Like Uncle Tony so hotly whispered and pointed out in the incredible edible "Universal Values of the Human Spirit"
Dedicated to promoting the ideals of freedom and democracy, HP recently busted HAMAS fanboi Mohammed Sawalha, the President of the British Muslim Initiative, which has been linked to HAMAS and the Islamic Brotherhood, both terrorist orgs.
Harry's Place confides that Mr. Sawalha, according to the BBC…
“master minded much of Hamas’ political and military strategy” and in London “is alleged to have directed funds, both for Hamas’ armed wing, and for spreading its missionary dawah”.
In their revelation of the impending lawsuit against
them leveled by Mohammed Sawalha, they write:
Mr Sawalha whines that HP's “chosen a malevolent interpretation of a meaningless word”. In fact, we did no more than translate a phrase which appeared in an Al Jazeera report of Mr Sawalha’s speech. When Al Jazeera changed that phrase from “Evil Jew” to “Jewish Lobby”, we reported that fact, along with the statement that it had been a typographical error.
Mr Sawalha has been the prime mover in a number of HAMAS and Muslim Brotherhood associated projects. He is President of the British Muslim Initiative. He is the past President of the Muslim Association of Britain. He was the founder of IslamExpo, and is registered as the holder of the IslamExpo domain name. He is also a trustee of the Finsbury Park Mosque….
…Mr Sawalha says that the attribution of the phrase “Evil Jew” to him implies that he is “anti-semitic and hateful”. Notably, he does not take issue with our reporting of the revelation, made in a Panorama documentary in 2006, that he is a senior activist in the clerical fascist terrorist organisation, Hamas.
It looks like Harry’s Place is going up against some pretty top-notch lawyers on this one, and they’ve got guts, but as the post goes on to say:
If Mr Sawalha persists in attempting to silence us with this desperate legal suit, we will need your help.
HP won’t be able to stand up to them alone.
NeoConstant started this blogburst, to get the word out that Free people worldwide will hook up and buddy up to stop this blazingly intolerant assault on tolerance faster than Iraqi Ba'Athist Nebuchadnezzar Panzer Grenadiers ill fated counter attack near Karbala against "Rock of the Marne and Screaming Eagles in 2003.
Hop on in ya'll. The water's fine. Stand up to intolerant rocket rich rejectionists and their money grubbing fanbois in HAMAS or any collection of jerks, retards and murderous minions of any radical terrorist group that by design has to act out and try to censor fun, free choice, free speech against any of us.
If you’d like to add your site to the blogroll, simply email EK at email@example.com, and include your site’s URL.
Then either feel free to use this entry or create your own.
Thanks, and don’t forget to head over to Harry’s Place to show your support of their freedom of speech!
We the following sincerely nourish and support "Harry's Place" and gleefully, honestly, openly, without modesty, without restraint hopes that HP's barristers ( attorneys in Great Satan speak) literally sue the living daylights out of these creepy intolerant control freaks so bad their benefaction becomes a money sucking liability and they pubilicly and repeatedly scream "God! Please! Stop!"
A Deeper Look
A Defending Crusader
An Ol� Broad�s Ramblings
Big Blue Wave
Blazing Cat Fur
Blogging for a free world
But, I Am a Liberal!
Five Feet of Fury
Free Mark Steyn
Gates of Vienna
Great Satans Girlfriend
Ironic Surrealism II
Monkey In The Middle
My Two Cents Worth
No Sheeples Here
Not Ready for my Burqua
Novus Ordo Seclorum
Rick Sincere News and Thoughts
Sara'ts Pad, Home of the Panther
She Who Will Be Obeyed!
Stop Raping Israel
Stubble Jumping Redneck
The Amboy Times
the doc spot
The Great Pumpkin
The Macho Response
The Mind of Tefft
The War to Mobilize Democracy
The Write Side of My Brain
Villagers with Torches
Thursday, July 10, 2008
A weak yet sweetly fitting tribute to fellow Axis of Evil charter member scary scary NoKo Guy and his "6 Scuds and a Dud Day" back way back in '06 (Great Satan's BDay to be precise).
Almost 2 years to the day, Iran's "Payambar e Azam 3" missile misfire drills featured make believe pics which, alas, fails to impress.
So far, Iran's Revo Guard Corps English Lang fanboi site has yet to mention anything about it.
Shahab 3 is very much the spiritual grandson of NoKo's "No Dong" Missile.
In more ways than one!
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Since the mid-seventies, the Strait of Hormuz has been considered a major political commodity in the region. The Shah of Iran [Mohammad Reza Pahlavi] used to refer to himself as the region’s police officer so that he may discipline the socialist Iraq and he also used to pledge to protect oil tankers against any terrorist threats.
However, after he was ousted by [Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini’s revolution and Tehran’s policy began to threaten with blocking the strait, the Iranian ‘police officer’ departed and was replaced by Western troops.
The Gulf peninsula has become the area most congested with battleships and nonstop maneuvers while all the states that overlook it have become embroiled in a constant state of security and military tension. All this vast amount of tension needs is a tiny spark for it to flare up into a fourth war.
A few days ago, Iran threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz as a response to any action taken against it. The Iranians have previously been more defiant when they threatened with closing down the naval gateway if no international resolution was issued to ban oil export. For its part, the US guard was no less adamant about using force to confront any attempts to close down the strait.
It is likely that most countries worldwide would support the use of force to protect the strait for two reasons; firstly, because most of the Gulf oil goes to the majority of Asian countries through this route, most notably China, Japan and India, in addition to European countries, which would support a war to protect the strait – if the need arose.
Secondly, because the strait does not fully belong to Iran, such as the case with Sinai; instead, it is an international passage and the Sultanate of Oman overlooks it as well. The Strait of Hormuz represents the only exit for Iraq, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, while the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Oman overlook the Gulf of Oman, and Saudi Arabia overlooks the Red Sea.
The aforementioned states have previously devised both overt and covert plans to confront the oil apocalypse. In the 1980s, Saudi extended a pipeline network to transfer its oil to the Red Sea and built underground oil reserves, most of which hire oil tankers as oil reservoirs while at sea as a precaution in the case of war.
There are no expectations for there to be a separate war over the strait; rather, it will be part of an all-out war, whether the strait is the cause or the outcome. Iran that threatens with blocking the strait believes that it will harm American interests when it fact it would be forcing neutral states worldwide, such as China and India, to support the “battle of liberating the strait” and securing navigation safety in the entire Gulf.
Perhaps the objective of Iran’s frequent threats is to stir up fear amongst the Gulf States over the repercussions of any US strike against it so that they it turn may pressure Washington into preventing any military action – however, this is having an opposite effect from the desired one
With time, the Gulf states are starting to become aware that there is a strong likelihood of confrontation due to the failure of the European concessions offered to Iran coupled with the flexible proposals made by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and as a result of Iran's explicitness in demanding political clout as a price to any agreement with Washington on the nuclear issue. This was clearly indicated in the last round.
Perhaps these states believe that military confrontation is a bad choice; however putting the Gulf up for political auction may be worse. This will bring the formula of gains and losses back into the game over the Gulf’s security and politics.
Submitted By AbDuL rAhMaN aL rAsHeD
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
TEHRAN, July 06 (ISNA)
Commander of air forces in Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)
Brigadier General Salami:
"The powerful IRGC is the hardest barrier and challenge to US
politicalsecurity and military dominance in the region.
The power of IRGC is not in its tanks, missiles, anti-aircrafts andnavy forces but in its motivation, determination and spirit to defend theIslamic Revolution.
The west is using cultural in roads to defy Islamic communities.
That is why we should bring up people who are at the peak ofhumanity, faith and determination, to be able to stand against them"
The Brigadier's communique is significant. The Mullah's top recruiter for suicide killer fanboys loyal to the regime actually knows a trick or two about a faith and determination and pep talks.
An alledged dossier reveals:
"Salami is best known for his efforts to recruit radical fanatics loyal
toSupreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into Iran’s armed forces."
The Mullahs newly promoted main missile man will be in charge of Iran's military media blitz this week.
Christened with the catchy "Payambar-e Azam 3" ( very roughly Xlated as Happy BDay Great Prophet! #3 in Farsi), Iran's Praetorian Guards are exercising again and acting out in their very first military exie since eclipsing the mullahs in March's Majiles Elections.
Payambar e Azam includes running missile drills with China built "Seersucker" Missile Batteries.
Coast-to-ship defensive tactical missile weapon system, "Seersucker" is deployed at coastal fortifications, bases or islands to attack enemy surface ships.
"Seersucker" features 95-100km range/coverage (60 miles for the unmetrical) and a large firing sector +/-85o, enabling one missile battalion to cover a blockaded ocean area of 14,000 square kilometers (8699.196 miles to be precise)
After "Seersucker" fires off, ground guidance and control are not necessary, and the firing position can remain concealed.
The level flight altitude of "Seersucker" is low, and "Seersucker's" anti-jam capabilities are effective against electronic countermeasures.
Such an awesome carrier battle group critter killer is sure to hang complete with Russian built Air Defense Systems, emplaced infantry, sensors and real time communications.
Payambar e Azam 3 bares Preacher Command's fangs with bona fided military bling - giving teeth to threats to get the 22 mile wide straights and Gulf shut down faster than a Ouija Board at a church homecoming.
"The Guards are equipped with the most advanced missiles that can strike the enemies' vessels and naval equipment with fatal blows. Blitzkrieg tactics and operations of the Guards' boats will not leave a chance for the enemies to run away."
"These words do not mean that the prerequisites of war are being set but these are the strategies that our alert armed forces have
prepared for any hypothesis"
Au Contraire mon Rocketeer Brigadier!
Fact is, the Revo Guards are talking tough and about a lot more than attempting to redecorate beach front capitalistic fiefdoms into rocket artillery Impact Areas.
Iran pledges to tear Great Satan to shreds!
Clustered up smart bombs - more rockets and missiles than Hiz'B'Allah, Syria and HAMAS combined - Iran's Revo Guard's Press TV Website is sending a very diff message than Foreign Minister Mottaki's Chesire Cat act.
Prepping mass graves for foreign invaders (over 300K!), Magical "Quick Reaction" panzers, deploying a major field exercise at the same incredible moment Great Satan acts out militarily exercisingly "Exercise Stake Net" like sorteeing American, British and Bahraini Aegeis type Missile Cruisers and re deploying air superiority regime changers like Great Satan's Great Emancipator.
While the wild wild West's free media downplays confrontation and discounts it - a very real case is made that Iran's ruling regime is taking events and actions very seriously.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Fareed Zakaria just Iviewed Iran's Foreign Minister - the semi creepy (un) Honourable (?)Manouchehr Mottaki for his TV show "GPS" on some cable channel and it was a hoot!
Mottaki - as underground Persian Cat 'Rooz' reveals in a dossier is one of the mullahs most precious minions.
"Mottaki joined the Foreign Ministry at a time when members of the Islamic Students Association were rapidly replacing diplomats and even experts at the ministry. After completing his first assembly term, Mottaki joined the ministry and was appointed director of the ministry’s seventh bureau in 1984.
A year later, in 1985, Mottaki was appointed as Iran’s ambassador to
Turkey. At that time, Turkey was a desired destination for many Iranians who belonged to opposition groups and were fleeing either to Europe or Iraq through Turkey.
During Mottaki’s tenure, many of the Islamic Republic’s dissidents were killed across Turkey, prompting Turkish officials to accuse Mottaki of instigating instability and issuing him a persona non grata status, which meant he had to leave the country within 24 hours."
Fareed tried verbally fencing with the Fo Min and it was like watching a waltz or maybe a wrestling match. Subtle dances and feints that ultimately resolved little.
Here's a sample mix
ZAKARIA: Mr. Foreign Minister, one of the questions people have is really about Iranian intentions. What are your intentions in the region?
And one thing that gives a great deal of suspicion to people are the statements of your president with regard to Israel. Your president has said, "The occupying regime" -- meaning Israel -- "must be wiped off the map."
He has said, "This new wave started in Palestine. Eliminate this disgraceful stain from the world."And most recently, just a month or two ago, he said, "Israel will disappear from the geographic scene."What does he mean?
MOTTAKI: Our approach with regard to the Israeli regime is
clear. An event happened in Europe, a horrible war ensued. Tens of
millions of people were killed, and some were survivors. And it was said that these victims of war should be taken care of, restored in some way.
What we believe, what happened in World War II was a crime. We also have to ask ourselves: Who committed that crime?
So, Mr. Ahmadinejad's question is: If these victims are to be taken care of in terms of restoring some of what they lost, why should another place, another people pay from their own pocket the price for this crime?
For 60 years, this regime, as far as the public opinion of the region is
concerned, does not have legitimacy, and has not reached a point where it can be liked by the people.
Of course, we cannot force others to accept what we say. But we think that, in a democratic country we have the right to say what we think.
ZAKARIA: Are you, then, categorically saying, as the foreign minister of Iran, that you have no intention to attack Israel in any sense or in any way?
MOTTAKI: We will defend our own country in the case of any
attack or invasion, or any threat.
And the history of the past several years of our land, Iran, demonstrates
that our country has never initiated an invasion or an attack that was carried out by the Iranian people against another people in the region.
This is the nature of our people, of our history, of our system, as well,
in the past 30 years as the Islamic Republic of Iran.
ZAKARIA: You all have said recently that, were Israel to attack Iran, that it is possible that you would also attack not just Israeli targets, but also American targets.
And I want to be clear, why would you attack American targets, if there were an Israeli attack on Iran?
After all, the United States appears, at least in some ways, to be trying to move diplomatically, not militarily.
MOTTAKI: The Israeli regime is principally in no position to engage
in another adventure in the region -- militarily. We do not believe that Israel is in a position to engage in a military act in the region.
However, if this were to happen -- as much as I would still add,
the possibility of it almost very, very nonexistent -- but at the same time, if it were happen, it's quite possible that independent countries like Iran would see their first responsibility is to defend themselves.
ZAKARIA: Mr. Minister, you said recently that, in recent months, America's psychological warfare against Iran has increased exponentially. What exactly do you mean? Is it covert operations against Iran? Is it threats? What exactly are you referring to there?
MOTTAKI: But in the past two years, on certain cases, at different
time junctures -- I'd say about every six months -- it would become a hot topic, meaning the idea of the possibility of a military attack was raised at some points of time in the last two years. There would be people who actually came to us to inform us, saying that on specific dates there would be an attack on a specific location.
So, our analysis at that time -- including now -- is that these
measures are, in fact, sort of an attempt to add a spice to the political trends that have been going on from the past, but have never been serious ones.
So, our analysis is, in fact, that neither the region nor the
United States of America, nor anyone elsewhere in the world, has the capacity to witness another military attack in the region.
So, I believe it's time that the West changes its eyeglasses and
look at Iran through a different lens. By changing the eyeglasses, I would say they'd be able to see issues more clearly and better. Iran is committed to its constructive approach and the resolution of regional and international affairs and problems.
ZAKARIA: You know, when I listen to you, Mr. Foreign Minister, your words are different from before in some ways. Your tone is different.
I have met with President Ahmadinejad, and he speaks in a very different way
Now, what I am wondering is, is this part of an effort to confuse us? Is this what in America would be called a "good cop, bad cop" routine, where he says some things that are very fiery, and you say things that are very sweet? Or is there a genuine shift in Iran's attitude?
MOTTAKI: We hear new voices in America. We see new approaches. And we think that the rational thinkers in America can, based on these new approaches, see the reality as it is. We are ready to help them in this endeavor.
After the show hoes like Christiane Amanpour (CNN Internat'l Correspondant Babe), Vali Nasr (Tufts University) and Mikey Ware (CNN Baghdad's Palestine Hotel Balcony correspondant cat) gave up some fly and some not so fly analysis which ranged from informed to uninformed to highly suspect.